hp: 306.9 @ 5900 rpm
tq: 327.1 @ 4500 rpm

Custom Tune for 91 Octane (Highest pump easily accessible sadly), Bushur catback, Test Pipe, AEM Intake, Bushur UICP.

Interesting side note: I had 3 pulls in the MR. 1 in Normal, 1 in Sport, 1 in Super-Sport. Here's the breakdown:

Normal: hp: 302.8 @ 5500 rpm, tq: 324.8 @ 4600 rpm
Sport: hp: 297.9 @ 6200 rpm, tq: 312.4 @ 4600 rpm
Super-Sport: hp: 306.9 @ 5900 rpm, tq: 327.1 @ 4500 rpm

(Sorry for crappy quality.. waiting for actual files to be sent to me).

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, that 1.23 CF is way too high, I don't care how high up you live. No respectable shop skews numbers 23%.

 

Yeah, I was not happy with that. They apparently use a live-adjustment for their superflow via hanging meter above the tuning car. It'll go to another lower or non-corrected dyno after more work.

 

Well, I dunno what to really say because uncorrected those numbers are only like 250/265 WHP/lb-ft. I know must shops up there use roughly a half-factor for correction of turbocharged cars. Actually the best you can do for self-comparison is just to use the corrected numbers and pay attention to the percentage differences among your tunes. You just can't expect to gain anything meaningful from comparing corrected numbers with a CF of 1.23 to anybody else's dyno results. What were the original numbers?

 

This was the first dyno run for it. It will be to another dyno for a full-on dyno tune for 91/E85 at a later date. Those are the numbers I'll actually rely on, and should be 15% STP. There's shops here that will push 30%+ in CO apparently.

The interesting thing is that that 23% ended up being fairly accurate within reason. We had a few stock cars dyno and the numbers came out on-par with what they are expected to run, and in some cases, accurately much lower. (Two Audi A4's ran, one put down about 112whp, the other 150whp)

--That aside, I will still take the numbers with a grain of salt. Sucks dynoing where there's no air or good octane =P

 

It all depends on boost pressure and compressor efficiency. If you're pushing a ton of boost on a compressor that likes higher pressure ratios, then you ought not use a correction factor at all. The Evo X is somewhere in between, in that it runs a hefty amount of boost pressure, but many cars run less than 1 bar at sea level. I bet those A4's only run 11-12 PSI stock.

I'm pretty high too at 4500 feet. It's always an ongoing debate. For stock turbo Evo's, it's usually fair to use a correction factor of about 1.08 here, and maybe 1.12 there.

 

Just an update, took the car to a drag strip here.. the altitude is killer (5,860 ft.), so I'm sure I could get lower. Also, this was the first time at a drag, so my initial R/T was in the pits, though I did get down to .338 later in the night

R/T 1.101 (Best: .338)
60' 2.204 (Best: 2.027)
330 5.817 (Best: 5.746)
1/8 8.771 (Best: 8.745)
MPH 83.52 (Best: 83.88)
1000 11.33
E.T. 13.475
MPH 106.80

 

Any chance you still have your numbers I can take a look at? I haven't seen any other times for the X's, so I have nothing to compare mine on (though I haven't looked too hard)

 

Just look at your 60 dude, cut a 1.8 and you will see an improvement

 

I'm sure this is not accurate, but converting from elevation ET to MSA-ET (Motorsports Standard Atmosphere) here: http://www.wallaceracing.com/convert-et-to-msa-et.php using a correction of 1.23 HPC

I am supposedly near 12.58 @114.42 for 5800FT elevation. Original again was 13.475 @ 106.8

I do know the track (Bandimere Raceway) is a killer for times.. just do a google search and you'll see that the 7-8second funny cars even post higher times up there haha I'll stick to the 13.475, but if I even get down to sea level and drag, that should be interesting..