FP Green tuned at TopSpeed

[SeeeeeYa]

I Never dyno with SAE correction factor applied. Frankly, I don't care what my car would dyno in some mathematically-correct perfect/uniform environment. I want to know what my car is putting down that day, under those circumstances.

 

There's some debate, also, turbo cars should 'never' run SAE corrected, because they, in large part, make their own environmental conditions.

 

Did I hear someone say METH????

[Boostjunkie]

I hear the whole uncorrected versus SAE debate all the time. At sealevel in a temperate climate it's all really a moot point. At altitude, SAE correction vastly inflates the numbers for forced induction cars. SAE correction is too generous in correcting for altitude and barometric pressure and about right for the temperature correction. Given that our dyno is only about 1200 ft ASL, SAE only adds about 1% when it is 60-70* and barometric pressure is normal. When it is brutally hot (110*+) it will add 4-5% which is more than reasonable to allow a customer who dynoed in the middle of winter to compare his results in the summer.

[dmp]

I hear the whole uncorrected versus SAE debate all the time. At sealevel in a temperate climate it's all really a moot point. At altitude, SAE correction vastly inflates the numbers for forced induction cars. SAE correction is too generous in correcting for altitude and barometric pressure and about right for the temperature correction. Given that our dyno is only about 1200 ft ASL, SAE only adds about 1% when it is 60-70* and barometric pressure is normal. When it is brutally hot (110*+) it will add 4-5% which is more than reasonable to allow a customer who dynoed in the middle of winter to compare his results in the summer.

 

That's exactly why I prefer, even in my NA cars, to read 'measured' power. If I lived in Denver, I'd STILL want measured power, because the only thing important to me is seeing what the car is actually doing...on that day...on that dyno.

 

The only benefit is in reading the power numbers - or, comparing power numbers.

 

For instance, Joe Schmoe dyno's his LGT spec.B, stock, in December, at 274whp and 520lbs-ft. He comes back in July with a drop-in filter and spec.B controller and dyno's at 269whp, 499lbs-ft. He instantly cries about the 'loss' of power, yet the dyno served to show him how the car was RUNNING, not just the power. Based on his July dyno he sees 'other-than-power' data which can help him tune his spec.B to be the best ever...or better than ever - absolute power numbers aside.

 

Make sense?

[tytek]

Did some logging today after adding a 3" CBE a few weeks ago. When compared to my previous logs, with the stock catback, there is only a small difference in 60-80mph - 2.03s (3.0" CBE) vs 2.06 (stock CBE). I would say that the results are inconclusive; even though the testing grounds have not changed, there was a large temperature difference between those two logging sessions (delta of ~30F).

 

I think that in order to realize all the possible gains from the opened up exhaust, I would need to be tuned for it...

 

Any opinions?

[edmundu]

^^I think you have added some power, particularly in spoolup, and some on the topend as well. But the fact of the matter is, that the stock dual cans, with a 2.5" mid pipe are not too restrictive in the 350whp range. On the order of about 10-15whp.

 

I also noted in my extensive logging of my STI vf39 setup that the stock CBE did not impeded power production at ALL.

 

As for being tuned for it, the gains have already been realized when you installed it. Of course there might be a touch of cleanup in the maf table if you encounter a comletely new load cell that you hadn't before, but that is doubtful. If the exhaust was a real restriction, your boost target's & wg duty % would have been affected ,along with some timing adjustments, as you can hit higher loads at lower revs.

 

Have you logged your runs with the new CBE, and compared to the stock ones? If the 60-80 times are any indication, then I think you are wasting $$$ on a tune, unless it is free...

[wukindada]

Congrats man......

 

Glad to see you are happy, anyone on the east coast should pay Scott a visit if they want a great tune. As you mention Ty.....he truly takes him time on the tune & makes sure the car is mechanically sound before he even starts.

 

Now throw that meth kit on, I would bet some serious Kaaaaiiiish Scott mentioned that a time or 2;)

[John M]

If I end up going w/ the Green, I'll probably have a very similar setup. Plus, I live only 90 minutes from TopSpeed

 

I'll want only open source tuning tools though because I don't want to be locked out of my ECU for any reason.

 

I think I'll want 93 and 100 octane tunes too, so I can make the most of that turbo when I do hit the track, or the occasional 100 octane pump I encounter during travels.

 

I'm also very surprised at how well the stock cat-back did. I was sure it was a restriction even at my current level of mods.

[tytek]

Congrats man......

 

Glad to see you are happy, anyone on the east coast should pay Scott a visit if they want a great tune. As you mention Ty.....he truly takes him time on the tune & makes sure the car is mechanically sound before he even starts.

 

Now throw that meth kit on, I would bet some serious Kaaaaiiiish Scott mentioned that a time or 2;)

 

Thanks wuki...

 

Yeah, Scott is a great guy and a passionate, meticulous tuner. I only wish he was a little closer to Cincy And yes, he did talk about meth... and did talk about you and boon and all the fun he had with fixing your tunes.

 

Also, instead of meth, I would go for an E85 tune. My IDC are low enough that I should be able to easily flow another 30% more fuel required for it. Just don't want to spend any additional $ yet... I consider ethanol to be a better bang for the buck since such fuel is plentiful where I live, and ends up being just a hair more expensive than premium gas (per gallon efficiency). It is race fuel in disguise

[TPLGT]

Yep...I have my tuning day w/ Scott on 3/21. Stage 2, baby!