40rty

Factory freak engine

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

I am making about the same power too on stock turbo also... (Havn't dyno'd yet, but our cars are very evenly matched.) E85 is a big help. We also have a 2871 Car down here making 422WHP.

The dyno's are not happy, the cars are not factory freaks, its just good tuning and more timing. I may end up going for the 2871 upgrade since I have a spare turbo sitting around now, its got a crack in the spline of the exhaust side though....

FF_ace

Our turbo are known to have that crack there

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

Yeah I am just gonna send the turbo off the get a big wheel upgrade and rebuild anyways.

T-Man

iTrader: (3)

Only on CSS would you find something as ignorant as this.

You mad.

09CobaltSS1

You got it tough guy. Problem here is my 295whp will keep up with yours or any stock turbo pump gas (no meth, no ethenol mix.. just bolt-ons and a tune) 330-350whp cars any day. Sorry, but not everyone on here is an ignorant/un-informed 19 year old kid just wildly throwing misinformation out there like you're assuming I am. Some of us are actually big boys now pushing 30 who have been around long enough times to see through bs. Do I doubt that there are 340+ whp stock turbo 93 octane dyno sheets out there? Absolutely not.. Do I think they are a completely accurate representation of the car's power? mmmm not so much.... But hey what do I know? I'm just mad and ignorant..

ronn

iTrader: (3)

Think most are in the *dynojet range* and that seems to be the benchmark. The Mustang is the least *forgiving* in MOST cases. However, I've seen some Mustang results that are quite *liberal* It's always the same F##KN argument..which dyno is correct
Myself, I use Dynapack at Church Automotive which has been shown to dyno around 10 WHP above Dynojet. Again, I use it for any changes to my car..very accurate on repeatability..the best in the industry for that. See my thread on the Agency Catback..I'm currently doing a *dyno study* on the exhaust mods.

FF_ace

T man is making 311/360 with a completely stock lnf just a mix of e85 and his own hp tuners tune

ronn

iTrader: (3)

That's about where I was at BONE STOCK..only HP Tune and 91 Cali ****.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

He was bone stock with some E85, but yeah it can be done. Every dyno is different though. I am gonna hit up the same dyno when my new engine is put in. My results should be close. We had about the same 60-100 times.

ronn

iTrader: (3)

What 60-100 did ya get? Mine is around 6.3. STOP WATCH, not data logged.

09CobaltSS1

I very much agree with you as far as using the same dyno to measure accurate gains, especially when used for registering a baseline hp/trq range and building off of those numbers using the same dyno every time. Then even if you are using a very liberal dyno, you can see that you baselined hight, but really only gained 40-50whp. What I DO NOT agree with (and I'm definitely not saying you fall into this catagory at all Ronn) is the people that use these very broad dyno readings as a way to pawn their tune off as being "better" than someone elses. I'm not pointing any fingers, but they know very well who they are. They DEFINITELY know better than to do this because they know that dynos can range vastly, however when you are selling something like a tune (especially in a community with a demographic as young as this community), most folks see this and say WTF is wrong with my tune?! So then they buy into it, get this new and "better" tune, then surprise surprise, they're dyno numbers are nominally better at best. I've even seen LOWER dyno numbers when going this route. Sorry for the rant, and I'm not trying to **** anyone off or riffle any feathers. I just get sick of the same bs and games that I constantly see when it comes to this sort of thing

Nice! Are those dynojet numbers? I'm only asking because when I was in stock form, aside from my home made CAI and a tune, I put down the 317whp and 367wtrq on a dynojet using 93 octane and a fairly conservative tune. So seeing as how I put down more whp with only pump gas, does that mean my tune was better? Maybe, but not necessarely by any means. This just sort of furthers my point.

ronn

iTrader: (3)

I think the BEST way to compare cars is do a 60-100 *ricer run* in 3rd gear. Data logged is best, but stop watch will work well if ya do it right. Sure, conditions have to be somewhat similar (not 40F vs 90F ambient), but it's FAR better than using dyno #s. I use it quite often to compare mods I have made...works fairly well when you can't dyno (same dyno of course).

tglems

iTrader: (3)

You do realize that T-man, FF_ace, and drewbroo are all on a mixture of e85 and pump gas right? We have crappy 91 octane here (and crappy air), so many of us AZ balts are switching to a mixture of e85 to make up for our not having access to 93. If T-man was on 91 then his dyno numbers would likely have been around 300whp max. (not making your tune on 93 better or worse, but just fyi)

I'm just saying because you keep talking about this and you keep highlighting the idea of pump gas so I'm not sure if it is a miscommunication. I agree that on pump gas getting a dyno to read anywhere between 300whp-340whp stock turbo is possible, and most likely a lot of different tunes can accomplish this. The real place where so many of these tunes differ is not in peak numbers, but in making gains throughout the power band, avoiding knock, etc.

I get your point about trying to use peak numbers to sell tunes, but I'm sure you also realize that some tuners are better than others. Both Terminator and BYT (as examples) have been pretty well recognized as excellent tuners for the cobalt community. I'm sure there are some other very good tuners out there also, but I would happily trust my car with either of them.

ronn

iTrader: (3)

On that note read this:

Impulse Engines : Performance : More Average Torque

"This is reason why engines with more average torque but less peak horsepower produce faster acceleration than engines with more peak horsepower but less average torque and why engines should be measured by how much average torque and horsepower they produce."

tglems

iTrader: (3)

Good info. This is also why so many people love their SC's, especially for something like autoXing. I would add that with a CVT you can stay at the peak in the powerband , but that is a completely different discussion for completely different cars :-)

Edit: Also, on almost every tune by Term/BYT I almost always hear the person say afterward how the car feels so much better throughout the powerband and pulls so much harder at lower rpms. Just sayin

40rty

So does anyone want to run me at the track once I get this in my Sky Redline?

09CobaltSS1

Nick is going to hate me for this one

It's kind of funny you mention this. I actually had a side-said comparison with one of byt's tuned cars at a meet over the summer. Nick rode up this way over the summer for a meet with one of the guys he did a tune for. Both mine and Oscar's car had basically identical bolt-ons (although I believe he was running a Hahn IC and I still have the stocker) but aside from that everything was comparable. I think his car was pushing 25psi with 16* peak timing, and my Trifecta tune was set for 23psi and only 14* peak timing. Believe it or not I made 12 more whp than him (295whp/316wtrq me.. 283whp/330wtrq him). As you can see, he did make more wtrq than me due to the bigger spike in boost, however my power curve was a tad heathier... EVERYONE was pretty shocked, including me.

Now, with that being said. This was not intended to bash or offend Nick IN THE LEAST and I know that HE knows I mean him no harm. I just needed to clearify to the "BYT nut-swingers" that may feel the need to attack me for disgracing BYT's legacy. I do respect him and his tuning abilities... so back off! lol....

beast10007

thats good about the power and numbers but did you guys race side by side. there is a ss/tc that lives kinda by me and I raced his fully bolted Trifecta both 24psi and I pulled a car on him we race 50-100 stayed in 3rd the hole time/ both of us. He is now thinking abnout getting a combo tune from matt at zzp

we did the race because we saw how BYT did this vs a trifecta and killed him,


it was not like the car was slow or anything but I just had the edge all the way through it.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

If you have read my tune thread, you woudl know im not a any tune nutswinger. And I am a TF distributor.

09CobaltSS1

Unfortunately no we did not. As much as I would have loved to (as I'm sure Nick and Oscar would have loved to as well), it rained like an S.O.B. that day so it wasn't exactly prime pickins for a day to race. Keep in mind here too, I am running a milder tune than what Oscar had so there is still more power to sqeeze out if I wish to do so..

09CobaltSS1

Never did I mention your name so no need to defend yourself my man... Unless you have a guilty conscious..

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

I am HP + TF tuned, and distribute for TF, kinda hard to be biased.

T-Man

iTrader: (3)

How am I a "tough guy" for having a laugh at your misguided opinion? No one is throwing out any misinformation. As you said, you're just assuming. "Big boy" pushing 30 and still don't realize that the "real world" is run what you brung and hope you brought enough? E85 is a pump fuel that is available to some and not for others. Same goes for race gas and methanol (not at the pump but still easy to acquire) and some of us run around with it, ALL the time. Therefor, that is OUR "real world".

Now, I wasn't arguing with you about straight gasoline. 350+whp is few and far between, I'm sure of it. But to blatantly say that it's impossible and it doesn't count unless you're using gasoline only is absolutely dumb, period. You cannot make that statement to prop up your own argument and expect it to fly when there are those of us that refuse to run anything less then whatever the hell floats our boat. And in my case, it happens to be a 1:1 mixture of ethanol and 91 octane (shittiest gas you will ever find, I promise).

You also use a different dyno than I do, that measures from the hubs. Therefor you're removing rolling resistance/weight.

Remember this snippet of a post?

I've also seen them to greatly inflate torque output, much like a land & sea dyno (dyno-mite). So that would mean your 300+ is about 285-290+ and your torque much lower as well. My 60-100 times prove that you're down on power compared to me as our air and elevation are pretty damn close. Your best is 6.3, mine is now 5 flat, in a sedan no less(tiny bit heavier). Try not to get caught up in peak power, Ronn.

Datalogged is probably around 6 seconds and is pretty damned quick.


Yes, these were from a DJ dyno. Car put down 311/360 Smoothing 5, SAE and 322/378 Smoothing 5, STD. I choose not to throw around the STD numbers as I believe SAE is a much more accurate indicator/correction factor. You cannot compare your numbers to mine because it's apples to oranges. Bone stock with a tune only versus a tune and CAI.

If I were to use *ricer math*, lets say that CAI gave you 10whp or better, that would mean that bone stock, you're throwing down 307. You also forgot to mention whether that was SAE or STD. Also, conservative tuning to one person could be a bit more aggressive to another. Wouldn't that be included in the "bs" you've been ranting about? To me, my E48 tune is pretty conservative compared to others. To you, it might be pretty aggressive. See how that works?

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

Datalogged was around 4.8 seconds @ 3000 + Ft elevation