[imprezarsx]

Originally Posted by ray@turbotek

this was on a dynojet at 26 psi. on a mustang dyno we hit 420ish

my previous 20g put down 370 whp on cbrd's mustang.

stock sized maf housing hitting a max of 5.00 g's 4.79 to be exact lol

wow, 26psi. We aren't that high. I didn't want to push that much boost into his engine. He kept saying he wanted safety over power. But too often I get emails from people saying they want "maximus safety, longevity and maximum power". Which isn't possible. Mathematically and real world, it's impossible. As mean piston speed increases linearly, cylinder wear increases exponentially. Tony's car has 23.5 psi on it according to the dyno. The factory ecu thinks it's only 22 and the defi gauge thingks its 25.5. It's hard to know which one is accurate. So I shot for the middle. Maybe the car really only has 22psi. That might explain the power numbers.

Regardless, I've only seen a 20G break 315whp on Kito's dyno once. It hit 325whp. My Sti has an 8cm2-3" inlet Green and made 388 torque and 350whp on this dyno and ran sub 12 second 1/4mile with tons of wheel hop (spoken ****ty launches). But that was 28psi peak according to the dyno and 25psi at redline.

[STI-LOS]

To the OP its simple if your not happy with the tuner and the tune go somewhere else.. I would, thats my opinion. But posting on here and everybody else chiming in isnt gonna make you like your tune more or less.. I would either keep spending money on the tunes and not complain about it or just find another tuner and see how that goes..

The guys are right we all assume things but the original info made the tune look really SH*tty.. So with that said the numbers do look pretty low for his mods and a DOM 3 regardless of the DYNO. But I am no tuner so back to my original statement if your gonna stick with the tunes then don't complain and ask people for their opinions cause we are all gonna say find another tuner..

[imprezarsx]

Originally Posted by STI-LOS

To the OP its simple if your not happy with the tuner and the tune go somewhere else.. I would, thats my opinion. But posting on here and everybody else chiming in isnt gonna make you like your tune more or less.. I would either keep spending money on the tunes and not complain about it or just find another tuner and see how that goes..

The guys are right we all assume things but the original info made the tune look really SH*tty.. So with that said the numbers do look pretty low for his mods and a DOM 3 regardless of the DYNO. But I am no tuner so back to my original statement if your gonna stick with the tunes then don't complain and ask people for their opinions cause we are all gonna say find another tuner..

very fair. Thank you. However, I don't think Tony ever said he was unhappy with me, just his numbers. Other posters are the ones who said he should be mad at his tuner.


Just got off the phone with Tony. We are going to try a few things.

If you guys notice the weird dip in the maf right around 6k rpm. After reviewing some previous logs it is my belief that the flow oscillation is actually the wastegate going shut. Since it's an EWG that is recirculated back into the downpipe, when the wastegate shuts, there is a large airflow diversion due to the flow path suddenly changing and reversion pulse from the valve slamming shut. I believe that the sudden change is causing exhaust pressure to spike and lowering total airflow. It's just a theory at this point, but I think it holds some water. I think if the EWG was vented to atmosphere, this would be less noticeable to non existant. This problem only arrose when I raised the boost level.

We are going to put a nice up pipe in the car and use the IWG. Typically EWG's yield more power, however, the higher the boost the smaller the required wastegate. This might not yeild much for a power increase, but it'll provide us with some data towards the interesting MAF fluctuation. And who knows, maybe we will actually gain power by creating one smooth linear airflow path and not two junctions with extra turns.

For those concerned about his wallet, I'm not charging him for my time. He's only got to pay for the dyno and maybe flip me 20 bucks for gas. We're going to start on the road first, then transfer to the dyno later if the logs show an improvement.

-Dominic

[ray@turbotek]

dom, i think its a smart move tuning on the road 1st then going to the dyno. i perform all of my turbo upgrade tunes on the road then at the customers request we go to the dyno for minor tweaking and final numbers. i tuned our shop 07 with a 3.0r at 26 psi on alkie and its been on the road for over 15k miles and with no issues. my car also never had any issues, and its still going with no problem. im not saying i would tune anyone else's 3.0r with alkie at 26 but i feel safe doing it at the customers request.

[WolfPlayer]

TOTALLY agree on doing road tunes at this point until everything is ironed out. No point in wasting money.

With regard to map resolution, I really wanted to comment on this. I fully disagree on creating the most resolution by simply picking the highest value that you see WHILE TUNING. As we all know, the real world throws curve balls your way all the time. Take this car to a lower elevation or into a colder climate and then the load will totally jump up. The best thing to do, IMHO, is to pick the highest value you see, create a column with about 0.1 more load. Additionally, create another column with 0.25 more load and then one with 0.35 more load. In this example, I would have a 2.65 column, a 2.8 column and a 2.9 column. The 2.65 column is what you expect. The 2.8 column is what you imagine could happen under colder weather and lower elevations. Timing and fueling should be adjusted accordingly for this load. The 2.9 column is your safety net. This has very safe parameters for those instances that you can't imagine happening.

I understand where you are going with resolution. Trust me - been there, done that. There are benefits to doing this. However, most of the time you are simply using interpolated values between the points. Thus, the resolution becomes unimportant because the ECU will interpolate anyhow. To get my point across, here is an example ...

Loads of 1.0, 1.15, and 1.3. Values of 10, 15, and 20. The 1.15 value is simply not needed. The ECU would have interpolated between 1.0 and 1.3 anyhow - and it would have arrived with the value of 15.

If the resolution is not needed, don't use it. Most tuners who claim to use resolution are simply interpolating anyhow. The extra load columns are incredibly important from my perspective. But, then again, I have a 40K mile stock shortblock with similar compression on all cylinders .... after running 23 psi on 93 octane, testing LC and FFS, and running under all sorts of environmental conditions. Extra columns for safety are helpful. You never know when the car might need them. You will never ever be able to predict every load the car will see after it leaves your shop. Thus, let it leave your shop with safety built in. Add extra fuel and pull timing if the loads get into areas you haven't tested.

t

[imprezarsx]

Originally Posted by WolfPlayer

With regard to map resolution, I really wanted to comment on this. I fully disagree on creating the most resolution by simply picking the highest value that you see WHILE TUNING. As we all know, the real world throws curve balls your way all the time. Take this car to a lower elevation or into a colder climate and then the load will totally jump up. The best thing to do, IMHO, is to pick the highest value you see, create a column with about 0.1 more load. Additionally, create another column with 0.25 more load and then one with 0.35 more load. In this example, I would have a 2.65 column, a 2.8 column and a 2.9 column. The 2.65 column is what you expect. The 2.8 column is what you imagine could happen under colder weather and lower elevations. Timing and fueling should be adjusted accordingly for this load. The 2.9 column is your safety net. This has very safe parameters for those instances that you can't imagine happening.

t

by increasing the DA table load to 3.0, this is essentially what I did. The lower value at 3.0 means that the timing is tapered down from 2.6 to 3.0. I essentially made the timing map larger while still maximizing resolution in the primary map.

However, after running some numbers, I probably should have pulled 2 degrees from the primary map, added two more to the DA and kept the 3.0 Column at 4.92. This would give me a steeper decline in timing.

With that in mind, I did test this map already. I put the car in 4th gear, increased the resistance to an 8% grade, vehicle weight to 4100lbs and nailed the throttle. the extra load pushed the boost to 26.5 psi peak and 24 by redline. The car did not throw any knock and the timing was retarded adequately. The AFRs were also on target. The car was safe. I always work the cars hard and do 1-4 pulls on the dyno at the conclusion of a tune to make sure that the car won't det in the worst case scenario. The beauty of a load bearing dyno like the Mustang is that you can set "vehicle simulation" and drive the car like it was on the road. I can program grades and different vehicle weights to simulate a car full of passengers. Using all these tools I ensure the car is going to last and that the safety measures are doing their job.

[WolfPlayer]

Originally Posted by imprezarsx

The beauty of a load bearing dyno like the Mustang is that you can set "vehicle simulation" and drive the car like it was on the road. I can program grades and different vehicle weights to simulate a car full of passengers. Using all these tools I ensure the car is going to last and that the safety measures are doing their job.

Can you program the mustang dyno to allow the car to breathe colder and/or denser air where the car will be ingesting more Oxygen? Exactly. I still stand by what I said regarding a safety net in the form of extra load columns.

t