Is 200whp achievable on OFT with headers and 91 like ecutek?

[momo3605]

Some threads claim that they can get 200whp on an ecutek tune with just headers. I haven't seen any numbers like that for an OFT. Are the ecutek tunes superior to the OFT tunes or are they essentially the same?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by momo3605

Some threads claim that they can get 200whp on an ecutek tune with just headers. I haven't seen any numbers like that for an OFT. Are the ecutek tunes superior to the OFT tunes or are they essentially the same?

I'm pretty sure that car had a full complete exhaust not just header.

"Well, we've done it again. This time around we've hit 200whp with 91 Octane on a Naturally Aspirated BRZ with a stock engine. Mods included were a JDL UEL Header, JDL Over Pipe, and JDL Front Pipe. There may or may not have been a drop in filter or intake on this particular brz, I'm not entirely sure. "

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64770

Your also comparing an OFT tune which is a canned or off the shelf one size fits all tune with an Ecutek custom dyno tune.
let the oft guys (or any other competent tuner ) do a custom tune on car with same mods and they would produce similar results.



What hp did a stock car post on that dyno ? you realy need to look at percentage or hp increase not the end numbers as all dynos read different unless your comparing same dyno or at least same dyno type with same calibration.

No reason it could not be done your changing the same tables in the ecu with ecutek OFT/Romraider Ecuflash Brz-edit ect.

[Malt]

Originally Posted by momo3605

Some threads claim that they can get 200whp on an ecutek tune with just headers. I haven't seen any numbers like that for an OFT. Are the ecutek tunes superior to the OFT tunes or are they essentially the same?

If you are referring to that post by delicious tuning that steve linked, I see a dyno chart of a 86 making 174 whp and then they apply pseudomath to arrive at that "200" number by attempting to relate mustange dyno numbers to dynojet numbers.

Not knocking Delicious Tuning as I think they do amazing stuff but the important thing to remember here is that dyno numbers can vary wildly from car to car and dyno to dyno depending on many variables such as weather conditions and how the dyno was setup.

Furthermore, I don't understand the fascination with peak HP numbers. As an example take a mythical car that makes 200HP at 7000rpm as its peak number but makes like 100hp almost everywhere else in the rpm range. Now compare that to a car that makes 190hp over the entire rpm range. Which would you like to drive?

People need to stop and really look at dyno charts and see whats going on instead of blindly focusing on a single data point or you run the risk of missing out on extremely interesting possibilities like the ESC setup.

[phrosty]

Originally Posted by Malt

Furthermore, I don't understand the fascination with peak HP numbers. As an example take a mythical car that makes 200HP at 7000rpm as its peak number but makes like 100hp almost everywhere else in the rpm range. Now compare that to a car that makes 190hp over the entire rpm range. Which would you like to drive?

A more useful (but humbling) number would be "80% of the time, HP is over X". Perhaps further separating into street and race RPM ranges. But then tuners wouldn't look as good for that one tiny spot their intake got a 5whp improvement, so this'll never happen.

[Toyota John]

Your goal should be gained whp over stock. Most full bolt on frs/brz make about 25ish whp over stock on good 93 pump. Some really good tuners with an aggressive tune for ideal conditions might get close to 30 whp over stock. Forget about getting some dyno number. My mr2 made 311 whp on one dyno and 360 whp on another same tune and gas.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by Malt

If you are referring to that post by delicious tuning that steve linked, I see a dyno chart of a 86 making 174 whp and then they apply pseudomath to arrive at that "200" number by attempting to relate mustange dyno numbers to dynojet numbers.

Not knocking Delicious Tuning as I think they do amazing stuff but the important thing to remember here is that dyno numbers can vary wildly from car to car and dyno to dyno depending on many variables such as weather conditions and how the dyno was setup.

Furthermore, I don't understand the fascination with peak HP numbers. As an example take a mythical car that makes 200HP at 7000rpm as its peak number but makes like 100hp almost everywhere else in the rpm range. Now compare that to a car that makes 190hp over the entire rpm range. Which would you like to drive?

People need to stop and really look at dyno charts and see whats going on instead of blindly focusing on a single data point or you run the risk of missing out on extremely interesting possibilities like the ESC setup.

Well said. I often think that how we measure a car's power is flawed.. Area under the curve, as you eloquently put it, is MUCH more important than peak.

How can we quantify this area under the curve on a Cartesian plane? Using integration/calculating the integral would be one easy approach. Would love to see this kind of perspective prevail over the currently "peak hp/tq" metrics

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Malt

If you are referring to that post by delicious tuning that steve linked, I see a dyno chart of a 86 making 174 whp and then they apply pseudomath to arrive at that "200" number by attempting to relate mustange dyno numbers to dynojet numbers.

Not knocking Delicious Tuning as I think they do amazing stuff but the important thing to remember here is that dyno numbers can vary wildly from car to car and dyno to dyno depending on many variables such as weather conditions and how the dyno was setup.

Furthermore, I don't understand the fascination with peak HP numbers. As an example take a mythical car that makes 200HP at 7000rpm as its peak number but makes like 100hp almost everywhere else in the rpm range. Now compare that to a car that makes 190hp over the entire rpm range. Which would you like to drive?

People need to stop and really look at dyno charts and see whats going on instead of blindly focusing on a single data point or you run the risk of missing out on extremely interesting possibilities like the ESC setup.

[xxBrun0xx]

Originally Posted by Koa

Well said. I often think that how we measure a car's power is flawed.. Area under the curve, as you eloquently put it, is MUCH more important than peak.

How can we quantify this area under the curve on a Cartesian plane? Using integration/calculating the integral would be one easy approach. Would love to see this kind of perspective prevail over the currently "peak hp/tq" metrics

This is a really good idea. I bet people would be surprised by how much "area under the curve" the twins have. I would be shocked if it didn't beat the pants off the S2K and all 2.0 WRX's, which people typically consider "faster". Somebody should start a thread about this. Would be interesting.

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by momo3605

Some threads claim that they can get 200whp on an ecutek tune with just headers. I haven't seen any numbers like that for an OFT. Are the ecutek tunes superior to the OFT tunes or are they essentially the same?

We only use Dynojets for custom tunes. Other tunes use other dyne's and then apply a very optimistic "correction" to bring their numbers to "Dynojet-like" numbers. Unfortunately (or fortunately for them), this is not accurate or even logically sound.

The truth is that any flash tuning solution will results in equal power gains all things equal. Any tuner suggesting that their Kung Fu is stronger than anyone's else's Kung Fu needs to be taken down a couple notches.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash

We only use Dynojets for custom tunes. Other tunes use other dyne's and then apply a very optimistic "correction" to bring their numbers to "Dynojet-like" numbers. Unfortunately (or fortunately for them), this is not accurate or even logically sound.

The truth is that any flash tuning solution will results in equal power gains all things equal. Any tuner suggesting that their Kung Fu is stronger than anyone's else's Kung Fu needs to be taken down a couple notches.

Shiv what do you think about the current automotive power metrics of peak whp/tq, and our proposed metric of finding the 'area under the curve' via integrals and calculus?

Would this be feasible? What are you thoughts on how people measure and discern the power of a combustion system?

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Koa

Shiv what do you think about the current automotive power metrics of peak whp/tq, and our proposed metric of finding the 'area under the curve' via integrals and calculus?

Would this be feasible? What are you thoughts on how people measure and discern the power of a combustion system?

I think that is the best way to quantify power/power gains. In fact, we employed the same calculation back in the late 90s when compared power curve (area under the curve) in Sport Compact Car magazine's Ultimate Street Car Shootout

[Koa]

Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash

I think that is the best way to quantify power/power gains. In fact, we employed the same calculation back in the late 90s when compared power curve (area under the curve) in Sport Compact Car magazine's Ultimate Street Car Shootout

Would following the integration process arrive us at similar results as you guys? How'd yall do it?

http://www.wyzant.com/resources/less...nding_the_area

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Koa

Would following the integration process arrive us at similar results as you guys? How'd yall do it?

http://www.wyzant.com/resources/less...nding_the_area

We used Excel By exporting the raw torque and RPM data from the dynojet run file, we created a spreadsheet that took rectangular "slices" of the torque curve and calculated area. Then we added up the areas of all the slices to get a reasonably accurate total area.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash

We used Excel By exporting the raw torque and RPM data from the dynojet run file, we created a spreadsheet that took rectangular "slices" of the torque curve and calculated area. Then we added up the areas of all the slices to get a reasonably accurate total area.

Prime.. Thanks Shiv. I teach a business Excel course for accounting and MIS students at the University of Washington | Bothell campus, and love that dang program to death. Will certainly explore creating a macro-enabled tool to do this for people!