312awhp/tq @21psi on MD at Mynes
Evo IX 312awhp/tq @21psi on MD at Mynes
Like i title says, my Evo IX made 312awhp/tq @21psi today. My mods are the following:
JIC Catback
Perrin Downpipe and Catdelete pipe
Dyno tune
Restrictor pill in boost line removed.
Might i add this is on a MD that has not been calibrated by "other peoples hands". This is straight from MD themself. Mynes had them come out, install, and calibrate the dyno, and left it as is. So for some examples, this is like David Buschurs dyno, where some have said it reads very low. I didnt happen to get a baseline before exhaust, but i did get a baseline after exhaust, my #s were, 267.4hp, and 250.2tq. at about 18psi.
They have dynod other stock evos on their dyno and have gotten around 220-240hp max. And now for the paper:
JIC Catback
Perrin Downpipe and Catdelete pipe
Dyno tune
Restrictor pill in boost line removed.
Might i add this is on a MD that has not been calibrated by "other peoples hands". This is straight from MD themself. Mynes had them come out, install, and calibrate the dyno, and left it as is. So for some examples, this is like David Buschurs dyno, where some have said it reads very low. I didnt happen to get a baseline before exhaust, but i did get a baseline after exhaust, my #s were, 267.4hp, and 250.2tq. at about 18psi.
They have dynod other stock evos on their dyno and have gotten around 220-240hp max. And now for the paper:
Stock IXs get 205-210 on Buschur's Dyno, so this one reads a lot higher. However, picking up 45whp/72wtq from just a tune and nothing else is incredible. You didn't mention what form of tuning, though. Was it an EcuTek tune? If so, why remove the pill when the flash can control boost? Lastly, what was the boost during 312/312 run? Was it still 18psi like when you did the untuned exhaust pull? Did you remove the pill before the baseline pull or between pulls?
Trending Topics
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Stock IXs get 205-210 on Buschur's Dyno, so this one reads a lot higher. However, picking up 45whp/72wtq from just a tune and nothing else is incredible. You didn't mention what form of tuning, though. Was it an EcuTek tune? If so, why remove the pill when the flash can control boost? Lastly, what was the boost during 312/312 run? Was it still 18psi like when you did the untuned exhaust pull? Did you remove the pill before the baseline pull or between pulls?
Oh and thanks everyone for the comments
. 
You would think the dynos would read the same, but if the roll weights aren't the same, then the numbers are very different. No stock IX gets near 220whp at buschur. You also said that some stock Evos go as high as 240whp earlier...did that change?
Ok, now it makes more sense. You took the pill out between runs, which explains the huge gains. You raised the boost 3psi effectively AND provided an EcuTek tune. That makes a lot more sense, thanks. It's unfortunate you didn't get a baseline run before the exhaust. For all we know, the untuned exhaust could have given you 5whp or 35whp. It's also weird that you were only hitting 17-18psi stock, when it should have been no less than 20. Hmm, weird. Anyway, I suggest getting an MBC quickly, because running without that pill causes crazy oscillations in boost and power. I had one Evo do it at one of our several dyno days, and he did pick up peak power, but the power curve was a jumbled mess of crests and troughs. You can see the same on your dynograph. Mustang dyno graphs show MUCH smoother lines than more detailed Dynojet lines, but even your shows a lot of oscillation through the smoothing.
Overall, it looks like you made great gains with the tune, so I think the tune and exhaust are in good working order. I would just suggest getting an MBC and setting the boost so that it is more reliable and accurate.
Ok, now it makes more sense. You took the pill out between runs, which explains the huge gains. You raised the boost 3psi effectively AND provided an EcuTek tune. That makes a lot more sense, thanks. It's unfortunate you didn't get a baseline run before the exhaust. For all we know, the untuned exhaust could have given you 5whp or 35whp. It's also weird that you were only hitting 17-18psi stock, when it should have been no less than 20. Hmm, weird. Anyway, I suggest getting an MBC quickly, because running without that pill causes crazy oscillations in boost and power. I had one Evo do it at one of our several dyno days, and he did pick up peak power, but the power curve was a jumbled mess of crests and troughs. You can see the same on your dynograph. Mustang dyno graphs show MUCH smoother lines than more detailed Dynojet lines, but even your shows a lot of oscillation through the smoothing.
Overall, it looks like you made great gains with the tune, so I think the tune and exhaust are in good working order. I would just suggest getting an MBC and setting the boost so that it is more reliable and accurate.
keep in mind Warrtalon that in AZ the highest pump gas is 91 AND they use extra additives for emissions causing lower output. we are seeing 20whp differences just in the gas stations across the street from each other. his #'s were on Circle K gas which is very bad. once he uses quality gas he should see better results. also a 9 pulled around 217 peaking @ 20 tapering to as low as 14 w/AFR's in the 9's. another 9 pulled almost 230 (AFR around 10.5). i would expect to see at least 350 on 101 octane unleaded from the 312 he made there. hardest part about tuning there is you can't really add any timing on 91 octane. just pings all over the place...
Last edited by housedj; Feb 21, 2006 at 06:56 PM.
Originally Posted by housedj
keep in mind Warrtalon that in AZ the highest pump gas is 91 AND they use extra additives for emissions causing lower output. we are seeing 20whp differences just in the gas stations across the street from each other. his #'s were on Circle K gas which is very bad. once he uses quality gas he should see better results. also the Mynes shop 9 pulled around 217 peaking @ 20 tapering to as low as 14 w/AFR's in the 9's. the other shop 9 pulled almost 230 (AFR around 10.5). we expect to see at least 350 on 101 octane unleaded from the 312 he made here. hardest part about tuning here is you can't really add any timing on 91 octane. just pings all over the place...
If some stock IXs have pulled no more than 230whp, though, then 312 is huge. An 80-90whp gain with a tune and TBE would be incredible on 91oct...it's usually closer to a 60whp gain.
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Yeah, I'm aware of all that. I just didn't want him to think his 312 would equal 312 on the Buschur Dyno, because that would be only 20 less than Dave's RS that traps 124mph.
If some stock IXs have pulled no more than 230whp, though, then 312 is huge. An 80-90whp gain with a tune and TBE would be incredible on 91oct...it's usually closer to a 60whp gain.
If some stock IXs have pulled no more than 230whp, though, then 312 is huge. An 80-90whp gain with a tune and TBE would be incredible on 91oct...it's usually closer to a 60whp gain.
Last edited by housedj; Feb 21, 2006 at 06:57 PM.
No, IXs on Buschur's MD are down below 215whp, and this is on 93oct at low elevation and cold weather. You're quoting numbers from higher elevation and hotter temps on 91oct. Remember, IXs over here trap 107 stock. You trapped 107 with 261/284 on that dyno, so think of it that way. I trapped 108mph and went 12.6 with 282whp/259wtq on a Dynojet - that's another basis for comparison.
Lat time I checked we couldn't race dynos..................take the car to the track and see what it runs!
Warrtalon:
You mentioned that the changing the weight will make the reading differ. After my car was dynoed with a weight of 3250 in the dyno and the lower hp at 50 I spent some time investigating this claim. I spoke with both Mustang Dyno and the dyno facility that dynoed the car.
Now first let me say that we all agree the the numbers that where put into the dyno where not correct according to SAE specs. But what does that change?
The weight and hp @ 50 change the resistance on the dyno (load). This will change the time it takes to make a pull, (sweep) at higher RPM, the higher numbers will load the dyno more. The less weigh the shorter the sweep (for the example we will say 8 seconds) with more load it could take 10 or more seconds. Typically when there is more load on a vehicle it will make more power on the dyno. So a shorter "sweep" would equal less power.
I did not rerun my vehicle but the facility did a couple of "tests" for me on another vehicle. They ran the same car through 3 different time sweeps 8 seconds, 10 seconds and 15 seconds to simulate a lower weight, SAE weight and heavier weight on the car to increase loads
The results:
8 seconds = 375 whp
10 seconds = 383 whp
15 seconds = 390 whp
Now this was on a 2005 GTO so it is not an EVO, but experiance says the results would be similar.
So from my "investigation" my car "should" make more power on the dyno if the weight and hp @ 50 were increased........................but I don't care enough to run it again to find out. It runs a 112.97 trap which is proof enough for me it makes decent power.
NOW back to the thread topic. A DYNO, LIKE ANY PRECISION MEASURING INSTRUMENT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS USER. You CANNOT compare two dynos in two different buildings let alone two different states. It doesn't matter if MUSTANG DYNO calibrated it or not. It is still up to the facility to enter the correct numbers, weather data....ECT. NOT to mention that the way a facility straps the car down can have an impact on the results. (They SHOULD NOT load the suspension in any way. Common mistake)
Now with that said I believe that the MUSTANG DYNO is the most accurate (Best) on the market today for correct, repeatable numbers. the only reason that the Dynojet is considered the "Industry standard" is because people in the so-called "Industry" want to buy a dyno and the the Mustang is 2 or 3 times more expensive that the Dynojet.
(PS I Have worked with three different MUSTANG DYNOS and purchased one for a facility I was at a few years back so I have seen the calibration process ECT. ECT first hand it is not an exact process..............But I am always learning)
PS Nice Numbers.................Now take it to a track and back them up.
Matt J.
Warrtalon:
You mentioned that the changing the weight will make the reading differ. After my car was dynoed with a weight of 3250 in the dyno and the lower hp at 50 I spent some time investigating this claim. I spoke with both Mustang Dyno and the dyno facility that dynoed the car.
Now first let me say that we all agree the the numbers that where put into the dyno where not correct according to SAE specs. But what does that change?
The weight and hp @ 50 change the resistance on the dyno (load). This will change the time it takes to make a pull, (sweep) at higher RPM, the higher numbers will load the dyno more. The less weigh the shorter the sweep (for the example we will say 8 seconds) with more load it could take 10 or more seconds. Typically when there is more load on a vehicle it will make more power on the dyno. So a shorter "sweep" would equal less power.
I did not rerun my vehicle but the facility did a couple of "tests" for me on another vehicle. They ran the same car through 3 different time sweeps 8 seconds, 10 seconds and 15 seconds to simulate a lower weight, SAE weight and heavier weight on the car to increase loads
The results:
8 seconds = 375 whp
10 seconds = 383 whp
15 seconds = 390 whp
Now this was on a 2005 GTO so it is not an EVO, but experiance says the results would be similar.
So from my "investigation" my car "should" make more power on the dyno if the weight and hp @ 50 were increased........................but I don't care enough to run it again to find out. It runs a 112.97 trap which is proof enough for me it makes decent power.
NOW back to the thread topic. A DYNO, LIKE ANY PRECISION MEASURING INSTRUMENT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS USER. You CANNOT compare two dynos in two different buildings let alone two different states. It doesn't matter if MUSTANG DYNO calibrated it or not. It is still up to the facility to enter the correct numbers, weather data....ECT. NOT to mention that the way a facility straps the car down can have an impact on the results. (They SHOULD NOT load the suspension in any way. Common mistake)
Now with that said I believe that the MUSTANG DYNO is the most accurate (Best) on the market today for correct, repeatable numbers. the only reason that the Dynojet is considered the "Industry standard" is because people in the so-called "Industry" want to buy a dyno and the the Mustang is 2 or 3 times more expensive that the Dynojet.
(PS I Have worked with three different MUSTANG DYNOS and purchased one for a facility I was at a few years back so I have seen the calibration process ECT. ECT first hand it is not an exact process..............But I am always learning)
PS Nice Numbers.................Now take it to a track and back them up.
Matt J.