One car, same tune - 3 dyno sheets.

[simulatedwood]

*** This is not an offical test of all the Dyno's in the area, just a couple of sheets for a interesting read how different dynos read.***

Car: 2008 Evo X - Boost Pill mod, AMS down pipe , UR HFC, Magnaflow Catback w/ modded inlet, and K&N drop in filter.

Tuned by Ron @ RSMotors,
The older sheets from the other dynos do not show the boost like db did , it would be good info to see how the car gets loaded on each.

Current Tune @ RS:


MitsuStyle Fall Dyno day @ MAP:


MitsuStyle Spring Dyno day @ DBperformance:


Boost:


Shootout Mode:

[Kracka]

Your car felt great, especially considering it's limited mods!

[mlomker]

Tough to read the one from RS...looks like 320-something?

My EBCS is holding about 1psi more, otherwise it's probably the fmic. I know most of the stuff on my car shouldn't have done much for power (304).

[simulatedwood]

Thanks, for the compliment. Really do like the way it runs right now.

What is cool about the graphs if the torque and power curves look pretty close to identical (ignoring the actual numbers of course).

[scheides]

Just goes to show that dynos and conditions can change things!

MAP=340whp
RS= 323whp
DB=285whp

Add in some weather/wear fudge factors but this is pretty neat comparo.

[Murlo26]

So 15% gain from DB to MAP is reasonable...this was 19% but I don't think that is too common, probably weather or something.

I think from now on I will just assume 15% and not worry about dyno'ing at different spots, my boost control method doesn't like dynojets anyway.

Good comparison.

[Halon]

I did this comparison last year as well.

Made 541HP AWD at DB, then the very next weekend made 628HP AWD at MAP. The tune had not been touched, it was a little bit warmer day when I went to MAP. Not a "perfect" comparison, but decent.

[Murlo26]

So you are 16% difference, so the 15% theory should be a perfect estimator.

[turbotalon1g]

Cool comparison, thanks for that. (nice to meet you the other night)

[simulatedwood]

Nice to meet you as well. Kinda nice to put the screennames to the faces.

What a great weekend !

[Goat Blower]

That sounds right. I dynoed 520awhp at DB and 582 at MAP, but it didn't feel quite right at MAP.

[Shane@DBPerformance]

My wife's 1G put down 485 at DB and then 563 at MAP.

[Murlo26]

Originally Posted by ecoli

My wife's 1G put down 485 at DB and then 563 at MAP.

I think this has to be the norm 14-17% area. Mine was terrible for a comparison, 420 DB, 460 MAP. But I was running 3 less pounds of boost.

Is the wife's 1g on a MBC shane? I am thinking that my boost control method is to blame.

[RS98GSX]

Just goes to show that dynos and conditions can change things!

MAP=340whp
RS= 323whp
DB=285whp

Add in some weather/wear fudge factors but this is pretty neat comparo.

Ron does an awsome job tuning. and the dyno at RS is a low reader, I wouldnt doubt it if you calculated in the percentiges if RS was real close with numbers to MAP.

[Shane@DBPerformance]

Originally Posted by RS98GSX

Ron does an awsome job tuning. and the dyno at RS is a low reader, I wouldnt doubt it if you calculated in the percentiges if RS was real close with numbers to MAP.

All three dynos on that car were with the same tune.

[mlomker]

Originally Posted by Murlo26

my boost control method is too lame.

ftfy. I guess the real question is what is it hitting on the streets.

[Murlo26]

Originally Posted by mlomker

ftfy. I guess the real question is what is it hitting on the streets.

zero now

We logged it after the DB tuning session and the loads etc were almost identical to the dyno session.

[simulatedwood]

Originally Posted by mlomker

ftfy. I guess the real question is what is it hitting on the streets.

I wish I knew, no boost guage.

The tune was directed to be very conservative from the start. I am sure there is a bit more power that could be sqeazed out, but my wallet cannot afford to go there.