Full weight IX, EvoGreen, Pump/meth, Street tune...
Thanks for the thumbs up. I get a little bent when someone has a 'purpose' behind their posts. I guess I'll have to retune the car for whp, prove that it can make 440+whp, lower the torque, raise the mph, raise the et, then say, "Oh well, at least I have a higher mph". Like I said, final drive has a lot to do with mph. The list above clearly shows higher mph on the VIII's but not necessarily lower et's. OKIX noted that someone ran a 10.6 at 123, guess they need to 'fix' their tune to get a higher mph. or NOT!
As far as PUMP 101, it's filled up at a local station and I clearly, multiple times mentioned the 101. The reason for mentioning it was not to say it WAS pump, it was to say that it WASN"T C16. Bit of a difference. Again, compare similar et's and speeds on a IX. As far as tuning for et, tell the pro's that you don't tune for et. ET's are a result of the best whp/wtq for the combination of parts being used and the purpose of the tune. In this case, I'm not tuning for highest peak whp, but instead the decision whether more average whp or average torque will does us the most good. I think that the numbers speak for them selves. As far as MIVEC is concerned, I've spent several hours, just working the MIVEC maps and feel very comfortable with their current setting. I used to think that the ultimate goal was better ET, but I guess things have changed in the bench racing world. TTPeng, I have respect for what you have accomplished and what you do, but to insinuate that PUMP was being misrepresented, when in fact it was mentioned several times about the 101 and I'd like to know how 413whp/456wtq indicates that something is wrong, considering that this is on a LOW reading Mustang Dyno (proven by exact comparisons to same exact parts with same exact programs, when compared to Buschur Dyno) and since I went for more torque than hp, given our own personal goals of better et's, not better mph. Like I said, when has anyone ever received a win light for mph?
I would consider tuning for E.T., dealing with gear ratios and tire sizes/circumferences, vehicle weight and driver improvements.
Power is mph and I think you will find through continued tuning, better mph. You are not tuning for auto-x so the WHP should be more important.
Thanks for the thumbs up. I get a little bent when someone has a 'purpose' behind their posts. I guess I'll have to retune the car for whp, prove that it can make 440+whp, lower the torque, raise the mph, raise the et, then say, "Oh well, at least I have a higher mph". Like I said, final drive has a lot to do with mph. The list above clearly shows higher mph on the VIII's but not necessarily lower et's. OKIX noted that someone ran a 10.6 at 123, guess they need to 'fix' their tune to get a higher mph. or NOT!
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
From: OKC
I have to give props for the tuning and driving. Looked great man! Everyone gives me crap bout my MPH being low too. Dont worry bout it. I have similar mods and a great tuner (Doug@Top-Speed) and have a Evo 9 Turbo coming for future 20g-lt9. Hows the 680cc holding up?? What duty are they at? Injectors is the only thing i havent bought yet. Was thinking 780cc. Thankx for the Posting!
Good points on the pump gas are very valid. I in no way wanted to imply that it was pump gas being used. Point well taken. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding. As far as mph/et, by reviewing the 11sec list, it's obvious that the mph is right on for the time posted, the car model (IX) and the fact that these cars are on the quickest list in the 11's. I obviously would take more mph if it comes, but I'm not shooting for mph, just lower et. Very valid points, however.
Looks like an 11.9 for 378whp and 386 wtq is slow. His car ran 11.31 at 121.03 with only 390 whp (actually had just dyno'd 370whp, but I've upped it based on AFR and where I think he was), so 6 tenths of a second better at basically the same whp and torque. With that in mind, why isn't the 124mph giving better et's? I'll take the 11.3 @ 121 any day IF THE WHP/WTQ IS TRULY THE SAME. I've heard the bench racing since the 60's and the only thing that has changed is the cars.
As far as the injectors, the 680's are running 90% duty cycle. They were at 92% before I discovered the '10.4-10.6 AFR' on the top side, due to the water/meth injection. After turning down the AFR maps (for the water/meth), duty cycles went down too. With the water/meth, the 680's are fine. Without the water/meth, probably the 680's won't be enough.
Where are you racing, that you would prefer mph over et? Take the et, trophy and money, to hell with the mph if you have those 3. Like I said earlier, I'll take the higher mph, but not at the expense of et. He's trapping in 4th gear 7900+, so that's PART of the mph. Again, we used to call it running out of gears, but no since in going to 5th at the very top. Ideal is an VIII 4th gear in the 5speeds, but this is his daily driven car, so we're trying to get best of both worlds. More torque on the street, light to light, is better with higher torque at lower rpm. Currently using same street tune for the strip.
Thanks to TTPEngineering for his advice on the tune. I really do appreciate the help. There's a big difference between benchracing and being critical from experience and I think his comments come from the 'experience' side. Thanks again.
Where are you racing, that you would prefer mph over et? Take the et, trophy and money, to hell with the mph if you have those 3. Like I said earlier, I'll take the higher mph, but not at the expense of et. He's trapping in 4th gear 7900+, so that's PART of the mph. Again, we used to call it running out of gears, but no since in going to 5th at the very top. Ideal is an VIII 4th gear in the 5speeds, but this is his daily driven car, so we're trying to get best of both worlds. More torque on the street, light to light, is better with higher torque at lower rpm. Currently using same street tune for the strip.
Car was putting down about 390whp on Mustang and trapped 121. Look at the results of other IX's (not VIII's) and compare. IX's have 1.096 4th gears, VIII's have 1.03 4th gears. That's easily 2-4mph difference in traps. I've noticed so many people comparing mph in traps but not too many comparing the other way around. Maybe another way to look at it is saying "Why do so many people have bad times for their trap speeds?". I've never seen a win light go on because one racer had a higher trap speed than another. You win when you're et is lower. Too many people hung up on trap speeds. It's only an indicator of whp IF the gearing is the same. Compare same gearing and tire height (after all, tire height affects final gear ratio) and then you can compare mph. I've looked at a lot of cars with SLOWER et's and they had higher mph. Why don't they have lower et's if their mph is so high? It's not just driving, it's AVERAGE mph from start to finish, not just trap speed.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ight=shift+5th