|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-03-2011, 02:29 PM | #1 |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
EQ: 2009 WRX, E85, FMIC - Road Dyno + Chassis Dyno Results!
Event: Dyno Tune/Road Tune
Location: Equilibrium Tuning - Fairfield, CA Ambient Temp: 65 degrees Fahrenheit Elevation: 200ft above sea level Weather: Sunny Car: 2009 Subaru WRX Tuner: ED @ EQ Tuning Peak HP at RPM: 337whp Peak Torque at RPM: 405ft-lbs Target Boost: 22psi peak Fuel: E85 Engine/Power Modifications: Catless TBE Perrin EL Headers EWG UP with Tial 38mm TurboXS FMIC and Intake EQ Tuning Custom Blow-Through MAF piping Greddy RZ BOV Walbro Fuel Pump Hallman MBC DW1000cc Injectors EQ Tuning Custom Tune We made the blow-through piping and finished up the tune on this car yesterday. So far this is the quickest and best running 09 WRX I've done. I was asked to keep the torque relatively "mild" due to the 5 speed, so we kept peak boost to 22psi. I started the tune on our Dynocom chassis dyno and touched it up on the road. Here is the chart from the dyno tune: And here is the road dyno chart: As you can see, the car spooled a bit faster on the road which resulted in a bit more torque and an earlier torque peak. It was also able to carry more power out to redline due to the increased airflow at high speed on the road as compared to the dyno environment. There were no changes in timing between the two pulls, just a couple very small corrections in a/f. This comparison also clearly shows how I calibrated our dyno to read very closely to my road dyno software. Considering the difference in conditions between the road and dyno, the results are VERY close. FYI, I am running a .85 correction factor on the chassis dyno to achieve this calibration. Just for fun, here is the same chassis dyno chart without the .85 correction: 400whp VF52 anyone? *** Standard Dyno Chart Disclaimer *** This software reads low and should be compared to the lower reading mustang dynos. Here are some proven numbers and trap speeds for reference: Stock WRX - 155-165whp Stock STI - 215-225whp 265-275whp - 107-108mph traps 300-310whp - 112-113mph traps 325-335whp - 115-116mph traps 380-390whp - 122-123mph traps *** End Disclaimer *** Thanks -- Ed
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Last edited by Equilibrium Tuning; 02-03-2011 at 06:47 PM. |
02-03-2011, 03:25 PM | #2 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 74167
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Tewksbury, MA
Vehicle:2016 STI Sedan WRB Cobb Stage 2 |
Wow sick torque! Nice results Ed. I wish I had E85 around here (well more than one station lol)! I wonder how the 5 speed will hold up...
|
02-03-2011, 04:09 PM | #3 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 77470
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: grove city ohio
Vehicle:04 sti 10.41@141 on e85@ 30psi--spinning |
Very nice Ed and I really like how you compare how YOUR road dyno software and it reflects your dyno #'s at .85 cf and how high the dyno can read with a different cf to show what can be done by some magical tuners on this forum.This is why I respect your posts.
|
02-03-2011, 04:21 PM | #4 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
Thanks -- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 04:27 PM | #5 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:2002 WRX - 750WHP 9.5s @ 150mph |
Looks like fun. I want E85!
But I don't really understand why you set your dyno to a 0.85 correction factor which results in such low numbers on a stock car. Seems pointless to me, why not just leave it at CF=1? Was it changed to match your road dyno software? If so, that seems backwards. Not saying you're trying to "trick" anyone or doing anything wrong, but it seems that you're implying that other tuners are inferior because they boast high numbers, while you post low numbers with a strong disclaimer at the bottom of each post on how low your dyno reads. It seems like the same thing to me. Just accomplished the opposite way. Either way, the best solution is just to have an actual baseline run of the same car on the same dyno (same correction). Otherwise it's all just talk, IMO. But the results do look good. Not arguing with your tuning ability. Just the presentation of that data that puts me off. |
02-03-2011, 04:28 PM | #6 | |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:2002 WRX - 750WHP 9.5s @ 150mph |
Quote:
EDIT: I do like how straightforward you are on explaining the process of calibrating one to read like the other. I won't argue with the fact that your chosen calibration method has done a very good job of giving similar results! |
|
02-03-2011, 04:37 PM | #7 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 77470
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: grove city ohio
Vehicle:04 sti 10.41@141 on e85@ 30psi--spinning |
^^^you have to admit there are quite a few tuners that do post high #'s and most have not been backed up at the track.Ed from EQ and Mike from innovative always seem to put up low reading #'S which to me is a good thing because then when the customer goes to the track he is happy not disappointed by the results.
|
02-03-2011, 04:40 PM | #8 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 68647
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region:
MAIC
Location: Richmond, VA
Vehicle:07 STI 35R 05 BMW M3 ZCP |
Great job Ed! I'm curious about the 5spd as well. Seems getting crazy torque figures is pretty easy with just exhaust and tune, has Subaru done anything to beef the trans up to handle such power since the EJ205 days?
|
02-03-2011, 04:42 PM | #9 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 68647
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region:
MAIC
Location: Richmond, VA
Vehicle:07 STI 35R 05 BMW M3 ZCP |
Quote:
|
|
02-03-2011, 04:55 PM | #10 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 36033
Join Date: Apr 2003
Chapter/Region:
SCIC
Location: Tuning Lab
Vehicle:CEO PhatBottiTuning 2006 STi GTX3582 + Meth |
500 tq VF is only a twist of the hallman away Ed.
dew eet |
02-03-2011, 04:56 PM | #11 | |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:2002 WRX - 750WHP 9.5s @ 150mph |
Quote:
I still feel that with a TRUE baseline, someone should still be able to figure out what they will trap, even on a high reading dyno. |
|
02-03-2011, 06:31 PM | #12 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 114631
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region:
Tri-State
Location: TheShopCT / EFI LOGICS
Vehicle:2009 GTR, 735whp 13' Benz, 15' WRX |
Quote:
Ed, I've had the argument with many about top end on a chassis compared to the top end on a road dyno. Do you truly think in real world conditions that 2.5L vf car's carry to redline due to air flow and a cooler charge? This was my point when I started using the road dyno's. Some label it as credible, some thought it was ridiculous. Obviously there is some taper on the road, some cars more than others. But no where's near the taper when considering a chassis dyno. -Mikey Last edited by STi Mikey; 02-03-2011 at 07:34 PM. |
|
02-03-2011, 06:36 PM | #13 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
I wanted to keep the numbers from my chassis dyno consistent with all my previous results, so this was the best approach in my mind. It may not be the best option for marketing or ego boosting, but I got used to that with my road dyno software anyway. In the end, numbers are just numbers and real world results speak for themselves. FWIW, the bone stock 06 STI I used for calibration ended up putting down 216whp on my road dyno software and the chassis dyno with the .85 CF. Without the CF, it was at 254whp which is what I'd expect to see on a Dynojet. I always have this baseline on file for anyone interested in comparing their results. I was not making any inference toward any other tuners. I just thought it would be interesting to post the results without the CF as a comparison to show how high this dyno would read normally. The disclaimer in each of my posts is an attempt to make it easier to compare my results with other dynos that may read differently by providing real world results from different power levels. It also alleviates the constant "those numbers seem LOW" comments that I used to get all the time Thanks -- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 06:40 PM | #14 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
I hope my above explanation answers this as well. Thanks -- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 06:40 PM | #15 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
-- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 06:42 PM | #16 |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
|
02-03-2011, 06:45 PM | #17 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
My only theories on why they exaggerate the drop so much are airflow and loading. Through some testing, I kind of ruled out the loading part of the equation. In fact, the more I load the car (slow down the run), the more drop off I usually see. I believe this is simply from lack of air flow and heat soak of the system which is not as prevalent on the road. -- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 07:02 PM | #18 | ||
Former Vendor
Member#: 67958
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region:
Tri-State
Location: www.InnovativeTuning.com
Vehicle:MY96 Time Attack and 06 STI daily |
Quote:
Quote:
On a related note, I've tuned on many different dynos and they load cars differently which plays a part in the shape of the curve generated as well as the tuning. For example, if you tune on a Dynojet you can end up with a car that's rich on the road on the top end and if you tune a car so the AFRs are correct on the road, it will often go lean on the top end on a Dynojet. I chalk this up to the lack of load control. Makes sense to me. |
||
02-03-2011, 07:08 PM | #19 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
-- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 07:12 PM | #20 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 156973
Join Date: Aug 2007
Chapter/Region:
International
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Vehicle:2002 ADM WRX STi STi Black/Blue |
Kudos to you Ed for providing your potential customers with honest results mate - hopefully other tuners/dyno-owners/dyno-operators will follow your lead and put a little more effort into calibrating their dynos so the results given are more realistic.
Anything to stop the ever increasing bloated and bs dyno figures being thrown around is a win for customers You are the light in a dark place |
02-03-2011, 07:32 PM | #21 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 67958
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region:
Tri-State
Location: www.InnovativeTuning.com
Vehicle:MY96 Time Attack and 06 STI daily |
Quote:
I can also tell you that I have lots of track logs and when we set an intake up for a race car we can generate a few more PSI of boost at higher vehicle speeds than we could make on the dyno...but that's an increase in boost causing an increase in power and that's only helpful on setups that are maxed out. Last edited by Innovative Tuning; 02-03-2011 at 07:44 PM. |
|
02-03-2011, 07:36 PM | #22 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 120187
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: Fort Walton Beach, FL
Vehicle:2005 STI Blouch Dom Obsidian Black Pearl |
Ed, great job on the tune. It's definitely an abnormal 09 WRX. How does the blow-thru affect your tune and drive-ability? Did it require additional time to fine tune?
|
02-03-2011, 07:37 PM | #23 |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Yep... that's the only thing that makes sense to me at this point.
I need to talk to you about those ViPec ECU's! I need to get my hands on one to play with. Do they have an 07 STI application? -- Ed |
02-03-2011, 07:40 PM | #24 | |
Former Vendor
Member#: 26933
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region:
BAIC
Location: Fairfield, CA
Vehicle:2006 STI CGM |
Quote:
We had this car running previously on a draw-through MAF and while the WOT power levels were fine, the car did exhibit some pretty dramatic rich spikes on quick boost transitions and especially during aggressive shifting. It was very noticeable when driving the car, so we decided to convert it to blow-through to alleviate the issue. Blow-through MAF's do take a bit more tuning to get running properly, but if the pipe is set up well, the end result is almost always fantastic. Greatly improved drivability, crisper throttle feel, and no rich spike. I also like the fact that the ECU is now seeing post intercooler charge temps. -- Ed |
|
02-03-2011, 07:49 PM | #25 |
Former Vendor
Member#: 67958
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region:
Tri-State
Location: www.InnovativeTuning.com
Vehicle:MY96 Time Attack and 06 STI daily |
Yup there's a ViPec V88 jumper harness and bridge setup for 04-07 North American STI. I'd be happy to talk ViPec any time.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Custom Tune: 2009 WRX, FMIC, E85 - 332whp/391ft-lbs | Equilibrium Tuning | Proven Power Bragging | 45 | 10-25-2013 02:47 PM |
2009 WRX - SPT Strut Brace and Lower Chassis Brace Review | last lemming alive | Brakes, Steering & Suspension | 24 | 09-11-2012 09:59 PM |
2009 wrx stage 2 cobb built in dyno comparisons | soulsurfer91709 | AccessPort | 2 | 10-16-2009 11:50 PM |
Full 2009 WRX road test Road and Track | Dave D. | News & Rumors | 151 | 11-07-2008 10:09 PM |
Chassis Dyno results (?) | electricpork | Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.0L Turbo) | 2 | 08-21-2001 08:08 AM |