EVO IX - HKS 272 Dyno Numbers!!!
Those are some pretty impressive numbers.........I also found this site so you can find where 100 octane is sold! http://www.racegas.com/gt100locals/default.asp
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
Ok call me a pessimist if you want, or I guess my standards for the EVO IX are just higher, but I would have thought you would have made more power.
329WHP and 334WTQ is still quite impressive, but other IXs have made more power with less mods. I was really expecting a substantial gain from the Cam, and from this dyno I really didn't see it. I mean your 100oct numbers are also impressive at 382WHP/381WTQ, but then again another IX that Al tuned made 375WHP/381WTQ on 100oct with just a catback exhaust, intake, MBC, and Dyno Flash and this was at 24.5PSI. I am just trying to figure out why numbers are lower than expected. I know that the two dynojets (Pruven and Top Speed) could read differently, but I didn't know they read that differently. I mean don't get me wrong, 382WHP/381WTQ is no joke, but on 100oct and 26PSI (for an EVO IX with his mods), I would have easily expected more than 400WHP on a Dyno Jet. Maybe the gain from the one Cam isn't as I high I expected. Sorry to bring this up, but I plan to buy a IX in the next couple of months, and plan to modify soon after purchase. I was thinking of going with the Exhaust Cam, but the gains don't seem to be as impressive as I thought, and I think I may just wait till HKS releases the Cams for the IX.
329WHP and 334WTQ is still quite impressive, but other IXs have made more power with less mods. I was really expecting a substantial gain from the Cam, and from this dyno I really didn't see it. I mean your 100oct numbers are also impressive at 382WHP/381WTQ, but then again another IX that Al tuned made 375WHP/381WTQ on 100oct with just a catback exhaust, intake, MBC, and Dyno Flash and this was at 24.5PSI. I am just trying to figure out why numbers are lower than expected. I know that the two dynojets (Pruven and Top Speed) could read differently, but I didn't know they read that differently. I mean don't get me wrong, 382WHP/381WTQ is no joke, but on 100oct and 26PSI (for an EVO IX with his mods), I would have easily expected more than 400WHP on a Dyno Jet. Maybe the gain from the one Cam isn't as I high I expected. Sorry to bring this up, but I plan to buy a IX in the next couple of months, and plan to modify soon after purchase. I was thinking of going with the Exhaust Cam, but the gains don't seem to be as impressive as I thought, and I think I may just wait till HKS releases the Cams for the IX.
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
Oh yeah before people start jumping on my case, I am no way questioning the tuning of Al. What I am questioning is the gains of adding an EVO VIII Exhaust Cam on a IX. This is the reason for this thread. My opinion is that he saw little to no gain with the EVO VIII Exhaust Cam.
Originally Posted by 3000ways
Ok call me a pessimist if you want, or I guess my standards for the EVO IX are just higher, but I would have thought you would have made more power.
329WHP and 334WTQ is still quite impressive, but other IXs have made more power with less mods. I was really expecting a substantial gain from the Cam, and from this dyno I really didn't see it. I mean your 100oct numbers are also impressive at 382WHP/381WTQ, but then again another IX that Al tuned made 375WHP/381WTQ on 100oct with just a catback exhaust, intake, MBC, and Dyno Flash and this was at 24.5PSI. I am just trying to figure out why numbers are lower than expected. I know that the two dynojets (Pruven and Top Speed) could read differently, but I didn't know they read that differently. I mean don't get me wrong, 382WHP/381WTQ is no joke, but on 100oct and 26PSI (for an EVO IX with his mods), I would have easily expected more than 400WHP on a Dyno Jet. Maybe the gain from the one Cam isn't as I high I expected. Sorry to bring this up, but I plan to buy a IX in the next couple of months, and plan to modify soon after purchase. I was thinking of going with the Exhaust Cam, but the gains don't seem to be as impressive as I thought, and I think I may just wait till HKS releases the Cams for the IX.
329WHP and 334WTQ is still quite impressive, but other IXs have made more power with less mods. I was really expecting a substantial gain from the Cam, and from this dyno I really didn't see it. I mean your 100oct numbers are also impressive at 382WHP/381WTQ, but then again another IX that Al tuned made 375WHP/381WTQ on 100oct with just a catback exhaust, intake, MBC, and Dyno Flash and this was at 24.5PSI. I am just trying to figure out why numbers are lower than expected. I know that the two dynojets (Pruven and Top Speed) could read differently, but I didn't know they read that differently. I mean don't get me wrong, 382WHP/381WTQ is no joke, but on 100oct and 26PSI (for an EVO IX with his mods), I would have easily expected more than 400WHP on a Dyno Jet. Maybe the gain from the one Cam isn't as I high I expected. Sorry to bring this up, but I plan to buy a IX in the next couple of months, and plan to modify soon after purchase. I was thinking of going with the Exhaust Cam, but the gains don't seem to be as impressive as I thought, and I think I may just wait till HKS releases the Cams for the IX.
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
No congrats for the Cam, when the main purpose of this thread, was to see what gains could be made with a EVO VIII HKS Exhaust Cam on the EVO IX. We all know the potential of the IX, these numbers are nothing new, but considering the topic of the thread is the Cam, I find it very disappointing that little to know gain was made with the Cam. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if he actually lost some power. Instead of throwing out congrats, perhaps we should warn EVO IX owners and potential EVO IX owners that it is possible that the VIII Cam does nothing for the IX and not to waist their money. Atleast more research and testing needs to be done on the Exhaust Cam and IX. Who knows when HKS plans to release the Cams for the IX, could be a month, could be a year.
Originally Posted by evolee23
i thought that on the IX cams wern't necessary since it has mivec ?? what made you decide on cams ... and was it a big difference ?
MIVEC doesn't make cams unnecessary. MIVEC has made cams a roadblock, because the cams from the VIIIs can't be reused in the IX. However, since the MIVEC only affects the intake cam, people have been able to switch in an aftermarket exhaust cam. Since the full cam set for the IXs hasn't been released, people are seeing if there are any gains with just an VIII exhaust cam, not CAMS (HKS 272 in this case).
In this case, there doesn't seem to be any gain from the cam, though, since we've seen a IX already do 340whp/329wtq with 93oct on that same dyno tuned by the same guys (TopSpeed) and with the stock cat still in place...
I think you could squizz out a little more hp if you had adjustable cam gear to tune out the duration of the cam.
Nice numbers by the way..Haven't made up my mind of which EMS route I wanna take.
Nice numbers by the way..Haven't made up my mind of which EMS route I wanna take.
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
From: Alpharetta, GA
Oh wow people -
I go through all this trouble and you only look at PEAK POWER. Warrtalon was the only one to really disipher these graphs.
Let me break it down for you -
Why do you think I posted the EVO IX no mods v. EVO IX with mods? The whole point was to show that peak torque only change by +7lbs while peak hp increased by +30hp. No big torque gain right?
WRONG
Now if you REALLY LOOK at that graph - notice WHAT THE 272 CAM does do - and that's fatten up the mid range. Look at how my modded IX holds the torque past 5K rpm - while the non-modded IX torque drops off. This is where the 272 Cam shines. NOT in peak numbers - but in midrange.
On the road course - I need midrange. Not peak power.
Now - another exercise. Look at the 100ct map. Notice how much the torque drops off from peak?
Can anyone - besides Warrtalon explain why this is happening?
I go through all this trouble and you only look at PEAK POWER. Warrtalon was the only one to really disipher these graphs.
Let me break it down for you -
Why do you think I posted the EVO IX no mods v. EVO IX with mods? The whole point was to show that peak torque only change by +7lbs while peak hp increased by +30hp. No big torque gain right?
WRONG
Now if you REALLY LOOK at that graph - notice WHAT THE 272 CAM does do - and that's fatten up the mid range. Look at how my modded IX holds the torque past 5K rpm - while the non-modded IX torque drops off. This is where the 272 Cam shines. NOT in peak numbers - but in midrange.
On the road course - I need midrange. Not peak power.
Now - another exercise. Look at the 100ct map. Notice how much the torque drops off from peak?
Can anyone - besides Warrtalon explain why this is happening?
330whp/334wtq on pump gas seems off a bit. Don't get me wrong I bet the car pulls like crazy but maybe the cam "hurt" a bit. I would like to see EVO IX specific cams to see how it would compare.
Originally Posted by SmokinJoe
Oh wow people -
I go through all this trouble and you only look at PEAK POWER. Warrtalon was the only one to really disipher these graphs.
Let me break it down for you -
Why do you think I posted the EVO IX no mods v. EVO IX with mods? The whole point was to show that peak torque only change by +7lbs while peak hp increased by +30hp. No big torque gain right?
WRONG
Now if you REALLY LOOK at that graph - notice WHAT THE 272 CAM does do - and that's fatten up the mid range. Look at how my modded IX holds the torque past 5K rpm - while the non-modded IX torque drops off. This is where the 272 Cam shines. NOT in peak numbers - but in midrange.
On the road course - I need midrange. Not peak power.
Now - another exercise. Look at the 100ct map. Notice how much the torque drops off from peak?
Can anyone - besides Warrtalon explain why this is happening?
I go through all this trouble and you only look at PEAK POWER. Warrtalon was the only one to really disipher these graphs.
Let me break it down for you -
Why do you think I posted the EVO IX no mods v. EVO IX with mods? The whole point was to show that peak torque only change by +7lbs while peak hp increased by +30hp. No big torque gain right?
WRONG
Now if you REALLY LOOK at that graph - notice WHAT THE 272 CAM does do - and that's fatten up the mid range. Look at how my modded IX holds the torque past 5K rpm - while the non-modded IX torque drops off. This is where the 272 Cam shines. NOT in peak numbers - but in midrange.
On the road course - I need midrange. Not peak power.
Now - another exercise. Look at the 100ct map. Notice how much the torque drops off from peak?
Can anyone - besides Warrtalon explain why this is happening?
Originally Posted by SmokinJoe
I go through all this trouble and you only look at PEAK POWER.
Let me break it down for you -
Why do you think I posted the EVO IX no mods v. EVO IX with mods? The whole point was to show that peak torque only change by +7lbs while peak hp increased by +30hp. No big torque gain right?
WRONG
Now if you REALLY LOOK at that graph - notice WHAT THE 272 CAM does do - and that's fatten up the mid range. Look at how my modded IX holds the torque past 5K rpm - while the non-modded IX torque drops off. This is where the 272 Cam shines. NOT in peak numbers - but in midrange.
On the road course - I need midrange. Not peak power.
Let me break it down for you -
Why do you think I posted the EVO IX no mods v. EVO IX with mods? The whole point was to show that peak torque only change by +7lbs while peak hp increased by +30hp. No big torque gain right?
WRONG
Now if you REALLY LOOK at that graph - notice WHAT THE 272 CAM does do - and that's fatten up the mid range. Look at how my modded IX holds the torque past 5K rpm - while the non-modded IX torque drops off. This is where the 272 Cam shines. NOT in peak numbers - but in midrange.
On the road course - I need midrange. Not peak power.
and after a little more tuning:
btw, I applaud you on trying something new.
Last edited by razorlab; Jan 20, 2006 at 11:27 AM.