EVO 8 VS EVO 9 dyno charts from Buschur Racing
Interesting....
So the difference in acceleration noted by many magazines between the VIII and IX must be almost totally caused the by the gearing change.
Mr. Buschur, heres the million dollar question. At this point does the addition of the Mivec head provide for more power to be untapped in the future, or will gains seen on the non-Mivec 4G63 be similar to the new engine? I understand this is early in your development cycle, just wanting your gut feel.
So the difference in acceleration noted by many magazines between the VIII and IX must be almost totally caused the by the gearing change.
Mr. Buschur, heres the million dollar question. At this point does the addition of the Mivec head provide for more power to be untapped in the future, or will gains seen on the non-Mivec 4G63 be similar to the new engine? I understand this is early in your development cycle, just wanting your gut feel.
Dave-
Stupid question, but do you think after break-in these IX's are going to dyno higher? I didn't think there would be a significant increase over the VIII's personally given the minimal upgrades, but I thought I'd put it out there. . .
Thanks for the realistic numbers, the more performance savvy group here in EVOM appreciate it. . .number inflating is just ghey.
I'm happy I'm waiting for the X to trade in my only 10 week old 8!!
Stupid question, but do you think after break-in these IX's are going to dyno higher? I didn't think there would be a significant increase over the VIII's personally given the minimal upgrades, but I thought I'd put it out there. . .
Thanks for the realistic numbers, the more performance savvy group here in EVOM appreciate it. . .number inflating is just ghey.
I'm happy I'm waiting for the X to trade in my only 10 week old 8!!
Originally Posted by ljcabrera
It would have been great had these dyno runs been done at the same time of day
Originally Posted by shivaswrath
Dave-
Stupid question, but do you think after break-in these IX's are going to dyno higher? I didn't think there would be a significant increase over the VIII's personally given the minimal upgrades, but I thought I'd put it out there. . .
Thanks for the realistic numbers, the more performance savvy group here in EVOM appreciate it. . .number inflating is just ghey.
I'm happy I'm waiting for the X to trade in my only 10 week old 8!!
Stupid question, but do you think after break-in these IX's are going to dyno higher? I didn't think there would be a significant increase over the VIII's personally given the minimal upgrades, but I thought I'd put it out there. . .
Thanks for the realistic numbers, the more performance savvy group here in EVOM appreciate it. . .number inflating is just ghey.
I'm happy I'm waiting for the X to trade in my only 10 week old 8!!
Personally - I was not expecting much difference; they are advertising these at 285hp/289tq. I think what some of us are waiting to see is what kind of an effect a TBE & Flash are going to have on this MIVEC - and then some 
Originally Posted by evoviiiyou
Thanks for the education! I guess the premier tuner shops ie: Lingenfelter(vettes), Hennessey(Vipers), and Evolution Motorsports(Porches) etc are doing it wrong. Also a 01 911 Turbo is making 415HP at the flywheel from Porche and are only trapping 115-117mph, these cars dyno on a Dynojet 355-365awhp and this seems more reasonable, because this is the standard not the exception. Also EvoDave made 558 or so on the Dynojet and is running in the 130 range...I guess you like what you like and feel the way you do because you believe it is the best and that is good, but not every one agrees with you. Lastly, 330 awhp on your dyno and you trap 124mph, most people who have C6 Corvettes, and 03-04 Cobras make 390-400flywheel, and 330-350 on the dynojets and are not running any where near your 124mph? So your numbers are low and you can tune off of them that should be the point, not bashing the standard in the industry, Dynojet, not Dynojunk(how you reffered to it).The Dynojet seems to be the most commonly-used when comparing figures, and it is how _I_ compare my car with others, as well as other cars against themselves. When I see someone hit 350whp on a Dynojet in an, I expect them to hit 115mph. If I see 400, I expect 120...300=110. It's easy to compare and contrast when the whp/mph is so linear given similar circumstances. The problem, though, with Dynojets is that they are not good for tuning. It is commonly accepted that the Mustang Dyno simulates real driving moreso than a Dynojet, which means if you tune a car on an MD, then that same tune will carry over perfectly to the street. To the contrary, a car tuned on a Dynojet CANNOT expect to carry that same tune back to the street and have the same effect. This is a conundrum within the tuning community, because a Dynojet owner may tune 10 cars and come up with some great power numbers with great AFRs and timing, but then those cars go out on the street and have different AFRs, different timing, and obviously different power output. I have been on 2 different Dynojets in this area, and all of them were a good tool for seeing where my power was relative to others in the area with the mods I had, but the AFR readings were COMPLETELY different on the street than what I saw while stationary in the dyno bay. Whatever I tuned for on the dyno was not optimum for my daily driving each time, so I had to re-tune for the street. That is what DB is talking about...
That EVO8 torque curve looks really nice, but my stock EVO doesn't feel like that at all, it really seams to fall flat after about 4500rpms. I expected to see a fuller flatter torque curve from the EVO9. Could it have been the ODBII adapting to the driving style? The EVO9 is not as impressive with peak numbers as I had assumed. Can you show the area under the curve?
Now this is just stock WOT numbers? Did you do any part throttle runs? Does the EVO9 spool up any faster in normal driving? How is it off boost?
Peek numbers really don't mean all that much, how many of us drive WOT all the time?
You can NOT compare dyno numbers from different dyno's. if you start to tune your car on one, stick with it. Numbers are just that numbers, as pointed out, real world results speak for them selves.
Now this is just stock WOT numbers? Did you do any part throttle runs? Does the EVO9 spool up any faster in normal driving? How is it off boost?
Peek numbers really don't mean all that much, how many of us drive WOT all the time?
You can NOT compare dyno numbers from different dyno's. if you start to tune your car on one, stick with it. Numbers are just that numbers, as pointed out, real world results speak for them selves.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me...I meant no ill will to DB or the mustang dyno. I appologize if I came off sarcastic! I guess I wish there was one dyno manufactuer that every one had to tune on and go by. Sorry again if I offended anyone with my comments.
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Evoviiiyou, I have no loyalty to Buschur, to Tym, to Mustand dynos, or Dynojets, so please hear me out...
The Dynojet seems to be the most commonly-used when comparing figures, and it is how _I_ compare my car with others, as well as other cars against themselves. When I see someone hit 350whp on a Dynojet in an, I expect them to hit 115mph. If I see 400, I expect 120...300=110. It's easy to compare and contrast when the whp/mph is so linear given similar circumstances. The problem, though, with Dynojets is that they are not good for tuning. It is commonly accepted that the Mustang Dyno simulates real driving moreso than a Dynojet, which means if you tune a car on an MD, then that same tune will carry over perfectly to the street. To the contrary, a car tuned on a Dynojet CANNOT expect to carry that same tune back to the street and have the same effect. This is a conundrum within the tuning community, because a Dynojet owner may tune 10 cars and come up with some great power numbers with great AFRs and timing, but then those cars go out on the street and have different AFRs, different timing, and obviously different power output. I have been on 2 different Dynojets in this area, and all of them were a good tool for seeing where my power was relative to others in the area with the mods I had, but the AFR readings were COMPLETELY different on the street than what I saw while stationary in the dyno bay. Whatever I tuned for on the dyno was not optimum for my daily driving each time, so I had to re-tune for the street. That is what DB is talking about...
The Dynojet seems to be the most commonly-used when comparing figures, and it is how _I_ compare my car with others, as well as other cars against themselves. When I see someone hit 350whp on a Dynojet in an, I expect them to hit 115mph. If I see 400, I expect 120...300=110. It's easy to compare and contrast when the whp/mph is so linear given similar circumstances. The problem, though, with Dynojets is that they are not good for tuning. It is commonly accepted that the Mustang Dyno simulates real driving moreso than a Dynojet, which means if you tune a car on an MD, then that same tune will carry over perfectly to the street. To the contrary, a car tuned on a Dynojet CANNOT expect to carry that same tune back to the street and have the same effect. This is a conundrum within the tuning community, because a Dynojet owner may tune 10 cars and come up with some great power numbers with great AFRs and timing, but then those cars go out on the street and have different AFRs, different timing, and obviously different power output. I have been on 2 different Dynojets in this area, and all of them were a good tool for seeing where my power was relative to others in the area with the mods I had, but the AFR readings were COMPLETELY different on the street than what I saw while stationary in the dyno bay. Whatever I tuned for on the dyno was not optimum for my daily driving each time, so I had to re-tune for the street. That is what DB is talking about...
Last edited by evoviiiyou; Oct 13, 2005 at 11:33 AM.
Originally Posted by evoviiiyou
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me...I meant no ill will to DB or the mustang dyno. I guess I wish there was one dyno manufactuer that every one had to use for everything, and not have to give an explanation for posting numbers and tunes as every one has to do.
I just posted this same question I am about to ask in David's other thread (EVO IX exhaust and BR-350)
I see that the evo ix had only 14 miles when dynoed. Can it be that it's not fully broken in yet, so it's not laying down all the power capable?? Also, who many miles where on the evo viii when it was dynoed, and was it fully broken in????
I see that the evo ix had only 14 miles when dynoed. Can it be that it's not fully broken in yet, so it's not laying down all the power capable?? Also, who many miles where on the evo viii when it was dynoed, and was it fully broken in????
I see no point in comparing these results to the Switzer Dynos. After all, didn't the white rabbit put down 440 whp WITHOUT cams on that dyno, which has YET to be even come close to?
Glad to see the 9's aren't making too much more power...otherwise I'd get jealous
Glad to see the 9's aren't making too much more power...otherwise I'd get jealous