The Ultimate FA20 ITB thread.

[StraightOuttaCanadaEh]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

As much as I want to believe that I am pretty skeptical of those numbers. From what I read the baseline and the ITB dyno where not done on the same machine, though I could be mistaken.

He's got a Nameless catless header as well. As for the dyno, they did the baseline on the old one but this tune on the new one. Same shop, different dyno, and the shop said the new one reads lower than the last one. So combined with the header it's an increase of at least 60 whp apparently.

[Tokay444]

Sounds like shitty dyno operation/calibration is a factor here.

[PulsarBeeerz]

He seems to have won his time attack class again so the shitty dyno calibration wasn't too much of a factor.lol

[Tokay444]

It certainly seems he is making more power. How much more is anyone's guess at this point, knowing what we know.

[Lantanafrs2]

I've never heard anybody admit to using an optimistic dyno

[CSG Mike]

Believe me, I want these to make serious gains more than anyone, but without apples to apples data like what I'm (slowly) getting done with a lot of help, it's like comparing two different dynos from two different cars and facilities, and I think the gains shown on the other car are a bit too much.

If I'm wrong with that assumption, then hey, that means more power for everyone who decides to go the ITB route! Win-win; that's actually the best case result!

[NoHaveMSG]

I have the nameless setup as well and even if it was responsible for 2/3 of those gains that is BS. His final dyno number seems a little high but it's the baseline that is suspiciously low to me. That is by far the lowest whp figure I have seen.

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanadaEh

He's got a Nameless catless header as well. As for the dyno, they did the baseline on the old one but this tune on the new one. Same shop, different dyno, and the shop said the new one reads lower than the last one. So combined with the header it's an increase of at least 60 whp apparently.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

[NoHaveMSG]

Correlating Dyno numbers with lapping results is like saying because I have a lap I am good at petting cats.

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

He seems to have won his time attack class again so the shitty dyno calibration wasn't too much of a factor.lol

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

[Dr. BRZ]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I have the nameless setup as well and even if it was responsible for 2/3 of those gains that is BS. His final dyno number seems a little high but it's the baseline that is suspiciously low to me. That is by far the lowest whp figure I have seen.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

It depends if his car is auto or stick. The manual dynos at 165whp and the auto dynos around 145whp so could it be, his twin is an auto?

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Correlating Dyno numbers with lapping results is like saying because I have a lap I am good at petting cats.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

That's cool.

[Tristor]

Originally Posted by Dr. BRZ

It depends if his car is auto or stick. The manual dynos at 165whp and the auto dynos around 145whp so could it be, his twin is an auto?

Where have you seen that? All the data I've seen indicates that the only performance differential between the manual and the auto is due to final drive gearing. This would affect the torque output shown on a chassis dyno, so I suppose it could show a different in horsepower based on that, but it shouldn't really create a significant affect. The transmission itself accounts for only a small portion of drivetrain loss.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Tristor

Where have you seen that? All the data I've seen indicates that the only performance differential between the manual and the auto is due to final drive gearing. This would affect the torque output shown on a chassis dyno, so I suppose it could show a different in horsepower based on that, but it shouldn't really create a significant affect. The transmission itself accounts for only a small portion of drivetrain loss.

The difference in dyno results is mainly between a mustang dyno (heartbreak) and a dynojet.

Mustang's typically show about 145-150 and dynojets between 165-170 for a baseline.

Dynojets are more likely a more accurate representation based on what driveline losses SHOULD be from BHP ratings, but for some reason people like mustang dynos for gain comparisons and think that for showing gains, they're more accurate.

Go figure...

If he got 206 whp from a mustang dyno, that's pretty significant for 91 octane (especially canadian 91) and could be showing good gains for ITBs.


Jaden

[StraightOuttaCanadaEh]

Originally Posted by Jaden

The difference in dyno results is mainly between a mustang dyno (heartbreak) and a dynojet.

Mustang's typically show about 145-150 and dynojets between 165-170 for a baseline.

Dynojets are more likely a more accurate representation based on what driveline losses SHOULD be from BHP ratings, but for some reason people like mustang dynos for gain comparisons and think that for showing gains, they're more accurate.

Go figure...

If he got 206 whp from a mustang dyno, that's pretty significant for 91 octane (especially canadian 91) and could be showing good gains for ITBs.


Jaden

this is significant. One tuner mentioned the knock correction on canadian 94 was higher than on US 91

[chaoskaze]

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaCanadaEh

this is significant. One tuner mentioned the knock correction on canadian 94 was higher than on US 91

That's true but i also thought that's cause ..... nobody puts 94 in their car lol.... so they are usually sitting there for a long time