alex ... made a huge difference from 100 octain to 110. Definately worth a shot.

 

last time i'll try to beat this dead horse. a mustang dyno is only as accurate as the user who inputs the data. when was the last time you heard of any mustang dyno owner weighing the cars as they came in? if you don't think being a hundred pounds or more off by applying a general weight for every type of car dynoed you might as well throw some extra weight in your car when you run at the track. as far as evo testing is concerned an inertia 224 dynojet is pretty damn good. two 1900 pound rollers do an excellent job of simulating enough load for the evo. if you were well versed in dynos you would know that the only advantage a load bearing dyno has is in tuning. it has nothing to do with accuracy of numbers reported. maybe you should do some more research before you tell someone to get off a soapbox.

 

Good Lord, man, what's up with all this "do some more research" crap? You are now telling me that a Dynojet is as good as a Mustang Dyno. Well, I guess all of my research is null and void...all hail Dynojets. I can't believe you are making these claims with a straight face. Go talk to Dave Buschur about his recent revelations...I guess you didn't read that thread.

You say the only advantage a load bearing dyno has is in tuning? Well, damn, what else is there? What other advantage could you POSSIBLY want? I don't like that I have to change my S-AFC settings AFTER getting off the Dynojet...it's quite annoying, and for those who don't have their own self-tuning device, it can be quite frustrating. For those who do, if they don't have a logging device or the proper self-tuning knowledge, then they leave the Dynojet session with an improper tune for daily driving. How is that good?

 

Umm, I was thinking that too Alex

 

damn i give up. i guess all the cars we have tuned over the last year must blow up because nobody changes their settings when they leave our dyno. and for your bushur revelations comment, dave was pretty happy with our dyno when he came here to tune robert fuller's car. research that.

 

I wouldn't consider turboback exhaust "other misc. stuff". It's the core power to higher performance, actually it's the first thing anyone would do.

 

Thanks. It's just nice when everyone posts the same correction factor, it eliminates the guessing (Ive seen 20whp swings from STD to SAE). Looks like I stirred the pot a little.

 

its all in fun. i understand what you are talking about, a dyno is a tool and if used (abused) improperly the data produced has no value. (rickjamesvoice) i'm sorry warrtalon i got excited i was having to much fun.

 

Warrtalon has that effect on people.

 

Smog, please lets not try and be totally idiotic, please

What happens with 110 octane leaded race fuel and what happens with pump gas, particularly with 91 octane CA gas are two entirely different senarios.

I do not wish to hi jack this thread with my ideas and opinions, however, as my name is mentioned let me say this. if you want to see how well a SAFC functions on 91 octane pump gas, then please drive the car for a half hour on the road and conduct a generic OBDII scan of the ingition timing - (any common scan tool can perform this task). in 99.99 % of cases you will find greatly retarded ignition timing in the 2500 - 6000 rpm area which impacts uopn tq and driveability.

TWO years plus ago back when I was the first evo to go 11's and when I was the fastest Evo at the 11th DSM shootout I had already realized that the SAFC was not able to produce OPTIMAL performance on evos and I moved to a combination of a base flash and Emanage so that I could control the ignition timing. See Modified Magazine October, 2003 for details of that set up.

Back two years ago I posted a lot of discussion on this

Also a year and a half ago when Buschur Racing stopped selling SAFC's withg their staged packages and switched to reflash tuning David Buschur posted many of the reasons why the reflash was capable of producing more TQ and a smoother power band

It pains me greatly to see people claiming that a SAFC can be more effective than a reflahs becuase it is utter BS

Thanks Smog TTYL

 

I don't think anyone is doing this unless you are taking it out of context. There is one case where an S-AFC is more effective and that's for someone like me who prefers to have full-time ability to change my tuning parameters on a moment's notice for multiple scenarios that includes different octanes and racing conditions.

When I go to the drag strip with just my S-AFC for tuning, I am able to dial it in quite nicely on race gas along with a boost increase. If I JUST had a flash, I would only see minimal gains from adding race fuel. In this case, an S-AFC is more effective. Both a flash and S-AFC would be ideal, but I haven't convinced you to flash me for experimental purposes, and I don't plan on paying for just a rev limit increase.

 

nice job.

 

Not sure where that came from. I was very helpful in my explanation of why this S-AFC tune worked so well despite the recent comparison by Al. I think I helped lessen the confusion while also making sure people don't try to post dynographs without SAE correction.

 

god dayum nice hp...

 

nice #s