I recently installed a IX turbo on my 05 and wanted to see what the results would be. Before the turbo I had my car tuned at TT and the numbers were disappointing: 314whp/307wtq (sorry, can't find the sheet). I'm pretty determined, so I looked in to potential problems and fixed or checked them as best as I could (checked boost leaks, tried new gas, new plugs, compression test).

This Saturday I got my car tuned at AMSTuning. The results show increases one would expect of a IX turbo on an VIII (+16whp, but only +3 wtq). Since they are using a Dyno I'm unfamiliar with I decided to go to ISP and baseline my car on their dyno to determine any variances (they have a Dynojet). The results in power were near identical, but what was abvious was that my torque curves differed significantly and my AFRs were WAY OFF.


It was a little disheartening to see that where I thought I had a fairly rich run turned out to be super lean. ISP datalogued my car and as you can see below my knock counts were down right seismic. I have no idea how these AFR numbers could have been so off from each other, but the plugs didn't lie. They showed some serious detonation.


I am curious and must consult with my previous tuner about that. What I was searching for was a comparative sheet between two different dynos. I wanted to share my progress with Evom because I feel it is beneficial to the community. I am disappointed as to why my car just doesn't want to make any power. I'm nearing the realization that I must accept this as fact and be happy with what I have. I'm just getting tired of trying to parallel numbers others have with similar mods. Maybe if I decided to go with a bigger setup my numbers will "even out" and I'll be right up there with everyone else. My goal was never to have a dyno to brag about, but to make what I should with what I have. Doesn't that seem reasonable? And If a car doesn't put the same numbers as a similar setup it's natural to look for a problem and I did.

This in NO WAY is a bash against any tuner. Few people on this site know me, but the ones who do know I'm not that kind of person. I just want to share some info and here it is. Mods listed at bottom. RunFiles attached

















05 Evo MR
Catless DC Sport 2-1 w/ Apexi N1 catback
Comp 272s
BR Ported/coated stock Mani/10.5 w/Ebay O2
Hallman MBC set @ 22PSI 93Octane
IX stock Turbo
Walbro
Forge RS

 

I would recommend 720cc injectors, SAFC and a flash.

 

05 Evo GSR, why did you say that? I don't see how that suggestion makes any sense.

Anyway, thank you very much for this data, Exciting News. We have proof that the Dynomite at AMS-T does in fact read just like a Dynojet and not like a Mustang Dyno. I do not know why they would make that claim and make Evo Police believe that. He even said that he did not believe they would lead him astray, so he was going to believe their dyno read like a Mustang Dyno until otherwise proven. Well, it's now been otherwise proven.

The other huge issue is the whole AFR thing. On Evo Police's dynograph, his AFRs were in the 12s, and they told us that the tailpipe sniffer they use reads a whole point high. I was very skeptical of that, but I didn't push that issue. Now, we have your car that instead of being tuned to the low 12 AFRs according to their wideband, it says you were tuned in the high 10s???? Yet, you go to another dyno right afterwards and register 13s across the board? There had to be some sort of major malfunction or something. Also, this is the second Evo to go to ISP and somehow have a majorly lean AFRs even though the car was tuned in the conservative 11s. I can't think of how this is possible. Even if AMS messed up, I don't see how they could possible tune you into the mid 13s without knowing it. I mean, if they custom tuned you, then they obviously were watching AFRs, timing, and knock, so I don't see how it's possible for them to miss those signs other than them being brand new to tuning Evos...

Also, isn't your retune by Brad still quite lean? I wouldn't think he'd tune you right at 12.0 for the majority of the powerband...

 

why would you need a SAFC when you are getting flashed??

 

I do have one curiousity. I have done plenty of searching and it seems most mild boost (20-23PSI) guys are making whp and wtq within a few points of each other. Anyone have an opinion as to why mine are skewed like that?

 

Exciting News, I will take a look at your run files when I get back on my PC and do some analysis.

First of all, I just noticed that again, AMS-T's weird Dynomite is showing extremely late spool - about 1000rpm late, so something is wrong with that thing. On you ISP dynosheet, even though it's on speed (highly annoying) instead of RPM, you can tell that the peak torque point is way earlier than at AMS. This means to me that AMS hasn't figured out how to use their dyno yet...or maybe not sure how to load it properly.

As for your wtq being lower than whp, boost makes all the difference. You can't lump 20-23 all together, because the difference in 20 and 23 is about 30wtq. At 20psi, you typically see 10-20 less peak wtq than whp, but at 23, you typically see about 10 more wtq than whp. If you are definitely running a MAP-sensor proven 22psi or higher, then the lack of torque would be due to weak timing at peak torque or not enough lean spool.

 

You need to mess with your cam gears. Do you have a cat?

 

Gotcha. My guess about the late torque was that they weren't mashing the throttle. I admit to my ignorance but when ISP did their pull the RPMs went up like WOT, wereas it seemed Mike was build RPMs slower and steadier like a roll on instead of a pedal stomp if that makes sense. Don't know if that helps or is relevant.

 

Catless and no cam gears. Was told they weren't a "difference maker" with 272s.

 

I read your post wrong. I thought you only made 314 at ISP. I see you made 330 so that's good. I would throw in another boost gauge to see if theres a difference. Btw, cam gears made a difference for me but I have 280's.

 

so looks like pretty much, the only reason IX's make more power with fewer $$ is because of their turbo? fair conclusion? I sorta spark-notes'd this so sorry if I'm blatantly missing something.

 

No, the MIVEC helps with mid-range torque and earlier spoolup. Also, the coolant passages in the head allow for more boost for a given octane, so they can go ape shlt on boost while we VIIIs have to keep it reasonable. Yes, improved turbo also allows them to make more power at the SAME boost level, but when you add all 3 advantages, you get a significantly better powerplant.

 

...

 

Interesting post. I myself was supposed to go to ISP today and check out there dynojet. I was unable to go. However, I did make arrangements to go to DTM in Dulles, VA. I just found out that the dyno they are using is the same exact mustang dyno that I had my previous tuning on. Once I go to DTM and get my car on there dyno, I will post my old graphs and the new graphs that I will receive from Mike and Nick at DTM.

Not trying to thread jack with my plans, just trying to provide more information for are forum members like Exciting News is demonstrating.

My goal is to basically show a clear and concise fact of what the evo 9 20g tme 6 blade does for my car.

 

Evo Police, I think one very good thing for you is that Exciting News's results show that your TME 20G most likely DOES NOT take all the way to 5k rpm to hit peak torque. Since his was about 1000rpm off, yours is probably the same, which would mean a 4000rpm peak torque for the 20g at around the 380-400whp mark, which is way way better than what we were thinking after seeing your dynosheet.

Cory (or Mike), why did you mention ISP bashing you? I didn't see any comments from them in this thread.