Emotart....your in denial

 

I just bought gt3076r for my evo 8. Should be here next Friday 3/23/12. I will let everyone know how I do on the dyno... Just pm me

My car have the following: 280 cam shaft,cam gear,valve n spring,8:3.1 Wisco piston,Manley rod, 880cc precision injector,Walbro 255 pump,fuel rail, adjustable fuel regulator,bigger inter cooler,oil cooler,oil catch tank.....I think there more but I probably forget...

 

I'd hope you put much better numbers down than I did, since I have a 272 cam and stock motor...

 

I understand completely what your saying, but as long as the parts flow right, you can make that power with stock boost.... Tom lives 4 hours from me and if I hack a question, I'll email him and he'll get right back 2 me.

 

No reason for it to dip to 10. anything if its tuned properly, just sayin

 

i just order a garett gt3076r for my evo 8 too. it should be in this friday. i will let u know what number i will be making too.
i have fully built my car. 280 camshaft,cam gear set at 0,valve,spring and retainer,8:3.1 piston,manley rod,880cc precision injector,fuel rail,adjustable fuel regulator,bigger intercooler,stage3 act clutch,aem wideband and boost control,full 3' exhaust,test pipe....
hopefully i will get at least 450hp on 93 pump gas.....wish me luck!!!!
anyone want to know the result, just pm me.....because i dont check my forum often

 

Well, I ordered the VRSF 3.5" IC and an ETS stock route UICP. I'm going to install them and retune. I'm going to do a Virtual Dyno before the parts and then a Virtual Dyno with the parts and retuned. If I get some time, I will try to get back to the original dyno, but just replace the 2 main parts that I feel are choking the system should help quite a bit.

 

I finally got a chance to install the VSRF 3.5" IC and my ETS Stock Route UICP! I did a Virtual Dyno before I installed the parts this morning and then did one right after the parts were installed. There was NO TUNING done yet, just a before and after part install.

Here is the Virtual Dyno gave me:



The difference in weight is due to having a person in the car with me for the before and not in the after dyno. If I try to use anything other than smoothing 0 it shifts the cross over to about 4500rpms, which can't be right. This is the first time I have used Virtual Dyno, so I may not be getting it down 100% and for someone reason I couldn't get the high baud rate to work so I was stuck with the original baud rate with MitsuLogger (15600 or something like that). There is some knock around 6200rpms (where you can see the car did not like it on either graph), but only 2-3 counts for a bit.

The before dyno was close to my dyno in the first post, but there were a lot of differences in the temps of the days, fresh plugs on the mustang dyno and a few other things. The AFRs still are around 10.2-10.4 at redline, which will be tuned out when I find time. I fully expect to be at or over 400whp once the tuning is done. The before dyno was a 27psi spike, which I didn't like, and turned down after installing parts to make sure it wouldn't spike higher after the parts. The after dyno is a 25psi spike and still made roughly 11whp more, again with no tuning done to the car.

The data really shows what I was saying... I kept saying that the IC on the car was choking it up and a UICP would help with spool a bit. The car spools a tad sooner and made more power with less boost.

 

well to add, there could be many variables to your low but not holy crap low numbers. You say your ic might not flow enough, possible but doubtful, it could just be humid in the dynoroom thus heatsoaking the ic. Cant tell because half your dyno page is cut off. Personally man, I know you think its safe, im not talkin ish or judging your tuner, but like a few others have said 10.4 is rich as ****. When my car was tuned, it was hitting right around 11.0 throughout the rpm range, to top it off im running $hit 91 octane here in cali. You might not know, but .6 in air fuel depending on ambient temps could be the difference of 10 hp at least, slightly rich afr while you think is conservative is only up to a certain level. Too rich of an afr like 10.4 can lead to misfires, fouling plugs. Excessive carbon build up. I know your trying to defend your lower numbers, I guess personally to satisfy some peoples on here, go to that shop down the street, pay 40-80 to use there dynojet have them due 3 pulls for you, no tuning, with showing your boost and afr on the graph. That way with some of these people you can do an apples to apples comparison. Now for reference I still put down good #'s I made 413 hp 343 tq, pump gas on a dynojet, but ambient temps were over 100+ that day. So depending on your climate that dyno # could actually be more with cooler temps outside.
Good luck

 

The before and after dyno I posted were the old IC and stock UICP vs the new IC and ETS UICP. Clearly, the new setup flows much better as I made 11whp more at 2psi less. The Mishimoto IC is a great stock replacement, but won't be used on cars making decent power. This is something I tried to tell people, but the refused to listen, so the Virtual Dyno was used to prove my point as I knew it would.

10.4 AFR will not make the car miss or foul out the plugs like crazy. If you look at a stock Evo map the target AFRs are in the 9s. So if 10.4 was to rich and cause problems a stock Evo would be a hot mess... I also said this was just to see how the parts would react to the current tune when I posted the new graphs. I will be tuning the car and will be somewhere around 11.0 AFRs when all is said and done, now that I don't have to worry about the IC heat soaking.

 

So you and your tuner are right and everyone else is wrong? What would it take for you to admit that maybe, just maybe, people have identified a problem that is holding you back?

 

So your saying the 2 graphs showing an 11whp peak and nearly 20whp up top gain with 2 psi less boost doesn't show that the old IC was hurting the setup then yes I'm wrong... I never said the lower AFRs didn't help add to the lower numbers, but the IC was the factor that was killing the whole set up. The car will make more power at 11.0 AFRs, but I'm not going to go from 375 to 420+ hp by leaning the car out .6. I will see a much bigger gain from the IC (the 20hp more up top) than I will from leaning it out a bit. However, the Mishimoto IC was heat soaking and the added fuel was keeping the cylinder temps down to compensate. This is what kept the car safe, but now I don't have to worry about the IC heat soaking, so we can lean it out.

I am the one doing the tuning now. The only reason I wasn't tuning my car to begin with is I don't have the control to stop, but instead try to squeeze every ounce of power out of it, which can lead to bad things. I will be in a different mindset when tuning this car to prevent that, as I would like it to remain a safe DD. I will crack 400, but I doubt it will be by much.

 

your comparing 2 different dyno runs on 2 different days.... there is no way you will pick up 20whp on 2 psi less boost without even changing the tune. your only kidding yourself again

lol @ the adding fuel to cool cylinders comment.

 

The graph in post #83 are both from this morning. The blue line was before I did the install and the red line is after. Both pulls were on the same road, within about a couple hours of each other. The results from it are 11whp peak and 20whp up top (look right by the 7000rpm line). Before I installed the parts the car hit 27psi and I was not expecting that, since the car was set to 25psi for DD. So I turned it back down a bit and on the last run the car hit 25psi. If you choose not to believe the data from logs that isn't my problem.

The more power up top is due to better flow, which was the reason for the IC switch as I have said numerous times throughout this thread.

Quote above is from a respected engineer...

Quote below is from NASA Technical Reports...

LOL at your lack of knowledge of what goes on in the combustion chamber.

 

ohhhh i get it now. so you NEED a 10 afr to keep the cylinders cool enough so you dont get detonation.... look at you quoting NASA and stuff. let me go back under my rock and pretend to know about cars

oh and the dyno graph you posted is a joke. smoothing 0 and the hp and tq lines dont even cross on the graph