Buschur's 3065 tuned by Al
I'd love to know the problem here, cause I was seriously considering this kit VS a PeakBoost GT30R. BR has a great reputation for turning out quality stuff, so I'm thinking it's either the car or the tuner.
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
Bvdawg please explain things better, because your thread makes absolutely no sense? Are you saying you made 348whp on the stock turbo, put on the 3065 and made less power? Was this on a Mustang? Was the 348whp on a Dynojet? Ithought you said you made 337whp early on, and then later in the thread you say 348whp? Your thread is confusing a lot of people.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Bvdawg please explain things better, because your thread makes absolutely no sense? Are you saying you made 348whp on the stock turbo, put on the 3065 and made less power? Was this on a Mustang? Was the 348whp on a Dynojet? Ithought you said you made 337whp early on, and then later in the thread you say 348whp? Your thread is confusing a lot of people.
Yes it made more power with the jester tune and Al flattened out the torque line, honestly im confused as well as to why having 26 less torque is actually better?
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
On stock turbo i made 348 but it was on a dynojet, 333 on Buschur's mustang dyno which reads alot lower than a dynojet, add in 22% wich is around 410 on a dynojet after i added the 3065. I gained about 60hp from the 3065 and i was hoping for atleast another 20.
Yes it made more power with the jester tune and Al flattened out the torque line, honestly im confused as well as to why having 26 less torque is actually better?
Yes it made more power with the jester tune and Al flattened out the torque line, honestly im confused as well as to why having 26 less torque is actually better?
Oh ok I am understanding, you made 337whp/306wtq w/ the 3065 on Buschur's Mustang, and then Al did a little more tuning and you ended up with 333whp/280wtq, am I right?
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
I also think you made 337whp/306wtq from a jester tune, but was not as happy as you wanted to be, so decided to have Al tune it, and you ended up with less power and torque, am I right?
On stock turbo i made 348 but it was on a dynojet, 333 on Buschur's mustang dyno which reads alot lower than a dynojet, add in 22% wich is around 410 on a dynojet after i added the 3065. I gained about 60hp from the 3065 and i was hoping for atleast another 20.
Yes it made more power with the jester tune and Al flattened out the torque line, honestly im confused as well as to why having 26 less torque is actually better?
Yes it made more power with the jester tune and Al flattened out the torque line, honestly im confused as well as to why having 26 less torque is actually better?
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, California
That said, your TQ curve looks really nice (flat), but my guess is that your peak boost is not that high compared to your boost at 7K.....
time and again, ppl keep posting dyno plots with final numbers...
it ALWAYS leads to speculation, this dyno Vs. that dyno.......
why not spare the speculation and 2nd guesses and just have ONE dynosheet with baseline and final number both on one sheet!
it ALWAYS leads to speculation, this dyno Vs. that dyno.......
why not spare the speculation and 2nd guesses and just have ONE dynosheet with baseline and final number both on one sheet!
Your #'s dont seem bad at all to me honestly. The car should feel pretty good.
It wasnt really a rebuild. The stock motor was fine I just wanted extra support to crank it up. All I did was put larger cams in, used our DROP IN J&E pistons and Crower rods and our modified walbro with larger injectors to cover the fueling. Head is still 99% stock all that is done is valve springs and retainers.
It wasnt really a rebuild. The stock motor was fine I just wanted extra support to crank it up. All I did was put larger cams in, used our DROP IN J&E pistons and Crower rods and our modified walbro with larger injectors to cover the fueling. Head is still 99% stock all that is done is valve springs and retainers.
When this car was base lined the customer was running 24 psi peak holding a solid 23 psi and the car was knocking very badly and was pulling huge amountgs of timing
There was nothing "wrong" with the tune that was in the car
IMHO - the boost was too high for the fuel quality being used - it just needed some minor adjustments for the particular car
We lowered the boost 2 1/2 pounds to approx a peak of 21.3 psi and re-adjusted some of the fuel and timing settings
When I was done the car was totally smooth with a knock count of zero
It puzzels me how some customers imagine the objective of a tuning session is to obtain the most possible whp
I find this odd as these same customers will whine like little school girls if they toss a rod through the side of the block (which I have never done on the dyno - ever BTW)
IMHO - the objective on tuning a street car is to reach a safe and rational level of power for a given car with the fuel used and mods on the car. Tuning is to create a reliable, safe, smooth and adaptive vehicle which can be driven every day and enjoyed.
BTW - I did not sell this customer his mods or select them - i did not install them. No boost leak or compression teating was done.
My sole job as to tune the existing set up which I did and that was the most power available with conservative and safe tuning parameters.
IMHO far too many on these fourms are fixated on peak power numbers
Al
Last edited by DynoFlash; Feb 5, 2007 at 09:37 AM.