[Malt]

Originally Posted by sales@delicioustuning.com

For what it's worth, the "pseudo numbers" we're pulling out of our rears are to a specific Dynojet up in LA that we've taken the time to do comparison baseline pulls on in the same day to our Mustang.

We used the same car, on the same day, in relative same weather, with all the same mods and tune file to get an accurate conversion factor. We only do this because no one seems to be happy with numbers the way a Mustang dyno will spit them out as per standard.

As far as an above post which stated something along the lines of " Now compare that to a car that makes 190hp over the entire rpm range. Which would you like to drive?"; Horsepower is a unit of torque over time, and as such, for that kind of HP curve your torque would have to peak almost immediately in the low end, and nose dive the rest of the way to redline. It would feel and drive awful, with no pull. The only real reason to tune for that kind of power delivery is if you were in something like a NASA Time Trials race, where you're power limited by the rules and want the maximum amount of torque you can have without breaking the horsepower limits.

Shiv is correct in the statement that any standard tuning solution (EcuTek, OFT, BRZEdit, etc) given the same values may produce the same numbers. There are certain above and beyond features that some solutions may have over another, and perhaps yet another solution may have its own perks elsewhere in ease of use, or what have you. In the end the tuning solution you choose is about what's right for you. As far as the tuner goes, the basics are all going to be about the same, and then every tune has their own special way of mixing it up a bit to suit their style.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Zach
Delicious Tuning

We can argue over semantics if you'd like and obviously my example was a poor one, but the point still stands. Focusing on a single data point (Peak WHP) when looking at a dyno chart is neither productive or a true representation of the actual tune. As for your "correction factor", I have no idea how accurate it is and its not really the point. Its a number that has math applied to it to simulate what the results would be on a different make of dyno. Perhaps the better solution to the community is to focus more on HP gained over stock and area under the curve gained. The education process needs starts with the vendors rather than acquiescing to the desires of the uninformed consumer. Maybe some effort could be given to this task as your results are great on their own without resorting to pseuodo math.