>

The same ?

Lets take a look

You dyno'd 229HP & 240TQ @ 12- 13 PSI

I dyno'd 245HP & 245TQ @ 12-13 PSI Thats doesnt looks the "same" to me.

Your fuel curve is completely different from mine. You need to get over the your thoughts that the ST185 JDM ECU and the ST185RC ECU are the same. They ARE NOT the same.

Manny, in the morning could you post up a pic of my fuel curve vs. Art's fuel curve. Post up the graph so its easy reading for everyone.

I got one link for you
RC press release.

Even in this thread, people are telling you that you are WRONG.

And you probably going to say "show me proof". I'll continue to say look at your dyno.

the DYNO WARS are on buddy!





you didnt do any runs at 12-13psi. your lowest run was at 15psi (lets round up, that 14.79psi).

first run (blue) is your 245hp 246tq @ 15psi
2nd run is my 2nd run after major knock response. 229hp 240TQ @ 12-13psi. you gained 16hp and 6tq by running 2-3psi more then i did.

last run (green) is my last run on the dyno. as you can tell, i 3 runs in a row less then a few minutes apart, so the car lost some power from the heatsaok, but look at the A/F curve. with each dyno run, my ecu kept correcting inself after that massive knock response i got on my 1st run.

thats pretty damn close considering that:

you ran more boost then i did,
you have a lightweight flywheel and im on the stock one,
you dont have your AC and i do,
you dont have powersteering and i do,
and that you have a water to air IC, while i have a fmic.



>

the past coments about tuning and A/F ratio were made by comparting dynos of a stock USDM mr2 to your "RC" ecu. after my dyno runs, it turns out that our a/f ratio is very similar, and the usdm one is the only one that is crazy 10:1 ritch from 3grand on up

>

the press release dosnt say anything about different fuel maps. all it says is that the car gained 4hp from the water to air IC, over the stock st185

This post has been edited by lagos: May 4, 2006 - 12:48 AM

>

i'm not in this to argue but you just said "245hp @ 12-13psi"

your sig says "245hp @17.5psi" and from your first post "At 17.5 PSI, I put down 246HP and 261 TQ. Just insane"

which one is it?
Art on the high end ran 13psi...a difference of 4.5psi...
i'm pretty sure a 15hp gap can be closed ( +/- 2hp) if he upped his 4.5 pounds

This post has been edited by playr158: May 4, 2006 - 1:01 AM

i agree with dan

in all fairness, i wish my local dyno places could log boost. at least inf jeffs runs, you get an exact peak as specific a 14.79psi (also where the car made its peak HP), while im only looking at my crappy autometer gauge, while trying to keep an eye on the rpms.

Dyno war?
what?!
Yesssss!
i'll join asap

ok i read the press release and found this


"The 3S-GTE 2.0-litre engine with 16 valves and twin overhead camshafts is largely unchanged, but the turbocharger now features a water (instead of air) cooled intercooler increasing power from 201 to 205 bhp at 6000 rpm."

so.. if im reading this correctly the RC version has 4 more bhp stock? and the article says thats entirely because of the w2a intercooler?



edit: oh i see, thats usdm?

jdm rc has about 10 more hp than the regular jdm then?

ok then i add this:


if they are different, and the difference is only 10 crank hp, i think this is a stupid arguement

This post has been edited by brianforster: May 4, 2006 - 2:28 AM

jeffs run is an average if 13.97 psi, call it 14.
with his erratic boost control, it was a spiking up and down.

you can very clearly see the diffrence in the fuel curve there.
IMO you guys should both just relax, you both have awesome, well built, fast cars.
besides, if you wanna start "dyno wars" i have BOTH you guys beat for area under the curve...
art in blue
jeff in green
me in red

its on like donkey kong!

ooOOOOOo No!
lol

>

I did more than one run Dan. 17.5 was my higest pressure. At the same boost pressure my car has more HP.

>

I agree Brian. But some people can accept that as a fact.

>

Presure2

>

you posted his runfile7. thats where he ran 17.5psi. not 14 like you claim. it dosnt matter if he only hit 17.5psi for a second, because dynos measure PEAK VALUE, not an average. post that file again, with the boost being displayed !


>

i stared my run at a later RPM then his dyno. also, my A/f ratio was all messed up from the 1st knock response run, and kept getting better and bettter with every run. no 2 cars are going to look 110% exactly the same, but i have no doubt that if i reset my ecu, and start my dyno run at the same rpm, then the 2 fuel cureves will look closer (only difference now is that im ritcher at 3kish and a little richer from 5k up. im also running less boost. )


>

jeff. i think you have an awesome car, that makes great power. mad props to you jeff (in not kidding). this isint anything about that.
the only thing i dont understand is how you try to alwasy say that your motor is 10times better then a normal st185 because its "RC". it DOES have a much better water to air IC, but besides that, ive never seen any other proof that its any better then a normal ST185. ive never read anywhere about these better fuel maps that jeff always claims his ecu has and ive very confident that i can hit the same power levels if i turn up the boost to the same setting as you.

>

on RACE GAS!

this is jeffs runfile7 that manny claims is a 13.97 psi. you can clearly see that the cars peak boost is 17.5psi and thats where it also made its highest power. remember dynos are ment to measure peak value, not average. even jeff posted that run in his sig as "245 WHP 260 TQ @ 17.5 PSI"




This post has been edited by lagos: May 4, 2006 - 10:08 AM

jeff. i think you have an awesome car, that makes great power. mad props to you jeff (in not kidding). this isint anything about that.
the only thing i dont understand is how you try to alwasy say that your motor is 10times better then a normal st185 because its "RC". it DOES have a much better water to air IC, but besides that, ive never seen any other proof that its any better then a normal ST185. ive never read anywhere about these better fuel maps that jeff always claims his ecu has and ive very confident that i can hit the same power levels if i turn up the boost to the same setting as you.


Thanks for the complement.

But,
I have never said my motor is ten times better than anything. All I do is share every experience I have with this swap. You seem to knock the ECU, AFM, and motor everytime I post. The only time I spoke highly about my engine is when someone bashed it.
And you can quote me on that.

Here is a run where I spiked to 14.7

>


your ALWAYS saying that your rc ecu is much better then a normal jdm st185, and that you are making a lot more power then a normal st185 ever could, because your "RC" and the fuel maps are way better. in my eyes i have never seen any poof of anything like that.

dont take any of this the wrong way. im really not trying to give you a hard time. i alot of this is good ol trash talkin and nothing more. im also trying to learn what sets the RC version of the 3sgte apart from a plain st185 based on testing and comparing.



now, where is jgreening, with his dyno sheet that puts us all to shame! hahaha

This post has been edited by lagos: May 4, 2006 - 10:18 AM

>


The only time I have said it was better is when people bash on the ECU. I have never said my car or engine is better then something else.

I dont enjoy constantly defending something that we put alot of hard work into.

>


yeah, thats 15psi. my car was only able to hit somewhere around 13psi. so you made 16hp and 6TQ more then i did because you ran about 2-3psi MORE BOOST then i did. this would also prove what people say about 1psi giving you about 10 more hp.

you made more power, because you ran more boost, plain and simple.

This post has been edited by lagos: May 4, 2006 - 10:31 AM

OK in all fairness, this argument or "discussion" is crap.

this may sound bad but I have to point it out. We are missing an important fact, something that makes all of this real.

We do not know for sure what Art ran for PSI. Manny's and Jeff's are logged, but we are going on Art's word. Not that we do not trust Art, that not what I am saying, we just need it documented. That is a huge variable that makes and breaks everything.

until that is documented, this arguing is just plain dumb.

(once again, not that I do not trust Art, I am only pointing out a fact)

>


dustin, i TOTALLY agree with you. thats why i posted, that in all fairness, i wish my dynojet could log boost so that we can compare things better.

my plan is to hit the dyno again soon. this time, i will be using an EBC so that i can dail my boost in to 15psi peak while on the dyno. i will also use jeffs awesome camera mount, to record my gauges while doing the run, instead of video taping how bad my motor mounts are again this year...lol

>

well if your now going to claim this.....i think you need to change up your sig and previous statements cause your making conflicting statements

and if you really wannt talk A/F i have you ALL BEAT

i got more area under my A/F graph then most of you got under your HP

on a side note.....why don't we make a dyno day were we can all go up and battle it out

>


that sounds like fun.

i can probably set something up with my place if you guys want.

we should change one day of the 3 day mega meet to a dyno day, we dont need 2 track days!

>


Dan read the thread I did more than one run. I just used the above run as an example.



This run justifys my sig.

>


We NEED boost log !

lets go up to RI.

DYNO DAY IN THE NJ MEET the 3 DAY ONE!

it will be aaaaaaaawesome

>

yeah, your right. we do need boost log to make things fair and mannys place would be a great place to do it at..... but i still cant do a far away trip or an overnight thing, so i wouldnt be able to make it to something like that

Finding a dyno open on a sunday is almost impossible. Day 3 will be at Enlishtown which will be a huge event. They always have a dyno comp there.

The shop in RI is very nice, we could book a whole saturday there.

>
art, dont put words in my mouth.
i CLEARLY said, its an AVERAGE , not what he ran.
i mean, its pretty obvious that his boost is VERY incosistant.
and yea, when i run more than 12 lbs, on a 9.5:1 compression motor, thats not built to take boost, i run a 50/50 mix of race gas and 93 pump, to stave off detonation...got a problem with that??

This forum has gotten pretty dumb when people are argueing over who's ecu is better, and who's fuel curve is better!

on the contrary the forced induction forum is the only one i regularly check

>


its good to compare things in the real world and see how they really work. we just need to not take anything as a personal attack, because its not. its like scinece class in highschool. you have a theory, and then do a lab day where you test the 2 things under the same conditions and post your findings.