I'm not registered on that site but let me guess, your dyno run wasn't done on a Mustang dyno, was it?

 

meltdown, you are comparing a x dyno'd on a mustand vs a 9 dyno'd on a dyno jet. Musang dynos read significantly lower than dyno jets. Ask shiv, from vishnu tuning, and he will show you than a stock 9 makes about 5 more hp on his dyno than a x on his dyno. Thats a 5 hp difference, and the x makes 10 more lb ft of torque than the 9, so they put out about the same overall power. He has also stated and shown with dyno graph evidence that a X with a rough tune makes about 10 more hp with no bolt ons than a 9 with a tune and a catless turbo back exhaust. You have not done your research and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

06 Evolution IX GSR- MSRP $31,399
08 Evolution X GSR- MSRP $32,990

Basic math > you

 

Ok, AMS on a dynojet, I do believe that is what mine was on correct?

I do believe that their 236whp base was after they did a boost control to keep from tapering soo bad. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=323935


Your telling me that a IX cant make the same hp with the same mods as AMS is putting on the X.

I can't find the other thread, maybe I'm wrong on this but I thought AMS showed 215 when the first rolled it on their dyno. Again that would be a dynojet.

 

You need to do your research; I don't feel like doing it for you. So, the best thing to do is for you to read back to the first tests by vishnu, ams, agp, and turbo trix, and then read their 2nd roundof tests, 3rd, and so on. It has become apparent that the 10 makes only slightly less hp, but still more torque than the 9, and makes significantly more power mod for mod than the 9. This is proven fact now, there is no disputing it. If you don't want to believe it, doesn't bother me. Believe want you want to believe. Oh, and yes you are wrong about the 236 base being with a mbc, that was bone stock. They showed that with no increase in peak boost, that the mbc held taper better by about 3 psi toward redline, and that with that alone the car jumped to 270+hp. But like I said, believe what you want.

 

Ok you are right about the mbc. But your getting closer to my point of starting this whole thread.

Who has ever head of 34hp from just a mbc. That's a little insane yes but it's because the car started out so restrictive. It's not that big a deal, it just means that the X started out needing a little more tweaking than the IX to be to the same point.

281whp with a mbc and intake, so can a IX. Yes maybe the X is 10hp overall than the IX and it should be.

When you start addind mods to the X after they do the mbc and intake, the jumps in gains are not all that different than the older evos.

 

who cares.... i'm tired of these IV, VIII, VII fanboys chiming in. sit back and play with your 4g63 while the rest of us enjoy the new 4b11. really, what's all the fuss?

 

http://www.vishnutuning.com/images/e...vs_reflash.jpg

Hmmm... vishnu claiming 45hp with just their ECU, on a IX, that's pretty good.

 

This guy is just jealous of X's and made this post to try to convince himself that his IX is better.

meltdown, read AMS's tests in the Evo X engine forum. X's make nearly the same hp/tq as IX's but respond even better to mods. Period, end of story. The fact that you don't know the difference between a Mustang dyno and Dynojet just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

They're all Evos, quit hating. I hate a 03 VIII but I'm not going to hate on IX's or X's out of jealousy. I'm just stoked they keep getting better.

 

I never said the IX was/is better and never will.

It's obvious that no one here has any comprehension.

 

the X gains almost 45 hp at the wheels from an intake alone, the 9 can't match that. Look, clearly you don't want to accept that the X makes more power than the 9, despite evidence showing that the gains on the x blows away the 9. You keep making up numbers like 281 with an intake and mbc, when the car makes far more than that. This thead is pointless, and you may as well title it, "I don't care what the evidence says, my 9 is better." I'm leaving, you're giving me a headache. BTW, just to put things in perspective, Shiv at vishnu proved with dyno evidence that a X with a tune and a catback makes more power to the wheels than a 9 with front mount, turbo back exhaust, mbc, intake, ic pipes, and cams. What more proof do you need?

 

Can I again refer you to this:

http://www.vishnutuning.com/images/e...vs_reflash.jpg

 

Read this and I think that this will be over. This is coppied from the vishnu part two thread, and this is a post from shiv himself.

With actual tuning, the X has already made more power with just a simple catback and a free flow cat than a tuned IX was ever capable. Even when running no cats, full exhaust, intercooler, stiffer wastegate spring, etc,. I think we already have a winner, no?
Of course, it is still unknown as to whether an internally stock 4B is capable of "reliably" supporting 500+hp like the 4G can on race gas. But I think that only applies to a few % of the current and future buyers. The vast majority will be happy if they can reliably make 100-125hp over stock, on pump gas.

Shiv
__________________
www.vishnutuning.com
1 (866) 584-7531 Toll Free

 

Maybe the 22-23 psi has a lot to do with those huge gains. If the VIII/IX came with 22-23 psi stock running rich I think it would yeild similar results as the X, once you lean it out open up the exhaust ect. I know the X has a smaller snail but not by that much 15g vs. 16g, I think the X has a bigger exhaust side though.

 

God, this is so lame.

Here is an advice, go read ALL the post from Boostez, he was once a disbeliever much like you. However, when he saw the dynocharts from AMS and shiv, he stopped doing the 9 > 10 in terms of responding to mods.