Dyno results are in!!!
#16
#17
Originally Posted by DOCSG35
Well, can't really comment on that considering I don't know how much I would've gained by going with TS, etc. Besides TS was $50 more
Overall, I'm pretty happy, but just a little bummed that we weren't able to hit 280 rwhp.
Overall, I'm pretty happy, but just a little bummed that we weren't able to hit 280 rwhp.
I can bring you to a mustang dyno and your car would only be putting down about 215rwhp, but it wouldn't be any slower, right?
Maybe you're needing some FI
#18
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 101
From: Southern Cali --> 818
#19
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 101
From: Southern Cali --> 818
#20
#21
#22
Originally Posted by Mike@RiversideInfiniti
Area under the curve!!!
take some calculus >.<
take some calculus >.<
Lets look at the initial numbers before the tune.
AT 3500 rpm non-rev up is making ~160 hp
AT 3500 revup is making 150hp
At 4000 rpm non-revup is making ~185hp
At 4000 rpm revup is making ~179
At 5000 rpm non-revup is making ~227
At 5000 rpm revup is making ~218
At 5500 rpm non-revup is making ~240
At 5500 rpm revup is making ~231
At 6000 rpm non-revup is making ~250
At 6000 rpm revup is making ~249
Am i missing something that u are seeing?
#24
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 101
From: Southern Cali --> 818
#25
Originally Posted by Skaterbasist
^^ Vlad, im sure you know that its not really fair to compare two completely different cars. Mike has more modifications than the OP does too. HFC/Test Pipes make a big different with a tune.
.
.