Went to dyno her at DSR today
ITR 102k miles

the only performance mods on the car:

Mugen Intake
Clutchmaster Lightweight Flywheel
JDM Final Drive

Just running kinda lean at the top end, and is the torque looks about right?

Vid:

Pic (yeah that's the only picture I took )


Dyno Sheet

 

Don't tell me its tuned on a VAFC?

 

amazing... my stock gsr with skunk stage1 cam and manifold made 9 more hp and 4 more tq then ur R

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by neo_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't tell me its tuned on a VAFC?</TD></TR></TABLE>

no, stock ECU

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DC2SiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">amazing... my stock gsr with skunk stage1 cam and manifold made 9 more hp and 4 more tq then ur R</TD></TR></TABLE>

I find that very hard to believe that a stock gsr with cams and a manifold can make clos e to 180whp.

Then again different dynos toss out different numbers...

To the OP:
Good HP numbers as a stock R dynos between 160-170whjp, dunno about the torque though.

 

yeah, what are you tuning with? and doesnt look lean to me on the top end?? I find it odd that the power is falling off so hard up top. maybe thats normal with the stock USDM header/exhaust/cat.... Have you checked compression and valve lash recently?

 

is the air/fuel going to 12:1 their?? it's hard to tell without some lines... but that's not lean at all, I think 14.7:1 is optimal. It almost seems like your getting too rich up top, but hell what do I know

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DC2SiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">amazing... my stock gsr with skunk stage1 cam and manifold made 9 more hp and 4 more tq then ur R</TD></TR></TABLE>
so what........

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by soulrider4ever &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is the air/fuel going to 12:1 their?? it's hard to tell without some lines... but that's not lean at all, I think 14.7:1 is optimal. It almost seems like your getting too rich up top, but hell what do I know </TD></TR></TABLE>

it was 12,5 in the first run
11.5 the second one and
12 the last run

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by neo_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't tell me its tuned on a VAFC?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Whats wrong with that?

 

pretty sweet vid..

pretty nice number with stock header..

i had 165 whp and 120 tq with bolt ons.. an r header and 2.5 " TL and v stack

until i got cams and other goodies to break 200 whp and 140 tq

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by soulrider4ever &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is the air/fuel going to 12:1 their?? it's hard to tell without some lines... but that's not lean at all, I think 14.7:1 is optimal. It almost seems like your getting too rich up top, but hell what do I know </TD></TR></TABLE>

14.7:1 is optimal as far as burning gas completely, but not optimal for making power. a stock ITR ECU is on the rich side. IIRC a stock ITR ECU will be low 13s/high 12s on the top end at WOT. and it will be very much on the lean side during cruising and low load RPM ranges. that is where gas mileage tuning comes into play.

for comparison, our cars (since they are boosted and tuned by Jeff) are probably mid 10s to low 11s at WOT full boost on pump gas.

 

It's actually TOO RICH up top.

13:1 would be what you are looking for.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by uratom &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

no, stock ECU </TD></TR></TABLE>

So you didn't even tune it?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by walker111 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Whats wrong with that?</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why piggybacks (vafc, emanage) "suck" by pgmfi:
Piggy Back controllers allow stock ECUs to do things that they normally can't do, like run larger injectors or deal with boost. Remember that piggyback controllers work by altering sensor signals before they get to the ECU.
Most of the time, the primary signal being messed with is the Map Sensor. This is critically important in a Speed Density car. The Map Sensor is used by the ECU to guess how much air is going into the car, and therefore how much fuel to supply in order to match airflow. When you "lean" out a car with an AFC, you are simply decreasing the Map Sensor signal - the ECU responds to the decrease in manifold pressure by supplying less fuel. When you "richen" a car with an AFC, you are simply increasing the Map Sensor signal - the ECU responds to the increase in manifold pressure by supplying more fuel.
The change in fueling happens for a reason: if you look at a fuel table, Map Sensor values correspond with columns. When you increase or decrease the signal from the Map Sensor, you are simply making the ECU use a different column than it originally would have used. (see Understanding Maps if you need some help understanding reading Fuel and Ign tables)
But wait, isn't the Map Sensor used for determining ignition requirements too? When you "lean" out a car with a Piggy Back, you also in all likelyhood advanced timing. When you "richen" a car with a Piggy Back, you also in all likelyhood retarded timing. Look at trends horizontally (as MAP changes) in an ignition table, and you will see why this happens. This helps explain why so many boosted cars running on the "AFC hack" have issues due to excessive ignition advance.
The bottom line: Piggy Back Controllers suck because you cannot independently adjust fuel and ignition. Any changes to fueling will produce a change in ignition too, and often this is undesirable.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

damn, that intake sounds gooood!!

 

nice vid man your car sounds sweet.. do you no what your bhp was at your flywheel..?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slato.96 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">nice vid man your car sounds sweet.. do you no what your bhp was at your flywheel..?</TD></TR></TABLE>

no...he dyno'd it on a chassis dyno, not a engine dyno. and i doubt he wouold want to go through the trouble of ripping out his stock motor just to dyno it. if you really want to know im sure you can find some formula on the internet to calculate his whp into hp at the crank, but with so many variables whats the point.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by neo_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

So you didn't even tune it?

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why does he need to tune it? All he has is a caddamn intake. He could gain some by some sort of tuning but its not needed.



Is he running bigger injectors? Is he running boost? Theres nothing wrong with running a vafc on a stock or mild n/a setup. He's not 'hacking' anything. Dont regurgitate and quote irrelevant posts when you you dont know what your talking about.

 

With a set of camgears, a chipped ecu, nice header & exhaust you could make much more power

 

Glad to see that after 100k+ your C5 is still running as good as ever !

What's with the argueing over the use of a VAFC and other similar progs ? He's running his stock ECU with an intake as a sole modification for Christ's sake.

 

the graph has a nice curve, i wouldnt trust the numbers too much or go what other people say they have, unless it was back to back on the same dyno


if you're happy with how it performs, thats all that matters


especially with a 100+ thousand miler

 

Seems kinda weak.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DVC2006 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Seems kinda weak.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No ones seemingly holding you back, please elaborate.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DVC2006 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Seems kinda weak.</TD></TR></TABLE>
170 is about right especially with over 100k miles.

 

very good numbers..