EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

Notices
ECU Flash

Stock 9 Tuned on 104

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:11 PM
  #16  
Former Sponsor
 
b0ostedEV08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TTP Engineering
There is way too much smoothing on that dynosheet.
It not the smoothing... it's the size of the lines...
b0ostedEV08 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:13 PM
  #17  
Former Sponsor
 
b0ostedEV08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mwbmw
Stock IX's usually get around 335whp/345wtq on our Mustang Dyno.

"Jayhawker" - what are your base numbers? How's the car running after the tune? Wanna share your numbers and mod's with the rest of us ? Put some racegas in that puppy of yours and it'll give Housedj a run for his $
Mike meant to say 235whp and 245wtrq not 335whp/345wtrq.
b0ostedEV08 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:28 PM
  #18  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Sharkbite2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,899
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 13 Posts
we made with a dyno fash very good power on my car hks exhaust,mbc,drop in K&N 375awhp/100 octane.
Sharkbite2000 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:36 PM
  #19  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
 
awddyno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
what boost?


And Max I would be interested in that map for comparison since the tune is for 104 I really couldn't use it as base. $$$??
awddyno is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:37 PM
  #20  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Sharkbite2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,899
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 13 Posts
21.5 .
Sharkbite2000 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:40 PM
  #21  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
 
awddyno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your set up is just a little different than stock reading your sig.
awddyno is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 22, 2006, 09:43 PM
  #22  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Sharkbite2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,899
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 13 Posts
thats was when i first got my evo now its a monter
Sharkbite2000 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 12:03 AM
  #23  
Evolving Member
 
Girlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Morgantown, WV
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by b0ostedEV08
Mike meant to say 235whp and 245wtrq not 335whp/345wtrq.
Thanks for the response Jason

Girlie
Girlie is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 02:08 AM
  #24  
Newbie
 
gogoevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hell yah max, thats why you pulled on mike!!
gogoevo is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 07:47 AM
  #25  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
EVOIXMR8916's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
no it was on a dynojet i believe all i know is that it a acual awd dyno....
EVOIXMR8916 is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 08:36 AM
  #26  
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
 
f-dub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by RobDogg
mustang dynometer report across the top
I was inquiring about the AMS dyno, not the Mynes. AMS has a dynojet as stated in this thread, which is the reason why the other person reported higher numbers with similar mods. Mustang dynos are known to read lower than Dynojet dynos.
f-dub is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 08:54 AM
  #27  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (51)
 
ROGERV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those are some nice #'s for a stock 9.
ROGERV is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 09:33 AM
  #28  
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Dieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by b0ostedEV08
It not the smoothing... it's the size of the lines...
Ya the size of the lines could be cause for concern but if you look at the data on the bottom of the dyno sheet it backs up what the lines are already saying so I'm not too terribly concerened about either the thickness or the smoothing of the lines.

Also, at least what I've ever seen on a Mustang Dyno, anything below a smoothing filter of 75 is never noticable from the car owners perspective. I think the difference in the lines being as smooth as they are would be negligable to say the least from 99 to 75.

But that just an opinion of mine. Good numbers Guys
Dieman is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 09:36 AM
  #29  
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Dieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by awddyno
what boost?


And Max I would be interested in that map for comparison since the tune is for 104 I really couldn't use it as base. $$$??


Side note: What car did you run 112 in makeing 280 on a mustang dyno??
Dieman is offline  
Reply Like
Old Jun 23, 2006, 09:50 AM
  #30  
Account Disabled
iTrader: (64)
 
Mike@Mynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dieman
Side note: What car did you run 112 in makeing 280 on a mustang dyno??
Clarification: the 112 is in reference to the temperature here in Arizona. The 104 is the octane of the fuel used. The actual temp inside the shop is actually lower since we have a giant fan blowing while the car is on the dyno.
Mike@Mynes is offline  
Reply Like



Advanced Search

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 PM.