No, there are plenty of people who still work to maximise their setups. My friend Leon Reitman, for example, who ran a freaking 11.8@113mph on a freaking stock 14B turbo from a 1G DSM.

But quite a few people do give up on the "small turbos" like the 16G way too early, IMO. They bolt it on, don't tune the car for crap, and then think, "that's it?" I've been running with a 16G for the past 4 years now, however. For a lot of that time, i was fighting a boost drop issue that I thought was due to my engine outflowing the turbo. That was not the case, however. Basically, I had a larger flapper valve installed to combat boost creep, but the larger area of the flapper valve, and the exhaust pressure in the exhaust manifold was causing the wastegate to open farther than it should have to maintain the set boost level. Force on the wastegate valve increases with the square of the radius. A larger flapper valve requires a larger wastegate actuator diaphragm. But there isn't one available. The 16G has one of the largest I have ever seen. My new unported Evo III 16G is holding boost fine up to 26psi, whereas I could only hold 19psi with my small 16G. The 118mph pass was my first pass at 26psi, and the car was tuned very conservatively. There is more left in it.

That was quite the tangent. I just love talking about this stuff.

Anway, I've seen lots of other people just as successful as I am. New England Club DSM is full of them. And our record of Diamond Star Shootout wins shows it. One year at the shootout as Dave was handing out trophies, and I walked up to get mine, he saw my NEDSM t-shirt and said, "jeez, another New England guy!" Must be something in the water. We all tune our cars by driving them and datalogging. You should see some of the physics discussions that fly by on our list from day to day.

 

I wish there was more of that here. I think the car is still pretty new and very few people are screwing around with it, or people that have evo's don't have the cash to risk if something goes wrong.

 

Just remember guys we don't all want our cars tuned for the best HP number or quarter mile time.

You shoud see Shiv smooth a power band methodically systematically filling every hole in a power band till it is absolutly smooth. The area under the curve huge the torque and power band immense (it spools 700rpms quicker than stock!). The car has more power off idle to it's extended red-line (xflash + Xede). This is the stuff worth talking about. How many of us "live our lives a quarter mile at a time"!?!

This is what matters, NOT NUMBERS. Just because you can tune a car with a SAFC-2 to a decent time that does not mean car is as good. there is much more to an engine and tuning an engine than the HP it produces. Everyone would have to agree with that right? We saw this weekend well tuned AFC cars that made decent HP (still less BTW) but their curves were a lot more peaky and they were down significant torque.

Having more options avaliable for the same given problems (x flash/ Xede vs. SAFC-2 or flash alone) results in less compromised solutions. Simple as that.

To each his own: do you want the best bang for you your buck numbers? OR do you want the best period(for not a lot more when you add it up)? The choice is yours!

 

Exactly! Good job. BTW what was your cam gears set at -2/-2?

 

Funny you should ask. My gears were installed one tooth off so they WERE set at ~-10,-10 . Got them set today and she really rips. BTW cam gears are currently set at -3,-3

 

Shiv do the ole screwdriver TDC trick?

 

[QUOTE][i] However, the Stage Zero and up EVOs are making close to 300whp (SAE corrected) by as early as 4500rpm.

Here's a quick summary of the weekends results:

Stock EVOs put down around 250whp
Stock EVO with XEDE put down 285whp
Stage Zeros with downpipes put down ~305whp
Stage Ones put down 315-320whp
Stage Ones with cams put down 340-345whp

Due to the altitude, the EVOs run out of breath early, often reaching peak hp as early as 5500rpm. So the goal of the day was to maximize the torque curve and to improve run-to-run consistency (which isn't possible without some form of timing control).

My car was one of the ones that really improved in HP and torque numbers with Shiv's tuning and the Xede, and I have been very happy with the results. On the other hand, based on the dyno sheet I still have, it peaked early (4500 rpm) and then saw a drop around 5250-6000 before rising again. Despite all of Shiv's efforts, we couldn't get it to flatten out, and this happened to at lest two other EVOs. Shiv suggested that we needed a higher flow fule pump. Did anyone do this, and has it helped? I can't understand why this would happen at high altitude if it doesn't happen at sea level, but Shiv said he hadn't seen those results anywhere else. Anyone?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigmac

Quote:

[i]

Due to the altitude, the EVOs run out of breath early, often reaching peak hp as early as 5500rpm. So the goal of the day was to maximize the torque curve and to improve run-to-run consistency (which isn't possible without some form of timing control).

My car was one of the ones that really improved in HP and torque numbers with Shiv's tuning and the Xede, and I have been very happy with the results. On the other hand, based on the dyno sheet I still have, it peaked early (4500 rpm) and then saw a drop around 5250-6000 before rising again. Despite all of Shiv's efforts, we couldn't get it to flatten out, and this happened to at lest two other EVOs. Shiv suggested that we needed a higher flow fule pump. Did anyone do this, and has it helped? I can't understand why this would happen at high altitude if it doesn't happen at sea level, but Shiv said he hadn't seen those results anywhere else. Anyone?

I put the pump in my stage 1+ car and it cured the leaning out. The reason we have peak power sooner is the turbo running out of air early (compaired with sea level). So we are talking about to seperate issues. You should get the pump but it won't help your HP numbers, it's just there for safety.
You say your torque peaked at 4500? that sounds correct but then you say it dips down after that and then comes back up...that sounds odd. All the cars I saw had very smooth HP and torque curves. HP peaking at ~6200rpms and tq at ~4500rpms with very flat smooth powerbands that were much larger (not just higher) than stock.

 

i heard shiv burned up your fuel pump trying to tune your car, is this true? too many runs in a row overheated it? that sucks if so. plus, 2 hours of dyno time, wow! that sure is a lot!

 

That's a new one

shiv

 

SHIV HOW COULD YOU ....

My car was the first up so we (Shiv) used it to develop the high altitude maps. That was the plan from the begining. Along the way we discovered that after 18 consecutive pulls the pump would fail.
It's that type of thorough testing that puts Shiv in a different league vs. anyone else. He wants ~50 pulls per car to get things perfect.
If he hadn't had done it we (EVO Co. drivers) would not have known that we need the pump upgrade well before the EVOs in the rest of the country. As soon as you do a cat-back and up the boost...you need a pump

Yea my car is a bit of a dyno queen but all Modded Co. EVOs are better off because of it

 

Chronohunter; which fuel pump did you install to replace the stocker?
You're right about the torque curve--I don't think I was reading it right. It peaked early, about 4200, and then tapered off slowly, a much better power band than stock. The HP numbers hit 300 at 5200, dropped off 15hp or so between 5200 and 5800, climbing back to 310 at 6000, where it tapered off in a reasonably smooth line after that.

 

Walbro 255 for the EVO, I got it from Shiv. You have to get the one for the EVO the (DSM ones have the pick-up 180degrees off).
You tune sounds good! That's big power for your level of mods

 

i guess the knowledge i have of naturally aspirated cars at high altitudes doesn't apply to turbo cars according to your theory chronohunter. i thought that higher altitude meant less air, which would mean you need less fuel to maintain optimal a/f ratios? maybe i'm wrong, which i doubt though. you say we (higher altituders) need a bigger fuel pump before the rest of the evos? i guess i'm confused.

maybe the aggressive timing maps in the lower rpm's make it neccessary to up the fuel pressure at higher rpms??

although i took the cheaper route, (s-afc) i don't seem to be having any problems. only took 4 pulls to tune it too, and the last two were almost a perfect single line. very consistant.

glad to see that shiv can mock someone, but not thank anyone when they defend him or his products. that's customer service!!!

 

Dude dont sweat the Shiv humor. But you presented it in a confrontational way. As far as the flow of a pump at altitude it takes more energy to pump the same volume