BR Stage 2 @ 343whp and BR Stage 2 dynoflashed @ 310whp??
Dec 9, 2003, 07:19 AM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BR Stage 2 @ 343whp and BR Stage 2 dynoflashed @ 310whp??
Just wondering if anyone can clairfy that if it is stated on BR website (http://www.buschurracing.com/EVO_Stage2.html) that there Stage 2 makes 343whp, then why does a BR Stage 2 w/ Dynoflash make only 310whp? Is there something I'm missing or not reading correctly? Any insight would be appreciated.
Dec 9, 2003, 09:15 AM
#4
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Agrestic
Posts: 1,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<opinion>
I'm still not sure why people insist on comparing dyno runs between two different dynos and different cars.
There is no official dyno benchmark or gold standard that exists. Such comparisions between dynos, even of the same manufacturer are meaningless. I'm not saying dynos measurments are meaningless but their context for making comparisions is limited. I think they are best suited for tuning, baselining, and measuring the effect of mods. This should be done on the same dyno under nearly identical ambient conditions for it to be effective.
In my opinion Buschur doesn't try to claim their staged upgrades put out more horsepower than their competitors. Personally I've always understood that the dynocharts published show the changes above baseline that each staged upgrade makes.
Just my $0.02...
</opinion>
I'm still not sure why people insist on comparing dyno runs between two different dynos and different cars.
There is no official dyno benchmark or gold standard that exists. Such comparisions between dynos, even of the same manufacturer are meaningless. I'm not saying dynos measurments are meaningless but their context for making comparisions is limited. I think they are best suited for tuning, baselining, and measuring the effect of mods. This should be done on the same dyno under nearly identical ambient conditions for it to be effective.
In my opinion Buschur doesn't try to claim their staged upgrades put out more horsepower than their competitors. Personally I've always understood that the dynocharts published show the changes above baseline that each staged upgrade makes.
Just my $0.02...
</opinion>
Dec 9, 2003, 11:44 AM
#6
I'm not nearly as concerned with the AWD Dynojet vs. the FWD Dynojet. I would love to see a side by side comparison with the same car on both, I bet the differences wouldn't be much.
On to the question though. Look at the torque that Al made for you! 326 ft lbs if I remember from your other e-mail correctly. This is OUTSTANDING. We only made 296 ft lbs with ours in Stage 2. Like I said in our private e-mail you should be happy, your money was well spent.
I notice something about most of our curves compared to Al's. He makes super high torque down low. We don't make as much. We do however have more HP up top. This is, from what I can tell, due to the fact that we run the car a little leaner than Al does.
Two different tuners, two different ways of doing things. Both are making impressive numbers and both are making these cars get down the streets and tracks faster than most of the other shops are.
Your money was well spent.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
On to the question though. Look at the torque that Al made for you! 326 ft lbs if I remember from your other e-mail correctly. This is OUTSTANDING. We only made 296 ft lbs with ours in Stage 2. Like I said in our private e-mail you should be happy, your money was well spent.
I notice something about most of our curves compared to Al's. He makes super high torque down low. We don't make as much. We do however have more HP up top. This is, from what I can tell, due to the fact that we run the car a little leaner than Al does.
Two different tuners, two different ways of doing things. Both are making impressive numbers and both are making these cars get down the streets and tracks faster than most of the other shops are.
Your money was well spent.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Dec 9, 2003, 11:55 AM
#7
Account Disabled
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by davidbuschur
I'm not nearly as concerned with the AWD Dynojet vs. the FWD Dynojet. I would love to see a side by side comparison with the same car on both, I bet the differences wouldn't be much.
On to the question though. Look at the torque that Al made for you! 326 ft lbs if I remember from your other e-mail correctly. This is OUTSTANDING. We only made 296 ft lbs with ours in Stage 2. Like I said in our private e-mail you should be happy, your money was well spent.
I notice something about most of our curves compared to Al's. He makes super high torque down low. We don't make as much. We do however have more HP up top. This is, from what I can tell, due to the fact that we run the car a little leaner than Al does.
Two different tuners, two different ways of doing things. Both are making impressive numbers and both are making these cars get down the streets and tracks faster than most of the other shops are.
Your money was well spent.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
I'm not nearly as concerned with the AWD Dynojet vs. the FWD Dynojet. I would love to see a side by side comparison with the same car on both, I bet the differences wouldn't be much.
On to the question though. Look at the torque that Al made for you! 326 ft lbs if I remember from your other e-mail correctly. This is OUTSTANDING. We only made 296 ft lbs with ours in Stage 2. Like I said in our private e-mail you should be happy, your money was well spent.
I notice something about most of our curves compared to Al's. He makes super high torque down low. We don't make as much. We do however have more HP up top. This is, from what I can tell, due to the fact that we run the car a little leaner than Al does.
Two different tuners, two different ways of doing things. Both are making impressive numbers and both are making these cars get down the streets and tracks faster than most of the other shops are.
Your money was well spent.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
The trq we get down low is a combination of two things
#1 - the quality of the BR designed intake and exhuast which really aids the turbo to spool up down low
and #2 - with the reflash as can easily add some timing down on the 3,000 - 4,000 rpm range which really makes the power in that area
Dave is right about the top end
We do de-tune all the cars for two reasons - #1 we like to avoid any knock activity at all and a 11.0 a/f will do that on most any kind of fuel - this perserves our remap ign timing all the way through the power band and makes it smooth
#2 - we are totally neurotic about having any engine failures on our reflashed cars so we err on the severe side of caution with the 11.0 / 1 a/fs - with all the controversy and kaos sorunding some of our posts the last thing we need is ANY of our clients having any engine issues. We have found that the super rich 11.0 / 1 ratio is very safe while giving up only a small amount of power up top. While you can safely go much leaner with no adverse effect, while making more power, we feel more confident to strike the balance mor eon the rich and safer side. MOST other tuners so go leaner and there is nothing wrong with that approach - those cars do make great power!!!!!
So far we did over 230 reflashed evos without ONE complaint of any problems and that is something we work hard to maintain.
With the tremendous power of the Buschur intakes, exhausts and fmic we are able to tune the evos this safe and rich while smashing records on the track and on the dyno
The BR stage 4 set up we dynoed made 332 whp to the awd wheels and ran a 11.80 at 119 all on pump gas and safe as can be
Personally - I rather get the last 10 whp by using a better designed exhuast which flows better than by leaning out the a/f. Of course some folks want both and we can accomidate them on a case by case basis.
kudos Al.
