EvoX + WORKS x P2Flash = :-))
Jun 11, 2008, 12:07 AM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area, SF, CA
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EvoX + WORKS x P2Flash = :-))
Just wanted to proclaim that WORKS know how to make the EvoX behave as it should.... Stock Car - Works Drop In Air Filter Only (Before and After runs).
I will let the data tell the story, courtesy of WORKS Dynapak Dyno and my Race-Technology DL1 Data Logger:
The really impressive thing is how well the car holds on to the boost - much better than any post of boost vs RPM that I have seen on these forums. Holds above 20psi to nearly 7000rpm with essentially the same peak boost as stock, finally tapering down to ~18psi at the limiter. Unfortunately I dont have a screen shot of this to hand.
Driving the car it feels how it should have from the factory now.
I would thoroughly recommend this upgrade as immense value for money! Way better than money spent on exhaust, intercooler, hard pipes, etc.... I know this because a man who has all these mods but no tune drove the car post tune and now desperately wants a tune!
I will let the data tell the story, courtesy of WORKS Dynapak Dyno and my Race-Technology DL1 Data Logger:
The really impressive thing is how well the car holds on to the boost - much better than any post of boost vs RPM that I have seen on these forums. Holds above 20psi to nearly 7000rpm with essentially the same peak boost as stock, finally tapering down to ~18psi at the limiter. Unfortunately I dont have a screen shot of this to hand.
Driving the car it feels how it should have from the factory now.
I would thoroughly recommend this upgrade as immense value for money! Way better than money spent on exhaust, intercooler, hard pipes, etc.... I know this because a man who has all these mods but no tune drove the car post tune and now desperately wants a tune!
Jun 11, 2008, 01:23 AM
#2
Something has to be wrong with the math here as that would be saying you basically made a 14.0 flat car a 12.0 flat car. Or a 13.5 car a 11.5 car, or whatever it would have done stock.
Unless I am missing something here, but 2 secs gain in acceleration rate with 70whp gain doesn't add up. Of course, I could be wrong, I always kind of sucked at math.
Unless I am missing something here, but 2 secs gain in acceleration rate with 70whp gain doesn't add up. Of course, I could be wrong, I always kind of sucked at math.
Last edited by razorlab; Jun 11, 2008 at 01:29 AM.
Jun 11, 2008, 04:22 AM
#3
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again inpressive numbers from a tune that **** me off beacause there isn;t anyone close enough to me to get a tune, but congrats those are some nice numbers. Have you taken it to the track yet?
Jun 11, 2008, 06:28 AM
#4
Evolving Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Razorlab has made a valid comment.
I would also like to understand the last graph. It says two car lengths difference, however, the curves show a difference at seven seconds of approximately 32 ft - 30 ft, which is only a 2 ft difference. Is the graph wrong, or what am I missing?
I would also like to understand the last graph. It says two car lengths difference, however, the curves show a difference at seven seconds of approximately 32 ft - 30 ft, which is only a 2 ft difference. Is the graph wrong, or what am I missing?
Jun 11, 2008, 07:25 AM
#5
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NorCal
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something has to be wrong with the math here as that would be saying you basically made a 14.0 flat car a 12.0 flat car. Or a 13.5 car a 11.5 car, or whatever it would have done stock.
Unless I am missing something here, but 2 secs gain in acceleration rate with 70whp gain doesn't add up. Of course, I could be wrong, I always kind of sucked at math.
Unless I am missing something here, but 2 secs gain in acceleration rate with 70whp gain doesn't add up. Of course, I could be wrong, I always kind of sucked at math.
What you're looking at is a 4th gear pull from 60 mph to 100 mph. At 60 mph in 4th gear you're at about 4000 RPMs. If he had started from 3000 RPMs, he would've seen a much larger gap.
Jun 11, 2008, 07:34 AM
#6
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NorCal
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Razorlab has made a valid comment.
I would also like to understand the last graph. It says two car lengths difference, however, the curves show a difference at seven seconds of approximately 32 ft - 30 ft, which is only a 2 ft difference. Is the graph wrong, or what am I missing?
I would also like to understand the last graph. It says two car lengths difference, however, the curves show a difference at seven seconds of approximately 32 ft - 30 ft, which is only a 2 ft difference. Is the graph wrong, or what am I missing?
Yeah, and I'm the guy who test drove his car and it pulls much better than mine which has a catback, UICP, FMIC, drop-in filter, and manual boost controller. I think the only saving grace with my setup is that it spools faster than his - HA HA.
Jun 11, 2008, 10:36 AM
#7
how come this guy made more power on his X with just a drop in and a tune from works than that other guy that has all that plus a bolt on muffler? Works tuned both of them, so wtf? If you compare the numbers you'll see that not only is this guy making less power but it's a messy curve. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=348593. I will say this though; in the first post I guess Bill does say that the flash is producing better results as it gets further refined.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Jun 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM.
Trending Topics
Jun 11, 2008, 11:09 AM
#8
Evolving Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, makes sense, I missed that it was a differential measurement. Maybe update the excel chart to show that?
Jun 11, 2008, 11:33 AM
#11
Evolving Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jun 11, 2008, 01:37 PM
#12
On the last Evo 9 I tuned the car gained 1.29s in acceleration when tuned. I compared acceleration runs from 28.58 mph to 75.80 mph between the tuned and untuned runs and the difference in acceleration was 1.29s. The car made 35 hp from the tune. If 35 hp gain gave 1.29s faster acceleration, then it is ver plausible that a 70 hp gain would give 2s faster acceleration.
Jun 11, 2008, 04:39 PM
#15
Also, it's two seconds to reach a speed, not two seconds to reach a distance. Like a 14.0 is a 100mph car whereas a 12.0 is a 120mph car. Heck, just look at the distance graphs. At 7 seconds, there's only a gap of 30ft and a mph difference of about 8mph. 30ft is only a couple tenths of a second at those speeds.