this results are really surprising to me because the EIP Mustang reads very conservatively. I'm stunned that you achieved this on the stock exhaust. The numbers would seem perfect if you had a full turboback, but since you're using the stock system I dont know where Paul found that other 30whp. Most IX's hit around 270whp on a MD or DD with just a tune/mbc. Yours must be super strong I guess? Hmmm

 

Insane..but did you pay for a 12 hour tune?

 

I need to get paul to get me another printout. max hp/tq readings don't necessary tell the whole tale, because as they say its the area below the curve that matters.

apex- agreed on your point, but what i was saying is his torque is about 20 ft/lb short of typical moded ix numbers, hence i would like to see the avg. numbers , dyno graph itself.

 

No. I paid his flat rate for a tune, and a no-pay guarantee if he couldn't get at least 30whp more out of the car.

 

Yes, the normal dyno printout that EIP gives doesn't have the max/average/low readings . The test report with trace lines and AFR do, like this:

http://www.norcalmotorsports.org/use...ynochart02.jpg

As far as peak trq numbers. It really varies car to car, tune to tune and setup to setup. Stock turbos spool fast so the peak boost is in the motors torque efficiency range. Some tuners like to put more timing in the peak torque range then others which creates more torque. Some run bigger boost. It really depends.

 

uh huh..


anyhow...as i said, i'd like to see the avg hp and tq, since that will tell the real tale...

 

What the hell is your problem ST? When did I say anything like that?

I was basically telling you why some 4G63's have higher torque, or lower torque, or the same torque as HP. I wasn't projecting anything like you are. How long have you been around 4G63's? How long have you been tuning them? Have you tuned them at all?

 

+1

 

Dood, you are tripping...i was just asking you to explain yourself and put a summary to whatever supposition you were making. i know you're good at doing that even with the slightest of info. It does not matter how long i've been around
4g63's, but when someone is just blathering stuff left and right without a point, it just sort of convolutes the issue in general.

cliff notes for you: you have great background, no doubt....why not put a summary on what you think?

my point was simple: peak torq / hp numbers don't mean much, avg. means more and that his pk tq was a little lower than modded ones (maybe thats the main benefit of tbe?)....i don't need to know pound my chest about 4g63's to make those simple derivations, but hey this is the intarweb isn't it?

 

It looks normal to me with his mods. You're the one tripping. I give you info and you think I'm attacking you.

Just because I told you that I thought you where a little cry baby about the rust on norcalevo, doesn't mean you have to be butt hurt about it on this board. Get over it.

 

haha the rust issue, if u think ur comments had one iota of bearing on this topic, you are really full of yourself..lol, the people from last night's meet were dead on about you..

anyhow, for someone so perceptive, i'm surprised you didnt the least mention about avg hp / tq .... i'm as curious as anybody and do value your (somewhat convaluted) response, especially being all 4g63 knowledgable and all! Give us more than some ambiguous safe response man!

 

Mention what about avg hp/tq? Area under the curve? Tuning 101, class opens next week.

 

epeen 102 - u win

 

Good, now I can buy you a beer. Tell me when.

 

Okey dokey kids, quit it.
My other plot says, for averages, 58hp, 119tq. Quite a bit below razorlabs, but then he's making more than 20 hp more peak as well. I certainly think there's room for improvement on my tune- but it's quite a good start... Maybe when you all see my graphs you'll start laughing about it being a dyno queen. I would like to see the tq hold on a little longer up top.