Notices
Vishnu Performance - California [Visit Site]

XFlash Stage 1 vs 1+

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 11:22 AM
  #1  
rpm-evo's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Boston
XFlash Stage 1 vs 1+

I plan on ordering the XFlash within the next week or so, but I want to know the torque and power differences between the stage 1 and 1+ for the 93 octane. I haven't been able to find the difference posted here. I need to decide if adding cams is worth the cost of the cams, springs, and install. Plus trying to find the cams in stock. I also have an equal length manifold, and am planning on doing intercooler pipes as well. Does this mean I should do the xede instead of the xflash? I am trying to arrange to have everything done at once (nothing is on the car yet) so my car is out of comission for as short a time as possible.

Thanks.
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 12:20 PM
  #2  
Noize's Avatar
EvoM Administrator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,849
Likes: 137
From: Franklin, TN
~20whp from 5000rpm on up, with about 20wtq all over the bottom, tapering as it goes.
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 12:25 PM
  #3  
Mistasparkle's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Noize, i just ordered the stage 1+, and honestly how much faster than stock is it? sory for the hijack but im kinda excited
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 01:07 PM
  #4  
Eric Lyublinsky's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
From: Tri-State
Originally Posted by Mistasparkle
Noize, i just ordered the stage 1+, and honestly how much faster than stock is it? sory for the hijack but im kinda excited

From stock your going to feel it. I have seen stage 1+ cars on 93 pump gas make over 100whp more then stock. So your going to be making 48% more hp then you make stock.
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 02:02 PM
  #5  
Noize's Avatar
EvoM Administrator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,849
Likes: 137
From: Franklin, TN
With a Stage 1+ in good conditions, some of the guys out west have run low 12s and trap 112mph and higher.
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 02:14 PM
  #6  
Aby@MIL.SPEC's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (161)
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,043
Likes: 13
From: San Elijo Hills, Ca.
I havent seen many 93 octane compares, maybe from an old dyno day after discussion, but you can geek together a 91 octane compare. lambtron has posted his stg 1 ps chart & somebody a while back (dwong?) posted their stg 1+ with UR cat, somebody elses dp & cat back, all whlie using an xflash.

hope this helps. evidently there is some type of "i dont want my dyno sheet posted" issue taking place!!!WTF. "I dont want anyone to know how much hp i make, cause i might race ya"
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 02:15 PM
  #7  
alex_alex's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,993
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by Noize
With a Stage 1+ in good conditions, some of the guys out west have run low 12s and trap 112mph and higher.

Right, but remember, for comparison's sake that this is with a test pipe and race gas (c16).
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 04:50 PM
  #8  
GT_Man's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Miami
Originally Posted by rpm-evo
I plan on ordering the XFlash within the next week or so, but I want to know the torque and power differences between the stage 1 and 1+ for the 93 octane. I haven't been able to find the difference posted here. I need to decide if adding cams is worth the cost of the cams, springs, and install. Plus trying to find the cams in stock. I also have an equal length manifold, and am planning on doing intercooler pipes as well. Does this mean I should do the xede instead of the xflash? I am trying to arrange to have everything done at once (nothing is on the car yet) so my car is out of comission for as short a time as possible.

Thanks.

Do you have to change valve springs?
Old Jun 22, 2004 | 06:11 PM
  #9  
4g63powered's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: Southern California
You dont have to change the valve springs.
Old Jun 24, 2004 | 11:17 AM
  #10  
rpm-evo's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Boston
Originally Posted by Eric Lyublinsky
From stock your going to feel it. I have seen stage 1+ cars on 93 pump gas make over 100whp more then stock. So your going to be making 48% more hp then you make stock.
So if 1+ is about 100 hp more, then just stage 1 is probably going to be about 70-80 over bone stock?

And I thought with the 272 cams you need to upgrade the valve springs? Any idea how long it should take a mechanic to install cams, springs, and gears?
Old Jun 24, 2004 | 12:00 PM
  #11  
Ron's Avatar
Ron
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
I've noticed on a friend's Stage 1 car that the driveability/torque is quite low at low rpm. By low rpm I mean low-- such as during (and immediately following) clutch engagement, and the tip-in that follows. I suspect it is the cam timing since the stock car (while not a torque monster down there) is certainly better in this regard.

Call me a sissy, but this behavior makes the car annoying to drive in stop&go traffic. The cam gears are set at whatever Vishnu sends them out with.

Have other Stage 1 users encountered this, and does alternate cam timing help? How about Stage 1+, does this low speed driveability get even worse with the HKS cams?
Old Jun 24, 2004 | 12:06 PM
  #12  
SuperHatch's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (23)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Originally Posted by Ron
Call me a sissy, but this behavior makes the car annoying to drive in stop&go traffic. The cam gears are set at whatever Vishnu sends them out with.

Have other Stage 1 users encountered this, and does alternate cam timing help? How about Stage 1+, does this low speed driveability get even worse with the HKS cams?
Excellent question, I am curious about this as well as I am considering going to stage 1 or 1+ soon. If the extra $600 on cams will help me maintain more bottom end it would be a worthwhile investment.

- Steve
Old Jun 24, 2004 | 01:12 PM
  #13  
Noize's Avatar
EvoM Administrator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,849
Likes: 137
From: Franklin, TN
Not to be harsh, but if you're complaining about the feel of the Stage 1 at low rpm, you should just mod the car to a 0+ level and forget about it. Even with the cam gears, this car has a pretty aggressive compression ratio for a factory turbocharged car, and it pulls completely fine to me clutch engagement/super low rpm.

The cam gears sacrifice a very insignificant amount of low end torque for a whole lot of knock resistance for tuning and a bit more high end torque (therefore more horsepower) at high rpm, where it is much more usable and desirable. I've never felt the car bog or be especially weak at very low rpm.

Stage 1+ will have a lot more torque pretty much everywhere beyond 2000rpm. It is a worthwhile sacrifice for the big power increase. I drove a Stage 1+ car, and had no issues in drivability whatsoever.
Old Jun 24, 2004 | 01:47 PM
  #14  
Ludikraut's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Vishnu claims +25% whp going from stock to Stage 1 ... and after installing a Stage 1 on my car it ended up at ... whaddayaknow ... +25%whp Driveability has been excellent... pretty much the same as stock (if you're not counting the extra power).

l8r)
Old Jun 24, 2004 | 02:27 PM
  #15  
jj_008's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,064
Likes: 0
From: Salem, OR
I went from stock, to stage 0+, and then to stage 1+ w/ 272's and the car has the same driveability as stock. Just more power everywhere.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:09 PM.