View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 02:16 PM   #23
Scooby Guru
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
2002 WRX - 750WHP
9.5s @ 150mph


Originally Posted by Equilibrium Tuning View Post
I'm now using a 1.0 CF. I used to have it set at .85 to get mustang numbers.

I have a handful of 340's wired like this with no problems. They've been running around for at least a year. I think we're going to try one of the bigger Walbros on this car.

-- Ed
Are they running E85 with the 340?

Originally Posted by Equilibrium Tuning View Post
Yep that's exactly right. I was tired of explaining how dyno's read and why mine is lower blah blah. I'm also tuning a lot of different platforms lately and all those guys just want the big numbers they're used to seeing. At the end of the day I don't care about the absolute numbers, and the bigger numbers make the customers happy. Ultimately my job is to make customers happy, so I finally gave in and changed with the times. It seems there are only 1-2 shops clinging on to the low reading calibrations. I held off long enough and finally decided to make the switch with the new year.

-- Ed
Why is it that the Subaru community thinks Mustang numbers are "real"? It seems with most other platforms Dynojet are the standard. And Dynojet numbers usually seem to correlate well with manufacturer/SAE crank HP ratings (assuming typical drivetrain losses).
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
xluben is online now   Reply With Quote