# Stock Turbo Dyno Showdown Showcase! Eurodyne Stg2 vs Motoza Stg1+



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

As a dealer of both Eurodyne and Motoza software, we at FrankenTurbo have long wondered just how good their entry-level software is. If you look at chipping your car as a "gateway" to more and bigger mods down the path, how do these two tuners deliver on their base software? Are they good enough for folks to commit to those providers for now and the future?

Well, I decided it was time to get some answers. And along with it I wanted to see just how cheaply you can get get it done. So we shopped for a Mk4 in decent shape, and settled on this little number:











No, not the 1000+ hp monster on the lift back there! The black stallion smack dab in the middle of the picture! Say hello to the *FrankenWagen*. It's a 2002 Mk4 Jetta, bone stock, with an AWP motor and 5spd manual. It came from the factory with a BorgWarner K03-052 turbo, also known as the K03s. Here's the engine bay:











Our friends at Eurodyne and Motoza suggested these files for us to dyno test:

Motoza Stage1+ 4bar FPR file
Eurodyne Stage2 4bar FPR file

So the two files have comparable fueling requirements: an upgraded 4bar fuel pressure regulator. OK, that's about a forty dollar expense so far. And with the "necessary mods" down, what else can we do cheaply (and I mean _REALLY_ cheaply) to get us some real bang for the buck?

Well, let's start with an exhaust system. And if needs to be cheap, well there's no better place than Ebay for that. For example, here's a good one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/390677908210











A full turbo back system for only a whisker more than two hundred bucks? Done!


So what else can we do? How about an intercooler? Well, we've certainly done plenty of testing of various intercoolers over the years, and we haven't shied away from cheap ones. Here's one I was particularly impressed by on our Franken-TT test car:











And this bad-boy is cheap. Here is is for less than two hundred, again on Ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CXRacing-Un...Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item3a7f9a384e


Sold! 


So we've now spent $400 on the upgrades. Let's find out how they work. For that we asked our friends at ForceFed Engineering to keep an open mind and start wrenching. Here's the exhaust beside the stock system:











In it goes...















































As you can see in that last picture, the system sits a bit askew in the exhaust chase, but otherwise, an hour's installation work nets us our first modification.

Next came the intercooler. This is a large unit, necessitating removal of almost all of the crash bar for the bumper. Since the test car is for off road use, that's not an issue. But for any daily driver, that's a consideration. Fair warning on that. Here goes the install:



















































































ForceFed's Ed Wolsey knew the installation had to be simple and inexpensive. One big advantage at work was the "Same-Side" configuration of the intercooler. The proximity of this intercooler's ports to stock meant we could keep the piping very close to stock. Only the pancake pipe and the rubber hose feeding it was removed. Ed's piping connected right up to the stock turbo outlet pipe and to the stock throttle body inlet hose.




















And here sits the FrankenWagen, all ready for the software Showdown Showcase:











Total costs of the mods so far? Well, allowing for about $200 in charge piping, we're looking at a big fat $600 from factory stock. Not too bad for a <$4000 car. But what about the power potential? That gets covered in our next post.

Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

Sub'ed

Extra points for using a variant!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2013)

Honestly this **** drives me nuts. I love how you can get a 3 inch stainless exhaust for a gti for 200 bucks.

Ahh the joy of owning an Audi TT

Subbed


----------



## lorge1989 (Sep 3, 2008)

Cool


----------



## KiDGiB (Jan 28, 2013)

In! I love these kind of threads.

I bought an exhaust kit similar to that one.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KFX0DXQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

KiDGiB said:


> In! I love these kind of threads.
> 
> I bought an exhaust kit similar to that one.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KFX0DXQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


I guarantee you that's made by the same gigantic factory in China as our cheap-o one was. More than likely it's Magic Power, who specialize in really "down-market" aftermarket stuff.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2013)

This thread makes me want to buy a mk4 throw some eBay parts and corn juice at it the proceed to abuse it until blows up or flips over


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

OK. So here's what the exhaust sounds like at warmup. As we know, the cold startup process has the VVT activated, which makes the idle sound kind of hoarse and unrefined. But what you hear in this video is a pretty good representation.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

This one's a better sound byte. One thing for sure: it doesn't sound ricey.


----------



## dblock (Feb 14, 2006)

SUB'D


----------



## daunicorn (Apr 20, 2005)

:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Love it! I had that same exhaust. Its a great piece and honestly the only thing it needs is new clamps. The ones it comes with are iffey but otherwise great sounding, no drone and unbeatable for the price.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

See what numbers you can get with E85 on the stock turbo


----------



## dblock (Feb 14, 2006)

Bump for some numbers! I'm very curious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

dblock said:


> Bump for some numbers! I'm very curious


Alrighty then. Let's start with Motoza. This company is a small but growing operation headed by tuner Dave Donnelly. He specializes in the longitudinal 1.8T cars such as the Audi A4 and VW Passat, but he's tuned a good number of Mk4s as well. His remote flashloader, called the "Motoza PS" is particularly attractive. It allows customers to flash their ECU with a Motoza-tune base file and includes an excellent, high-speed data logger to confirm performance. Here is a blurb from their site:

*Motoza PS:
A complete software solution for VAG
FREE with every tuning kit!*
Features:
Read/Write ECU Functions
High-Speed Data Logger
On-Road Dyno Software
Read/Clear Diagnostic Codes
Multi-Tune Control (upgrade)
Easy-to-use graphical interface
Customize your color schemes​
The remote flasher is sharply packaged and very simple. Here is a look at their hardware unboxed:




















That small thumbdrive in the picture contains the application and driver software for installation on your Windows PC. I use a Mac running a Windows emulator and that works fine as well. Here are a couple of shots of the Motoza Flashloader operation in progress:




















The flashing process took about 10 minutes to overwrite all the stock mapping. But subsequent files with "tweaks" would take less time. With the car flashed and the required 4bar FPR installed, Ed Woolsey did his thing on their in-house DynoJet.







Strong numbers for a project with minimal investment running pump gas. And the off-the-shelf file runs beautifully. No issues with idle or part throttle. So the next question is how can Eurodyne stack up? What will its base file deliver? How much more can be wrung from it in the Maestro Editor? The bar is set high by Motoza here. They're inexpensive, simple to use, and make darned good power. 

We'll see.


----------



## dblock (Feb 14, 2006)

Damn very impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MidnightG60 (Aug 16, 2004)

Nice! I am running Motoza on my B5 and it is great. Another satisfied customer here.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

Any logs from the dyno runs? What was the boost profile like? And AFR profile?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

elRey said:


> Any logs from the dyno runs? What was the boost profile like? And AFR profile?


The Motoza PS application has a high-speed logger built in, so yes, there are logs.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Quite the generous dyno.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

280whp/320bhp from 180g/s MAF is really incredible.... cams? Race fuel? 

My old K04-23 225 BAM motor with similar mods and aggressive timing did 255bhp with 205g/s.


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Gulfstream said:


> 280whp/320bhp from 180g/s MAF is really incredible.... cams? Race fuel?
> 
> My old K04-23 225 BAM motor with similar mods and aggressive timing did 255bhp with 205g/s.


??? WHP was shown as 224 max with Std smoothing ( second Dyno run ) . Torque was 276... Did I miss something?


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Chickenman35 said:


> ??? WHP was shown as 224 max with Std smoothing ( second Dyno run ) . Torque was 276... Did I miss something?


My bad. Looked too fast on the vide clip.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> Quite the generous dyno.


This is becoming a known thing locally, these rollers are like Santa!


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> This is becoming a known thing locally, these rollers are like Santa!



Doesn't really matter if the purpose of this is to compare two tunes side by side, right?


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

elRey said:


> Doesn't really matter if the purpose of this is to compare two tunes side by side, right?


This. Seems like a pretty independent test so I doubt there is a bias here.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

elRey said:


> Doesn't really matter if the purpose of this is to compare two tunes side by side, right?


Correct, it doesn't matter. However, when people get caught up in absolute figures on SantaJet without seeing a baseline or said other tune to compare, it's Christmas early!


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

:beer::beer::beer:


Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Correct, it doesn't matter. However, when people get caught up in absolute figures on SantaJet without seeing a baseline or said other tune to compare, it's Christmas early!


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Pretty sure Motoza's file just scales the MAF like crazy.

I can show you all a log of an F21 that made a bit more power at the wheels but 245g/s, at a similar boost duty.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

elRey said:


> Doesn't really matter if the purpose of this is to compare two tunes side by side, right?


people end up thinking theyl get those figures elsewhere, and it becomes an unrealistic benchmark for people to compare. 
its a 180hp at the fly stock car, and its just made 220odd at the WHEELS, i suppose people would have to be pretty deluded to think they could get that with a map and 2 bolt ons.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Yup


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

superkarl said:


> i suppose people would have to be pretty deluded


by no stretch of the imagination


----------



## MidnightG60 (Aug 16, 2004)

Although Motoza is great I would like to see an off the shelf tune (APR, GIAC) for this setup on that dyno too.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

All of the software providers. Why be biased to 2?


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

Dave926 said:


> Pretty sure Motoza's file just scales the MAF like crazy.
> 
> I can show you all a log of an F21 that made a bit more power at the wheels but 245g/s, at a similar boost duty.


if its the stock MAF, then what's it being scaled to? or is it just a means to another end?


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> As a dealer of both Eurodyne and Motoza software, we at FrankenTurbo have long wondered just how good their entry-level software is. If you look at chipping your car as a "gateway" to more and bigger mods down the path, how do these two tuners deliver on their base software? Are they good enough for folks to commit to those providers for now and the future?





Vegeta Gti said:


> All of the software providers. Why be biased to 2?


I think this was covered.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

it's biased for what they want to run. we all know there is tension between Doug and a few other software providers, lastly, not everyone wants to go with just those 2 providers. So why not show what all of them can do with an off the shelf file?

THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE SHOWCASE OF THE SETUP. all BS aside, straight up same car one the different providers available today.


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

*FV-QR*

I'd assume cost, if you dont have the tunes available in your offerings you likely have to pay retail for them. 

Assuming your talking about GIAC, APR, UNI, GONZO, UM, etc 

I can see there being atleast 7 offerings at a minimum, even at $350/pc thats close to $2500. Thats alot of capital to sink into something, when I don't assume it will generate any extra sales for FT by showing all the software options possible.

Really for your idea each tuner should "donate" their file to promote their product ( however unlikely that really is ), as they have more to gain than Doug who mostly sells hardware.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

it would show faith in the community and i never said it wouldn't cost lol. it shows favoritism a little towards the two companies in some peoples eyes i'm sure.

pay to play right? why not cover all grounds? find locals with immo defeated files for the setup? just drop in their ecu.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

As I said before, we're a Motoza dealer. So my original posting would qualify as a straight-up ad if it weren't for the turbo involved. So one last plug: Motoza has just introduced a bluetooth interface for Android users. Here's the text from their announcement.



Motoza said:


> Motoza Performance is PROUD to announce the launch of the Motoza BTX Bluetooth Interface. This newest addition to our ever-evolving line of tuning products puts the power to unchain your ECU in the palm of your hand. Using your Android mobile device or Windows tablet/PC, you can now wirelessly read and write your ECU, switch between customized tuning packages (MTC), log real-time data, read and clear diagnostic codes and even measure your vehicle’s power with our on-road dyno.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

Vegeta Gti said:


> it would show faith in the community and i never said it wouldn't cost lol. it shows favoritism a little towards the two companies in some peoples eyes i'm sure.
> 
> pay to play right? why not cover all grounds? find locals with immo defeated files for the setup? just drop in their ecu.


You're serious? 

Sure it shows some biased. But he also stated what he was doing in post #1.

I'm sure you could fund a research project for the community and that would be biased free.

sent from the beige bra section at target......


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

A couple more thoughts:

Motoza doesn't "scale" the flowmeter in their maps. But in case my statement won't convince some folks, when we move to testing the F21T on this car we will be monitoring the MAF sensor voltage. We'll document that data and anyone wonky enough to cross-reference it to OEM maps is welcome to.

As to "Santa" dyno? Well, it's a DynoJet. A simple, heavy cylinder that gets spun by the car's tires. That cylinder is the same on every DynoJet worldwide. And for that reason its data meets a high standard for consistency.

Anyway, tomorrow brings results and data logs from Eurodyne Maestro. And here's a little "spoiler alert": anyone who's a fan of a tuning company other than the two we represent is again going to be disappointed. Condolences in advance.


----------



## lorge1989 (Sep 3, 2008)

Vegeta Gti said:


> it would show faith in the community and i never said it wouldn't cost lol. it shows favoritism a little towards the two companies in some peoples eyes i'm sure.
> 
> pay to play right? why not cover all grounds? find locals with immo defeated files for the setup? just drop in their ecu.


Why would he not show favoritism to the companies he sells products for. He sells their product so one would assume that he thinks highly of them.....


Hate to break it to you but there is not gobs of money to be had in tuning 1.8Ts. Its a niche market. I believe the frankenturbo and the tuning to go with it is one of the largest sections of the market, so it would make sense for him to bring attention to that. A baseline chip tune for a stock car will produce some sales for him, but the 1.8T is getting older, there is much newer tech, therefore the demand is naturally going to be lower.

In for the Eurodyne numbers. :thumbup:


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

Is the Eurodyne a Canned tune or a highly modified Maestro Tune ?




lorge1989 said:


> Why would he not show favoritism to the companies he sells products for. He sells their product so one would assume that he thinks highly of them.....
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but there is not gobs of money to be had in tuning 1.8Ts. Its a niche market. I believe the frankenturbo and the tuning to go with it is one of the largest sections of the market, so it would make sense for him to bring attention to that. A baseline chip tune for a stock car will produce some sales for him, but the 1.8T is getting older, there is much newer tech, therefore the demand is naturally going to be lower.
> ...



Stop with logic its not acceptable in this forum. The vendors should be spending thousands to make hundreds in sales.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

I disagree. I think more stock or "BT" cars or there. Though the hybrid are catching on again because technology is improving as always.

To say I made no sense in my POV in insane, I've owned, worked on, or atleast driven physically every vendor out there abd they all have something to offer.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Time for the Eurodyne shoe to get dropped! Here's the best pull on a tweaked version of their library base map. 







So how do the two stack up? Here are the best pulls from either vendor. Strong and stronger!











Eurodyne gets the edge. But that's only after using the Maestro editor capability to adjust ignition advance and the boost duty. Before that, the two off-the-shelf files were a virtual dead heat.

I'll post logs from the Eurodyne pull in a bit.


----------



## UCFQuattroguy (Jul 5, 2005)

...and the plots with torque?


----------



## GasInMyVeins (Jul 11, 2010)

I love effort you guys put into testing these two lesser-known tuners. However, it's a shame that it's not comparable to results in any other test I've ever seen, since that's one seriously happy dyno. APR claims 215 _at the crank_ on their tune and your Eurodyne result is 15 more _at the wheels_. The eBay DP and FMIC might account for an extra 15-20 (I'm being generous), but that still means the Eurodyne is making 10-15% more power. That's a ton.

I love the idea of the thread, I just wish the results were semi-comparable to other tests. 

(I am a fan of Eurodyne, by the way, and plan to use Maestro when I go big turbo).


----------



## STOICH (Jun 21, 2010)

I don't think that's the point of this. He's simply comparing two different software upgrades on the same dyno to get relative results. This is comparing the two specific software vendors in the first post and nothing more...don't think those numbers are meant to be taken to compare to other software.


----------



## GasInMyVeins (Jul 11, 2010)

STOICH said:


> I don't think that's the point of this. He's simply comparing two different software upgrades on the same dyno to get relative results. This is comparing the two specific software vendors in the first post and nothing more...don't think those numbers are meant to be taken to compare to other software.


I know, and I'm thrilled that they put in the effort to do that. I just wish they were realistic numbers.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> it's a DynoJet. A simple, heavy cylinder that gets spun by the car's tires. That cylinder is the same on every DynoJet worldwide. And for that reason its data meets a high standard for consistency.


i'm interested to hear if anyone has a counterpoint to this. don't dynos have user-configurable correction parameters that can change the numbers, for better or for worse? or am i way off base?


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

gitman said:


> i'm interested to hear if anyone has a counterpoint to this. don't dynos have user-configurable correction parameters that can change the numbers, for better or for worse? or am i way off base?


*Edit: The following is just my opinion in response to the above asked question regarding roller Dyno's in General.. My reply does not mean to reflect on the credibility of the tests done in this thread or on any of the participants.* 

It depends on your definition of consistency. If consistent to you means accurate to within plus or minus 15whp...then yes they are " reasonably " accurate. 

The main problem with roller chassis dyno's, ANY roller chassis dyno is that they depend solely on the traction capabilities of the tires. And that changes constantly due to tire slippage, variations in tire temperature ( which build as more runs are made ), roller surface design ( smooth, corrugated or Salvisberg design ), roller surface wear or polishing of surface, and even how tightly the retaining straps are tightened. My Dyno guy has been doing this for over 20 years and he has seen a 10 - 15whp increase on vehicles just from re-tensioning the straps a couple of clicks. And the straps stretch with use during runs, so there's another variable. 

Roller Dyno's can't hold a candle to a true Load Cell Hub Dyno in as far as accuracy and repeatability IMHO. Don't get me wrong, * in the hands of an experienced Dyno operator a roller Dyno can be a very useful instrument.* However, there are just too many variables inherent to the inertia roller design that can lead to inaccuracies, either due to operator input or design limitations. All engine Dynos are direct coupled for a reason. Eddy current and Hydraulic Oil Dyno's are reputed to be the most accurate.

The Chassis Dyno that I prefer for accuracy and repeatability is the Dyna-Pack which is a full Hydraulic load cell Dyno and a direct bolt on to the axle hubs. The last point completely eliminates the tire slippage and restraining strap issues. There is absolutely ZERO slippage possible on axle hub Dyno. The Load cell is capable of holding a 1,000 hp engine to a set rpm ( with in 10 ... that's Ten rpm ) at any engine load. And it has fully Automated run programs with defined loads that can be saved per vehicle run over and over again. With extremely accurate repeatability. Full manual operation as well. But the Automatic program is really sweet. The ability to hold a constant RPM at any given engine load is invaluable in Tuning cars, particularly Road Race or Autocross cars. Or even finding a lean spot in the mid-range of your GrandMa's Honda.

Some interesting info:

http://www.dynapack.com/index.php 

But to answer the first question. Yes... numbers can be affected by operator input factors on any Dyno. Fudging air density is just one way it can be done that I know of. 

Just my .02c FWIW


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

SantaJet is coming to town. Ho ho ho.

In all seriousness, how about uncorrected numbers?


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

A dyno is still only an estimate and is nothing compared to running on pavement.

You can skew plots on a dynojet.. push it right or left btw.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] Performance said:


> SantaJet is coming to town. Ho ho ho.
> 
> In all seriousness, how about uncorrected numbers?


Ho Ho Ho is right! I could care less about what the goal is here, as it doesn't affect me in any way. However, when you have a "comparo" where:

1) no baseline was presented (does anyone know how much the car made stock, or post exhaust/IC?)

2) the dyno comparisons are going from SAE correction at first, then suddenly making a U-turn to STD corrections with a different smoothing factor (which btw changes the absolute figure for those unfamiliar with dynos). 

All that can come to mind is Christmas. I've always scratched my head with the fiddling done between various plots posted from this particular place. One run is SAE with higher smoothing factors, and another is with STD corrections with lower smoothing. Why at the same elevation (I doubt the shop moves a significant elevation between visits) they're adding so much variables to the data? One might never know! 

I have used dynos myself as a tool and I know that uncorrected without playing with smoothing gets you accurate repeatable comparisons (especially at the same location using the same rollers). I have thrown away many runs because the graph had choppy spots that made it unusable, yeah I could have thrown some smoothing to make it work, but isn't that the point of tuning (squeeze more power and address problems in the curves). Anyway, Happy Holidays everyone because it's gift time! :grinsanta::grinsanta:


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Good point about the flip flopping between correction factors.

First run with Motoza was SAE.
Second run was STD.

Eurodyne was all STD?

Second, why was the logging done all in MPH despite the pickup being connected? Doesnt seem like an accurate way to make adjustments to the tune if you cant see RPM vs power output.


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

For those that didn't know the ins n outs of correction factors like myself:
http://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ection-factors-sae-std-stp-etc-explained.html


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

UCFQuattroguy said:


> ...and the plots with torque?


The numbers above were collected without a properly reading RPM signal input. So the DynoJet simply reported a horsepower value, which is the raw information that the system would use to generate a torque value if it had an RPM signal as reference. And since the question of correction type has been brought up, well, you asked for it:











As I said before, the equipment here is an industry-standard DynoJet. And this is the same facility others here in the thread have used. I don't recall any mention of "Santa" or "Happy" when those people were touting their own numbers from the exact same equipment. Just saying.

I promised data logs from the Maestro pull, and here they are:











My perspective is that this testing demonstrates the abilities of two tuning companies who don't get a lot of attention for their stock-turbo software. The video, logs & dyno sheets all add up to a pretty convincing argument for them. And since both companies offer upgrade paths in support of our hardware, I'm not going to be bashful about recommending them.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

For those of you who simply have to see what was going on with engine torque, here are a pair of runs that both captured the (true) peak values before the sensor pickup lost signal in the later portions of the runs. So, full disclosure, we weren't really seeing 500+ wheel torque. We were seeing about 270 (stock-engine friendly) wheel torque. Motoza was a touch higher in that category. Everyone's a winner in this competition.











Thx


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

I just don't see how you could properly tune without seeing RPM on the dyno plot, but to each his own I guess.

Second, power numbers just don't jive with injector flow. Do you need me to break out the math again like I had to demonstrate for Luis?


----------



## suffocatemymind (Dec 10, 2007)

Cool write up Doug :thumbup:


----------



## GasInMyVeins (Jul 11, 2010)

Dave926 said:


> I just don't see how you could properly tune without seeing RPM on the dyno plot, but to each his own I guess.
> 
> Second, power numbers just don't jive with injector flow. Do you need me to break out the math again like I had to demonstrate for Luis?


Please? I'm looking at the MAF rate and my math says that at 5000 rpm, with 71* intake temp, 12.2 A/F, and 250 crank hp (all numbers he reported, or extrapolated from numbers he reported), it should be flowing like 230g/sec, not 163ish. I made guesses on a bunch of other variables used, if you want to see them.

OP, if you want this thread to only be a comparison of these two on even ground and pretend no one else exists, then we'll leave you alone before the math shows up. I still want to see a baseline dyno though.

If you want to start comparing them to other companies, then we'll do the math to see how happy that dyno is. Because from where I'm standing, claiming that these two tunes both make 10-15% more than anyone else out there is dubious, at best.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

I vote for throwing a complete stock car on same dyno. Or post results from a previous run of a stock car.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

elRey said:


> I vote for throwing a complete stock car on same dyno. Or post results from a previous run of a stock car.


Thanks for the vote! Feel free to contact ForceFed Engineering to arrange for that. I'm sure they'd be happy to quote you their hourly rates.



GasInMyVeins said:


> So... are you just going to abandon your other thread once the math started to make the claims look odd?
> 
> The Bottom Line:
> 
> ...



Here I am yo!

Couple of thoughts:

We show both STANDARD and SAE corrections not to create a discrepancy but to document the power results under both correction regimes. Get it? Here's the power one way, now here's the power in another!

10% more power? Now I never was too good with book lernin, but I'm pretty sure 276 isn't the result of 261 times 110%. But let's not quibble over whether it's more like 5% or not, eh? Instead, I'd encourage you to do a bit more research on how Mustang numbers compare to DynoJet figures. Here's a hint: try and find someone who's run on a Mustang who will say those systems read only 5% lower than a DynoJet. If you find it, post it here and I'll apologize for the whole thing.

By the way, Eurodyne's Stage2 4bar file costs $450 and is available through any of their dealers. And the Motoza Stage 1+ costs a very reasonable $349 including their proprietary flash-loader & data logger. Seems like they're both good values!


----------



## MidnightG60 (Aug 16, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> By the way, Eurodyne's Stage2 4bar file costs $450 and is available through any of their dealers. And the Motoza Stage 1+ costs a very reasonable $349 including their proprietary flash-loader & data logger. Seems like they're both good values!


Amen eace:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

off the shelf file.....


http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6941921-Gonzo-Stage-3-F21T-REVIEW

but i guess this doesn't count does it?

to be fair right!


----------



## MidnightG60 (Aug 16, 2004)

Vegeta Gti said:


> off the shelf file.....
> 
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6941921-Gonzo-Stage-3-F21T-REVIEW
> ...


Not when this thread is utilizing the stock turbo


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> This is becoming a known thing locally, these rollers are like Santa!


Why don't you come down to the shop tomorrow and dyno on my santa dyno, its close to christmas. BTW its a 424x, so you can dyno in all wheel drive. Free of charge.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

EdsGTI said:


> Why don't you come down to the shop tomorrow and dyno on my santa dyno, its close to christmas. BTW its a 424x, so you can dyno in all wheel drive. Free of charge.


Do it!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

See you tomorrow!


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

opcorn:


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

opcorn::beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

How exciting! Who wants to speculate how well that modified Gonzo turbo will do on the FFE dynojet? You know, the SANTA-JET?? Well, let's have a look at what's been said so far:

Here's a posting from a mysterious private account holder in separate forum.


G-zo said:


> In fact, we already broke 400whp with the TT225 fitment GTTx.
> 
> See: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...t-gt-gt-gt&p=85545152&viewfull=1#post85545152
> 
> ...



And here’s madmax also posting about his results: 



madmax199 said:


> My car is the AWD TT running the GTT-x that was linked to show the possibilities. ... I'm making way more peak TQ, sustaining it longer, and doing so while pushing the turbo a lot less than I had to on the stocker (33 psi vs 27-28 psi on the hybrid). It is to be noted that I also have upgraded intake and exhaust manifolds and run a much less restrictive externally gated setup that doesn't recirculate bypass gas into the suffering turbine housing. I have no incentive to change any preconceived idea you may have already developed of me or my motives, but the data (as well as shelves full of trophies) is there to support what I'm saying. E85 is a hell of a juice, and paired with any turbo will yield results that make some people scratch their head in disbelief, read what you want from what I'm saying. Dyno graphs added below!
> 
> Below is what I did on the GTT-x without a sorted AFR and a nasty exhaust leak. *The numbers speak for themselves*



Now I will say that it's been hard to resist disputing your claim "the numbers speak for themselves" when your proof didn't extend beyond just numbers. Just the peak values captured in a screenshot. No dyno graph, no data logs, no independent verification.

But I said nothing. So put that Santa-Jet to the test on your car, with your turbo, and I'll let you and your friend Gonzo regale us with the huge improvement that Santa-Dyno gifted you with! I'm sure you're all just ITCHING to deliver justification for trolling this thread.

To sum up, this thread was supposed to be about dyno results for two K03 software files. We posted logs, video and dyno figures. Here again are the values possible when you choose to go with Motoza or Eurodyne:

Motoza ----> 222 wheel hp STD correction
Eurodyne --> 230 wheel hp STD correction

I stand by these numbers. And more importantly, I stand by FFE's Ed Woolsey, whose professionalism and reputation you've been impugning. He runs an extraordinary shop, and I am deeply grateful for his willingness to work with a small-turbo guy like me.


Doug Harper
FrankenTurbo


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

Bruh, let me put it for you this way: Those numbers are abnormaly high. This thread is the laughing stock of this forum at this moment. No stock baseline was shown. Numbers have been contested by neutral third parties. I literally gain nothing from partaking in this e-peen match.Find someone else to pick a fight with 😘


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> That's what I've realized Jeff. The exchanger is getting more than enough airflow where it's mounted (especially with the sheet metal shroud) -- the little 13 row is just undersized for my power level. I'm just going to add a cheap no-name 12x12 exchanger with pull fan from ebay mounted in series and call it a day.
> 
> Any update on yours? I know you've made some progress, and the triple diamond beast is basically ready... except of course for the usual carbon fiber accents.
> 
> I got a chance to hit the rollers on mine and dialed a nice de-tuned mode for road racing. I watered down boost levels to 27-28 psi (depending on gear), and lowered timing advance from +13.5 to +10 on Unisettings to keep it nice and safe for prolonged race sessions. Still got decent power, but it's very conservative and should be safe as opposed to the explosive grenade mode I'm using for autocross. On the road racing mode my EGT never goes above 725*C . I'm not telling anyone how much it's seeing at full boost, you and Don will have to figure it out in competition next year!




Really Doug??? That's where you want to go? Well, the boogeyman you're so afraid of is going to get you!

Now for the audience, I quoted my own post to show what's going on with my car. I currently have two modes , an all out mode for autocross and and watered down safe mode for longer road races. In the name of being impartial, (unlike Mr "I like to fiddle with correction factors to show HO HO HO gains") I left the car untouched since I Dynoed just last week on another local dynojet. So, instead of producing meaningless numbers just to show how much I can make, I went there with zero variables.

Let me say thank you to ED at FFE for trying to be a mediator in all this, but you Doug keep digging that hole for yourself because you just made it personal. Here are the results of two dynojets at the same elevation, virtually identical conditions, therefore anyone can be the judge of who's full of it. I'm also happy that you revealed that you were asshurt about numbers a Gonzo kit can make and your KrapenTurbo can't (one of the graphs show boost profile, and anyone can see what it is and that it's severely de-tuned).




FFE Dyno


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

^^^ And let me add (for the untrained) that both graphs are indentical because there is no mismatch in correction factors. Just plain raw numbers between two rollers. I know you like running away or make threads disappear when you're cornered (remember your wastegate debacle that I independently got tested and you had the thread blackholed), hopefully you've grown a pair now. 

By curiousity, what happened to your 1.8t -- then 2.0t TT that was using your products and a mile of mods with laughable results to show for it? That part of time seemed to be blackholed too because as much as you like to come and post about everything (even imaginary gains), you have omitted to fill us in. opcorn:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

:beer::beer::beer::wave::wave::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

I don't get it, im lost lol. Isn't Doug suggesting that if it is a Santa dyno, you would be making significantly more than your previously claimed 400whp? Which you've just proved is more like 360?


----------



## BR_337 (Sep 3, 2011)

:beer:opcorn::thumbup:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

superkarl said:


> I don't get it, im lost lol. Isn't Doug suggesting that if it is a Santa dyno, you would be making significantly more than your previously claimed 400whp? Which you've just proved is more like 360?


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

Sorry if this was obvious to everyone but me, was one of those dyno graphs from FFE's dyno?
And were they on the all out tune or everyday tune (assuming the 400whp was the all out tune)?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

superkarl said:


> I don't get it, im lost lol. Isn't Doug suggesting that if it is a Santa dyno, you would be making significantly more than your previously claimed 400whp? Which you've just proved is more like 360?





spartiati said:


> My thoughts exactly.


I posted two dyno runs, the top one is FFE, the second one is another local dynojet. Wasn't the point of this whole exercise to compare rollers? I provided the data on how two dynojets (FFE and another) are reporting... same car... Nothing changed. 

Well if it makes you two happy, I'm making 360 AWHP. Happy? Everyone can sleep better now? 

For anyone else who care to read, I'll repeat that both dyno graphs are my de-tuned road racing mode. Heck, the boost profile is right there for everyone to see. I'm sure that you guys are proposing that sustaining 10 more psi from midrange to redline and 3.5 degrees of timing over the entire curve does nothing to power (full blast for me is 33 psi tapering to 26 psi). 

Post 732 here 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5788526-Chronicles-of-a-track-TT/page21


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

:beer::beer: ^


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

What were the recorded conditions for both runs? and/or the corrected numbers?

So, Are we saying SantaDyno has 7whp and 25wtq in his bag (uncorrected) ?


----------



## superkarl (Dec 18, 2012)

So its not a Santa dyno???

how do we explain dougs ludicrous figures then?


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

Someone mentioned earlier or asked rather if dynos had user configurable correction factors. The short answer is no. That is because I have only spent extensive time on dynojet machines. The basis for accuracy on the dynojet unit comes from the file provided by dynojet themselves. Every roller is measured for weight and essentially inertia. A dynojet is nothing more than a hall/wheel speed sensor reading precision mounted ferrous teeth to the roller base. As the drum spins the calculated file provided by dynojet (inertia) is measured against the rate of acceleration of the roller. It's very simple. Correction factors are fixed. You can select a few different ones and they will never be "the same" or always more or always less. It depends on the information from the stack which uses air temp, humidity, etc to calculate the da. The most common are sae, standard, and raw form aka Uncorrected. 

Files come with the dyno and the only way to get a replacement file is from dynojet directly and you have to supply your drum serial number and it has to be documented you own it. 

I know some other brands are more adjustable. But the dyno is a tuning tool. It helps you identify what you cannot feel on the road/track and allows us to do our job without endangering the lives of other people on the public roads. Many of the bigger power cars on 275 radials on the dyno(like mine) go 198mph at 10,800 rpm in 4th gear. So it's impractical to do it on the street. 

It was nice to see you again max. Shoot me that email an I will get you the run files so anyone asking can see the atmospheric conditions for themselves.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

Another thing I see is that the results Doug posted have no RPM axis. They are all MPH based. Could that add up to the discrepancy we are seeing?


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

Lastly. The only thing I wish to add is that max showed me a dyno of is car from another shop not vinny10 that made .1hp less than ours on pull one after we cooled the car down for 30 minutes before run 1 to be completely fair. The load cell is added inertia. And if that was added afterwards (which a single retarder (eddy current) most likely was) or was two 224xs put together. The car will read lower than normal because now the inertial vs speed, rate of acceleration is dampened. 

Unfortunately there are many reasons a dynojet (second gen braking system 224 or 424x) would read low. First gen 224x used air over hydraulic to apply braking pressure. If the air was off. Brakes were not applied. Now with gen 2 the brakes are always applied and air pressure releases them. Poor air pressure causing he brakes to be partially applied or wheel / clutch slip. Etc. Many dyno operators are not always the most competent. 

And also not everyone tuning, building or setting up the cars has everything 100% leak free. Issue free. Perfect examples of well running cars are cars like Steve vs , max's and Doug's test mule. I can assure you as other shops have brought cars to test against ours, and the dynojet numbers have been within 3-4hp same conditions or read a little lower.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Another thing I see is that the results Doug posted have no RPM axis. They are all MPH based. Could that add up to the discrepancy we are seeing?



We tried everything on Doug's car. Many of the coil pack wires are frayed and the main wires coming down the harness tray are beginning to dry rot. We did have earlier pulls experimenting with two pickups to try to get the rpm more accurate without the spikes (which is the pickup jumping rpm down or up) making it calculate torque wrong. 

Torque x rpm divided by 5250 is hp because we dont always have rpm (pickup problems, not accessible or no ignition i.e. Diesel) the dyno calculations output hp and then if you have rpm, torque. If you have a chart with rpm I can hand plot the torque or hp mathematically and if you enable the torque curve on a dynojet to display tq on the screen it will be exactly as it is plotted. 

The rpm pickup cutting out only blemishes the torque curves smoothness. It will not at all effect hp. It's a tool for engine speed recognition and bears no weight on the accuracy of the calculated drum acceleration which is and plots as hp.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

There are a lot of intelligent people on this forum and in these threads. All I can say is that everyone should try to not call bull**** so quickly on one another. This isn't a contest it's professional development and many of our livelihoods. No one is going to put their reputation on the line for a false 10hp on a dyno chart. If a piece of equipment was out of specification the owner of the equipment would do their best to rectify the situation. You wouldn't want a torque wrench or a micrometer to be off 15% because all of your data is just crap that doesn't add up.


----------



## gitman (May 13, 2004)

if corrections are constants, then shouldn't the FFE vs Vinny Ten comparison be using corrected numbers?

the 7 whp difference doesn't seem like much, but the torque difference is big, and confusing. I think doug mentioned earlier that the torque was calculated, is that the same case here? seems so based on ed's last reply.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

gitman said:


> if corrections are constants, then shouldn't the FFE vs Vinny Ten comparison be using corrected numbers?
> 
> the 7 whp difference doesn't seem like much, but the torque difference is big, and confusing. I think doug mentioned earlier that the torque was calculated, is that the same case here? seems so based on ed's last reply.



As mentioned before 424 XLC2 Dynojets come with twin retarder's as pictured from Max's picture V10 only has a single retarder. If the Dynojet calculation was not calibrated with the drum plus the added inertia from the single retarder it will read lower. The car will seem to accelerate slower. A 7hp gain up top is "marginal" but the torque loss down low because the hp at that rpm point is less due to added inertia makes mathematical sense. Hp loss at a greater distance below 5250 rpm (where hp and torque ALWAYS cross) will have a larger differential in torque reading.

Edit: also the v10 logger shows 28psi. Yesterday the runs recorded 30.5psi on the gauge holding mid 20s almost the entire run. Another marginal discrepancy.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Really Doug??? That's where you want to go? Well, the boogeyman you're so afraid of is going to get you!


Oh Max, we're only going where you and Gonzo have taken this thread. Look at the title of this thread. It was not meant to be an examination of any aftermarket turbocharger. But it was you who conflated it into where it is now. 



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> This is becoming a known thing locally, these rollers are like Santa!





[email protected] Performance said:


> SantaJet is coming to town. Ho ho ho.



Firstly, neither of you have any business here. You're competitors to me and the tuning companies I represent. And if you had simply shown the same restraint other vendors practice, you wouldn't now be in the embarrassing situation of having to explain why your car in fact produces nothing close to the power you've claimed. And the proof comes from the very measurement equipment that you derided as a "Santa-Jet".

Let's have another look at that dyno you two have been trumpeting for months:












Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa(Jet). Only its not at FFE. And it's just delivered to the both of you a big, honking lump of coal.


Get out of this thread.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2013)

I think the only fair way to settle this once and for all if for both of you to send me a full turbo kit and software and will go ahead and test them.  

Its the Biggie-Tupac beef all over again lol


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Well if it makes you two happy, I'm making 360 AWHP. Happy? Everyone can sleep better now?


Nothing about this thread makes me happy. It's been completely derailed.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Nothing about this thread makes me happy. It's been completely derailed.


I believe Ed has settled all of the potential dyno questions that were addressed earlier in the thread. BTW thanks for the complement Ed! We can see that in fact the dyno at FFE is not reading higher relative to other dynos. Also as a personal observation and someone who has done probably in excess of 70 pulls at FFE I can say it is very consistent between runs and between dyno sessions. I have all my dyno plots to compare. Some are posted in my build thread. 

Let's get this thread back on topic. Frankenwagon time...


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

EdsGTI said:


> Lastly. The only thing I wish to add is that max showed me a dyno of is car from another shop not vinny10 ...
> 
> Edit: also the v10 logger shows 28psi. Yesterday the runs recorded 30.5psi on the gauge holding mid 20s almost the entire run. Another marginal discrepancy.


 Ed, again I applaud you for offering your time and shop to settle some claim made over the internet. But, don't take sides, I showed you a picture of the same uncorrected pull at V10 exactly one week ago (the dynojet file of that same cell phone pic I shkwed you ... 358.7 uncorrected whp). 

Yes, the V10 plot shows the boost profile, and I came to your dyno with zero variables. Why do you think I asked you, after the first pull, to do it in 3rd gear vs the original 4th gear? Simply because, as I'm sure you know, mechanically controlled boost is gear-dependent (or I should say load dependent) - what I see in first is lower than the boost in second and so on...

I made sure to keep it as controlled as possible, so it would be unfortunate for you to insinuate that there are games being played because there aren't, we leave that FT. Yes, the same company that advertised compressor maps that were invented using photoshop until they got exposed. The same company that blackholed a host of threads that were bringing their practices to light. This forum has not forgotten the track records! 

I even avoided taking the bait when you offered if I wanted to make any changes, but that would've introduced variables (which is what I wanted to avoid when doing this comparo). Same car, no changes, two dynojets! That's what I presented here, and as I said to you, they were closer than I anticipated.


Here is the same cell phone pic I showed you, 358.7 uncorrected whp (which is tenths of a HP from STD corrected values on your dyno -- and anyone can see it's the same run).


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Oh Max, ... Get out of this thread.


Don't you wish you had the power to make me? :laugh:

I came into this thread to show, once again, that you're all about funny games...fiddling with correction factors. As I told ED, I'll leave you alone before you land yourself in a hospital. 

As far as proving my "claimed" numbers (there is no Gonzo, it's me hunting you), I'll start another thread about it to make you loose sleep for another couple of months :wave:

Now, go back to your merry way designing compressor maps!


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

The dyno sheets first came into question when a Stage (whatever) tune was making 230whp, without a baseline to start with.

They didnt add up. Based off the same compressor maps posted on Doug's website its not possible (stock turbo). Stock fuel injectors even at 4bar cannot flow enough fuel for the stated power. The physics are there and simple to compute.

And I believe the 400whp dyno that Max posted was the car set on kill mode, not what he typically runs.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Dave926 said:


> The dyno sheets first came into question when a Stage (whatever) tune was making 230whp, without a baseline to start with.
> 
> They didnt add up. Based off the same compressor maps posted on Doug's website its not possible (stock turbo). Stock fuel injectors even at 4bar cannot flow enough fuel for the stated power. The physics are there and simple to compute.
> 
> And I believe the 400whp dyno that Max posted was the car set on kill mode, not what he typically runs.


The main thing to take advantage of is ignition timing. We all know the stock turbo runs out of steam very quickly as the rpms climb. Balancing timing (obviously without exceeding MBT, which is very hard to do on pump gas), Air ingested (PSI) and fuel is the best way to make power. 

I've gone into dyno sessions and left with a 30hp increase without increasing airflow(boost) or increasing the amount of fuel utilized throughout the pull (based on injection timing) strictly based on increasing ignition timing. Yes compressor maps are good to look at to extrapolate what a turbo can do, however, in practice there are many other things that come into play that influence the entire picture.

Increased knock threshold, decreased EGT and increased timing is why even a stock K03s on e85 can make upwards of 260+ whp and enough torque to snap a rod. Def doesn't coincide with what ANY compressor map says, but in practice it's absolutely achievable. 

Max, this is essentially what you have been doing this entire time. Killing Auto-X with a TT225 Lava spitting K04 on steroids, complements of E85 and a crazy water meth setup. You are now doing it with a hybrid K04 and are making more power with less stress on your components. People never questioned you when you posted your results. Doug is doing just that. Posting his results. 

Let's all agree that the results speak for themselves, since most, if not all questions have been answered (Thanks Ed). FT vs Gonzo debate will never die, however, one should always try and conduct themselves in a professional manner. This is a lesson far beyond the scope of this forum, and an attribute that one must possess in order to be successful.

This thread is for Doug to document a cars progression from bone stock to bolt-on to FT kit. It's more technical than most posts on here. Let's not get it locked up over this bickering


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

there has been no clarity with this on going issue. and this is from my standpoint in this forum and on this board for the last 12 years.

Doug does this thread yearly..then people have issues, it comes down to stuff he puts int hese htreads as bullet proof,etc,etc and he leaves people in the dark to point fingers or everyones outcome falls short of the posted outcome.

there must be an issue when people jump in who have nothign to do with gonzo, or whom ever doug is having an arguement with.

yes, i am gonzo dealer, and i used to be a huge critic, but he PROVED ME WRONG. and still shows me genius to this day, and my car is still top notch. everytime i go to show it..my threads get black holed out spite, becausei do multiple dynos in a day showing consistency and reliablity in my hot ass climate. anyway..

the fact is, people are voicing up because it's the same **** over and over. Ed shouldn't be chiming in, because that shows bias, not just the use of his facilities.

but oh well, it will continually happen, and the world will go on. 

it should've been baseline the car on the dyne, then with the bolt ons, then with each software provider(more than 2 because it would HELP YOU SELL KITS) and so on.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Max bashes Ed's facility and dyno and he shouldn't chime in because he supports FT? Where is the logic? Ed was PROFESSIONAL enough to prove everyone wrong on his own time without charging Max (please correct me if I'm wrong). He answered the questions he could to help clarify everything. 

Max and I are friends outside of this and every time we do see each other,its usually a chuckle with everything going on here on the forums. We have a mutual respect for one another regardless if we disagree on certain things. I stand to gain nothing by arguing. I just hope that the 1.8t forum can grow up and stop forming a damn lynch mob every time Doug posts something.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

This could've easily solved if Doug would've used a different dyno to corroborate his results plus a baseline.

This is getting out of hand.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

[email protected] Performance said:


> This could've easily solved if Doug would've used a different dyno to corroborate his results plus a baseline.
> 
> This is getting out of hand.


What would using a different dyno do?


----------



## jetta_2.slow (Feb 18, 2008)

spartiati said:


> What would using a different dyno do?


Shouldn't much matter as long as it's all done on the same dyno in similar conditions. The data is nice to look at, but a stock baseline would've been the right place to start, heck even a few pulls on the stock programing with the exhaust left on the car would be nice.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

Steve,

Unless the base tune is ****, a stock turbo car is not going to gain 30whp on timing alone, unless making a drastic change in fueling type (race, e85, wmi etc.)

From the brief research Ive done on here, stage 2 cars running a dynojets run ~225whp.

Mustangs/dyno dynamics range about ~200whp. 

According to a dyno day Ed hosted a few years back, users reported making more power than they expected.

But what comes into actual debate here is how much power a stock hardware car can actually support, and which dyno is actually 'accurate'

Stock fuel injectors are 317cc (30lb/hr) @3bar, and 366cc (35lb/hr)@ 4bar.

Lets assume a 100% idc and keeping it simple. BSFC of 0.6, on the leaner side of things for a turbo car....

(36 x 4)/0.6 = 240 HP. Assuming a 15% loss (fair?) thats 200whp. Use a realistic IDC (90%) and that number is even less.

The graphed logs he posted of the Maestro file are pretty similar to where mine used to be, where I made 200/254 on a MD-500


And the 285whp dyno he posted with the F21 on the same car? I think thats a crock. I tuned one to the same power level, with WMI and a bucket load of timing (Dynocom). With a CDM intercooler there is no chance that wagon had much more than 12* of advance. 

Arent most of the F21 cars on the FT page making 255-260whp? Where the hell is 285whp coming from?


And sorry Ed, when it involves your livelihood I would expect one would do the best they can to post the best numbers possible. Doug's credibility really went out the window with his fabricated compressor maps, but yet Vortex keeps letting this guy have an advertiser account.

Also, isnt the 424x two 224x dynos put together?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

So if your research showed they average about 225hp, why is everyone crying heresy? Motoza was around 221hp and Eurodyne at 230hp.

I've tuned a few cars where users wanted to keep things conservative on the street tune with water meth and then we turned things up on the dyno in terms of boost and timing to keep torque within check. I wouldn't call it a crap base file. Just conservative initially. Overall HP increased 10-15hp but the area under the curve (what vortex really never looks at) was significantly increased.


----------



## lorge1989 (Sep 3, 2008)

spartiati said:


> So if your research showed they average about 225hp, why is everyone crying heresy? Motoza was around 221hp and Eurodyne at 230hp.
> 
> I've tuned a few cars where users wanted to keep things conservative on the street tune with water meth and then we turned things up on the dyno in terms of boost and timing to keep torque within check. I wouldn't call it a crap base file. Just conservative initially. Overall HP increased 10-15hp but the area under the curve (what vortex really never looks at) was significantly increased.


Because thats engine hp, the graphs posted were whp. 



I think you guys are just being too sensitive and in general need to get a life. The fact that he is doing any development/test with the ancient 1.8T is benficial to the community, period. VW/Audi stuff is less and less about performance now a-days, so we need to embrace it.

At the end of the day there are just a few questions that matter...

1. Are people happy with their Frankenturbo? Pretty much every thread I've seen they love it.
2. Does Doug follow up with his customers and stand behind his product? Once again yes.

So why are you giving him so much **** over such a stupid detail, when most of you who are complaining will never run a setup comparable to his?

The compressor map thing was obviously not right, but most people who want to run his setups just want some idea where they will stand, its not a make or break piece of information in any way. 

As far as this goes a baseline pull would have been great, just so we could see the gains from each of these, but the purpose of the thread was to compare two different tunes, and he did that well.


----------



## GasInMyVeins (Jul 11, 2010)

Jesus, this went off the rails over the weekend.

I don't think I even have anything to reply to. Doug's first response to me seemed to be about his other thread, and so it devolved into an argument over non-stock turbos. Dave926's response about injector flow was enlightening though.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

lorge1989 said:


> Because thats engine hp, the graphs posted were whp.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said sir.


----------



## elRey (May 15, 2001)

unsub'sd


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Are you looking for a pistol-hot cup of vitriol with which to toast Memorial Day? Well drink it in, folks!

Upsee-Daisy.


----------



## jettred3 (Aug 5, 2005)

Why bring this back from the dead, seriously?


----------



## Mic17a (Feb 4, 2013)

The whole forum is dead. Any life is better than none!


----------

