[QUOTE=sushidog]Wow, those are great numbers.

No offence, but I think you are selling your Wester's tune a little short though.
/QUOTE]

How? I track tested the car before and after----zero difference. Unlike others on here---I do not rely on "feel" but go after actual mesurable results. I want to know what my money got me and in this case it did not make my car faster at all.

 

These tunes are the tip of the iceburg, they should get better a while from now, but either the vectors or westers are not worth the money, I had a tune done on my vibe for 300 hun and I netted a 17hp gain and the engine was not as powerful as ours. I think these above mentioned companies need to half there prices they are selling a product that is not worth the 4hundred

 

Sum Narly numbers dude

 

nice!

 

Great numbers. That's good to see. Congrats bro!

 

[QUOTE=avro206]
All I'm saying is that there are too many variables in track testing. Were both runs done on the same day at the same track (same temps, alt. and humidity)? Did you use the same lane for each run? Were your engine temps, tire air and amount of gas in the tank the same? What about the human variables, were your reaction times the same? Did you shift at higrer rpms now that your power curve got nudged up a little higher in the rpm range? If you answer yes to all the above, it still takes the ecu time to adjust after it's reinstalled. My performance kept increasing for several days after the change. The real test would be to compare two before and aff dyno sheets.

Hey, I'm not trying to pick an argument. If you are unhappy with the mod, I'm sure Westers will be happy to reflash it to stock and give you a refund. Did you ask? They must offer some kind of warranty.

If you do decide to have it changed back, be prepared to have your peak hp reduced to the 150-155hp range 6200rpm, and for your hp to drop sharply at 6500 rpm as others have stated, and your redline pulled back by your rev limiter to - what is it stock? - 6750rpm. But that'l be ok, cause you won't be making power up to 7100 rpm as you are now. And i'll just bet that the area under the front half of your hp/torque curves will be reduced to stock levels too.

But if you think your car will be just as fast that way, go for it.

I don't want to make this a personal battle between me and Avro206. We're all friends here, right? So if anyone else looks at his dyno sheet and compares it to others, do you agree or not? If I'm all wet, I'll shut up - this won't be the first time I've been wrong - but if you see the same things I do, please speak up.


It's all good.

 

[QUOTE=sushidog]
Hey no offence taken...this is just a good discussion. I'll attempt to satisfy your concerns but that may not work We can alwasy agree to disagree.

I am well aware of variables of tire pressure, lane and shifting. I think I must have nealry 40 passes on my car, so I am very good with it.

I started drag racing back in High school and have raced lots of cars (fastest was a 86 Mustang--14.0 with 2.1 sec 60 foots)

Every time I go to the track I record, temp, humidity, dew point and atmospheric pressure.

I then determine density altitude to compensate for different weather conditions.

^ Without doing that you can never accuratley guage the mods effectiveness. Because conitions vary.

The two race days in question, pre and post tune---were less then 300ft in density altitude.
Thats not going to do anything measurable---so an increase in hp would have made my car faster and it did not.

For a reference...I did the exact same procedure for the Injen SRI

It dropped 0.1 and my (uncorrected) mph jupmed to 87 mph from 85. I did that a few times as well.

Even on runs that I was off 0.1-0.2 you could see a mph increase at some point in the 1/4 mile.

I wish I had a stock dyno run---but I don't so my test is the 1/4 mile.

And unfortunatley, I am the only one to test before and after---I sure wish others would do this!

Half the people on here go by "feel"--which is not scientific and cannot produce an accurate result--even if it is faster---you'll never know by how much

 

I know it's a little off topic, but why did you choose to go with the SRI over the CAI?

Down in Louisiana, where I live, my under hood temps get very high (150degree+ range).
I had to insulate my Injen CAI so that the relatively cool (95-97degree) outside air didn't get too much heat soak from the engine bay.

Oh, and if you say you never noticed any increase in 1/4 mile performance, I believe you. I mean, why would you lie? Most people tend to exagerate mod results - especially when they just spent $400!

But the 1/4 mile notwithstanding, did you notice any improvement in real world, street driveability - ie. low end torque?

 

Didn't know how to put on the CAI--looked like a PITA. As for the CAI--I am wary of it now. Redsupercharedgir got some water on her filter or MAF(both) on our crusie to Edmonton. It was raining pretty hard. Her car ran like crap for serveral hours after that--in limp mode maybe.

To answer your second question--no. For a NA 4 cly the torque is quite good but for any serious accleration--4000 rpm better be showing on the tach.

When it first was reflashed---I took it for a drive. I had thought it had pulled harder at 5000rpm--apprently I was wrong.

See everytime you mod a car---you think it to be faster. This is pychological in nature--you spent time, money on soemthing that is supposed to work. You take it for a drive and your subconcious tries to tell you it is faster.

Maybe it is but a dyno or 1/4 is the true test.