Cosworth Cams + 2.3 Stroker Dyno Graph
We've already confirmed that it reads just like a Dynojet, so these numbers are not impressive at all. In fact, for the money spent, these are extremely UNIMPRESSIVE. My stock cammed, stock motor'd 05 made 341whp/361wtq on alky with peak torque only 200rpm later than this stroked, cammed IX. So, alky for $500 or a IX + 2.3 + cams for even LESS power? Easy call there.
I tried to tell AMS Tuning via PMs that these numbers were not good at all and certainly not "terrific" as they claim, but they just laughed. Oh well...
I tried to tell AMS Tuning via PMs that these numbers were not good at all and certainly not "terrific" as they claim, but they just laughed. Oh well...
For you guys asking about the dyno, AMS Tuning is a sponsor of DC Evo Club and has its own forum on our local board. There are many dynos posted up there on the same dyno if you want to make comparisons -- almost stock, bolt-ons, big turbos, etc. Check out:
http://forums.dcevoclub.com/showthread.php?t=5904
http://forums.dcevoclub.com/showthread.php?t=5904
For you guys asking about the dyno, AMS Tuning is a sponsor of DC Evo Club and has its own forum on our local board. There are many dynos posted up there on the same dyno if you want to make comparisons -- almost stock, bolt-ons, big turbos, etc. Check out:
http://forums.dcevoclub.com/showthread.php?t=5904
http://forums.dcevoclub.com/showthread.php?t=5904
just checked that link...and compared to the numbers this stroked/cammed nine makes...it is EXTREMELY unimpressive...
check this out!! (taken from the link):
the above graph is for a "2006 Evo 9 MR, Atlantic Flashed, Alcohol, 28psi, TBE, EBC,"
for more graphs....click on the DC evo club...you will be dissappointed with the OPs numbers :S
no no..you dont get my point...i am arguing in favor of the GSCs..i am saying that they put close numbers to those in this post without a stroker..just their S1s and the whole nine yards of bolt ons+flash...
please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
Thread Starter
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (9)
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
Guys, you are comparing 28-30 psi alcohol runs on modified Evos to a what is basically a stock 9 with a 2.3 and cams. A bone-stock factory 9 did 245 whp on our dyno, this one with a TBE, cams, 2.3L, no alcohol did 365 torque (356 pictured) @ 23 psi at about 3750 rpm. I mean, yeah, we've hit 384 torque at one point with another nine, but running 30 psi and alcohol. There is too much comparison between apples and oranges going on, the reference point should have been set by me when I posted, the stock 9 did 245 whp.
This is the first batch of 9 cams from Cosworth to come through the shop. The cars feel spectacular on the street, impressive or un-impressive is besides the point. Bottom line being is that we got a chance to run these cams and play around with them on the dyno. These are the results.
This is the first batch of 9 cams from Cosworth to come through the shop. The cars feel spectacular on the street, impressive or un-impressive is besides the point. Bottom line being is that we got a chance to run these cams and play around with them on the dyno. These are the results.
It doesn't matter that it did 356 wtq. It matters that it only did 330whp, and that torque is not hitting any earlier than a stock motor'd IX. Also, since when is a car with a tubular header considered "near stock"? WE're not talking apples and oranges at all. WE're talking about $5k in mods to make less power than my 05 on alky @ 26psi and stock cams (341whp/361wtq). I put down 248whp in stock form, so yeah, you can see the difference in gains there. Stg1 IXs put down this much power on 93oct at 22-23psi with only 20-30 less peak torque, but of course without cams and without a built motor.
The power is very weak on this car, especially for the money spent. We'd have to assume the original motor was blown, because this outcome certainly could not have been someone's goal if the original motor was fine.
The power is very weak on this car, especially for the money spent. We'd have to assume the original motor was blown, because this outcome certainly could not have been someone's goal if the original motor was fine.
Thread Starter
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (9)
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
It doesn't matter that it did 356 wtq. It matters that it only did 330whp, and that torque is not hitting any earlier than a stock motor'd IX. Also, since when is a car with a tubular header considered "near stock"? WE're not talking apples and oranges at all. WE're talking about $5k in mods to make less power than my 05 on alky @ 26psi and stock cams (341whp/361wtq). I put down 248whp in stock form, so yeah, you can see the difference in gains there. Stg1 IXs put down this much power on 93oct at 22-23psi with only 20-30 less peak torque, but of course without cams and without a built motor.
The power is very weak on this car, especially for the money spent. We'd have to assume the original motor was blown, because this outcome certainly could not have been someone's goal if the original motor was fine.
The power is very weak on this car, especially for the money spent. We'd have to assume the original motor was blown, because this outcome certainly could not have been someone's goal if the original motor was fine.