Quote:
Originally Posted by transition
Here you go.
|
Sorry for being picky but when comparing two competent NA tunes (even a 91oct vs 93oct in this case), pickiness is required since we are not dealing with huge power differences. So not being picky and ignoring sampling bias (unintentional I'm sure) can lead the casual observer to skewed or exaggerated results.
In the dyno files you kindly provided, I tried to compare a warm 5th gear OFT off-the-shelf run to a warm 5th gear custom Ecutek run but was unable to find anything that fits the bill. So I compared the one (and only) warm 4th gear OFT off-the self run to ALL of the warm 4th gear Ecutek custom tune runs and come up with this:
Not surprisingly this is more in line with what I would expect between a good 91 and good 93oct tune (the difference in power being primarily at high RPM due to running more advance up top with 93oct). The differences everywhere else are rather minor as one would expect with an NA car already running at or near MBT. The other graphs provided involve [unintentional] sampling bias which accounted for most of the dyno differences.
And again, forgive me for getting picky but I do spend a lot of time calibrating our OTS maps. So when someone compares them to something else, I apply the same pickiness in analyzing the data as I do with creating the OTS map. Not necessarily to refute the comparison but also possibly to learn from it. So please don't take my involvement in this thread the wrong way.
Still, it would be nice for the purpose of transparency to change the graph in your original post to the one provided
above. I think it is as fair as possible given the sample pool you provided. And again, thank you for being transparent and providing all the dynojet run files.
Cheers,
Shiv