hahahahahahhahaa thats so funny~ in a good way! im not knocking you, just saying what you said is funny ^.^ i like hondas, esp. the s2k~ ^^

 

Hey no worries here man, I hate Honda's and I drive one, HA!!
S2K's I consider different, the reason why is because it actually has power and can be feared. The rest cant.

Now back to your car, honestly though, who will be able to beat you in a 1/4? NO ONE, that's who, unless they do insane amounts of mods and spend insane amounts of money then, but they you could just put 3 more mods and spoke them again and again.

I respect the EVO's man, Not only are they sexy as Shakira's *** shaking right in front of your face but it's extremely powerful....like um um Shakira's ***, it can make men do whatever she wants.

 

hahahahaha shkira is beautiful~ anyway back on topic ^^ other ix owners want to chime in???

 

Yeah, any other XI's owners?
Since I will be getting a XI also, this is a great learning thing for me too.

 

I am a Evo IX MR owner. I think you gained some pretty good numbers. For the list on your modifications, I think you did well. People need to realize the difference betweeen the 8's and the 9's. I did gain a lot with the similar mods that you have on your vehicle. The mivec and the bigger turbo does do something LOL!! I wouldnt be down.. Everyone knows dynojets read higher but look at the difference. Ive modified vehicles with every know part possibily just about and some are freaks of nature. Any other questions let me know.

 

Bezimo (my brother) ended up with 315 hp and 300 tq at AMS with similar mods. Although he is running a highflow cat and I/C piping. I'm not sure if TT uses corrected #s though.

 

Im sure they use corrected #'s

 

yea, why wouldn't they be corrected?

Thanks Chris, yea I think my evo is just your avg. run of the mill kind -.- hahaha

 

No, they don't always use corrected. Sometimes they do uncorrected, sometimes they do STD, and sometimes they do SAE. StiKiller, why would you ask "why wouldn't they be corrected"? Well, so that they look higher, that's why. I personally only use uncorrected, because I don't want the computer giving me a falsely-estimated number. I only want to know what I put to the ground, because the track only cares what I'm putting to the ground - not what the Correction Factor says.

It's up to you to know what correction factor is used. It's listed right there on your dynosheet, but you never posted the dynosheet for some reason...

 

will do tonight~ and i believe it said "STD"

 

Ok, yeah, they've been doing STD a lot. On my 341whp/361wtq uncorrected dynochart, the SAE correction was lower (333/353), but the STD was higher (343/363). What you're supposed to do is GET THE ELECTRONIC RUN FILE right after you dyno by having it emailed to you or downloaded to a flash drive. Then, you can put it in WinPep to analyze or give it to us by attaching it to your post as a zip file.

 

wow, they just freakin gave me a "print out", wonder why i can't take a good damn picture of it.



here is the crappy *** picture of my "paper"

 

Don't worry - they give EVERYONE a printout, which continues to irk me. I keep telling people who go to TurboTrix to get the electronic runfile, but no one ever asks, so all we end up seeing is a picture of the printout, which doesn't help much. Wow, this looks like many of the others I've seen where they tune you very close to 12.0:1 AFR (64-78mph), but it's probably not that bad, because the AFR scale is squished so much that you can't really see the details. The MPH scale is also annoying. If I had the runfile, I'd change it to the engine speed scale (RPM) and set the CF to uncorrected.

Since it's not showing up in your picture, can you tell me what number you see after STD? It should be 1.0x...

 

yes Warr, it is 1.02.

So does the tune seem ok? It just seems really really like how my cars baseline run was, except just higher numbers, weird. The curves seem almost identical except for the fact after the tune the numbers are a bit higher.

and yes i also wish it was RPM, i don't get it -.-

 

The tune seems ok, but the AFR section is compressed so much that I can't see the actual AFR curve in detail. Regardless, it looks ok, but it is not the same as the stock tune, so I'm not sure why you said that - you can see the curves diverage at 63mph where the stock tune continues to go rich, but the tuned curve goes leaner where it should be. You gained a LOT of power with the tune, which is good, but your stock tune wasn't really that bad with all the mods installed. The stock tune starts lean, then goes rich at 5200rpm, and after 6000rpm, it falls off the charts below 10. Your tune starts lean (good for spoolup/torque, although your torque is low), then richens out in the mid-range (proper), then leans out near 7k (proper again).

I need the electronic runfile in order to see in more detail. Ask them to email it to you.

PS. With a 1.02 CF, that means your true numbers were 314.7whp/296.1wtq.