Wilson V2 - FP Green results
Oct 22, 2008, 09:00 AM
#76
I agree that this is not the best way to conduct a test. A back to back same day session is what was needed. Now to answer a few questions, my last tuning session at TTP-E netted me the 426/401 hp numbers. This was done approximately 2 months ago after an adjustment to the pre-load on the WGA actuator. I've always run 93 pump and will continue to do so. We can rule out any mechanical issues with the car. It's a fully built Buschur Evo with the execpetion
of a few mods. A boost leak test was done after the Wilson V2 was installed, no leaks. I drove the car 200 miles back home to Tampa that same day, no SES, car ran like a champ. I did fail to mention to Scott that I got rid of the HKS DLI-II for the new SparkTech non-cdi COP. I did have a set of bpr7es in the car at the time. I normally run an 8 heat range but I had the 7's laying around and decided to throw them in at my last oil change. Not sure if ignition is an issue, I don't recal any knock.
I appreciate everyone chiming in, again IM not an expert. I rely on the experience and knowledge of the entire Evo community. IM dissapointed in the results naturally, but not enraged or extremely upset. This is not the end of the world, merly a bump in the road. I know with the help of the community I can get a definative answer. Im open to suggestions and willing to hear what other have to say. I see it as a learning process, knowledge is power!
of a few mods. A boost leak test was done after the Wilson V2 was installed, no leaks. I drove the car 200 miles back home to Tampa that same day, no SES, car ran like a champ. I did fail to mention to Scott that I got rid of the HKS DLI-II for the new SparkTech non-cdi COP. I did have a set of bpr7es in the car at the time. I normally run an 8 heat range but I had the 7's laying around and decided to throw them in at my last oil change. Not sure if ignition is an issue, I don't recal any knock.
I appreciate everyone chiming in, again IM not an expert. I rely on the experience and knowledge of the entire Evo community. IM dissapointed in the results naturally, but not enraged or extremely upset. This is not the end of the world, merly a bump in the road. I know with the help of the community I can get a definative answer. Im open to suggestions and willing to hear what other have to say. I see it as a learning process, knowledge is power!
As i mentioned before my offer still stands to do back to back testing here.. If your diagnosed with cancer do you not go for a second opinion.. Thats what i am offering, a 2nd opinion... I disagree with TTP's opinion that its UNSAFE to run the car on our dyno due to it not being Eddy Current.. I have watched Crispeed tune 1350whp Supras on our dyno and then hit the track and go 136mph in the 1/8th.. Also, we just tuned a 900hp s2000 that ran 8.8 in the 1/4 mile making in the fastest s2000 in the world.. my Rs just went 9.63 with a forward facing turbo.. All with safe tuneups..
You chose us to do the install for a reason.. If you want us to get to the bottom of what the issue is we are here to HELP.. We stand behind EVERY SINGLE product we sell and since we sold you the product and did the install i would like to get the car running how it should if given the chance..
Oct 22, 2008, 09:36 AM
#77
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slorice, that was a cheap shot at TTP. No offense dude, but you make the Buschur camp sound like a cult....
I hope the issues (if there are any) get resolved ASAP.
Dan
I hope the issues (if there are any) get resolved ASAP.
Dan
Oct 22, 2008, 09:50 AM
#78
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Chester, OH
Posts: 1,347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dude, what are you talking about. I'm actually staying very civil and trying to help the owner of the car out. A product that has worked on multiple cars isn't working here and there is evidence as to why along with a lot more information that hasn't been posted that would greatly help the customer because it will allow us to diagnose what is going on.
I just can't see how a product that has shown great results on a similar motor with a smaller turbo fails to show the same results here.
I just can't see how a product that has shown great results on a similar motor with a smaller turbo fails to show the same results here.
Last edited by SloRice; Oct 22, 2008 at 09:54 AM.
Oct 22, 2008, 09:55 AM
#79
You chose us to do the install for a reason.. If you want us to get to the bottom of what the issue is we are here to HELP.. We stand behind EVERY SINGLE product we sell and since we sold you the product and did the install i would like to get the car running how it should if given the chance..
This thread has followed the path both Ozzie and I knew it would take.
As for actual data to support the thread OP, here is another contribution of actual tested data, not hearsay.
Oct 22, 2008, 09:57 AM
#80
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Chester, OH
Posts: 1,347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not saying that TTP doesn't know how to use their dyno, but did you make sure you are using the AWD Parasitics file when you ran the car on the V2? Its an easy mistake to make and will show numbers that are much less.
To the OP....have you taken the car out on the street yet? How does it feel? I would think you would feel a 30+whp drop.
To the OP....have you taken the car out on the street yet? How does it feel? I would think you would feel a 30+whp drop.
Oct 22, 2008, 10:10 AM
#81
Not saying that TTP doesn't know how to use their dyno, but did you make sure you are using the AWD Parasitics file when you ran the car on the V2? Its an easy mistake to make and will show numbers that are much less.
To the OP....have you taken the car out on the street yet? How does it feel? I would think you would feel a 30+whp drop.
To the OP....have you taken the car out on the street yet? How does it feel? I would think you would feel a 30+whp drop.
Seriously? There are much better ways to support product manufacturers than the slanderful tactics you have repeatedly posted. The best thing you could do to support a product, is provide dynotested results from "unbiased" dynotesters to support your claims.
For the rest of the forum who might get lost in the "dyno verbiage" slorice is referring to, he is asking if we have run the car in 2wd mode with eddy brake applied to just the REAR wheels only as well as the dyno brake that stops the car, applied to the rear wheels only as well.
This is very damaging to the transfer case and basically the whole driveline of the car as load is only applied to the rear wheels. When the dyno goes to stop the car, it also stops just the rear wheels while the front are still spinning. SLVRNBLACK is a 2003 with NO ACD so this would basically destroy his transfer case if this was done.
So your answer slorice is NO, we do not just load the rear wheels only and stop the car with the rear wheels only as it would destroy the driveline.
Oct 22, 2008, 10:31 AM
#82
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Chester, OH
Posts: 1,347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the rest of the forum who might get lost in the "dyno verbiage" slorice is referring to, he is asking if we have run the car in 2wd mode with eddy brake applied to just the REAR wheels only as well as the dyno brake that stops the car, applied to the rear wheels only as well.
This is very damaging to the transfer case and basically the whole driveline of the car as load is only applied to the rear wheels. When the dyno goes to stop the car, it also stops just the rear wheels while the front are still spinning. SLVRNBLACK is a 2003 with NO ACD so this would basically destroy his transfer case if this was done.
So your answer slorice is NO, we do not just load the rear wheels only and stop the car with the rear wheels only as it would destroy the driveline.
This is very damaging to the transfer case and basically the whole driveline of the car as load is only applied to the rear wheels. When the dyno goes to stop the car, it also stops just the rear wheels while the front are still spinning. SLVRNBLACK is a 2003 with NO ACD so this would basically destroy his transfer case if this was done.
So your answer slorice is NO, we do not just load the rear wheels only and stop the car with the rear wheels only as it would destroy the driveline.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
Oct 22, 2008, 10:34 AM
#83
First off, I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. Look back through my posts and please point out where I said you adjusted the roller weight in the calibration screen.
The fact that you answered me like this basically means that you have no idea what I asked you.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
The fact that you answered me like this basically means that you have no idea what I asked you.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
Oct 22, 2008, 10:43 AM
#84
Evolved Member
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lexington, NC
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. Look back through my posts and please point out where I said you adjusted the roller weight in the calibration screen.
The fact that you answered me like this basically means that you have no idea what I asked you.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
The fact that you answered me like this basically means that you have no idea what I asked you.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
Best post in this thread so far.
Oct 22, 2008, 12:15 PM
#85
First off, I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. Look back through my posts and please point out where I said you adjusted the roller weight in the calibration screen.
The fact that you answered me like this basically means that you have no idea what I asked you.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
The fact that you answered me like this basically means that you have no idea what I asked you.
Let me school you on your equipment....hey here's a thought maybe you should pay me to come down there and teach you how to use your expensive paper weight.
In the dyno software, it has two parasitics files, one for AWD mode and one for 2WD mode. The parasitics file is used to determine how much HP is lost in the dyno due to rotating weight of the rollers, friction, etc etc. Basically how much HP it takes to turn the dyno just like your car has a parasitics loss in the drivetrain due to weight and friction (i.e. bhp vs whp)
The 2WD parasitics file for the MD-AWD-500 only takes into account 4 rollers, the eddy current, and a few bearings and I think 1 belt. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50whp.
The AWD parasitics file takes into account 10 rollers, the eddy current, all the bearings and belts. At 100MPH, I'm guessing the loss to the dyno will be around 100-125whp.
That's a pretty substantial difference and could easily turn that 30whp loss into a 20-40whp gain at 2 psi less boost.
What I asked you had nothing to do with uncoupling the front and rear rollers like you implied. I asked my question as you can run the dyno in AWD mode, but have the 2WD parasitics file active....one of many stupid abilities MD gives the customer.
Now maybe I should have PM'd you that question, so I do apologize for that. But it is a valid question and is easily something that can be forgotten to change or if someone was in the computer and messing with something without you knowing. I know I've done it before and I know DB mentioned he did it at this past years shootout for the 2WD cars thus inflating their numbers.
Again...its a simple mistake that can easily rectify the entire situation so I thought I would ask. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
Oct 22, 2008, 12:26 PM
#87
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Chester, OH
Posts: 1,347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The software has done that since 2005, its not a new feature. I simply asked if you were sure you had "AWD mode" checked, which obviously ruffled your feathers.
FYI - this is the 3rd time I've asked. It's a simple yes or no question.
Mustang is also kind of notorious for not loading the correct parasitics files. It wouldn't hurt to look in the "Parasitics Viewer" to make sure the 2WD and AWD files are different.
FYI - this is the 3rd time I've asked. It's a simple yes or no question.
Mustang is also kind of notorious for not loading the correct parasitics files. It wouldn't hurt to look in the "Parasitics Viewer" to make sure the 2WD and AWD files are different.
Oct 22, 2008, 12:30 PM
#88
The software has done that since 2005, its not a new feature. I simply asked if you were sure you had "AWD mode" checked, which obviously ruffled your feathers.
FYI - this is the 3rd time I've asked. It's a simple yes or no question.
Mustang is also kind of notorious for not loading the correct parasitics files. It wouldn't hurt to look in the "Parasitics Viewer" to make sure the 2WD and AWD files are different.
FYI - this is the 3rd time I've asked. It's a simple yes or no question.
Mustang is also kind of notorious for not loading the correct parasitics files. It wouldn't hurt to look in the "Parasitics Viewer" to make sure the 2WD and AWD files are different.
Oct 22, 2008, 12:45 PM
#89
The software has done that since 2005, its not a new feature. I simply asked if you were sure you had "AWD mode" checked, which obviously ruffled your feathers.
FYI - this is the 3rd time I've asked. It's a simple yes or no question.
Mustang is also kind of notorious for not loading the correct parasitics files. It wouldn't hurt to look in the "Parasitics Viewer" to make sure the 2WD and AWD files are different.
FYI - this is the 3rd time I've asked. It's a simple yes or no question.
Mustang is also kind of notorious for not loading the correct parasitics files. It wouldn't hurt to look in the "Parasitics Viewer" to make sure the 2WD and AWD files are different.
Oct 22, 2008, 12:52 PM
#90
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Chester, OH
Posts: 1,347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You didn't state it. I pretty much pryed the answer out of you. Thank you for continually dodging my questions though. Made my boring day at work a little more enjoyable. 
Well Indy....if you're out there. I tried to help, but it looks like you made a paper weight. I guess I'll give Magnus a call....
Well Indy....if you're out there. I tried to help, but it looks like you made a paper weight. I guess I'll give Magnus a call....