mksevo

As AMS said they took the average which is much better for real world numbers. some will be higher and some will be lower . Keep up the good work, I am very interested in your parts but will await until they are being shipped. I am also looking at if you will have some package deal discounts. I am looking at 3-4 parts and will do them all at once. so maybe we can get an AMS evoforum discount.

TurbotrixRacing

iTrader: (21)

I took a look a the graphs and they all have the same correction factor. We've been running it on uncorrected since we brought the car to the shop. Look at the run numbers...3,1,4 and 3. I think the most pulls we did during one session was 6when the cat was being tested. We're not making countless runs, hoping for a fluke that we can post up. We make a few pulls and post the results. Make more parts and repeat the process....

-jeff

AutoMotoSports

iTrader: (42)

like I said earlier On monday we will post up two graphs from our previous testing showing a 100hp gain. But they are not consistent. A stock evo after several pulls does not make 220whp on our dyno...nor should it on any dynojet really that is setup right...especially uncorrected in cold weather. after making more passes the car settles in in the upper 230's and this was on SAE so uncorrected would read even higher.

If that is what it will take to end this argument...that is fine

Nobody is slinging mud here or starting a flame war but when we have people asking why another Vendors parts are making almost 20 more whp then ours.....we are going to give them an explanation.

We are not out to make enemies but we are going to stand up for our product.

Eric

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

you should be happy for that. competiton if its healty and fair always help for the customer.
I do like when the tuners compite and not working hand to hand.... if you know what i mean.

TurbotrixRacing

iTrader: (21)

On one thread we're getting accused that our dyno reads too high and on this one were getting accused of it reading too low....go figure.

We made several base line pulls in the low 220 range and posted the graph that looked the cleanest. Yes, it's cold out but the dyno is in the shop and it's pretty warm in there with the heat on. We made what we made and we started modding the car at that point. Two different cars, two different dynos a thousand miles apart and numbers that are within a few horsepower of each other.

If you want SAE numbers I'll post them on Monday. No one here is bashing your products so why go after us? I find it interesting that you can talk about deception and they say "I'm not trying to start a flame war"....

-jeff

TurbotrixRacing

iTrader: (21)

I just checked the dyno numbers again. The car baselined 224.92whp and 223.92whp. I just put the numbers in SAE and we baselined at 212.57whp and with mods it was 319.07whp. So in SAE we are now up 106.5whp, i dont want to round up to 107whp cause that wouldn't be right. We kept it consistent everytime. Made a few pulls, put more parts on, made some more pulls and then we documented everything. You accused us of changing the dyno numbers to different correction factors for different pulls, etc. If you "pay close attention" as you said in your post you will see that all runs were done in uncorrected with the smoothing on 5.


Keith

AutoMotoSports

iTrader: (42)

I think you are reading into my post a little much. I never once said you attacked us at all. I said that when someone asks questions we are going to give a response and explanation. that is all....nothing more. We are completely ok with you and To be honest welcome the discussion. You had valid questions and we answered them. Honestly I was surprised that you were the only one to bring it up.

Again we have nothing to hide here. We will go through all of our charts on monday and post up the runs to show you how much it can varied on our EVO X when it was stock. We too have a couple stock runs in the 220's but we threw them out because most of them were in the upper 230's after the car was run in a few times.

and Turbotrix, we are not knocking your product at all. most of what we both are making is relatively simple in design and theres not many ways you can engineer it and get different results. when someone asks a question as to why we did not show similar gains...We are going to respond.

I do see that your correction factors are the same from stock to current, I was meaning different from ours and I worded that totally wrong. I am sorry for that. I have now made that original post a little more clear. You stock run is just unusually low and looking at the graph its consistent with our lower 220's pulls that we made early on in testing. That is why we responded. Like I said we dynoed it stock quite a few times before settling on its average HP run. We put up our average pull. It sounds like you only dynoed it a couple times and I think if you made a few more passes the stock power would have picked up.

StitoEVOx, I want to make it very clear that nobody here is upset with you. We really do love an educated customer and welcome questions. How can you learn if you don't ask questions. And again I agree that we do not have a lower pipe in the car and that could be good for a few more HP.. we dont know as we have not yet put one on the car.

Eric

Spazpilot

iTrader: (4)

I think that since my little baby (XI MR) got smashed up a few months ago and will be picking up a new X. I hope they will build another awsome 3076R like I had on my XI or what ever will be the same for the 4B11.

CJ

dbsears

iTrader: (37)

Well for one thing telling people to never take that tone with you again is pretty rediculous. Throwing around opinions is pretty worthless and telling people they aren't entitled to their own is hard headed. Telling people that you don't have respect for them and acting high and mighty is what got you booted the first time. You may "think" you aren't a newbie but in all reality its pretty easy to tell. For one thing saying gains are consistent on almost all dynos is quite false. I have seen cars that gain 80+whp on dynojets then they go over to a low reading mustang and their gains might only be 50whp. To tell AMS they are not professional is not very smart...especially with you making controversy in almost every thread. I am not trying to spark anything up so take it as you will. I see how hyped you are about the X but slandering everybodies opinion when you don't even own the car is quite childess.

I believe AMS's results have always been reliable and have never once stretched the truth. Out of any vendor on this board I would be more inclined to trust AMS. I am seeing quite a thing about all these dyno numbers but if you take into account drivability, overall horsepower, and the actual quality of the product I really think they are going to be the guys to beat. But then again this is just my opinion.

Noize

iTrader: (24)

Thread cleaned.

STi2EvoX, you are not a moderator, so please stop telling people to stay on topic since your posts and mandates are what is making them go off topic in the first place.

I'm getting tired of vendor threads getting filled up with off topic junk.

AMS and Turbotrix, there are several of us on staff trying to keep these threads clean, but always feel free to report posts or PM me directly if something goes out of line that you would like to have cleaned.

evo542

i believe the factory turbo housing may be too small, or mitsu realy matched the stock turbo perfectly to the downpipe

Bro

gotta love a stock part that is really functional. The X seems good to go for a bigger turbo.

BOOSTEZ

iTrader: (1)

A bigger turbo might change the requirements for not needig a downpipe.

Ivan@AMS

The issue with your statement is that to properly gauge "gains" you need to have an accurate baseline and an accurate peak.

With uncorrected numbers, you NEED to know what the air temperature was when the car was dynoed. Turbo cars make a LOT more power when it is cold out versus when it is warm out. SAE correction factors take this into account. With uncorrected numbers baseline numbers being related to peak gain numbers without knowing atmospheric conditions, you have no basis to gauge gains. This creates an issue when trying to compare products gains from different shops.

When we (AMS) posts dyno charts, we want the most accurate charts we can provide. We dyno the car several times to quantify the the results. If our results are inconsistent, we find the cause, correct it and shoot for quantifiable results. We want people to have an ACCURATE idea of the gains they will get from our products.

When our gains are compared to gains of another shop, its hard not to point out obvious "issues" with the comparison.

TurbotrixRacing

iTrader: (21)

We (Turbotrix) go through the same test procedure as you do. We knew that the temps were very close from run to run and the hp gains were accurate. We posted uncorrected because it was the highest of the base line numbers. (You had a problem with our numbers being too low, remember?) We didn't feel the need to post temp readings but now that another shop is questioning our practices I'll post those numbers as well.

You can see that the temp and humidity went up as we made more power. So, in SAE we're actually up 107.

Please have a look at the graphs and explain the "obvoius issues" you keep mentioning.

-jeff