Visconti vs FA20Club vs Stock Tune Dyno Results

[dura1198]

Originally Posted by virtual_bob

Hmmm. Maybe it's an East Coast thing but a "please" might serve you well

Awful 'sensitive'...must be a West Coast thing.

[2forme]

Since we're on the topic of transparency, why do the AFR curves look a lot more stable in your most recent post as opposed to the prior posts? Your previous dynos show some curves falling off the chart, others running really lean. On these they look rather flat, which gives the impression that the AFR's weren't really that solid on a consistent basis and/or that you're hand picking which runs to show at which time.

Could you post up ALL the runs with proper scaling on the AFR portion....please.

[Drift-Office]

Originally Posted by dura1198

Awful 'sensitive'...must be a West Coast thing.

No, just an expectation of courtesy. Unless you think forums and communities like this should be devoid of all civic minded attributes - and that I that I owe my living to John Visconti, which I obviously don't.

[Drift-Office]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Since we're on the topic of transparency, why do the AFR curves look a lot more stable in your most recent post as opposed to the prior posts? Your previous dynos show some curves falling off the chart, others running really lean. On these they look rather flat, which gives the impression that the AFR's weren't really that solid on a consistent basis and/or that you're hand picking which runs to show at which time.

Could you post up ALL the runs with proper scaling on the AFR portion....please.

Sorry, I shall redo the scaling - what would you prefer to show? 8 - 16 or? Wait, I see most of my dyno charts are 10 - 18, I'll go with that.

LMK.

[gmookher]

Ok so I drove the visconti tune today right after getting out of my stock brz tune with a header back exhaust

I cant say it felt different up top, but the midrange torque is noticeable

John you have done well. gem

[Hawaiian]

Originally Posted by virtual_bob

Sorry, I shall redo the scaling - what would you prefer to show? 8 - 16 or? Wait, I see most of my dyno charts are 10 - 18, I'll go with that.

LMK.

I just want to say thank you to Bob for being another asset to the community assisting with product transparency.

[Drift-Office]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Could you post up ALL the runs with proper scaling on the AFR portion....please.

The scaling issue is just something within the Dynojet software, but here it is rescaled in the interest of* transparency and with an easier to read AFR graph (10 - 18) with cursors for reference...

I'm sure most of you don't know me but most that do know I'm really straight on this, a little bit of a nerd even. So there's no hidden agenda here.

Cheers,

[2forme]

Originally Posted by virtual_bob

The scaling issue is just something within the Dynojet software, but here it is rescaled in the interest of* transparency and with an easier to read AFR graph (10 - 18) with cursors for reference...

I'm sure most of you don't know me but most that do know I'm really straight on this, a little bit of a nerd even. So there's no hidden agenda here.

Cheers,

Oh, I wasn't being aggressive, just a little bit of a smart ass. I am curious as to why other posts still had AFR's all over the place...

[Drift-Office]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Oh, I wasn't being aggressive, just a little bit of a smart ass. I am curious as to why other posts still had AFR's all over the place...

No no, you're fine. Good catch. I just have to remember to keep everything in check and consistent for reasons like this.

[tonystewart]

So the leaning effect at 6600 rpm + is the cause for the hp & torques increase between the 2 tunes?

[brichard0625]

Originally Posted by virtual_bob

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...

I Didnt think about that(not to savy when it comes to dynos but 95% of time i do i see sae corrected values) but i thought regardless standard vs sae the base run was done stardard too so wouldnt the gains be around the same corrected or not...i think someone else did a run with just a filter and saw 3hp and 2tq sae corrected. Either way the intakes that are out dont seem to appealing if a $38 filter(thats what i paid for my hks) is making 2-3hp/1-2tq and a $300 intake is making just 4-6hp/3-4tq(and in airaids case needs a tune to show postive according to op's dyno)...only reason why avo seems appealing to me right now is because its only $149 for inlet pipe and i already have a highflow filter and it actually has a nice positive gain...still waiting for a coldair tho

[Visconti]

Originally Posted by tonystewart

So the leaning effect at 6600 rpm + is the cause for the hp & torques increase between the 2 tunes?

Drop in HP like that is caused from knock.

Knock Control is turned always turn on with my calibrations

[xAgentzero13]

with these tunes we gotta see some 0 to 60 times!

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by Visconti

Drop in HP like that is caused from knock.

Knock Control is turned always turn on with my calibrations

cant you tune that out with higher octane? would love to see a medley of maps