B.C. evo roll call
Mar 8, 2013, 01:52 PM
#963
Newbie
I want one weather shield insulator under the hood as well for my 9. If anyone has one for sale, please pm me or email to info@artofspeedracing.ca. Thanks in advance and appreciated.
Mar 18, 2013, 12:34 AM
#965
Evolving Member
So I went to the RG Dyno Day and got a baseline. Racing Greed has a mustang dyno but they also provide a Dyno Jet conversion. I was told that, when compared, the figure are in line with those of other local DynoJet readings.
I made a recent switch to Shell 91 as an experiment to see if the 94 chevron is worth the extra money. I still need to collect more data to be sure about the shell holding up in terms of knock resistance but so far I'm inclined to say that it seems to be more stable than the chevron 94. That is: less phantom knock which you can't control irrespective of timing.
one things is for sure though: the consensus with anyone who's worth their weight in the tuning industry here can confirm that the 94 Chevron we get here is not as good as US 92 octane Chevron. This has been proven on the Dyno with a number of cars that were tuned across the border and then registered multiple counts of knock after filling up with 94 and hitting the dyno back in Vancouver. So unless you are taking Chevron 94 with you to when getting a tune I'd save my money and just get it done locally. Sean at RG for one, knows his **** and you'd be a lot better off tuning your car at a quality local shop on the gas you put in everyday than a "Big Name" shop across the border just because everyone says so.
Anyway, back to the point. I was pleasantly surprised to see my car put down 339 whp and 321 Ft-lb @ 25 psi on Shell 91. (Dyno Jet corrected figures)
AFRs are on the rich side as well so there's still some left (10.8 - haven't tuned afrs as my UEGO has yet to be installed). There was a bit of knock however so I will have to pull back timing a bit on top but the car is making peak power before this anyway so it shouldn't affect the figures. In any case they are just figures at the end of the day but I love how the car is pulling on the Shell 91 with my current tune.
All in all it's reassuring to have the proof to support my advocacy of datalogging and self tuning your vehicle. Ive seen a few guys come back with English Racing (great shop imo) and making just a bit more power with full bolt ons. I was pleasantly surprised to see my Evo with only 3 power mods (BBK full, hks 272 cams, Perrin intake) making almost as much power as some of these cars as well as putting a bunch of "Cobb stage X mail in tune" STI's to shame.
I made a recent switch to Shell 91 as an experiment to see if the 94 chevron is worth the extra money. I still need to collect more data to be sure about the shell holding up in terms of knock resistance but so far I'm inclined to say that it seems to be more stable than the chevron 94. That is: less phantom knock which you can't control irrespective of timing.
one things is for sure though: the consensus with anyone who's worth their weight in the tuning industry here can confirm that the 94 Chevron we get here is not as good as US 92 octane Chevron. This has been proven on the Dyno with a number of cars that were tuned across the border and then registered multiple counts of knock after filling up with 94 and hitting the dyno back in Vancouver. So unless you are taking Chevron 94 with you to when getting a tune I'd save my money and just get it done locally. Sean at RG for one, knows his **** and you'd be a lot better off tuning your car at a quality local shop on the gas you put in everyday than a "Big Name" shop across the border just because everyone says so.
Anyway, back to the point. I was pleasantly surprised to see my car put down 339 whp and 321 Ft-lb @ 25 psi on Shell 91. (Dyno Jet corrected figures)
AFRs are on the rich side as well so there's still some left (10.8 - haven't tuned afrs as my UEGO has yet to be installed). There was a bit of knock however so I will have to pull back timing a bit on top but the car is making peak power before this anyway so it shouldn't affect the figures. In any case they are just figures at the end of the day but I love how the car is pulling on the Shell 91 with my current tune.
All in all it's reassuring to have the proof to support my advocacy of datalogging and self tuning your vehicle. Ive seen a few guys come back with English Racing (great shop imo) and making just a bit more power with full bolt ons. I was pleasantly surprised to see my Evo with only 3 power mods (BBK full, hks 272 cams, Perrin intake) making almost as much power as some of these cars as well as putting a bunch of "Cobb stage X mail in tune" STI's to shame.
Mar 19, 2013, 07:56 AM
#968
Evolving Member
Everyone is entitled to their opinion 
Besides the cams i have an otherwise stock head, I have a stock intercooler, stock i/c piping, stock exhaust (ie from the manifold to the tip - completely stock exhaust). All those restrictions and I'm on 91 octane. A BBK can make over 450 WITH the supporting mods. That said I think 340whp is good when I still have all those mods left to do.
Your car made somewhere in the 345-355 whp range on The English Racing Dyno correct? I think that's low considering your mod list is essentially full bold ons and I'm guessing you were either tuned on 92 or 94. (Not trying to be offensive just stating my opinion).
But to each his own.
Besides the cams i have an otherwise stock head, I have a stock intercooler, stock i/c piping, stock exhaust (ie from the manifold to the tip - completely stock exhaust). All those restrictions and I'm on 91 octane. A BBK can make over 450 WITH the supporting mods. That said I think 340whp is good when I still have all those mods left to do. Your car made somewhere in the 345-355 whp range on The English Racing Dyno correct? I think that's low considering your mod list is essentially full bold ons and I'm guessing you were either tuned on 92 or 94. (Not trying to be offensive just stating my opinion).
But to each his own.
Last edited by R. Mutt; Mar 19, 2013 at 08:01 AM.
Mar 19, 2013, 09:36 AM
#969
Evolving Member
I stand corrected...here is your mod list:
Not as aggressive as originally thought. Looks like you are still running stock intercooler. So basically you are running intake, exhaust and a tune.
345 whp/320 ft-lb@25psi on US 92...almost the same figures as me at the same boost
Your numbers are pretty good given your mod list...but you were still tuned on gas you don't run on a daily basis. As such, unless you make trips across the border just for gas you're probably knocking on the 94 you run here. Have you ever logged your car since getting it tuned to see what's actually going on under the hood?
Moreover, just because I run a BBK doesn't mean I'm extracting its full potential Brendan. I'm limited by how well my engine can breath and the octane I run. Most guys are able to run E85 or meth in addition to full bolt-ons in the US in order to do so. I plan on running the latter in the near future.
- O2 Dump
- Full TBE
- ETS Intake
- Grimmspeed EBC
Not as aggressive as originally thought. Looks like you are still running stock intercooler. So basically you are running intake, exhaust and a tune.
345 whp/320 ft-lb@25psi on US 92...almost the same figures as me at the same boost
Your numbers are pretty good given your mod list...but you were still tuned on gas you don't run on a daily basis. As such, unless you make trips across the border just for gas you're probably knocking on the 94 you run here.
Have you ever logged your car since getting it tuned to see what's actually going on under the hood?Moreover, just because I run a BBK doesn't mean I'm extracting its full potential Brendan. I'm limited by how well my engine can breath and the octane I run. Most guys are able to run E85 or meth in addition to full bolt-ons in the US in order to do so. I plan on running the latter in the near future.
Last edited by R. Mutt; Mar 19, 2013 at 09:38 AM.
Mar 20, 2013, 07:36 AM
#970
Newbie
Seems like decent numbers to me , u dont have a lot of mods i would say.
as for fuel I've only experienced knock counts in my car running chevron 94 lol. Hence why I only have a tune for 91 octane in my X . I do go across the border for fuel tho cause its cheap and it's 92 . Will get a better pro tune once I feel I have enough mods to help it be more reliably powerful.
Cheers
Aaron
as for fuel I've only experienced knock counts in my car running chevron 94 lol. Hence why I only have a tune for 91 octane in my X . I do go across the border for fuel tho cause its cheap and it's 92 . Will get a better pro tune once I feel I have enough mods to help it be more reliably powerful.
Cheers
Aaron
Mar 21, 2013, 09:43 AM
#971
Newbie
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Comox, BC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for all the great info so far R. Mutt. ive been on the sideline reading and learning from all the great info you've given.
i made 347awhp/328tq on ER dyno running Husky 94 Octane which has 10% ethanol content. i have the same mods, but no O2 dump.
you are right about Chevron 94 not being equal to US chevron 92. but the major difference is that Washington's Chevron 92 contains 10% ethanol as per state law vs our Chevron pure 94 here (well on the island anyways).
pure 94 should technically make more power than 92 with 10% ethanol. After tuning, Aaron and Lucas from English Racing told me that that my Husky 94 octane was putting down the same numbers as their Chevron 92 with the mods i had.
I was told that tuning ethanol blended gas required to be a little more on the rich side as the ethanol burns up really fast, hence i was almost maxed out my Injectors with just bolt-ons. So I think when I fill up with our Chevron 94 i just get wayyyy too rich.
I used to switch between chev 94 and Husky 94 to see the difference, and yes i knock on Chev all over the place, heck the first 2 minutes of startup and driving is extremely sluggish. Heck people have even mentioned how rich smelling it was just sitting at idle lol.
unfortunately for me Husky here on the island no longer carry 94 octane....so i have been in touch with ER to log and reflash for Chevron 94 octane.
I am currently waiting for my Tactrix 1.3U to arrive so we could datalog and ER could adjust my tune. I'll post my log on here when i do it so you can check it out for me since im not too good at this tuning thing.
I really did wish that husky 94 was still around so i could do a true comparison between the difference.
i made 347awhp/328tq on ER dyno running Husky 94 Octane which has 10% ethanol content. i have the same mods, but no O2 dump.
you are right about Chevron 94 not being equal to US chevron 92. but the major difference is that Washington's Chevron 92 contains 10% ethanol as per state law vs our Chevron pure 94 here (well on the island anyways).
pure 94 should technically make more power than 92 with 10% ethanol. After tuning, Aaron and Lucas from English Racing told me that that my Husky 94 octane was putting down the same numbers as their Chevron 92 with the mods i had.
I was told that tuning ethanol blended gas required to be a little more on the rich side as the ethanol burns up really fast, hence i was almost maxed out my Injectors with just bolt-ons. So I think when I fill up with our Chevron 94 i just get wayyyy too rich.
I used to switch between chev 94 and Husky 94 to see the difference, and yes i knock on Chev all over the place, heck the first 2 minutes of startup and driving is extremely sluggish. Heck people have even mentioned how rich smelling it was just sitting at idle lol.
unfortunately for me Husky here on the island no longer carry 94 octane....so i have been in touch with ER to log and reflash for Chevron 94 octane.
I am currently waiting for my Tactrix 1.3U to arrive so we could datalog and ER could adjust my tune. I'll post my log on here when i do it so you can check it out for me since im not too good at this tuning thing.
I really did wish that husky 94 was still around so i could do a true comparison between the difference.
Last edited by vince126; Mar 21, 2013 at 09:51 AM.
Mar 21, 2013, 01:06 PM
#972
Evolving Member
Thanks Aaron. I don't have the time to be going across the border unfortunately but lucky for you...probably the best thing if close by.
Vince, I too have heard good thinks about Husky 94....too bad they don't offer it anymore in Vancouver. I checked in Richmond the other day and they only had up to 91 I think.
My car also runs really rich during warm up and felt sluggish for the first few miles while cruising in closed loop on Chevron 94. I've heard the same exact things as you about it running a few points "richer" than the US 92 in terms of AFRs. My car has generally been feeling better in closed loop mode around the streets on the Shell 91 but I really want to test it further before I can say definitively...could just be placebo effect.
Irrespective I know I'm going with meth injection asap...likely in the coming weeks. I'm leaning toward the Aquamist HFS-3 kit. I'm just fed up of the inconsistencies with the 94 knocking and although the Shell 91 feels better it won't let me increase timing past the same threshold as the Chevron 94 without knocking.
I get a big tax return in a few weeks so I plan on going mod crazy
Vince, I too have heard good thinks about Husky 94....too bad they don't offer it anymore in Vancouver. I checked in Richmond the other day and they only had up to 91 I think.
My car also runs really rich during warm up and felt sluggish for the first few miles while cruising in closed loop on Chevron 94. I've heard the same exact things as you about it running a few points "richer" than the US 92 in terms of AFRs. My car has generally been feeling better in closed loop mode around the streets on the Shell 91 but I really want to test it further before I can say definitively...could just be placebo effect.
Irrespective I know I'm going with meth injection asap...likely in the coming weeks. I'm leaning toward the Aquamist HFS-3 kit. I'm just fed up of the inconsistencies with the 94 knocking and although the Shell 91 feels better it won't let me increase timing past the same threshold as the Chevron 94 without knocking.
I get a big tax return in a few weeks so I plan on going mod crazy
Mar 22, 2013, 06:57 AM
#975
Newbie
I won't be going to rev scene meet .. Haven't bin to one of this since like 2000-01 hah. Gotta set up my supermoto race bike this weekend . And put my summers back on the X
If I did go I'd take the 240 anyways to try and sell it.
When I do a pro tune, ill more then likely have ic pipes, ic, downpipe, air filter, 3 port(maybe) and Oil cooler done, and then it's a drive to Portland to Cobb for vacation / tune weekend.
If I did go I'd take the 240 anyways to try and sell it.
When I do a pro tune, ill more then likely have ic pipes, ic, downpipe, air filter, 3 port(maybe) and Oil cooler done, and then it's a drive to Portland to Cobb for vacation / tune weekend.