DYNO results, can gurus chime in?
Sorry if my post was confusing.
I must have skipped over the part where he said he got a custom tune, i see it now. At first i didn't see that, and was thinking he wasn't tuned at all because of the numbers he put down, but then i saw the graph and got confused. I now know he just got a shotty custom tune.
I was saying the tune didn't have a good balance; boost wasn't high enough, power was low, AFR's were high, etc. A "good balance" in his case would be 21-23 octane, 300+ numbers, mid 11's AFR's. Yes AFR's are high, for a DD, but many would run those AFR's at the track for a couple passes.
Yes i was talking about the "unsmoothness" of the graph. It is odvious that something is happening up top, which seems to be timing being pulled due to detonation. I figured spark plugs may be causing the issue also. I know dynoJet graphs on stock turbos look like that, but he has some pretty sizable dips up top.
I must have skipped over the part where he said he got a custom tune, i see it now. At first i didn't see that, and was thinking he wasn't tuned at all because of the numbers he put down, but then i saw the graph and got confused. I now know he just got a shotty custom tune.
I was saying the tune didn't have a good balance; boost wasn't high enough, power was low, AFR's were high, etc. A "good balance" in his case would be 21-23 octane, 300+ numbers, mid 11's AFR's. Yes AFR's are high, for a DD, but many would run those AFR's at the track for a couple passes.
Yes i was talking about the "unsmoothness" of the graph. It is odvious that something is happening up top, which seems to be timing being pulled due to detonation. I figured spark plugs may be causing the issue also. I know dynoJet graphs on stock turbos look like that, but he has some pretty sizable dips up top.
Originally Posted by Soon2BEVO
Im not sure what he's talking about either. That graph has smoothing at 5 and its still nowhere close to smooth. This car needs to be retuned ASAP. Lower AFR's and more boost is needed.
From what i see it looks like you are saying that this graph is too rough.
I'm lost.
Ok, I took the files and put them into WinPep. Seeing it in the big screen with the ability to stretch out the AFR scale shows new info. This tune is not bad at all at least in terms of the AFRs. It has lean spool, which is correct, then it fattens up in the mid-range to the mid-11s, then it leans out a little up top. This is similar to Dynoflash's technique, and it works. However, there is a spot from 4-5k that is too lean - no lower than 11.9 - that shows a subsequent dip in power. Also, although it's not as lean as we thought, I would still rather see 11.3-11.5s on such a hot day rather than 11.6-11.9s.
When I overlay his two best files, the richer one makes less peak tq and less pk WHP, but it has just as much total area under the curve with a much more conservative AFR. I think it should stay at the AFRs on run #5 with a simultaneous raise in boost to 19psi.
EN, please get on AIM and IM me (if you use AIM). I have a lot to say in response to your PM that you will want to hear. It would take too long to hash out over PMs.
When I overlay his two best files, the richer one makes less peak tq and less pk WHP, but it has just as much total area under the curve with a much more conservative AFR. I think it should stay at the AFRs on run #5 with a simultaneous raise in boost to 19psi.
EN, please get on AIM and IM me (if you use AIM). I have a lot to say in response to your PM that you will want to hear. It would take too long to hash out over PMs.
Originally Posted by KOEvo
That means you are disagreeing with Scorke, Scorke was saying it is as smooth as every other DynoJet graph.
From what i see it looks like you are saying that this graph is too rough.
I'm lost.
From what i see it looks like you are saying that this graph is too rough.
I'm lost.
Looking at the chart and not having access to my dynojet viewer your numbers looks low because you ar not boosting where you should be. What do you mean that the boost controller was set to 19? Is that peak boost? How far does it taper down by redline? Usually 1 psi of additional boost equals 10 hp. Most people set their boost at 22 psi peak on 93 octane gas and then it tapers down to 17-17.5. That is around 25-30 extra hp that you are missing due to low boost. That extra hp will put you around 300 hp. That is what my car did with a tune and TBE and panel filter running on 91 octane gas.
Was the shop unable to set your boost any higher than this? If that is the case, then you have a boost leak. My 05 EVO will boost to 21.xx peak w/o a boost controller and a TBE with HFC. This is logged with a MAP sensor and not with an inaccurate gauge.
Your AFR is not too lean because AFR at the tailpipe is generally reads leaner than AFR at the downpipe where it should be read. If you are at 12.0 at the tailpipe, then you are around 11.6 at the downpipe. This is acceptable on 93 cotane gas, but I would prefer to keep my AFR around 11.2-11.3 even on 93 octane gas.
Was the shop unable to set your boost any higher than this? If that is the case, then you have a boost leak. My 05 EVO will boost to 21.xx peak w/o a boost controller and a TBE with HFC. This is logged with a MAP sensor and not with an inaccurate gauge.
Your AFR is not too lean because AFR at the tailpipe is generally reads leaner than AFR at the downpipe where it should be read. If you are at 12.0 at the tailpipe, then you are around 11.6 at the downpipe. This is acceptable on 93 cotane gas, but I would prefer to keep my AFR around 11.2-11.3 even on 93 octane gas.
Last edited by nj1266; Jul 13, 2006 at 11:49 AM.
Now That I am home I can use winpep to compare dynos. I loaded my best 91 octane dyno run and your best dyno run. I set both corrections to SDT and mxed the smoothing. That is the beauty of correction factors. It allows us to keep temps, altitudes and humidity constant. The only variable now is the car and the dyno.
IMO, your tune is FINE. The problem, as I suspected, is your boost. For some reason your boost was set too low. Notice that the difference between my car and yours in power at 7k is 24 hp. If your peak boost was set at 19 and assuming that your boost is tapering 3 psi by 7k, then you are at 16 psi by 7k. My car is at 18psi at 7k. That is why I have higher hp.
Please do not go raising your boost before you find out why your boost was set low to begin with. Talk to your tuner and ask him why the boost was set @ 19 when most Evo running 93 octane set it @ 22. It is possible that he set it that low because he tuned your AFR at 12 rather than at 11.5:1. So he is doing the lower boost higher AFR strategy. Shiv does that with his off the shelf maps. The boost is lower than it should be but the AFR is higher. It is also possible that you had knock and he backed off the boost.
The last variable in all is is your timing. We need to know what your timing is. To do that you need to get a pocket logger and log it with a PDA then post it so we can see it.
IMO, your tune is FINE. The problem, as I suspected, is your boost. For some reason your boost was set too low. Notice that the difference between my car and yours in power at 7k is 24 hp. If your peak boost was set at 19 and assuming that your boost is tapering 3 psi by 7k, then you are at 16 psi by 7k. My car is at 18psi at 7k. That is why I have higher hp.
Please do not go raising your boost before you find out why your boost was set low to begin with. Talk to your tuner and ask him why the boost was set @ 19 when most Evo running 93 octane set it @ 22. It is possible that he set it that low because he tuned your AFR at 12 rather than at 11.5:1. So he is doing the lower boost higher AFR strategy. Shiv does that with his off the shelf maps. The boost is lower than it should be but the AFR is higher. It is also possible that you had knock and he backed off the boost.
The last variable in all is is your timing. We need to know what your timing is. To do that you need to get a pocket logger and log it with a PDA then post it so we can see it.
He was told not to touch his boost but not told why. NJ, you repeated just about everything I said: raise boost 2-3psi and add a little fuel.
And for the 10th time, using the same CF does NOT make things equal. It does not accurately correct for turbo'd cars.
And for the 10th time, using the same CF does NOT make things equal. It does not accurately correct for turbo'd cars.
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
And for the 10th time, using the same CF does NOT make things equal. It does not accurately correct for turbo'd cars.
Originally Posted by nj1266
Let us just agree to disagree on this. We both said what we had to say on this in prior threads. Let us leave it at that
Sea level SAE:
Mile High SAE:
The power I made on a dynojet at ~19psi was about 5whp and 5wtq higher then you, but it was 45degree when I dynoed. I then installed a boost controller set to 21-22psi and trapped 108-109 all day long.
If you were to add 2-3lbs like the others have said and add some fuel my bet would be you would put down ~290whp.
If you were to add 2-3lbs like the others have said and add some fuel my bet would be you would put down ~290whp.
Originally Posted by KOEvo
FWIW, you should be aiming WAY higher then 280 whp/tq.
I thought it looked like he was either detonating, or breaking up from plugs up there.
Get a new tune.
Warr, will you please link me to a thread or something that explains why raising the boost will lower AFR's; this is the second time i have seen you say it, and i'm confused.
I thought it looked like he was either detonating, or breaking up from plugs up there.
Get a new tune.
Warr, will you please link me to a thread or something that explains why raising the boost will lower AFR's; this is the second time i have seen you say it, and i'm confused.
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Ok, then here's my corrected numbers with no change in mods...yeah, they're just right!!!
I understand the philosophies of correction factors, but isn't it F'd up for turbo cars because of constantly changing boost levels? That would seem to turn the SAE correction on it's head...