JCviggen's misano B7 RS4 - work in progress

B6/7 S4/RS4
#75

Again, what’s with the sensitivity around here? Oh no! Someone doesn’t share my opinion! Grab a pitchfork!

[quote]We all know somehow you were driving around at 900-1200 RPMs, which really blows my mind
[/quote]
It’s a normal thing to do in first or second gear in a traffic jam. I’m not going to go WOT from 1000, obviously. And it was only an overly sensitive “test” to induce hesitation, but let’s ignore the context.

[quote]and you think acceleration videos in the wrong gear are scientific benchmarks.

According to your thinking there is absolutely no possible way to prove who is fastest.
[/quote]
If you’re going to tell me what I’m thinking you should try to get it right. Neither of those two things are correct if you would actually read (and comprehend) my posting.

Making me feel like I stumbled into the forums of the creation museum here. Thanks.

#76

I don’t believe it was warm enough to not have the throttle limit. It was 13 degrees out.

You ran yours at what… - 10?

In all likelihood that is a difference of DA of anywhere from 1500 to 2500 feet. Or 5-7 percent hp disadvantage to me. That would be most prevalent at high-speed so if I’m matching you at high speeds that’s good delta. This assumes you aren’t at high elevation. I was at about 600 feet of actual elevation and about 1200-1500 feet of DA.

I also think you should redo your test while using the on board computer as your timer. You’re bringing any problems in your phone or the software into it the way you’re doing it. The lap timer takes that out of it.

#77

I’m about 500ft asl here, weather was -8.5C with very crappy snowy weather so barometric pressure was probably below average.

If you compare the vids you gain a lot all the way to 5500 and then my car kicks into gear and matches yours. The difference is extremely audible in my video, as well as the needly visibly picking up speed. Yours by comparison seemed pretty smooth and constant.

I suppose my exhaust being stock makes the change in intake sound a lot more noticeable than it would be in your car however.

Still, your exhaust should more than make up for the temperature difference in terms of top end performance I would have thought? You gained ~2mph in trap speed from the JHM 2.75" IIRC?

#78

Funny stuff

  1. It’s not freakishly quick and C5 RS6 are traditionally slow. All of the inflated dyno claims and they struggle to run the 1/4 mile better than 13.0 @ 109. It’s a dog’s breakfast in Europe and the majority of the C5 cars I’ve seen performance tested fall flat on their face. But hey, they keep buying the dynos. So no , using the words ‘freakishly quick’ doesn’t make it so. As we showed, from 50-160 this car is unimpressive… Never mind freakishly anything.

1.a Certified dragstrips all over the world. Simple.

  1. People who want to ignore the data love to say this. Funny a week ago I said to a friend 'I am guessing jcviggen is an engineer and I bet he will try the hard way to do absolutely everything, ignoring everything presented to him. I made that prediction when you refused to use the on board lap timer to time your 3k-8k run. Rather than do what 50 other people have done, you wanted to do it ‘better’… And just introduced another variable. Convenient when you are unable to be compared using the same ruler. You want to use your own ruler. What kind of engineering field are you in?

  2. Great excuse built in for you to attribute our performance to our driving. Problem is we are also comparing our own cars to each other stock, to lightly modded, to full bolt on, and showing considerable delta . So that excuse goes out the window. Further if you don’t shift fast why didn’t you buy a car with an automatic transmission? Or a prius ? Buying a $75,000 performance car and then driving like a granny to save $200 a year (amortized trans rebuild over 6-7 years) is the most ridiculous excuse for shit acceleration performance that I’ve ever seen. Congratulations.

Also if you’ll recall my car didn’t shift from 50-160 kmh in that vid and almost matched the ‘superfreak’.

  1. I’ve looked at a bunch of cars from Europe who went to the dragstrip . Most of the strips don’t qualify so they can’t go on the board but the data is good to at least look at. You know that even without a stringent certification system, NONE of these European cars are faster? And make no mistake there are dozens of dragstrip in Europe and dozens of rs4s have run. Yet NONE are faster than the JHM cars.

Also the ‘one’ European rs4 that is on our list did not go once. He went a few times. He does not drive like a granny. If you search you might be surprised to find out that he is a member here, and I helped him considerably with everything I could to help him achieve his best times (launch techniques, shifting rpms etc). He reached out via pm a couple of years ago. He ran in excellent DA, at a well prepped track (santa pod) and drove it well. He has video online if you’re inclined to prove yourself wrong by searching YouTube.

  1. Earlier you said you’d much rather go by 167 mph runs. Now it’s 101 mph runs? Let me know when you make a final decision. I already told you to grab a pbox and see what you can do. I have pbox data from every level of modification possible on the rs4, from stock right up to data I gathered from jhm’s stage 2 supercharger when I was in California .

  2. MRC used their in house mrc controlled and calibrated dyno to sell superchargers. In no way is that impartial or to be trusted. Further it uses a bullshit user input drive train loss calculator to come up with crank hp. When asked for wheel hp they refused lol. Interestingly that same kit on an S5 4.2 made about 465 Whp on a third party dyno, and made 605 hp (crank) at mrc. That’s a pretty ambitious level of drive train loss to get to 600. Why not 28 percent and make it 650? Or 17 percent for 550?

When we look at that 465 whp number that makes sense and that’s what the cars here who trap 125 make. Thereabouts anyway as dynos are all over the place and are a truly silly tool for this. Trap speed works well

  1. See that’s the thing… You will not. You will do anything possible to discount what is presented to you. Because you’re an engineer. We have a few dozen rs4 quarter mile times on a list and you immediately discounted that. Nothing will ever satisfy you which is great because it allows you to live with your beliefs. That’s fine but you’re not changing anyone’s opinion by plugging your ears and closing your eyes. If we raced head to head and you lost you would come up with a dozen excuses. Of course reality is you wouldn’t show up for the race. Too absolute.

  2. If a car’s modifications make it fast in 1st 2nd, 3rd, 4th… you think 5th and 6th are going to be different? LOL. Other than a laughable ram air setup it’s the same.

Also anyone who says they are modifying their car for the nurburgiring is clearly lost. Its a 14 mile racetrack in a part of Germany nobody visits otherwise. While there are high speed sections it also has a billion turns. Focus on your handling and tires if that’s truly your goal.

#79

[quote] It’s not freakishly quick and C5 RS6 are traditionally slow
[/quote]
What C5? I didn’t mention one. Though mine is certainly quicker once it’s rolling than any NA RS4.
I said C6 and C7. I don’t think it’s in any way normal for a B7 to be faster than a C7 RS6 from 100 to 160 mph. I can’t imagine you do, either. They trap over 120 stock.

[quote]Certified dragstrips all over the world. Simple.
[/quote]
It’s not the strips that are the problem, it’s the bazillion other variables which aren’t shown. I mean, if we went by the certified© times in your list we see that one car with a JHM tune trapped slower with the tune than on the stock ECU. That’s the only certified part. At face value, the JHM tune did barely anything on Mistro’s car at the track. You need the piece of information about atmospheric conditions and so on but these variables are MIA, others are even more difficult to quantify. Even playing with tire pressures can influence terminal speeds quite a bit.

Also MIA are result for the vast majority of Audi tuners who are not JHM. That’s not your fault obviously, but your sample size is woefully small for anyone but JHM and Audi OEM. All you’ve established is that JHM makes good tunes. I’m sure they do. They might be the best. But you’ve not established by any stretch of the imagination that every other tuner is worse by default. (not those tuners’ fault that they’re in places that don’t do quarter mile racing at all either)

[quote]Further if you don’t shift fast why didn’t you buy a car with an automatic transmission?
[/quote]
What? Shift times are the deciding factor for buying a car now? That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. Besides, I can shift plenty fast but my gearbox needs a rebuild first. I’m not going to grind it to bits to save two tenths on a glory run. Only point was driver makes a difference and it’s not small.

[quote] I’ve looked at a bunch of cars from Europe who went to the dragstrip . Most of the strips don’t qualify so they can’t go on the board but the data is good to at least look at.
[/quote]
Well I can only go by what’s in the list can’t I? Googling really does not turn up much for European results. But then your bone stock car would probably be well faster than a stock RS4 on a european strip. You did have the world record for a stock car didn’t you? And mistro’s was faster on stock software than any euro car mapped or otherwise? Maybe cars on stock software get faster just by being closer to JHM. (Yes I’m joking)

[quote] Earlier you said you’d much rather go by 167 mph runs. Now it’s 101 mph runs? Let me know when you make a final decision. I already told you to grab a pbox and see what you can do
[/quote]
No, I did not say that. I said higher speed runs are easier to judge and compare simply by being longer. I can’t suggest to compare such speeds because it’s not possible to do those speeds. The 3rd gear test seems to be achievable at least by everyone no matter where they live. I’ll try to find a pbox.

[quote]MRC used their in house mrc controlled and calibrated dyno to sell superchargers. In no way is that impartial or to be trusted. Further it uses a bullshit user input drive train loss calculator to come up with crank hp.
[/quote]
The first part is special pleading, the second is outright false. MRC use a CARTEC dyno which uses measured coastdown losses. My C5 was on one identical to the UK one in Paris when it got mapped and you get all the data you want. The owner should have the print out with all data.

Most definitely no fixed loss percentage is used. Loss is far from a fixed ratio anyway, my car for example had a much lower loss percentage (if you calculate it) once mapped than on the stock baseline run. Which is precisely what you’d expect from a higher number at lower rpm. Losses don’t scale well with power.

[quote]You will do anything possible to discount what is presented to you. Because you’re an engineer. We have a few dozen rs4 quarter mile times on a list and you immediately discounted that.
[/quote]
I’m not discounting anything, I am saying it is incomplete. Yes you have 7 or 8 cars with JHM software. How many data points do you have for MRC, MTM, tunetec, sportmile, … ?

You have no basis to dismiss other tuners (yet) that’s the reality of it. And, again, ECU tuning isn’t magic. It’s hard work. Those companies who specialize in a few of these RS models all know what’s going on. If any of them would stumble onto a vastly superior approach they’d all know about it soon enough. I could order several tunes and post up the precise changes they all make to the mapping, if I wanted to waste a few grand on an internet debate.

[quote]Also anyone who says they are modifying their car for the nurburgiring is clearly lost. Its a 14 mile racetrack in a part of Germany nobody visits otherwise. While there are high speed sections it also has a billion turns.
[/quote]
It’s a power track. And the car will get plenty of handling mods including a full welded cage in time. I don’t care about 10 horsepower more or less, my point was that I have little or no examples of JHM tuned cars doing such sustained high speeds and loads. Plenty of vids of MRC cars performing normally and staying in one piece on the 'ring. Not so much with JHM for obvious geographic reasons. It’s a matter of quantifying reliability and there is not enough data to work with.

#80

Oh and in other news, I just picked up the car again :slight_smile:

Will have to ask Dmitry what he did to it exactly, it ran well and smooth from cold with no hesitations. Only changes I can see he made is go back to the other spark plugs (NGK) and the SW0090 update plus a few of his own tweaks to that.

#81

Sorry, I misread that.

Show me a C6 RS6 that is slower please.

[quote]It’s not the strips that are the problem, it’s the bazillion other variables which aren’t shown. I mean, if we went by the certified© times in your list we see that one car with a JHM tune trapped slower with the tune than on the stock ECU. That’s the only certified part. At face value, the JHM tune did barely anything on Mistro’s car at the track. You need the piece of information about atmospheric conditions and so on but these variables are MIA, others are even more difficult to quantify. Even playing with tire pressures can influence terminal speeds quite a bit.
[/quote]
worrying about ‘a bazillion other variables’ is a common refrain when attempting to plug one’s ears. However when you’re comparing dozens of inputs, and they keep telling the same story, it’s pretty simple.

Pointing at that one piece of data (which I have explained to you, since I was there that day…my car went 12.81 @ 109.9) and saying it invalidates all of the other data is again, convenient, and a bit argumentative. What you’re trying to do is not listen. That’s fine. I presented the thesis that the JHM RS4s are faster than all of the competition. You attempted to knock that down for no reason other than to knock it down. I have dozens of examples of acceleration tests, be they 3k-8k speedo checks…3k-8k VCDS logs…Pbox data…dragstrip data. You don’t accept any of it, and that’s fine. I’m not gathering the data to sell tunes. I’m gathering the data to help our community. If you want to buy something else, that’s cool. A couple of of RS4 owners who have done this research and testing presented the JHM tune as a great option for you, and you decided to instead have someone else tune your car. Good stuff. But don’t try to knock down what JHM modded cars have accomplished because it doesn’t line up with your plans.

[quote]What? Shift times are the deciding factor for buying a car now? That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. Besides, I can shift plenty fast but my gearbox needs a rebuild first. I’m not going to grind it to bits to save two tenths on a glory run. Only point was driver makes a difference and it’s not small.
[/quote]
driving fast is easy. I don’t have any magic up my sleeve so save it. If you granny shift to save a few dollars over the long run, that’s your prerogative…but don’t project your granny shifting prejudice on the rest of the RS4 community. I can promise you that people who go to the dragstrip do not share your granny shifting techniques. They are trying to see how their car accelerates often comparing to stock stats they 've seen posted. When periodicals are testing the B7 Rs4, they aren’t granny shifting. When Audi presents performance data, they aren’t granny shifting. If you do, again, that’s your choice. However you’re in a very small minority.

[quote]The first part is special pleading, the second is outright false. MRC use a CARTEC dyno which uses measured coastdown losses. My C5 was on one identical to the UK one in Paris when it got mapped and you get all the data you want. The owner should have the print out with all data.
[/quote]
I think you should spend some time talking with someone who operates one of these dynos. The user inputs influence every single number that comes out of it. And yes, that includes the calculation of drivetrain loss on rundown/coasting. You can download the operator’s manual from Cartec-Snap On to see how to run the MRC dyno, as I did a couple of years ago. Interesting stuff. It may still be there.

[quote]I’m not discounting anything, I am saying it is incomplete. Yes you have 7 or 8 cars with JHM software. How many data points do you have for MRC, MTM, tunetec, sportmile, … ?

You have no basis to dismiss other tuners (yet) that’s the reality of it. And, again, ECU tuning isn’t magic. It’s hard work. Those companies who specialize in a few of these RS models all know what’s going on. If any of them would stumble onto a vastly superior approach they’d all know about it soon enough. I could order several tunes and post up the precise changes they all make to the mapping, if I wanted to waste a few grand on an internet debate.
[/quote]
Actually that’s not the case. My point about you dismissing our data was to show that no matter what you’re presented with, you’ll dismiss it. You did exactly that. You talked about all kinds of variables…tried to reference driver skill…all of the usual stuff people mention when trying to discount quarter mile data. As I have already said, I have acceleration data from many tuners. GIAC, APR, JHM, MTM, EPL and all of the supercharger companies. Our dragstrip list here has pretty strict requirements to qualify. That’s why that list is as it is.

As for why more people from other tuners don’t go to qualified dragstrips, that is a question that answers itself. For many of them, they don’t like other people controlling the ruler. They like using their own ruler. They then come up with a load of excuses as to why they don’t go. You’re familiar with most of them, as you’ve used them here today.

#82

Who put the wrong plugs in again? The guy who is going to tune the car?

#83

Also the same guy who is afraid to open up the transmission, which with the right manual also isn’t “rocket science”

#84

ETKA says they’re the right plugs. Trust me I spent more time arguing with him over plugs than I have with you over ECUs and I had to admit defeat. They came in an Audi box and the part number was validated for the B7 RS4 by Audi themselves in the latest ETKA. My older ETKA version had different Bosch plugs. I’m not sure even Audi pay attention to this stuff, it’s all beancounters.

There’s NGK and Bosch in ETKA, 50/50 which you end up with unless you specify. Also, we’ve not actually determined yet that the plugs were to blame. But I wanted to at least remove that variable for the sake of troubleshooting.

#85

help me out…is this right?

  1. your mechanic puts the wrong plugs in the car along with a whole bunch of stuff

  2. the car then had a bunch of misfires and stuttering/stalling at low RPMs

  3. despite that it still ran faster than any measured stock RS4 in history from 3k-8k…while ‘crabbing’ around the slippery road no less

  4. that same mechanic then traced the problem (that we know he created with the wrong plugs) to a ‘faulty fuel injector’ which was replaced

  5. the mechanic who put the wrong plugs in the car, and is scared to do a transmission rebuild (which has been done by a bunch of members on this site lol) is now going to tune it as well!

  6. that same mechanic/tuner jacked up your rev limiter to 8500 for no good reason (it actually makes the car slower going that deep), with no improved internals to handle the increased speeds. Audi completely revamped the high revving 4.2 FSI for the B8 RS4/5 to handle the new higher 8500 rpm rev limit.

  7. that same mechanic then put the correct plugs to fix his mistake and the car is back to running normally

Can’t wait for the performance testing and running the car to 8500 RPM! If you start seeing blue smoke coming out the back after a while, don’t worry. I’m sure it’s nothing. If you need a new engine, contact Flying Tomatoes. He has the market cornered.

#86

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkm_2l3qfZM
C6 RS6: ~13s
C7 RS6: ~12s
RS4 downhill hurricane: ~10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_C3jz42X0

How is it telling the same story? I used an exact piece of data from your collection which showed nearly identical trap speeds for Mistro’s car with and without the tune.

The other variables are the only thing you have to claim a big gain on the tune in this case.

[quote]saying it invalidates all of the other data is again, convenient, and a bit argumentative. What you’re trying to do is not listen. That’s fine.
[/quote]
I’ve not said it invalidates anything. I’m saying a lot of info is missing. Info which makes a huge difference in the actual results, as this example shows better than anything else.

[quote]I presented the thesis that the JHM RS4s are faster than all of the competition. You attempted to knock that down for no reason other than to knock it down.
[/quote]
Because your thesis is not well supported. Explain me how you can claim something to be faster than all of the competition without actually presenting meaningful data on said competition? It just doesn’t make sense. Where is the competition in your spreadsheet? A single GIAC chip? (which did pretty well actually) A single MRC car? More Audi tuners exist on this planet that are not on your list than those who are…

[quote]3k-8k speedo checks…3k-8k VCDS logs…Pbox data…dragstrip data. You don’t accept any of it
[/quote]
I can accept things which I can see. Just claiming something exists and presenting it isn’t the same thing. I’m having a hard time finding many 3-8K runs and would absolutely genuinely appreciate seeing them in order to learn more.

[quote]A couple of of RS4 owners who have done this research and testing presented the JHM tune as a great option for you, and you decided to instead have someone else tune your car.
[/quote]
I thought I explained this already. I’m months from being able to get a proper tune. I don’t know if I’ll get a tunetec, MRC, or JHM. If I try multiple tunes I’ll probably get a tunetec or MRC and get a JHM cable which I will only use after I’ve extracted the other tune I paid for so I don’t lose it when it gets ovewritten.

I do trust Dmitry with ECUs and he’s removed the torque limiter for me and stopped my exhaust valves closing in S mode. For peanuts. It’s not going to be the final tune no matter what. Just to be clear here.

[quote]If you granny shift to save a few dollars over the long run, that’s your prerogative…but don’t project your granny shifting prejudice on the rest of the RS4 community.
[/quote]
Nursing a temporary mechanical issue isn’t a life philosophy. You can tell just by listening to quarter mile runs how quick someone manages to shift and yours are quicker than most. Certainly faster than the UK bloke’s video I saw.

But you can see the number. It’s not hidden. And if it falls within the expected range, there’s nothing more to argue. My car had 126 PS loss on the stock map and 105PS loss once remapped. Losses went down, not up. From my experience with MAHA and superflow coastdown results the figures are absolutely realistic.

But yes, they do read a bit high generally. I’d say 25 BHP too much at 500.

[quote]My point about you dismissing our data was to show that no matter what you’re presented with, you’ll dismiss it. You did exactly that.
[/quote]
I’ve not had a chance to dismiss relevant data. That’s prejudice right there :wink:
And I have not dismissed anything. I’ve called it incomplete and useless as proof for comparison as most things you’d want to compare it to are missing.

As long as they are missing, you’re not anywhere close to proving something logically. And I’m not the one making a claim, you are. The burden of proof is on you. I’ve not dismissed any of your proof, I’m waiting for you to show me the rest of it. If it exists.

#87

See above. They’re right as far as Audi is concerned. How can I blame the guy for following ETKA?

[quote]2. the car then had a bunch of misfires and stuttering/stalling at low RPMs
[/quote]
It hated low loads when cold, yes. Misfires, yes a few. Stalling, no. I’ll see tomorrow on a proper cold start if it’s all good or not. SW0090 also addressed specifically cold running issues so it may be a factor as well.

[quote]despite that it still ran faster than any measured stock RS4 in history from 3k-8k…while ‘crabbing’ around the slippery road no less
[/quote]
I don’t know if it was faster than any stock RS4, I don’t think other cars running normally at 380-390 or so horsepower wouldn’t be able to do it at -8.5 Celcius. It didn’t feel unusually quick. Some people got pretty close times in ambient 25C higher so…

In any case I’ll try my best to replicate it ASAP with that lovely accurate timer running on the dash.

#88

I really don’t want to interject in the debate, but from my reading of your posts, I have to agree with what euro said:

Sak has provided you with facts and data, yet you keep insisting that his burden of proof hasn’t been satisfied. You’re essentially arguing for a “beyond a reasonable doubt PLUS” standard. That strikes me as unreasonable. The burden has shifted, and it’s now on you for a rebuttal.

#89

It’s good to hear that you might have gotten all this sorted out with your car. It sounds like it was a bad injector.

As for the ecu debate. I have a few thoughts a few opinions and then facts.

My thoughts are. You saying that people are sensitive about jhm and your no into religion reduces my belief in your knowledge of the performance aspects of the rs4. As testing has been done and hands down for years now jhm is the fastest and best performing tune by far. My reduced believe in you gets worse when you say tuning isn’t black magic and it’s not that hard. Actually continued proof that not each company can tune keep coming up again and again. The proof is shown in all aspects.
The last nail in the coffin for my thoughts on your over all understanding of performance is the fact that you said you can’t call jhm the best company for performance even tho they have almost all of the top 10 fastest tuned cars and the list goes deeper. From proof on the track and proof on the street and proof on the dyno. Jhm beats all hands down. Your argument if I understand it is you can’t call jhm the best because everyone else hasn’t been tested…

That falls apart because most others have been tested and we have seen the results and just how far behind they are when compared to jhm. Saying some obscure company MIGHT BE BETTER…might might might. But they can prove and can be proven if they wish. The proof is that cars tested show jhm faster by a long shot. If all it takes is not testing and proving or providing proof that my tune is faster to still consider my products good. I’ll start a company tomorrow and never test our cars. I’ll then say you can’t say I’m not the best because nobody has tested my products.

The fact shows results and results show jhm is faster. That’s the facts. The collection of car owners started demanding standardized testing and that testing is the 1/4 mile. That distance is always the same and time is always a constant. Each company has the ability to test and show there ability. The B8 S4 guys have not taken thus to the next level and have essentially proven quite well that not all tunes are equal and just buying a tune off a dyno sheet is a terrible idea.

You can have different standards if you wish for proof. That’s your choose. Lots of people have gotten ripped off by spending 2000 dollars on intake setups for there rs4 that MRC said made power in the dyno and MRC sold them. The problem there is we showed they actually don’t make more power. So to call people who believe in a company that not only makes products but tests them to prove the products worth. To call those people part of a religion is fine but know that religion is one that has the highest standards of proof.

#90

I’m not going to spoonfeed you the information we’ve seen over the years because you bought an Rs4 this month. Again, I’ve already said it. You won’t be convinced of anything, no matter what anyone shows you. I am sharing what I’ve seen, and I have no dog in the fight. I have a used JHM exhaust on my RS4, and nothing else. I have however done loads of acceleration testing. If you choose not to believe what I’m telling you, again, that’s not a concern to me. If you were here for the past 4 years learning along with the rest of us, you wouldn’t need to be spoonfed…you’d know what everyone here already knows.

[quote]Nursing a temporary mechanical issue isn’t a life philosophy. You can tell just by listening to quarter mile runs how quick someone manages to shift and yours are quicker than most. Certainly faster than the UK bloke’s video I saw.
[/quote]
no, it was your assertion that the strength of my results or mistro’s results or all of the JHM modified car owners’ results can be explained by our incredible dexterity in the driving seat because we are all supershifters…and all other drivers from GIAC/APR/MRC/PES/AMD /UM tuned cars are ham fisted clods who don’t know how to drive.

CHECK!

[quote]But you can see the number. It’s not hidden. And if it falls within the expected range, there’s nothing more to argue. My car had 126 PS loss on the stock map and 105PS loss once remapped. Losses went down, not up. From my experience with MAHA and superflow coastdown results the figures are absolutely realistic.

But yes, they do read a bit high generally. I’d say 25 BHP too much at 500.
[/quote]
When you buy a Cartec Snap On dyno, and set it up, you have to give it a bunch of inputs that influence the drivetrain loss. You can make it read whatever you want. That’s my point. I was suggesting downloading and reading the technical manual to see what I’m talking about. It’s not a magic device. It takes a load of inputs from the operator to determine outputs. Many dynos are the same.

#91

So I only read a little bit of this but I was already asking myself “Is this guy an engineer or something”. Why would I ask myself this question? Because the most irritating “friendly” arguments I’ve ever had have been with engineers. I think as part of the degree, they are required to be a member of the debate club as well. Engineer + debate club = just tell them they are right and move on (they already know they are anyway).

#92

And with that post. I have to agree. Welcome jeff33702

#93

No they assume they are always right and set an impossible criteria for proving them wrong…therefore it’s impossible to prove them wrong.

Notice his reference to “beancounters” this is funny because the only thing that can stop and Engineer is budget or $$, not someone telling him his design is flawed or failure rates are off…especially some guy who isn’t an engineer. No matter how much hands on experience or real world knowledge you have, you will never convince him that it won’t work or will work poorly, you just have to take away his funding.

#94

Can you kindly link me to where this data has been provided? I’m at a loss as to how I must have overlooked it.

I have seen a lot of data suggesting that JHM’s NA tunes are good. I’m not saying they aren’t.

Sample size of the 1/4 mile list:
Stock - 10
JHM - 6
GIAC - 1
APR - 1
MRC - 1
REVO - 1
MTM - 0
Tunetec - 0
…

I’m sure some of you remember statistics in school and understand that a sample size of 1 or 0 is statistically useless.

Furthermore there is only 1 car in the entire list which actually has results both stock and mapped. That further makes correlating results nearly impossible.

Still, if I could ask one question it would be how exactly you guys manage to discount or eliminate tuners for being inferior when there is literally zero recorded (visible) data on them? And after that I’m being accused of bias…