Va Beach EVO's
Dec 31, 2005, 06:50 AM
#63
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would probably be up for heading down to the beach for a little while...let me know. I am also going to post a new thread and collect interest for the meet at Lynn. Mall
Dec 31, 2005, 07:42 AM
#64
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edison
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
2) If you can't do that on the 21st/22nd, you could go to TurboTrix in NJ whenever you have time. That is still closer than AMS, and they can provide a dyno tune. Not quite as good as a road tune, since they have a Dynojet, but better than a base mail-in tune.
3) Precision Dyno in Philly - you can get a custom dyno tune here on a Mustang Dyno, which is better than getting tuned on a Dynojet
Now why is a road tune better then the dyno.. ? I would rather dyno any day of the week..rather then road tune. You cant feel 10whp on the *** dyno ..yet you can see it on a dynojet
.. I've tuned everyone from AMS .. Flash cars and ems cars.. This was as recent as 2 months ago.. If they got flash equip ..them must of just got it. Great bunch of guys .. though.
Mark
Turbotrix
Dec 31, 2005, 10:44 AM
#65
Are you arguing this, Mark? I don't understand why. You're a smart guy with far more tuning knowledge than I have...
However, if you don't know why tuning on a Mustang Dyno is better than tuning on a Dynojet, then frankly, I'm speechless. It has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers themselves. I couldn't care less if the numbers say 300whp or 3000whp. I'm fully aware of the problem with manipulated MD settings. Have you not noticed how often I shoot down inflated MD results from places whose MDs have obviously been manipulated to read like a Dynojet? I fully agree that the Dynojet is better for comparison of NUMBERS, but that wasn't the point. The point I'm making is about which one mimics street conditions the best. That would be the Mustang Dyno, because it is load bearing. YOu can take a MD tune straight to the street with no change in AFRs, but that is not the case on a Dynojet. You can tune a car on a Dynojet and see the change in power...on the dyno only. That does not translate into accurate AFRs and power delivery on the street. This is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.
Yes, AMS just started flashing THIS month (December). I didn't know either at first until I went into their forum and read the recent thread announcing it.
BTW, using the 03 Evo's published crank numbers vs your Dynojet results of 235whp is no basis for argument here. Why did the 05s only get a published 5hp bump at the crank, yet they dyno 245-250whp on Dynojets? That indicates a drivetrain loss of 9-11%. Then, if you look at the 06s, they are listed at 286, yet dyno as high as 270-275 on Dynojets, which would indicate a drivetrain loss of 4-5%. Mitsu's published crank figures are arbitrary for the most part...
However, if you don't know why tuning on a Mustang Dyno is better than tuning on a Dynojet, then frankly, I'm speechless. It has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers themselves. I couldn't care less if the numbers say 300whp or 3000whp. I'm fully aware of the problem with manipulated MD settings. Have you not noticed how often I shoot down inflated MD results from places whose MDs have obviously been manipulated to read like a Dynojet? I fully agree that the Dynojet is better for comparison of NUMBERS, but that wasn't the point. The point I'm making is about which one mimics street conditions the best. That would be the Mustang Dyno, because it is load bearing. YOu can take a MD tune straight to the street with no change in AFRs, but that is not the case on a Dynojet. You can tune a car on a Dynojet and see the change in power...on the dyno only. That does not translate into accurate AFRs and power delivery on the street. This is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.
Yes, AMS just started flashing THIS month (December). I didn't know either at first until I went into their forum and read the recent thread announcing it.
BTW, using the 03 Evo's published crank numbers vs your Dynojet results of 235whp is no basis for argument here. Why did the 05s only get a published 5hp bump at the crank, yet they dyno 245-250whp on Dynojets? That indicates a drivetrain loss of 9-11%. Then, if you look at the 06s, they are listed at 286, yet dyno as high as 270-275 on Dynojets, which would indicate a drivetrain loss of 4-5%. Mitsu's published crank figures are arbitrary for the most part...
Dec 31, 2005, 02:59 PM
#66
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edison
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Are you arguing this, Mark? I don't understand why. You're a smart guy with far more tuning knowledge than I have...
However, if you don't know why tuning on a Mustang Dyno is better than tuning on a Dynojet, then frankly, I'm speechless. It has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers themselves. I couldn't care less if the numbers say 300whp or 3000whp. I'm fully aware of the problem with manipulated MD settings. Have you not noticed how often I shoot down inflated MD results from places whose MDs have obviously been manipulated to read like a Dynojet? I fully agree that the Dynojet is better for comparison of NUMBERS, but that wasn't the point. The point I'm making is about which one mimics street conditions the best. That would be the Mustang Dyno, because it is load bearing. YOu can take a MD tune straight to the street with no change in AFRs, but that is not the case on a Dynojet. You can tune a car on a Dynojet and see the change in power...on the dyno only. That does not translate into accurate AFRs and power delivery on the street. This is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.
Yes, AMS just started flashing THIS month (December). I didn't know either at first until I went into their forum and read the recent thread announcing it.
BTW, using the 03 Evo's published crank numbers vs your Dynojet results of 235whp is no basis for argument here. Why did the 05s only get a published 5hp bump at the crank, yet they dyno 245-250whp on Dynojets? That indicates a drivetrain loss of 9-11%. Then, if you look at the 06s, they are listed at 286, yet dyno as high as 270-275 on Dynojets, which would indicate a drivetrain loss of 4-5%. Mitsu's published crank figures are arbitrary for the most part...
However, if you don't know why tuning on a Mustang Dyno is better than tuning on a Dynojet, then frankly, I'm speechless. It has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers themselves. I couldn't care less if the numbers say 300whp or 3000whp. I'm fully aware of the problem with manipulated MD settings. Have you not noticed how often I shoot down inflated MD results from places whose MDs have obviously been manipulated to read like a Dynojet? I fully agree that the Dynojet is better for comparison of NUMBERS, but that wasn't the point. The point I'm making is about which one mimics street conditions the best. That would be the Mustang Dyno, because it is load bearing. YOu can take a MD tune straight to the street with no change in AFRs, but that is not the case on a Dynojet. You can tune a car on a Dynojet and see the change in power...on the dyno only. That does not translate into accurate AFRs and power delivery on the street. This is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.
Yes, AMS just started flashing THIS month (December). I didn't know either at first until I went into their forum and read the recent thread announcing it.
BTW, using the 03 Evo's published crank numbers vs your Dynojet results of 235whp is no basis for argument here. Why did the 05s only get a published 5hp bump at the crank, yet they dyno 245-250whp on Dynojets? That indicates a drivetrain loss of 9-11%. Then, if you look at the 06s, they are listed at 286, yet dyno as high as 270-275 on Dynojets, which would indicate a drivetrain loss of 4-5%. Mitsu's published crank figures are arbitrary for the most part...
Some good reading
As for the 05 / 06 .. clearly underrated hp from the factory ..Much like the neon SRT 4's claim. I find it funny everyone who owns a mustang dyno . or gets tuned by one .. will always compare it to a dynojet # ..... The dyno is a tool .. i wouldnt want to own one that you can get it to read 800whp on an evo with a boost controler and exhaust . .. IMHO ..
Mark
Turbotrix
Last edited by TurbotrixRacing; Dec 31, 2005 at 03:02 PM.
Dec 31, 2005, 03:06 PM
#68
I've only been on Dynojets, and I've always had to retune myself on the road after tuning on the dyno. The numbers weren't even important to me, because the tune was completely different.
Regardless of having a load option, it's not as accurate as a MD.
Regardless of having a load option, it's not as accurate as a MD.
Dec 31, 2005, 05:32 PM
#71
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call Jeremiah...on the meet tomorrow...I have a couple of STI's coming out at least...so it should be pretty good. Hve fun tonight man, stay safe, and give me a call if you need a ride or anything, the VA beach cops are tough....