JHM B5 S4 with JHM RS6-R turbos goes 10.88 @ 130

B5 S4/ RS4
#101

I suppose it’s possible, but there is reason in my mind to be skeptical. And I don’t just say this as an armchair thinker, my S4 had the JHM software when I bought it. I was told that my actual car ran an 11.4, but I can assure you that the car was slow as shit when I got it.

I don’t ususally talk about this because people just think I’m trying to plug GIAC software. We have moved on from the B5 market, so I feel that I can give an honest opinion when I say that the car pulled harder up top with the GIAC OTS software. Maybe JHM ran a C16 file to the ragged edge, it’s possible. I just know that my 91 JHM tune was no faster than a stock Evo or Sti.

Take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I obviously have reason to say that the car was slower before (if not slower, certainly not faster). But this was my honest thought. You can only do so much with a fixed quantity of air.

#102

See, to me that sounds more like an outlier. I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone say they thought the GIAC OTS tune would romp the JHM tune. Usually the opposite.

After entering a hundred B5 S4 quarter mile times in the database from all the website lists out there, I can’t say there are any GIAC tuned cars running the GIAC OTS file on pump gas that are even on the list. The GIAC cars are all tweaked…or they’re on race gas.

17 GIAC times of which 15 are tweaked and 2 are OTS (that we know of…they may have been tweaked as well, but it just didn’t say in the postings/list). The two that were OTS were GIACs race gas file, with one guy on 111+meth and the other on 104.

Here…this list from an earlier page a few months ago usually cures the skepticism. Of course if you work for a competitor, that may not be the case. countvohn tunes for JHM

fastest ever K03 B5 S4 = dan@JHM with countvohn’s tune, 12.2 @ 112
fastest ever full weight K04 B5 S4 = jaybquick@JHM with countvohn’s tune, 11.1 @ 130
fastest ever RS6 turbo B5 S4 = jaybquick@JHM with countvohn’s tune, 10.8 @ 130
fastest ever all motor B6/7 S4 = jaybquick@JHM with countvohn’s tune, 12.70 @ 111
fastest ever supercharged B6/7 S4 = 91GL with countvohn’s tune, 11.9 @ 116
fastest ever nitrous B6/7 S4 = cabracco85 with countvohn’s tune, 12.0 @ 116
fastest ever all motor B7 RS4 = george with countvohn’s tune, 12.2 @ 112
fastest ever tip B67 S4 = justincredible with countvohn’s tune
fastest ever supercharged B7 RS4 ET = Keith with countvohn’s tune, 11.8 @ 116
fastest ever supercharged B7 RS4 MPH = rocketman with countvohn’s tune, 11.8 @ 119
fastest ever 3.0 A4 = JHM countvohn tune
fastest ever A6 4.2 = countvohn with countvohn’s tune

The 3 RS4 records have all been broken since that list was posted a few pages back. With JHM’s own supercharger coming up I am pretty confident they’ll get the title back, and if I were betting a Coke, I’d say that car will not only be fastest B7 RS4…but will be faster than any full weight B5 S4 too, their own RS6r car included.

#103

I’m comparing straight 91 octane tunes, which you will never see on any 1/4 mile list. There is much more room to play with once you start using better octane fuel.

#104

I understand that, however I still don’t think I’ve heard anyone say what you just did. (GIAC>JHM)

Further, you said ‘I suppose it’s possible, but there is reason in my mind to be skeptical’ when referring to JHM’s success. You weren’t referring to the 91 tune on your used B5 S4. You were referring to the conversation we just had on the previous page.

Well, I just showed you that there is overwhelming success for JHM tuned cars, both on their in house cars tested at the local strip Sacramento that you questioned on the previous page, as well as results matching or even beating those results by customers across the continent.

So now rather than addressing that, you’re talking about stage 1 B5 S4s on 91 octane tunes…and in reality you’re talking about your one used B5 S4 that came with a JHM tune. You didn’t think it was all that fast. Great. Does that mean JHM’s shit doesn’t work? No, I think it means your car didn’t work. As the results clearly show, JHM’s shit is on point. Talk about an outlier? How about your experience with your JHM tune not being all that impressive. That’s the outlier.

#105

Depending on when the awe/giac ots file was flashed it can be a real animal. I promise not as well put together as the Jhm tune but very possibly way more agressive. We call them the gangster lean files.

#106

Why I mentioned my 91 file is because that is the only one that I have experience with. I’m saying if the 91 file was not very fast, can their race file really all of the sudden smash on anything that larger companies have done? They obviously make power given the times that are put up, but a true 130 on K04’s? I raise my eyebrows.

And if you haven’t been around this game, OTS files are not the same files running around putting up record breaking times. There is simply too much liability involved.

#107

Hope you don’t take this the wrong way. I feel you have posed several questions and opinions as facts. Thus Ill step in here and share somet stuff you might not know.

If you were told your car ran 11.4 who did you by the car from?

I can understand you not talking about this because you work for GIAC but so did I (contracted through Jmoss).

So the same GIAC 91 software you had on your car. I helped develop with J moss. So I know 100% what you had on your car. I know 100% what GIAC 91 octane tunes run and how they run. I have logs from Pre AWE failure and Post GIAC/VAST/Jmoss saveure of the AWE fueling kit. Those files later became known as the gangster files.

Ask snowtrooper. AWE couldn’t give away a fueling kit till after Me/Moss worked for thousands of hours on it. As a matter of fact the code you have on your car is becuase I (me and Mike as well)… I showed GIAC how to make M box code work on all cars. At this time Vast had made what what was known as homebrew fueling kits. This is where We (vast) took a ko3 file and made it work on the ko4 turbos. This outsold the AWE fueling kit about 2 to 1. You can ask jeff moss. On more then one night we tested the AWE kit Vs. the homebrew kit and everytime the homebrew kit was faster stronger.

After The One code files were shown to GIAC the AWE kits became more plug and play. As the sucuess of the homebrew kits took off AWE became more and more upset about what vast was doing. This resulted in vast not getting the files we needed to keep the homebrew program going the way we needed.

I spoke to Andrew personally and asked for more help. He knew I work for Ford SVT and that I can just call my friends at cosworth and get all the information I needed to tune the cars myself. After not getting some of the results we wanted and a few short list of other reasons. I decided to just take all my hard work from what we had done and start from scratch. While I could have just stole the GIAC tune. I had the logs so I just started and kept learning and sorting out the results till I got to where the old program was. Then I took it a few steps farther. To make it faster. What is better. Im not going to speak on that. I can only say it was faster.

So when you say what you say about hte JHM tune being slower. Is it possible. Well let me say this

I suppose it’s possible, but there is reason in my mind to be skeptical. And I don’t just say this as an armchair thinker

let me follow all this up to say. GIAC is a great company gerret and the guys are great. They put out a great product and they bring in great people to help. I was very lucky to be part of it as long as I was.

#108

To adress this. I went 11.22@128 on my own tune ko4s well before jay went 11.1@130. Its also been backed up two other times it can and it has happened.

To adress the OTS kits. If you look at what sakimano posted. He just showed you JHM customers with OTS kits going faster then JHM. Customers will always get strong files with JHM. The difference isn’t going to be some fake file that is out there for just hype. The difference is going to be if customer X wants to spend the money to get there cars to that level

#109

I agree with most of what you say, and like I said I’m not saying it is impossible. What you have said here certainly leads credibility.

With that being said, my current file and our OTS files are completely different from those developed with Jeff Moss. In 2008-2009 most of these files were completely remade, and if you were to look at the maps and tables they would look very different from those which you are talking about. Not saying this to discredit anything you are saying, just supplying it for informational purposes. Of course, the original code which you helped on would still be present.

And I never rode in the C16 JHM car, which it why I am not going around saying that their times are false. I simply said that the trap speed was susceptible for the reasons that I mentioned, and was open to discussing it from there. I have the right to have my own doubts, but I appreciate others like yourself supplying credible information.

#110

Just to point out. You can see your not going to be able to be imprarial. You refrr to giac as WE meaning part of you. I agree with everyone else you are the ONLY one to say that GIAC pulls harder. mayvbe you got one of the never sold to the peopolel files. Still with the mountain of evadence and past proof the fact that yuor continuing to be skeptical just shows you appear to not be able to be imprartial. This isnt to say your bad or a fraud. I think we can all understnad why you would NEED to be skeptical

#111

[quote]To adress this. I went 11.22@128 on my own tune ko4s well before jay went 11.1@130. Its also been backed up two other times it can and it has happened.

To adress the OTS kits. If you look at what sakimano posted. He just showed you JHM customers with OTS kits going faster then JHM. Customers will always get strong files with JHM. The difference isn’t going to be some fake file that is out there for just hype. The difference is going to be if customer X wants to spend the money to get there cars to that level
[/quote]
Spend the money, yes. On hardware. You are still tasked with how aggressively you tune the car with a given set of hardware. The engine can only pump so much air given a certain hardware setup, so it would seem that the deciding factor would then be the tuning. To me, it wouldn’t come down to if customer x wants to spend the money, it would come down to if customer x wants to claim responsibility. The file I’m discussing was a C16 file, something that I wouldn’t want to be giving out to everyone.

#112

Dude no one is goin gto buy what your saying. here. I know I sure as hell am ont. You just said that giac moved on. Not only that but no one has boutght a AWE fueling kit for over 5 yearrs now and now your saing that gaic made better files years after people stoped buying there files. Dude no on is that strupid. So your trying to sell us on the idea that giac made better files revam,ped there files to be better power and never once talked about it till now in this fourm. hahahahahahhaha come on bro no on eis that stupid. the awe fuleing kit is still making the same hp it was making 5 years ago. and it hasblt changed

my spelling is beter thenn your story on this

#113

Actually, I’m not trying to sell you on anything. I mentioned my experience with OTS 91 files, and said take it with a grain of salt. But, that experience is irrelevant because we are talking about a whole different file that was running on C16. I have nothing to gain by saying that the trap speed might be skewed, just the same as I have nothing to gain by trying to convince veteran members on this forum that one software if better than the other. The JHM car has been discussed before, and it will continue to be discussed over and over again.

#114

Much more to it then that. Comes down to hardware and money. When your on the car building side you see it from all angles.

I don’t know who has a C16 file that your talking about but I see GIAC has and has always had a Race Gas file. Seems they give that out to whoever will pay for it.

In the end your not going to be nonbias. So this conversation for me ends here. It can and has happened. There are good reasons for you to not believe. I assume you will stick with them. All well for you. Ill cheer for you and your car just like I would anyone else

#115

:smiley:

#116

I see what you did there. lol lol ;D :smiley:

I can concur on the GIAC tunes being not sucuessful for the AWE and 91. Till after the HB PEB stuff started. After 2005 or so. GIAC was no longer a top name in the B5 game. I really don’t see or believe that GIAC decided to restart there B5 Program in the 2009 year. I agree this makes no sense and seems like a good attempt to cover ones tracks per the conversation.

Seems like merlinsmagic has made lots of statments but answered none of the questions asked of him. Fishy for sure.

#117

Like I said, I have nothing to gain in trying to make false statements about B5 software. I’m not trying to sell this stuff on any of you. When Austin came to GIAC, there were many completely new files made as he pushed his car. Were these the same as everyone experienced with the AWE fueling kit? Likely not. My original question didn’t even involve GIAC, as I mentioned that Sacramento Raceway previously had a known calibration problem. I wanted to discuss this run, as like I said, I was not impressed with the JHM OTS 91 file (I DO admit that this has little bearing on their C16 file).

Regardless, the only person who really contributed anything was CountVohn. Instead of calling me a liar and starting arguments, he presented valid information in regards to the 130 trap speed run. This is what I was looking for, not a tuning argument. To be honest, I don’t think anyone will ever know if the trap calibration speed was correct. Frankly, it doesn’t matter, and I think that everyone will agree regardless… that B5 was a very fast car (as were many other JHM cars).

#118

I think I presented some good information about the tune you were disparraging (JHM), and I asked a few questions of you which you passed on (i.e. can you think of anyone else who has ever said the JHM tune was blown away by the GIAC tune? was there maybe something else wrong with your car? Don’t you think you sound like the outlier here?)

Here’s what you said about the JHM tune. “I can assure you that the car was slow as shit when I got it”

Again, this is not exactly the norm. That’s why people are questioning your comments. If you came in here and said EPL tuning sucks, you would get the same response from people who are not in agreement and like EPL tuning. I started a thread asking where all the fast EPL tuned cars quarter mile times were, which the EPL fans took as me saying EPL sucks. It’s a good read…but they presented zero facts or information to refute my subtle jab at EPL…just fanboyism and people calling me a hater. For a company that is praised as the leaders in B5 tuning on the biggest forum, how on earth are nearly 0 EPL tuned cars in the list of the top 100 gathered B5 S4 quarter mile times? Anyway, that’s not what happened here. You questioned JHM tuning, then received a page load of information showing you’re off base in your claims…and rather than address them you are talking about anything but those facts that were presented. That’s why you’re now getting a hard time from guys like CHrisK etc.

Your original thesis was ‘Sacramento dragstrip calibration is out of whack, that’s why JHM was so fast’.
Then when you were shown that this was not the case over at least the past 4 years with their B5/6/7 accomplishments being matched/exceeded by other cars on other dragstrips, and that the guy who wrote the file ran a low 11 @ 128 on his K04 car at his dragstrip in Detroit back in the day, you abandoned that thesis and moved on to a new one.
“JHM’s 91 file is slow as shit and they’re only fast on C16”. (forgive me for paraphrasing) Did you provide anything to back that up? Logs? Dyno? 1/4 mile slip? Anything? Nope. Then when a number of people showed you that this was an opinion that you were pretty much alone on, you abandoned defending that thesis and moved on again.

How about addressing the facts presented? You have just made vague statements, interspersed with praising GIAC.

Imagine this was a court of law, and you were a prosecuting attorney…the judge wouldn’t have let you in the room with your ‘evidence’. As countvohn said , you are presenting your thoughts and questions as facts. Thoughts and questions are not facts. They are a thesis, that needs to be presented, then backed up with evidence to support it. It’s a little like going to the dragstrip and calling out someone in a big HP car and saying ‘I don’t think your car runs what you say it does’, then running away before he makes a pass to prove you wrong. In your mind, you’re right, because you didn’t face the evidence presented to refute your thesis. The thing is, in nobody else’s head are you right.

#119

Why are people arguing that giac developed new ko4 files in recent years? It is a well documented fact, Austins car was the test bed. Chris as usual your emotions and lack of info make you look stupid. Hey guess what bud, awe/giac still sells fueling kits, a lot of them actually. You like to spew what might help a conversations side in which you don’t even belong. When you pump hugely false statements one after another it makes it even harder to possibly listen to anything you may have to say.

When he said they moved on its because there was no one to champion development there and with them selling Porsche tunes at 2500 each why should they care. Doesn’t mean they don’t have them, sell them or even tweak as needed or requested. I have one of the fast cars, its no joke. It runs like shit down low and bucks all over the place in first gear while going on and off throttle, but in boost its nasty. Too much boost actually for ko4s, especially at elevation.

#120

The file that was on the customers car before you purchased it was a very MILD JHM 91 tune. It was mild since the customer had stock intercoolers and a restrictive 3" catback exhaust. Could we have made a more aggressive file for his set up? Yes. Would it have been a good idea with the components he had, 91 octane and the temperatures we get in the valley? No.

The last time we worked on his car was mid 2010. From then until the time you purchased it a lot could have happened with the car including one of the many sensors that tend to fail on the b5 s4 that greatly affect the cars power output potential, which is common sense but I wanted to point that out knowing the cars history.

Comparing a tune for 91 octane vs. race gas is there a difference? I think we all know the answer to this one. I will say that with our rs6r car on our 91 tune and 91 octane I ran a few 11.6s @ mid 120 traps while doing some shake down passes with the car.

As far as the trap speeds at Sacramento raceway go I cannot confirm or deny any change at the track since I do not run it. I know that ALL professional 1/4 mile tracks periodically check the calibration and/or re-calibrate their track from time to time so unless you know the owner of the track I really don’t think we will be able to prove anything and can only speculate. One can also say that maybe the trap speeds are slow now instead compared to what was true before? Who knows.

Aside from going to the track to show the performance of our cars and/or parts, we enjoy just going there to race and have fun. When we have time we head out to the Wednesday fun drags(even though it can get busy with hondas), dial in a slower time and go through eliminations.