it's hard to say by looking at that, I see the tq rise up pretty well mid range then taper off...could be related to your boost taper. How's the tune look? no knock?

 

Thanks for the comment Chris, the tune is a work in progress that I´m doing. There is no knock and this is the very first pull with lean spool on. I´m still working on calibrating the Maf to make the AFR more stable (with LS off). I´ll do some more pulls when time permits and make a new thread if still get funny results like this. I find weird to have a torque peak at around 4200 rpm (which looks normal) and then have another higher peak at around 5800 rpm.

Here´s the data from that pull (I couldn´t upload it in any other format).

Thanks,

Ricardo

 

yeah the tune looks fine, nothing odd going on that I noticed, everything looks linear as far as load. I have seen a few cars that had upgraded wastegates that caused humps like that but unless you're seeing the boost peak, fall and peak again this probably isn't your issue.

you could try a pull in 4th or 5th gear to put more load to the clutch and see if it's slipping more easily.

 

Sorry if this has been answered, but does it support AEM logs ?

 

Yes it supports AEM logs ... or should. If you are having problems let me know.

 

I was talking to Tom Takase about running his aem log through, he did around 800awhp on the dyno, it would be a good comparison

 

Im all ears mellon.

 

Just want to know if this log is a realistic dynojet result.
Here are the mods:

Jam stroker 2.3L w\o Balance shaft
Hks 264\264
Greddy adjustable cam gears
Brian crower valve spring and reteiner
Injen intake
Injen UIP \ lICP
Unknown 2.75 inch downpipe
Injen 3 inch test pipe
Injen 3 inch cat back
Stock evo 8 turbo 9.8 hotside
Stock intercooler

 

do the numbers stay similar at smoothing 20? im sure it is legit its a 2.3L

 

somewhat similar 361hp@5700rpm and 387tq at 4100rpm, thanks!

 

yes thats accurate then at smoothing 3.

 

Ok, thanks!

 

Hi Brad, thanks for your great software! I am using version 1.0.6 and have a question: The CF of 1.09 for Dynojet is regarded as accurate, what I wonder is why the CF for Mustang Dyno is 0.90... After what dyno is it modeled? Cause its a 19% difference with the accurate Dynojet CF and makes it a real heartbreaker.

I ask this because I´ve read some experienced tuners mention the difference between Dynojet and Mustang dyno to be around 8 - 10% most of the time when compared between realiable dynos.

Thanks again,

Ricardo

 

Most people put the stingy buchur dyno at ~ 13% less than a dynojet. The problem is that mustang dynos can be adjusted by the operator so there's no rule of thumb.

 

well ... i would start by saying that most all dynos are accurate. If you are using them to show the difference in before and after mods. Dynos arent made to show peak numbers on a one time run. This is a HUGE misconception thats out there in the automotive world. I realize this program is mostly used improperly but to accomodate that I have modeled the numbers closely with SEVERAL Dynojet dynos and the average of them works pretty well. The Mustang dynos are all over the place, so an average of a few of them were used. Know that MD can be adjusted and are all over the place.