yeah the bigger pipes seem to be the key
considering that what’s his name, DSC still has stuff like stock intercoolers…I really doubt he has done a bunch of intake modifications.
Just had to read through his thread again… STOCK INTERCOOLERS? lmao… wowza
Alfonso
Meow-
You maf reading are that low because vast under scales their MAFs. They make adjustments to other maps to compensate. Vast was well known to do this.
Capone? That’s old school reference
He means J-Fonz
Ahhh gotcha
What does JHM charge for tuning and fueling that would lead anyone to go to jfonz?
^^
$2,500 (If you already have Hitachi MAF)
So im assuming that includes everything you would need for fueling and a custom tune? Not too bad considering most companies charge $600-700 for custom tuning
I don’t think Jared meant the acceleration graph was impacted by the MAF… If he did, then that is news to me also… Jared? lol.
Saki you’re asking why it’s so low, he said on AZ that he had the boost come on late to save the rods. Now what doesn’t correlate to me and that graph is he said he ran 26psi, which if that’s the case isn’t holding very impressive top end power.
Yeah, that’s the whole 9 yards. It even includes a HPFP!
I’ve asked a couple of times for someone to explain the relationsihp between the G calculation in the log and Maf scaling…but haven’t heard. I get the impression it doesn’t, but again I am not an ME7 expert (or even a novice). What I do know is that when looking at performance measurement of cars, if something is off, it shows up. You can’t hide problems when you actually test the car.
Well, you sort of can…you can delete the picture that shows your FATS time in the ECUx standard spreadsheet output , as we just saw. 
But leaving the acceleration chart in made my ears peak up. It’s the only thing I ever look at when guys post B5 logs because it’s a performance measurement, unlike the other stuff which is for the smarter guys to see what the car is doing. I started a thread here once on the subject of measuring acceleration in G.
http://audirevolution.net/forum/index.php?topic=660.0
p.s. it is longitudinal acceleration in G, not lateral, which relates to handling. Saw you posted that somewhere.
Well, let’s look at that. The car is hitting peak boost at 4500 (22) and holding it pretty much to redline.
It makes 90% of that boost at 4200.
It makes 80% of that boost at 3750.
That’s not terrible spool for an RS6 car.
It makes peak G at 5250.
The K04 and frankenturbo cars I posted (well sorted) made peak G at 4250 RPM, with one of them doing so at around 4800 RPM.
The RS6 cars I posted all spooled just as late as the RS6x car. All made peak G up around 5000 RPM.
Anyway, here’s the DxC JHM RS6r copy (RS6x) boost and G output.
One thing I didn’t see quickly glancing at them but now see is the taper it got by redline, which was ~21psi. He was probably seeing a spike of 26, then taper because the tune wasn’t written for these turbos he said.
When you say “peak” boost, don’t forget that’s limited by the MAP sensor reading a ~22psi max at sea level, higher at altitude. That’s why so many people who run more boost like the Zeitronix ability to log above that threshold.
I think with more tuning and ironing out the hardware with ICs and all that, the car will pick up good power.
gotcha, good info. As I said I’m not the guy to ask about that stuff, and appreciate learning what I can when it is shared.
This is where he clarified, so you’re right, 26 is what he said
Once again, some great revelations from him on how little testing he has actually done:
[quote], all that “shouldnt push the cheap turbos past 16psi” that ARD says is total BS. if you shouldnt push these past 16psi, you shouldnt push the JHM ones … bc they are from the same place … same as frankenturbos … do people only push frankens to 16psi?! NO
[/quote]
He has them running a limp dicked tune on stock motor, stock intercoolers…and because he recently installed these on his car and ran them to 26 psi on a log and they didn’t explode, that is ‘proof’ that they can hold big boost reliably lol.
Once again:
Company A: tests dozens of sets of their turbos for two years, for literally over a hundred thousand miles, pushing some on built motors to 30 PSI making well over 500 whp, and is still conservative with tuning on customer cars.
Company B: tests his turbo on his car but only when badgered for the data, and deems it ‘ready to push’
I also think it’s funny how he assumes that because he thinks the turbos come from the same place, they are identical. Frankenturbo has already stepped in to his thread to tell him to stop making these unfounded comparisons. Again, he is now trying to piggyback on the externsive history that the Frankenturbos have enjoyed, in order to absolve himself of doing any testing of his own. It’s comical.
So tell me this much at least and im sure if im go through the AZ thread this question wont be answered but why would a guy who has this much extensive turbo knowledge which im sure some of you saw he does know BW turbos, why would he run these on stock intercoolers and a tune that wasn’t made for these turbos he puts up on a pedestal?
\because he is a sham. The info about BW turbos can be read on line. This isn’t exactly something that 20min and a little reading wouldn’t do.
Nothing is going to add up as its one stack of lies piled on top of another stack. Its a log and chances are its just a log of a RS6 turbo that he has had on the car for a long time. For someone who claims to have so much into this turbo why is he so 1/2 ASSED about it. The list of excuses are longer then his list of lies
He ran the car on the regular pump gas file with Q16?
he had amixture or fuels.
was on pump, then was running low so threw in what he could access so as not to run out of gas at half track (ultimate fail lol)
Then why don’t you edit your earlier post in this thread where it says “11.7 on straight pump” so that you don’t misinform people?
I didn’t know he mixed when I wrote that
why don’t you go back and edit all the posts where you said you won’t come back here?
;D