Dyno day tomorrow morning
06-02-2011, 12:07 PM
#41
Instructor
Why do people not read? I told him that he's either lying or the dyno shop had the wrong settings. Unless he owns the dynojet-- I'm not saying he's a liar, yet.
And I already apologized about bashing his thread, but I don't like misinformation because then it leads to more threads made.
And I already apologized about bashing his thread, but I don't like misinformation because then it leads to more threads made.
You also have said his results are inconsistent with what you have seen in other dynos, perhaps you could post some dynos from members, not the manufacturer of the j pipe, to back up your claims that they conflict with what you have seen.
I agree with Sonnick’s claim that had the OP given his ecu a chance to dial in fuel trims and timing advance after the reset the gains would have been greater. I’m banking that the ecu would have leaned out fuel a bit after dialing in fuel trims because of the intake and the maf scaling table in the ecu being scaled for the stock intake tubing diameter. In addition to that I also believe the ecu was not close to adding its max timing in the timing advance table and base timing tables due to the reset. But to get those tables dialed in the OP would have had to do some driving after the reset potentially nixing the results by allowing more time and variables to change in the dyno whether it be atmospheric or scaling with the dyno. His results are what I would expect given how he did the tests literally after an ecu reset and bolting the parts up and also based off of his supporting mods.
If he had done 10-15 2000rpm to redline pulls after the reset fuel and timing for WOT throttle angle across the rpm band would have been very close to being completely dialed in, likely yielding greater results on the dyno. My .02.
06-02-2011, 01:32 PM
#43
Instructor
06-02-2011, 09:35 PM
#44
Suzuka Master
iTrader: (2)
^So it's even worse, you are calling someone a liar, and it's neither of yours thread. Lol
Dynos vary greatly. We all know this.
I agree, 10WHP on just a v2 doesn't sound right. Nor does 4WHP gain on a v3 sound right. But the 13 total does, low even. My car stock dynoed much higher then the other MTs I had seen around here. Even the guys at the shop agreed it pulled very strong for what it was. The day, the dyno, the people. Too many variables to call someone a liar.
Dynos vary greatly. We all know this.
I agree, 10WHP on just a v2 doesn't sound right. Nor does 4WHP gain on a v3 sound right. But the 13 total does, low even. My car stock dynoed much higher then the other MTs I had seen around here. Even the guys at the shop agreed it pulled very strong for what it was. The day, the dyno, the people. Too many variables to call someone a liar.
06-02-2011, 11:37 PM
#45
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
237.1/210.7
06-05-2011, 09:27 AM
#47
Team Owner
Or his results are factual you forgot to list that possibility. So far you are saying the only way his results are valid are if he is lying or the dyno wasn’t configured correctly. But based on his dyno everything looks good to me his afr was identical at 11.2 with both stock airbox runs which is what I would expect if the conditions were very close between runs.
You also have said his results are inconsistent with what you have seen in other dynos, perhaps you could post some dynos from members, not the manufacturer of the j pipe, to back up your claims that they conflict with what you have seen.
I agree with Sonnick’s claim that had the OP given his ecu a chance to dial in fuel trims and timing advance after the reset the gains would have been greater. I’m banking that the ecu would have leaned out fuel a bit after dialing in fuel trims because of the intake and the maf scaling table in the ecu being scaled for the stock intake tubing diameter. In addition to that I also believe the ecu was not close to adding its max timing in the timing advance table and base timing tables due to the reset. But to get those tables dialed in the OP would have had to do some driving after the reset potentially nixing the results by allowing more time and variables to change in the dyno whether it be atmospheric or scaling with the dyno. His results are what I would expect given how he did the tests literally after an ecu reset and bolting the parts up and also based off of his supporting mods.
If he had done 10-15 2000rpm to redline pulls after the reset fuel and timing for WOT throttle angle across the rpm band would have been very close to being completely dialed in, likely yielding greater results on the dyno. My .02.
You also have said his results are inconsistent with what you have seen in other dynos, perhaps you could post some dynos from members, not the manufacturer of the j pipe, to back up your claims that they conflict with what you have seen.
I agree with Sonnick’s claim that had the OP given his ecu a chance to dial in fuel trims and timing advance after the reset the gains would have been greater. I’m banking that the ecu would have leaned out fuel a bit after dialing in fuel trims because of the intake and the maf scaling table in the ecu being scaled for the stock intake tubing diameter. In addition to that I also believe the ecu was not close to adding its max timing in the timing advance table and base timing tables due to the reset. But to get those tables dialed in the OP would have had to do some driving after the reset potentially nixing the results by allowing more time and variables to change in the dyno whether it be atmospheric or scaling with the dyno. His results are what I would expect given how he did the tests literally after an ecu reset and bolting the parts up and also based off of his supporting mods.
If he had done 10-15 2000rpm to redline pulls after the reset fuel and timing for WOT throttle angle across the rpm band would have been very close to being completely dialed in, likely yielding greater results on the dyno. My .02.
Tl does not use a MAF, it's speed density. Fuel trims are "dialed in" very quickly, it's not something that takes days. More like seconds. "If" the CAI flowed more air and colder air, it would lean the car out initially, not richen it. Tell me how a CAI makes a difference on a car with the hood open on the dyno. I would believe 10hp if the hood were closed the whole time.
Not sure why you think the number would improve after the reset anyway when he said they were the same before and after. Sounds like the ECU had it right on. It was a hot day, more timing advance might have turned into timing retard and taken away power. Just how slowly do you think the ECU is in "adjusting" things. One full throttle run should do it. Then an additional pull after that should yield 99% of your maximum power gains.
Exhaust mods don't change much in an EFI car. Exhaust reduces pumping losses. It would be like adding a lightweight underdrive pulley and saying the ECU needs time to adjust to the pulley.
Numbers are numbers but we all know how the dyno game works. Take it to the track, watch mph.
I'm glad the OP did the testing and posted results, it's the other posts that annoy me. Out of curiosity, how many runs did you do of each setup? If you had a few stock runs and a few runs with just the CAI, that would validate the gains much more than just one run of each. Im assuming you did more than one run of each, right?
06-05-2011, 12:45 PM
#50
Suzuka Master
iTrader: (2)
Threads like this are why I stay mostly in the audio section now.
Tl does not use a MAF, it's speed density. Fuel trims are "dialed in" very quickly, it's not something that takes days. More like seconds. "If" the CAI flowed more air and colder air, it would lean the car out initially, not richen it. Tell me how a CAI makes a difference on a car with the hood open on the dyno. I would believe 10hp if the hood were closed the whole time.
Not sure why you think the number would improve after the reset anyway when he said they were the same before and after. Sounds like the ECU had it right on. It was a hot day, more timing advance might have turned into timing retard and taken away power. Just how slowly do you think the ECU is in "adjusting" things. One full throttle run should do it. Then an additional pull after that should yield 99% of your maximum power gains.
Exhaust mods don't change much in an EFI car. Exhaust reduces pumping losses. It would be like adding a lightweight underdrive pulley and saying the ECU needs time to adjust to the pulley.
Numbers are numbers but we all know how the dyno game works. Take it to the track, watch mph.
I'm glad the OP did the testing and posted results, it's the other posts that annoy me. Out of curiosity, how many runs did you do of each setup? If you had a few stock runs and a few runs with just the CAI, that would validate the gains much more than just one run of each. Im assuming you did more than one run of each, right?
Tl does not use a MAF, it's speed density. Fuel trims are "dialed in" very quickly, it's not something that takes days. More like seconds. "If" the CAI flowed more air and colder air, it would lean the car out initially, not richen it. Tell me how a CAI makes a difference on a car with the hood open on the dyno. I would believe 10hp if the hood were closed the whole time.
Not sure why you think the number would improve after the reset anyway when he said they were the same before and after. Sounds like the ECU had it right on. It was a hot day, more timing advance might have turned into timing retard and taken away power. Just how slowly do you think the ECU is in "adjusting" things. One full throttle run should do it. Then an additional pull after that should yield 99% of your maximum power gains.
Exhaust mods don't change much in an EFI car. Exhaust reduces pumping losses. It would be like adding a lightweight underdrive pulley and saying the ECU needs time to adjust to the pulley.
Numbers are numbers but we all know how the dyno game works. Take it to the track, watch mph.
I'm glad the OP did the testing and posted results, it's the other posts that annoy me. Out of curiosity, how many runs did you do of each setup? If you had a few stock runs and a few runs with just the CAI, that would validate the gains much more than just one run of each. Im assuming you did more than one run of each, right?
06-05-2011, 08:10 PM
#51
Instructor
Threads like this are why I stay mostly in the audio section now.
Tl does not use a MAF, it's speed density. Fuel trims are "dialed in" very quickly, it's not something that takes days. More like seconds. "If" the CAI flowed more air and colder air, it would lean the car out initially, not richen it. Tell me how a CAI makes a difference on a car with the hood open on the dyno. I would believe 10hp if the hood were closed the whole time.
Not sure why you think the number would improve after the reset anyway when he said they were the same before and after. Sounds like the ECU had it right on. It was a hot day, more timing advance might have turned into timing retard and taken away power. Just how slowly do you think the ECU is in "adjusting" things. One full throttle run should do it. Then an additional pull after that should yield 99% of your maximum power gains.
Exhaust mods don't change much in an EFI car. Exhaust reduces pumping losses. It would be like adding a lightweight underdrive pulley and saying the ECU needs time to adjust to the pulley.
Numbers are numbers but we all know how the dyno game works. Take it to the track, watch mph.
I'm glad the OP did the testing and posted results, it's the other posts that annoy me. Out of curiosity, how many runs did you do of each setup? If you had a few stock runs and a few runs with just the CAI, that would validate the gains much more than just one run of each. Im assuming you did more than one run of each, right?
Tl does not use a MAF, it's speed density. Fuel trims are "dialed in" very quickly, it's not something that takes days. More like seconds. "If" the CAI flowed more air and colder air, it would lean the car out initially, not richen it. Tell me how a CAI makes a difference on a car with the hood open on the dyno. I would believe 10hp if the hood were closed the whole time.
Not sure why you think the number would improve after the reset anyway when he said they were the same before and after. Sounds like the ECU had it right on. It was a hot day, more timing advance might have turned into timing retard and taken away power. Just how slowly do you think the ECU is in "adjusting" things. One full throttle run should do it. Then an additional pull after that should yield 99% of your maximum power gains.
Exhaust mods don't change much in an EFI car. Exhaust reduces pumping losses. It would be like adding a lightweight underdrive pulley and saying the ECU needs time to adjust to the pulley.
Numbers are numbers but we all know how the dyno game works. Take it to the track, watch mph.
I'm glad the OP did the testing and posted results, it's the other posts that annoy me. Out of curiosity, how many runs did you do of each setup? If you had a few stock runs and a few runs with just the CAI, that would validate the gains much more than just one run of each. Im assuming you did more than one run of each, right?
I owned a LGT I tuned a couple years ago so you will have to forgive my assumptions and knowledge coming from a different platform. After rereading my post, I put some bad information out there but rather than argue with you when I know I was wrong I will take my crow served cold. 
Thanks for the bitch slap.For the record it doesn't take days or many miles on Suby for fuel trims and fuel learning to get set, I would say 5 miles for all cells going from idle rpm to redline rpm accross the various throttle opening angles, thats assuming I did 5pulls 2000rpm to redline pulls getting on the highway. The extent of my tuning was road tuning never on the dyno. I used airboy's spreadsheet on the same stretch of road doing before pulls and after as quickly as I could after installing a mod to see how much power I increased or loss given a tune or mod update. I would log 50-80mph time in addition to taking my log from my runs and plugging it into his spreadsheet to calculate my whp/wtq.
Given my experience it would typically take 5 WOT 2000rpm to redline pulls on my Legacy GT after flashing a map to see maximum timing that was set in the timing advance table to be hit if there was no fine learning knock lowering my IAM preventing the threshold from being hit. You are also correct that typically with the first pull after flashing a map or resetting the computer 90% of the gains are realized, the next several pulls are small increments. In the case of the OP potentially he may have saw another 1whp given a couple more pulls. If the CAI would have been the main cause of attributing 10whp I would have anticipated afr to have been leaned out but it wasn't.
06-05-2011, 09:04 PM
#52
Team Owner
Thanks for the info, any chance you can point me to a tuning 101 thread regarding acura/honda? I did not know the TL fueling is based off of 'map' instead of 'maf'. I owned a LGT I tuned a couple years ago so you will have to forgive my assumptions and knowledge coming from a different platform. After rereading my post, I put some bad information out there but rather than argue with you when I know I was wrong I will take my crow served cold. Thanks for the bitch slap.
For the record it doesn't take days or many miles on Suby for fuel trims and fuel learning to get set, I would say 5 miles for all cells going from idle rpm to redline rpm accross the various throttle opening angles, thats assuming I did 5pulls 2000rpm to redline pulls getting on the highway. The extent of my tuning was road tuning never on the dyno. I used airboy's spreadsheet on the same stretch of road doing before pulls and after as quickly as I could after installing a mod to see how much power I increased or loss given a tune or mod update. I would log 50-80mph time in addition to taking my log from my runs and plugging it into his spreadsheet to calculate my whp/wtq.
Given my experience it would typically take 5 WOT 2000rpm to redline pulls on my Legacy GT after flashing a map to see maximum timing that was set in the timing advance table to be hit if there was no fine learning knock lowering my IAM preventing the threshold from being hit. You are also correct that typically with the first pull after flashing a map or resetting the computer 90% of the gains are realized, the next several pulls are small increments. In the case of the OP potentially he may have saw another 1whp given a couple more pulls. If the CAI would have been the main cause of attributing 10whp I would have anticipated afr to have been leaned out but it wasn't.
I owned a LGT I tuned a couple years ago so you will have to forgive my assumptions and knowledge coming from a different platform. After rereading my post, I put some bad information out there but rather than argue with you when I know I was wrong I will take my crow served cold. Thanks for the bitch slap.For the record it doesn't take days or many miles on Suby for fuel trims and fuel learning to get set, I would say 5 miles for all cells going from idle rpm to redline rpm accross the various throttle opening angles, thats assuming I did 5pulls 2000rpm to redline pulls getting on the highway. The extent of my tuning was road tuning never on the dyno. I used airboy's spreadsheet on the same stretch of road doing before pulls and after as quickly as I could after installing a mod to see how much power I increased or loss given a tune or mod update. I would log 50-80mph time in addition to taking my log from my runs and plugging it into his spreadsheet to calculate my whp/wtq.
Given my experience it would typically take 5 WOT 2000rpm to redline pulls on my Legacy GT after flashing a map to see maximum timing that was set in the timing advance table to be hit if there was no fine learning knock lowering my IAM preventing the threshold from being hit. You are also correct that typically with the first pull after flashing a map or resetting the computer 90% of the gains are realized, the next several pulls are small increments. In the case of the OP potentially he may have saw another 1whp given a couple more pulls. If the CAI would have been the main cause of attributing 10whp I would have anticipated afr to have been leaned out but it wasn't.
Sounds like your tuning knowledge is good, welcome to the weird world of the Honda speed density system (I hate it).
The LGT is the turbo version, right?
Sorry for coming across so harsh, I tend to get grumpy sometimes and working the weekend does not help. That first post was mostly aimed at the cumulative dyno posts around here, not just yours that I quoted. I think it's time for a beer.
06-05-2011, 11:55 PM
#54
SOOOOOO........i was reading this post from page 1...and halfway down i started thinking "Where is IHC when you need him"......and low and behold....its a bird, no a plane, no its ...........!" Great minds.....great minds
06-06-2011, 10:50 AM
#55
Instructor
No worries, I spent 10 minutes under the hood searching for the MAF sensor when I bought the car. These cars would be so much more mod friendly if they used MAFs.
Sounds like your tuning knowledge is good, welcome to the weird world of the Honda speed density system (I hate it).
The LGT is the turbo version, right?
Sorry for coming across so harsh, I tend to get grumpy sometimes and working the weekend does not help. That first post was mostly aimed at the cumulative dyno posts around here, not just yours that I quoted. I think it's time for a beer.
Sounds like your tuning knowledge is good, welcome to the weird world of the Honda speed density system (I hate it).
The LGT is the turbo version, right?
Sorry for coming across so harsh, I tend to get grumpy sometimes and working the weekend does not help. That first post was mostly aimed at the cumulative dyno posts around here, not just yours that I quoted. I think it's time for a beer.
My tuning knowledge regarding Subaru is respectable; I did have a turbo legacy with full bolt ons that I went through 3 different turbos with and personally created several maps for the last two turbos I ran on it for pump gas and E85. Very fun car, just didn’t work out too well over time being my daily driver. I put 50k miles of significantly more boost thans stock on it. The last 25k of those miles was at 23psi or more up to 25.5psi, never blew a motor or tranny and took it to the strip. Got rid of it because it needed endless attention and it was daily driver. Almost every other weekend it was on ramps getting the most recent issue troubleshooted. I loved the car when it was running but being a daily driver when it had an issue I had to drop whatever I was doing and fix it. 75% of the issues I had didn’t cost me money, just endless time. If at the time I could have afforded a second reliable vehicle and could let the legacy sit when it was having an issue I would still have it but I couldn’t at that time. If you’re ever bored and want to waste an hour of your life reading how I ended up with my Accord check out my old maintenance/repair/modding thread from below.
http://legacygt.com/forums/showthrea...ad-112966.html
Geez, I doubt you were expecting or wanted to hear my LGT story I would tell Barbara Walters.
06-06-2011, 10:53 AM
#56
there is a new ECU available that allows parameters to be changed.
it is quite pricey, but the adage stands true.."pay to play"
the ECU hasnt been released yet, but you can purchase it.
check out this thread:
https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/new-ecu-preview-806456/
with this new ECU in play, we can do moar traditional "hot rod" mods, ie: an aggressive cam.
also, it is able to tune for F/I which is one of the key points of this new ecu.
it will benefit an N/A car but on a much smaller scale.
it is quite pricey, but the adage stands true.."pay to play"
the ECU hasnt been released yet, but you can purchase it.
check out this thread:
https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/new-ecu-preview-806456/
with this new ECU in play, we can do moar traditional "hot rod" mods, ie: an aggressive cam.
also, it is able to tune for F/I which is one of the key points of this new ecu.
it will benefit an N/A car but on a much smaller scale.
Last edited by justnspace; 06-06-2011 at 10:56 AM.
06-07-2011, 08:03 AM
#57
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
All I know is those were mustang numbers. I put down like 248 on the dynapack a couple months before.
TL is a slow car, don't k now why we all get in such a fuss over things. Lol
TL is a slow car, don't k now why we all get in such a fuss over things. Lol
06-09-2011, 11:49 AM
#58
Cruisin'
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Age: 37
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for posting the results! That's a great gain from the V2.
I feel that "getting the air out" (exhaust) mods take longer for the ECU to recognize. If he went back and dyno'd again with more miles, I guarantee he would see more power from the V3 Jpipe. ~13whp from I/Jpipe is pretty good. Especially when still on the stock exhaust and allowing NO time for the ECU to recalibrate.
I noticed the OP said he reset the ECU, but that still doesn't give it time to adjust. So I still stick by my statement of more power with more time to adjust.
He did a great job posting this for all of us, we should be thankful!
I feel that "getting the air out" (exhaust) mods take longer for the ECU to recognize. If he went back and dyno'd again with more miles, I guarantee he would see more power from the V3 Jpipe. ~13whp from I/Jpipe is pretty good. Especially when still on the stock exhaust and allowing NO time for the ECU to recalibrate.
I noticed the OP said he reset the ECU, but that still doesn't give it time to adjust. So I still stick by my statement of more power with more time to adjust.
He did a great job posting this for all of us, we should be thankful!
06-09-2011, 12:37 PM
#59
Team Owner
06-09-2011, 03:46 PM
#61
Team Owner
Well, I'm leaving for my cruise in about an hour so I'm not going to be mean. Maybe I'll come back with a better attitude because you don't want to know what was going through my head when I read that post lol.See you guys in a few days.
06-14-2011, 08:32 AM
#62
Here's the numbers/charts
Run 463 = Stock
Run 462 = AEM V2 = 10whp gain
Run 464 = RV6 V3 J pipe = 4whp gain
Run 467 = RV6 V3 J pipe + AEM V2 = 13whp gain
The J pipe gains only on top and the AEM gains on all the RPM. The ecu is tuned ultra rich! 11.3 on the ''leanest'' run. Another 10whp would be gain if it was around 13.0. May be I'll fix this problem someday. Oh and the ecu was reset to see if it would give better gain on the J pipe but it did not, it was the same before and after the reset. First run of the day was at 08:10 and last one at 09:11. 27-29C was the temp, a very hot day today here.
Now let the madness begin.
Run 463 = Stock
Run 462 = AEM V2 = 10whp gain
Run 464 = RV6 V3 J pipe = 4whp gain
Run 467 = RV6 V3 J pipe + AEM V2 = 13whp gain
The J pipe gains only on top and the AEM gains on all the RPM. The ecu is tuned ultra rich! 11.3 on the ''leanest'' run. Another 10whp would be gain if it was around 13.0. May be I'll fix this problem someday. Oh and the ecu was reset to see if it would give better gain on the J pipe but it did not, it was the same before and after the reset. First run of the day was at 08:10 and last one at 09:11. 27-29C was the temp, a very hot day today here.
Now let the madness begin.
06-14-2011, 08:36 AM
#63
Granted - I have no experience reading these things, but I certainly understand what it's measuring - and I just don't see Run 462 with AEM only at a "constant 10whp higher" than the stock run. It doesn't look like that at all to me. Am I crazy, and it's really what that sheet is telling us? 10 higher on the whole curve?
Thanks again - the data is awesome. Thank you for taking the time to do it.
06-14-2011, 08:41 PM
#64
I will test the following on my soon to be non stock 2008 TL-S M6 
Quick car info: 27000miles, aspec wheels
Couple runs stock.
2-3 minutes later, add AEM V2 cold air intake. then couple runs again.
Remove AEM V2, reconnect stock intake pipe back, unstrap car from dyno.
Install RV6 Jpipe V3.
Couple runs with stock intake and new Jpipe.
2-3 minutes later, add AEM V2 cold air intake, then couple final runs.
Doing this the same morning on the same dyno with same temperature will give a real reading of all the parts gain, separatly and combined. I hope this will be useful to all users.
Quick car info: 27000miles, aspec wheels
Couple runs stock.
2-3 minutes later, add AEM V2 cold air intake. then couple runs again.
Remove AEM V2, reconnect stock intake pipe back, unstrap car from dyno.
Install RV6 Jpipe V3.
Couple runs with stock intake and new Jpipe.
2-3 minutes later, add AEM V2 cold air intake, then couple final runs.
Doing this the same morning on the same dyno with same temperature will give a real reading of all the parts gain, separatly and combined. I hope this will be useful to all users.
Thanks-
09-07-2012, 06:59 PM
#66
Dyno day part2
Hi you guys,
I'll get back to the dyno monday morning with the following 2 changes,
Custom made 2'' dual pipes with a real x-pipe, welded from the Jpipe all the way back to the oem type s mufflers.
I will tune the car to 13.5 A/F instead of low 11.
I will do couples runs with stock pig rich A/F. So I will see the gains if any from the dual piping vs last time I went on the dyno. Then many runs to get the gas dialed in at 13.5 AF on all the rpm range to see the gains from a proper A/F.
I'm ready for haters again and I hope i'll guide others...
I'll get back to the dyno monday morning with the following 2 changes,
Custom made 2'' dual pipes with a real x-pipe, welded from the Jpipe all the way back to the oem type s mufflers.
I will tune the car to 13.5 A/F instead of low 11.
I will do couples runs with stock pig rich A/F. So I will see the gains if any from the dual piping vs last time I went on the dyno. Then many runs to get the gas dialed in at 13.5 AF on all the rpm range to see the gains from a proper A/F.
I'm ready for haters again and I hope i'll guide others...
09-09-2012, 05:06 PM
#67
Devour.
Thanks for posting the dyno results! As people have said before me, I was more interested to see the type of gain each mod provides and not the total power of the car after.
I've been back and forth about getting a CAI for a while (after reading countless discussions about "it doesn't provide any gain, just sound" and "it's less restrictive than the stock intake box"). This def pushes me towards getting one.
I'm sure the gains aren't "Incredible", but as we all know, every bit counts!
I've been back and forth about getting a CAI for a while (after reading countless discussions about "it doesn't provide any gain, just sound" and "it's less restrictive than the stock intake box"). This def pushes me towards getting one.
I'm sure the gains aren't "Incredible", but as we all know, every bit counts!
09-10-2012, 12:11 AM
#68
All motor
Cool man, looking forward to the results. How does it sound? I'm sure a lot would be interested.
Hopefully you will use the same dyno? How are you tuning? Apparently 12.8 - 13.0 is best for these motors.
Hopefully you will use the same dyno? How are you tuning? Apparently 12.8 - 13.0 is best for these motors.
09-10-2012, 09:41 PM
#69
Ok here's the results. I have included my last run from last session as a comparison (run 467) gave 258whp
Run 079 is a leaned out run to approx 13.5AF with dual piping and x-pipe and gave 270whp
Run 080 is a stock ecu AF with dual piping and x-pipe and gave 268whp
I was surprised to see a very small (nearly not existent) gain from leaning to 13.5. The AF leaned a bit as we can see on the sheet with the addition of the dual piping but still too rich for my taste but the engine seems not to care that much about the added fuel. And I logged the timing on leaned and not leaned runs and they are identical. I ran made 11-12 runs with same constant results. The 12whp gain from a true, true dual is pretty good and it sounds amazing
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...oTL-SPart2.jpg
Run 079 is a leaned out run to approx 13.5AF with dual piping and x-pipe and gave 270whp
Run 080 is a stock ecu AF with dual piping and x-pipe and gave 268whp
I was surprised to see a very small (nearly not existent) gain from leaning to 13.5. The AF leaned a bit as we can see on the sheet with the addition of the dual piping but still too rich for my taste but the engine seems not to care that much about the added fuel. And I logged the timing on leaned and not leaned runs and they are identical. I ran made 11-12 runs with same constant results. The 12whp gain from a true, true dual is pretty good and it sounds amazing
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...oTL-SPart2.jpg
Last edited by DomGSR-T; 09-10-2012 at 09:44 PM.
The following users liked this post:
TLOHTL (10-22-2012)
09-11-2012, 10:13 AM
#71
All motor
Nice numbers for such little mods. I'm doing those numbers with full bolt ons lol. 3.5 ftw.
I think you would've gained another couple HP if you aimed for 13.0 AFR, but regardless the numbers are good. Haven't listened to the exhaust yet, but I'm sure it sounds good.
What did you use to tune?
I think you would've gained another couple HP if you aimed for 13.0 AFR, but regardless the numbers are good. Haven't listened to the exhaust yet, but I'm sure it sounds good.
What did you use to tune?
09-11-2012, 02:14 PM
#73
Nice numbers for such little mods. I'm doing those numbers with full bolt ons lol. 3.5 ftw.
I think you would've gained another couple HP if you aimed for 13.0 AFR, but regardless the numbers are good. Haven't listened to the exhaust yet, but I'm sure it sounds good.
What did you use to tune?
I think you would've gained another couple HP if you aimed for 13.0 AFR, but regardless the numbers are good. Haven't listened to the exhaust yet, but I'm sure it sounds good.
What did you use to tune?
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...t/P1010489.jpg
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...t/P1010490.jpg
It's a 2'' dual piping welded from the rusted-out rv6 j-pipe all the way to the stock typeS mufflers. There's a 2 in 2 out handmade 18'' straight through muffler to quiet things out in the middle. And I tuned the AF with a AEM FIC. I gave up on tuning the AF when I saw no gain from 13.5. But if you tell me that the target should be 13.0 then i'll go back someday tune/test it again
I have not relocated the IAT but I have the TB coolant bypass done, you think I'll gain some timing from doing this? Mine's set at 24.5 at peak. I got a 240wtq on the 270whp run.
The following users liked this post:
hondazex (09-26-2012)
09-11-2012, 04:45 PM
#74
Suzuka Master
iTrader: (2)
Nice. I think if you richen back up a bit, like Sonnick said, you'll pick a few more horsepower. Add HFC's or PCD's and then do the induction trifecta, and you should be into the 290's.
09-26-2012, 09:19 AM
#76
takin care of Business in
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Age: 40
Posts: 30,994
Received 4,732 Likes
on
4,064 Posts
how the fark did i miss this thread !!!
thanks for the link DOM....am glad I was able to help with the true dual....let me say, yours looks better than mine
I hope it sounds better tooo....I am kinda loving the way a true dual sounds....has a nice rumble in the lower rpms and screams uptop
but thank you for posting the dyno before and after the CAI....10whp does not make sense but to me it does at the same time....more air, cooler air, free path of air....
and since I got the jpipe and exhaust at the same time, since tru-dual....~20whp from the exhaust? I like
thanks for the link DOM....am glad I was able to help with the true dual....let me say, yours looks better than mine
I hope it sounds better tooo....I am kinda loving the way a true dual sounds....has a nice rumble in the lower rpms and screams uptop but thank you for posting the dyno before and after the CAI....10whp does not make sense but to me it does at the same time....more air, cooler air, free path of air....
and since I got the jpipe and exhaust at the same time, since tru-dual....~20whp from the exhaust? I like
09-26-2012, 10:14 PM
#80
I just dynoed my 2006 6 speed tl tonight at Tampa bay tuned (dyno jet) and put down 255hp and 227trq
https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/c...b5c2fd6d8355ea
https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/c...b5c2fd6d8355ea