Thanks

 

alan467, first of 3 counts of knock on spool up is the most you see, because it WAS the most on this log, notice the drop off of knock count as the rpms rise. As far as 25psi being dangerous, I can state many cases of cars (Greens) running 30+ safely. I'll always be the one to determine what is safe, since I'm the one doing the logging and have every single log, before and after, tuning. I'm a data analysts by profession as well as a programmer, so I'm on top of what I do. Could my results be skewing your insights as to what is good and what is bad? The original question seems to have changed from 3850 peak boost to something else. Are you saying that the logs which reflect peak loads at given rpms are incorrect as to their relationship to each other? Suppose for a second that the loads are 'HIGH' according to your analysis of what I would see if injectors were scaled accordingly. Then does that mean that the RPM associated with the HIGH POINT of loads would be off? Remember, the relationship of rpm to max load was the issue. Also, how do you explaing 413whp/456wtq on a low reading newly calibrated by Mustang engineer, dyno? Looks like my results work. By the way, the 3 knock count was on spool up and cleared on WOT, which is what I was tuning for. I could just as well have shown you 0 knock logs, same power, 1 count knocks, same power, or 2 count knocks, same power. I think your looking for something to be RIGHT about, as opposed to sharing good information with others. I didn't have to show my logs, it was my choice, my numbers, my results. By the way, I also recently logged a stock Evo VIII for a friend and his showed 12 knock counts nearly continuously under acceleration. Does this mean that Mitsubish Engineers did a poor job? Again, what about the numbers whp/wtq and the RPMvsLOADs? How do you explain those, without biasing your response?

 

One quick observation, those load cells are only RELATIVE points to point to a value to be used in AFR, Mivec, Timing, etc. Other than that, they don't mean a thing. If the ecu THINKS it's hitting those load cells, then it uses the appropriate values vs RPM. The constant here is the Dyno, and it's output. Those numbers don't know whether it's an evo with scaling off, or a pickup truck with a straight six. Results are results, as measured by the Mustang Dyno.

 

yes, the timing is correct. The water portion of the methanol injection is one of the reasons that timing like that can be used. Water has twice the 'cooling power' of methanol. Therefore, I use 7-8 percent water to help with the boost cooling. As far as redline timing, timing typically runs betwee 27-28 degrees. NO KNOCK. The benefit of 101 +water/meth allows this. High rpm and high timing can work together, as long as the AFR's are good (mine are constantly monitored and logged) and the intake charge is cooled, which it obviously is. I hate to repeat it, but 11.31 @ 121+. 413whp/456wtq don't lie.

 

By the way, the 413whp/456 wtq was the choice we stayed with. 2 or 3 dynos runs before that, we had 427whp, 431wtq. Just chose to see what we could do my "moving" some things around. These are MUSTANG numbers, not DYNOJET numbers. FWIW

 

 

Here is a log within the same hour of the 3 knock count log, showing No Knock at 1 degree less timing. Only 2 single knock counts in this log, yet loads RPM are nearly identical. I showed two reference points to show what the settings were at those given moments in time. I'm posting these to show the methodology of my tuning. The timing is changed, dyno'd and logged, bumped or retarded, re-dyno'd, etc. etc. By doing this slowly and gradually, I was able to continue to make power, until we ran out of time.

 

sorry for the misunderstanding, I don't remember stating 25psi, for these levels he is DEFINITELY over 33+. If I posted 25psi, I had a brain fart, sorry. Any way, the boost really came up with changes to the Mivec timing in the early rpms/load cells. My tuning is not exactly like every one, including major tuners, might do, but my results are what I'm after. OKIX (my son)'s car was running about 26+ psi on the stock DV, but we could tell by the logs and dyno's that it was maxing it's usefulness, so we changed to the FORGE RS and love it. Again, sorry for any misunderstandings. Hope this clears that up. Now that the Mustang is gone, I'm considering buying one just to Play with. I look at the dyno as just another tool to get to an end point. Kind of what I was stating about the load cells. They may not be accurate when compared to others, (injectors were only changed to 680's so minor as far as injectors settings), but the end result is that the ecu interprets what it sees, reads the map and uses the timing/AFR/mivec accordingly. Sometimes, it's easy to get hung up on the 'means' of getting there, instead of looking for the ultimate goal, "More Power".

 

One comment about the calculated loads when I used the Evoscan logs and used the correct vehicle settings to calculate horsepower. On the last 3 dyno runs, the calculated horsepower and torque in the Evoscan power calculator were 10 and less than the actuals displayed by the Mustang Dyno. I found that interesting. The difference was the dyno showed less horsepower with more torque than the Evoscan, which showed the numbers reveresed. Still both numbers were within 10 of the dyno.

 

I never did check the final log, but heres Evoscan's power versus the previously posted dyno numbers. Looks pretty close, and on this one, it shows closer to correct than the 3 I had checked previously. This is the log of the 3 knock count log. My goal on this 3 hour session was to push the timing and see what was possible, within reason.

 

What spark plugs did you use and what was the gap? I was on the 7EIX (one step colder) and had them gapped all the way to .021 and i was running out of spark up top....

 

OKIX's car still has the stock IX plugs using stock gap. I have 2 sets of race plugs, 1 step colder and 2 steps colder, but the air charge is very cool, due to the water/meth and the Deluxe BR intercooler. I know that many posts have been made concerning intercoolers, and David Buschur recommends his Race IC. I use his Race IC on my own evo IX, but the deluxe is working very well with the combination of parts, tuning, fuel.
I started to change the plugs out to one step colder, (not the 7EIX, but the race plugs instead) but never got around to it. There is no doubt in my mind that Alfred, never met him, but I've read enough about his jobs, knows exactly what he's doing. I am in no position to suggest what someone else should do to their car. I just happen to have a captive audience, my son, so I use his car for the testing. I've spent hundreds of hours analyzing the logs and the path to change AFR/timing etc. I can honestly say that each and every time I went to the dyno (usually 3 hours minimum) the numbers went up, without sacrificing safety to the engine. At least no more than what the normal higher horsepower/torque levels yield. Knock count is my number one priority, with power next. If temps stay down, knock stays down and power goes up, then that's my goal. If you look at the two graphs where the 3 knock count is at max load, and the other one without knock count, you can see that they both show approximately 3800-3900 rpms, 1 degree more of timing in the 3 knock count than in the no knock count, and the load cells displayed are 10 higher with the knock, but the onset of knock actually came at 15 degrees, not 14, so it was that cell that I modified, to STOP the onset of any knock, rather than change it where it occurs. Knock creates knock, and I've proven it to myself, numerous times.

 

9sec9, are you making any changes in the tune between the time you dyno the car and when you actually run it? Because, IMHO, the trap speeds you are seeing reflect Dynojet numbers; an Evo IX with 413whp/456wtq on an average DJ should be trapping those speeds... And not trying to be negative, I'm actually impressed with the ET's your son is pulling - I just think the traps should be higher - which, with the same driving should help better the ET's...

 

Mudduck, no problem with your question. I actually agree with you. The numbers are very much like several dyno numbers from a Dynojet. One of the reasons I have so many logs and so many hours on the dyno is that I try to tune specifically for the DAY or day before of running the car. That way, I get very close to actual day of the race tunes. The numbers are nearly identical to what some of tunes show on the Buschur dyno. I can only say that during the early tunes, I spoke with DB about this particular dynos low numbers. No one was getting good numbers out of it. Then, some local subarus with 'known' accessport tunes/stages were compared with identical mods to known dyno numbers on DB's dyno. The local dyno in every case was slightly lower. Mustang rep was there during one of my tuning sessions and he insisted that the dyno numbers were set correctly. Identically to the Buschur dyno. Then, the only difference must me slight altitude and humidity with the usual day to day variances.
As far as the speed is concerned, I think I have some speed in the mivec up top to gain, but if you look at the other IX's on the 11 second list, OKIX is number 2 as far as IX's go. Then, the one faster IX is slower than the VIII's around him. The same is true for OKIX, he has slower mph for those running 11.3 around him. The obvious answer is the difference in gearing. The IX 4th is lower than the VIII and suffers by holding the rpm a little longer, rather than shifting. No question the car has not reached it's potential that the dyno shows. But number 2 on the list of 9's in the 11 second list isn't exactly bad. Compare the whp/wtq to some of those with comparable whp/wtq on the Dynojet and their times are usually 11.8-11.9 or so. I can only say proof is in the times and dyno. But, no offense taken on the mph, it seems to be MOSTLY normal for the IX. The last 11.3 came with a 1.8XX 60ft. the day after I tuned it. Then he was politely 'removed' from the track for no roll bar and jacket. We're just waiting for the rollbar so we can continue to prove it's 10 second capability. The numbers are there, but OKIX has only run his car maybe 12 passes. Time in the saddle will make the times better. The mph has also been close to 124, so we're getting closer, but I don't ever think we'll have the same trap speeds as an VIII for the same time. But, then again, mph can only be compared on same cars with same gearing. The VIII is not the same gearing, but then again, their = trap speeds to the IX's don't equal the IX's et either.

 

I wish i could roll on dynos like that before race days....

BTW 9sec9, do you have any 1/8th mile times that i can use for comparison due to our lack of 1/4 mile tracks in SoCal? I will be hitting the 1/8th miler again on June 22nd for some 111oct track times....7.5-7.4's maybe??? Thanks!