Notices
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results Discuss vendor and member dyno tuning techniques, results and graphs.

First tune for my IX

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 18, 2010 | 03:56 PM
  #16  
UgmWRX's Avatar
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: So Cal
wow that's great results for such minimal mods. Nice!
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2010 | 04:21 PM
  #17  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
Originally Posted by RSMike
Yeah, I forgot about them. I had their FMIC on my old 2G dsm. Good stuff and quite a bit cheaper than AMS.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2010 | 04:26 PM
  #18  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
Originally Posted by UgmWRX
wow that's great results for such minimal mods. Nice!
Thanks! I was surprised. My best friend has an 04 STi, he was pi*sed when he saw the numbers. He has the same mods and didn't quite hit 300 hp... At ton of torque though. His car is stupid fast out of corners.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2010 | 05:07 PM
  #19  
Svendiesel's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 3
From: Teh internets.
Originally Posted by apexnine
What company would you go with? I looked at the AMS setup... That's a 4 inch core. Wouldn't that be overkill for a stock turbo? Is E85 bad on anything longterm?
Nope E85 has not shown to have any adverse longterm affects, except wanting more and more power lol.

A 4" intercooler core shouldnt be too much for the stock turbo at all. Most do a 3.5" core, but a 4" shouldnt hurt.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2010 | 05:25 PM
  #20  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
Originally Posted by Svendiesel
Nope E85 has not shown to have any adverse longterm affects, except wanting more and more power lol.

A 4" intercooler core shouldnt be too much for the stock turbo at all. Most do a 3.5" core, but a 4" shouldnt hurt.
I guess with the 4" I'll be ready for FP red in the future...
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2010 | 01:28 PM
  #21  
cartuner08's Avatar
Newbie
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: hampton, va
If you go with E85, make sure you have it available to you
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2010 | 09:15 PM
  #22  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
I only have one station that has it in my sh*tty little town.
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2010 | 09:21 PM
  #23  
tro0xazn's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: california
Definitely consider e85! You won't regret it hahaha .. Really nice numbers I'm curious what you'd make with an ethanol tune
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 08:29 AM
  #24  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
Thanks! Going off what I've heard, should be around 400 and 400...

It blows my mind that a 2 liter car on a stock turbo is capable of this...
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 10:34 AM
  #25  
rush63's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (42)
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
From: 1,643 miles Southwest of IveyTune
Originally Posted by apexnine
1.2
This ^^^

Originally Posted by apexnine
Thanks! I was surprised. My best friend has an 04 STi, he was pi*sed when he saw the numbers. He has the same mods and didn't quite hit 300 hp... At ton of torque though. His car is stupid fast out of corners.
Good luck on your future mods though
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 02:10 PM
  #26  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
Originally Posted by rush63
This ^^^



Good luck on your future mods though
What should the correction factor be then?
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 03:27 PM
  #27  
iicemanr6's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: Geneva, NY
shouldnt use a correction factor if you want true numbers. I have a similar set up and I put down alot less, granted it was on a mustang dyno but with no correction factor.
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 05:05 PM
  #28  
apexnine's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Nebraska
Originally Posted by iicemanr6
shouldnt use a correction factor if you want true numbers. I have a similar set up and I put down alot less, granted it was on a mustang dyno but with no correction factor.
You also lack the IX turbo and MIVEC. Hmm. I would like to know what my true numbers are then since these seem to be inflated. This was how they tuned it. I will ask them next time.
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 05:34 PM
  #29  
Boosted Tuning's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,383
Likes: 8
From: Chico, CA (Nor-Cal)
Originally Posted by apexnine
You also lack the IX turbo and MIVEC. Hmm. I would like to know what my true numbers are then since these seem to be inflated. This was how they tuned it. I will ask them next time.
If 1.2 correction was used and you got 342, then your non-correction number was 285.

285 X 1.2 = 342
Reply
Old Jul 25, 2010 | 06:52 PM
  #30  
rush63's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (42)
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
From: 1,643 miles Southwest of IveyTune
Originally Posted by apexnine
What should the correction factor be then?
341.46 / 1.2 = 248.55. Pretty low for your mods and boost.

Originally Posted by Boosted Tuning
If 1.2 correction was used and you got 342, then your non-correction number was 285.

285 X 1.2 = 342
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 PM.