Quote:
Originally Posted by solidONE
I wonder why the P-Tuning 4-1 doesnt do so well in the mid-range torque dip area. They even considered the firing order designing the pipes. It's the most well made header for this car on the market, I think, in terms of craftsmanship. Performance seems to fall a little short.
|
Hmm... I wouldn't say the performance falls short, just heavily skewed towards the top-end where it is still arguably the best performing header on the market. PTuning stated one of their design goals was to minimize sweep in front of the engine to keep engine bay temps down, so they were probably limited on space for runner length (and possibly midrange power).
Quote:
Originally Posted by airrick
Generally 4-1 El headers are for power at the top and4-2-1 El headers are more for the mid range. 4-1 headers are for people that are actually rev their car to redline, which i dont do, alot. And i really wanted that torque dip to go away. And it has =)  most people want to look at the numbers only but best comparison is to drive them.
I think his E85 % content was higher when he tuned his car. mine was at only e55. I suspect his ethanol content was higher than mine. |
Yeah it sounds like you picked the right header for your driving style. Glad you're happy with it setup - it looks like it'd be a lot of fun in everyday driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz
Same dyno but different correction factors and loads on all printouts. If dynos aren't under the same test setup you can't compare a thing..
E85 JDL UEL
|
I'm not a dyno expert, but OP's dyno run looked like it was using a standard 1.00 correction factor. I didn't see a correction factor listed on the @
PandaBRZ dyno chart. Do you have some reason to believe it was using a large CF?