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

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Koa

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!

Awesome! Remember that you'll need the raw RPM and Torque Data from the Dynojet run file (.drf). I can send you a sample data file if you need it.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by xxBrun0xx

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.

I'm not so sure. Most of the dynos where bolt-on Twins are making ~200 whp, you see the torque rise from 6000-7000 rpm, which produces a somewhat inflated peak hp number.

The torque curves for a lot of larger displacement engines (and especially turbo engines) peak earlier in the midrange and drop off, leading to more area under the curve.

I think this is an issue for some of the Twins competing in power/weight-classed time attack series. Not enough area under the curve compared with larger displacement engines.

[DeliciousTuning]

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

[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.

[DeliciousTuning]

Originally Posted by Malt

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.

We've actually worked quite a bit on that, and have a multitude of graphs and numbers available on our website for any consumer with the desire to learn about possible gains out there.

http://www.delicioustuning.com/Stage_2_PumpGas

Complete with area under the curve gains, peak gains, drag curves, corrected power curves, ambient temps, intake temps, humidity, oil temps, even rotating mass.

We aren't hiding anything from the consumer. It's all available right here for everyone to see.

Sincerely,

Zach
Delicious Tuning

[killboy]

Originally Posted by xxBrun0xx

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.

I can tell you as the owner of two S2000s (AP1) with simple bolt-ons and an FRS with header+cat-back+tune I would have thought for sure the FRS would win in a drag race due to the area under the curve advantage the boxer has. But I drag raced a friend in his bone stock, high mileage AP2 (slight bump in tq I know) several times from dig, roll, didn't matter, he JUST had me beat every time by a car length or two...more the faster we went. Similar tires, I using "Launch Control" (ECUtek) he wingin' it of course. Really surprised me. I think the weight difference was the determining factor though.

[Sypher]

Originally Posted by killboydotcom

I can tell you as the owner of two S2000s (AP1) with simple bolt-ons and an FRS with header+cat-back+tune I would have thought for sure the FRS would win in a drag race due to the area under the curve advantage the boxer has. But I drag raced a friend in his bone stock, high mileage AP2 (slight bump in tq I know) several times from dig, roll, didn't matter, he JUST had me beat every time by a car length or two...more the faster we went. Similar tires, I using "Launch Control" (ECUtek) he wingin' it of course. Really surprised me. I think the weight difference was the determining factor though.

VTEC TFW lol

[Koa]

Originally Posted by sales@delicioustuning.com

We've actually worked quite a bit on that, and have a multitude of graphs and numbers available on our website for any consumer with the desire to learn about possible gains out there.

http://www.delicioustuning.com/Stage_2_PumpGas

Complete with area under the curve gains, peak gains, drag curves, corrected power curves, ambient temps, intake temps, humidity, oil temps, even rotating mass.

We aren't hiding anything from the consumer. It's all available right here for everyone to see.

Sincerely,

Zach
Delicious Tuning

v cool

[justint5387]

Originally Posted by killboydotcom

I can tell you as the owner of two S2000s (AP1) with simple bolt-ons and an FRS with header+cat-back+tune I would have thought for sure the FRS would win in a drag race due to the area under the curve advantage the boxer has. But I drag raced a friend in his bone stock, high mileage AP2 (slight bump in tq I know) several times from dig, roll, didn't matter, he JUST had me beat every time by a car length or two...more the faster we went. Similar tires, I using "Launch Control" (ECUtek) he wingin' it of course. Really surprised me. I think the weight difference was the determining factor though.

FRS should be lighter than S2K. S2K is just as faster car.

[GT86meMR2]

Originally Posted by killboydotcom

I can tell you as the owner of two S2000s (AP1) with simple bolt-ons and an FRS with header+cat-back+tune I would have thought for sure the FRS would win in a drag race due to the area under the curve advantage the boxer has. But I drag raced a friend in his bone stock, high mileage AP2 (slight bump in tq I know) several times from dig, roll, didn't matter, he JUST had me beat every time by a car length or two...more the faster we went. Similar tires, I using "Launch Control" (ECUtek) he wingin' it of course. Really surprised me. I think the weight difference was the determining factor though.

strange how in my situation a friend in his ap2 s2000(they keep the2.0 engine here) against my jdl uel-berk front-miltek catback toyobaru and he kept losing in the same way you lost by 2 car lengths and kept pulling away at higher speeds.. we even changed car and the results were the same. mayby the 2.2 engine really helps the s2000 in your case.

[burdickjp]

The "area under the curve" of a power and RPM plot is energy delivered.
If you're looking at two plots and compare the area between the two plots then you have a difference in energy delivered, which is what most people comparing two plots are thinking in their head, anyway.
If you take the total energy delivered and divide it by the total RPM it's delivered over you have an average of the power produced. This is a useful number.

[DeliciousTuning]

Let's not forget that the S2K also has significantly more aggressive gearing.

Sincerely,

Zach
Delicious Tuning

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by sales@delicioustuning.com

Let's not forget that the S2K also has significantly more aggressive gearing.

Sincerely,

Zach
Delicious Tuning

But, also the rev range to take advantage of that more aggressive gearing.

[Phantobe]

Originally Posted by killboydotcom

I can tell you as the owner of two S2000s (AP1) with simple bolt-ons and an FRS with header+cat-back+tune I would have thought for sure the FRS would win in a drag race due to the area under the curve advantage the boxer has. But I drag raced a friend in his bone stock, high mileage AP2 (slight bump in tq I know) several times from dig, roll, didn't matter, he JUST had me beat every time by a car length or two...more the faster we went. Similar tires, I using "Launch Control" (ECUtek) he wingin' it of course. Really surprised me. I think the weight difference was the determining factor though.

The solution is E85