View Single Post
Old 09-13-2012, 08:51 AM   #17
Scooby Guru
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+


Originally Posted by 68Cadillac View Post
Your browbeating, grandstanding, sarcasm, and bluster do not prove your point. While you demand data from us, why can you get away with "search the forums" and "I did 20+psi on a td04 first" as data?
no, see, i'm not the one asking questions. i asked MYSELF these questions, years ago, and then went out and found them out--myself. via 400+ different tunes and thousands of datalogs. i'm not demanding anything. i've made my decisions--not solely because "someone said so," but because i saw it backed up in the data. MY data.

But both are within that 12.8:1 and 11.5:1 range. Now with your AFR target locked, tune your timing and up your boost til it's not safe anymore.
do you really feel this is a novel way of tuning?

I know, here at Nabisco, the groupthink has everyone picking the boost target first then dumping loads of fuel in to to prevent knock and backing off the timing.
that may be your impression of what everyone does. it is an overgeneralization, and like most overgeneralizations, not correct.

Here's the main problem with our argument. Neither you, nor I, and probably no one here, has the data to prove which tuning philosophy produces more torque. That requires two different tuning maps and dyno sessions on the same car with the same parts on the same dyno under similar atmospheric conditions. That's some coin we'd both have to shell out to get that data. Which one of us will pay a tuner to finalize one map, then tell them to bin it and do it again but another way 'round?
why do you insist that no one has collected the data necessary to draw conclusions? this is exactly what i'm talking about when i say "myopic and disrespectful." it is absolutely possible to datalog with sufficiently controlled variables to determine whether or not something makes the car accelerate faster. collecting this data on the street is tedious, but some of us have actually done it.

this doesn't even mention the professional tuners--ones with constant access to dynos--who have given so much of their experience back to this board. you probably have no idea know who jeff sponaugle, or john banks, duncan graham, paul blamire, tim bailey, phil grabow, clark tuner, shiv pathak, lance lucas, nathan from txs, jorge carrillo, jamie from TRP, jermaine at txs, junior from the shop, quirt crawford, or stephen clark, are.

... and that is the problem.

claiming that all they've EVER done is act like ignorant lemmings without ever attempting a (let's be honest here) VERY SLIGHT change in tuning philosophy is utterly absurd, and insulting to their intelligence and ethic.

But until you or I do that we can't prove which makes more torque and therefore more power. Right now you've got "Nabisco says" and I've got "Books read". No data for either point.
if i feel sufficiently energetic by the end of the day, i'll fire up the tuning laptop and dump a few thousand logs and a few hundred maps and tuning notes on my website. i'll also post up the logs i've collected from others during private conversations of tuning strategies.

your conclusions can be your own.

We can agree about one thing: We both want to maximize torque from our setups.
actually, for me, torque comes secondary to longevity: that's the reason i still have high compression after 95k miles. tuning for 1/4 mile blasts is a different animal. i need my car to get to work every day.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote