Quote:
Originally Posted by dsgerbc
Believing tuner-posted graphs is your own choice. Graph in the first post here barely shows any gains worth bothering for like $700.
|
At least in the OP's post, and mine in the case of the AT variants, that seems to be the consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visconti
I would like to see these same runs but 1 graph 3rd Visconti vs fa20 & 2nd graph 4th visconti vs fa20
|
Hmmm. Maybe it's an East Coast thing but a "please" might serve you well especially when it's the weekend and I'm not at the facility. Be that as it may, I had thought you might want a H2H comparison so I kept this set handy.
In 3rd gear, the Visconti tune gains about 5WHP and 6#TQ for a 1000RPM range from 4200RPM onwards, with AFRs leaner than the FA20 tune @ 12.8 and then looses about 6WHP and 5#TQ from 6700 onwards because it got richer. I suppose Visconti (or most tuners) could mimic the AFRs to get the best of both worlds with this AR Intake system, though I think any of the gains would have been negated in this case. (My apologies to AirRaid, just my opinion.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsguy83
FYI that's stock vs STG 1 pump gas vs E85 tunes.... Visconti.
|
That's great but how about an apples to apples comparison with an AT setup and while we're on that, RPM instead of Speed & AFRs? That way we're all on the same page (
being neutral and transparent) since showing speed does indicate slightly different AFRs and WHP readings, just ever so slightly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by brichard0625
Avo's kit looks good when i was reading their thread but then it had me thinking, it saw the same gains that the dropinfilters had when ft86speedfactory did their dynos, +5hp/+1tq...so maybe the intake inlet did very little and it was just the filter that helped it out. I think im going to wait for a coldair.
|
Also a good observation, but I think you missed the part where FT86SpeedFactory posted the dyno charts in STD correction vs SAE, and that alone would yield you a few more WHP in favor of the STD numbers, especially in the warmer climates.
I would have done the same here but I didn't want to be accused of "inflating values" nor did I want to start a thread about correction factors and have everyone get confused. We should stick to the defacto standard, SAE values.
My 2 cents once again...