Acura RSX, ILX and Honda EP3 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Vendor
Joined
·
935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Lets cut to the chase here. 10-40 ft pounds of torque increase and 40 wheel HP increase. This from ignition, VTEC, cam and fuel tuning.

The complete article is here http://www.hondata.com/dynok20a2cybernationstg1.html

Make sure you read to the end for the bonus dyno chart.

 

·
2008 Project?
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
lol this one is gonna get interesting

*grabs popcorn and awaits*

so wait a minute you did this at 10psi


i got 289whp/209tq at 8psi with a magnaflow catback non FI exhaust

on a dynojet......

so lets add 10-15hp to my nubmer to compesante for diff machines...so im getting 299whp and your saying what then?

for laughs sake lets say that when i get my 3inch FI exhaust i will be getting

300whp @ 8psi lets extrapolate to 10psi and say i would prob get 15-20more hp out of 2 psi and very similar torque guessing like 220-230tq not sure on that figure....i must say my torque curve was a lot smoother too.....

so i would be at 315-320whp. so errr i should upgrade to kpro to do what exactly



where exactly is my gain if go with the kpro?


this is tuned with Guardian BTW not VAFC and there is no fuel return line. with 550cc injectors
 

·
riiiiiiight
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
jsimon9633 said:
lol this one is gonna get interesting

*grabs popcorn and awaits*

so wait a minute you did this at 10psi


i got 289whp/209tq at 8psi with a magnaflow catback non FI exhaust

on a dynojet......

so lets add 10-15hp to my nubmer to compesante for diff machines...so im getting 299whp and your saying what then?

for laughs sake lets say that when i get my 3inch FI exhaust i will be getting

300whp @ 8psi lets extrapolate to 10psi and say i would prob get 15-20more hp out of 2 psi and very similar torque guessing like 220-230tq not sure on that figure....i must say my torque curve was a lot smoother too.....

so i would be at 315-320whp. so errr i should upgrade to kpro to do what exactly



where exactly is my gain if go with the kpro?


this is tuned with Guardian BTW not VAFC and there is no fuel return line. with 550cc injectors
And this was done with NO VAFC, NO BMIII, STOCK FUEL SYSTEM WITH NO FUEL RETURN LINE and 650cc injectors....

don't compare peak numbers...compare the area under the curve...for example look at how much more torque the car is making in the midrange...peak numbers are nothing...the whole curve is what matters.

The boost controller was actually set at 9.1 psi but eventually creeped up into the 10 range which is why doug said at 10psi. I'm sure on your dyno the boost crept up into the 9psi range even though it was set at 8psi.

The VTEC crossover is also an important point...it is VERY smooth, you don't even notice it anymore. The car also starts and idles much smoother than with the previous setup.

Granted the previous setup probably could have been tuned to yeild a FEW more horsepower but so could the k-pro maps...in fact if you look at the a/f ratio chart you will see that where the BMII/VAFC setup was running LEANER is exactly where the k-pro setup made a lot more power....

Also note how the power never drops off significantly all the way to 8500, the increased redline will land you higher in the revs where you are making more power and thus net better acceleration...

Most importantly the car feels stock again, everything is much smoother and the extra power can DEFINITELY be felt...

When it comes down to it...doug didn't do this to show anybody up, it was simply more research to see exactly how well the k-pro works with every possible setup...and with this one...it worked quite well...

It's my car btw...
 

·
2008 Project?
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Nossy said:
And this was done with NO VAFC, NO BMIII, STOCK FUEL SYSTEM WITH NO FUEL RETURN LINE and 650cc injectors....

don't compare peak numbers...compare the area under the curve...for example look at how much more torque the car is making in the midrange...peak numbers are nothing...the whole curve is what matters.

The boost controller was actually set at 9.1 psi but eventually creeped up into the 10 range which is why doug said at 10psi. I'm sure on your dyno the boost crept up into the 9psi range even though it was set at 8psi.

The VTEC crossover is also an important point...it is VERY smooth, you don't even notice it anymore. The car also starts and idles much smoother than with the previous setup.

Granted the previous setup probably could have been tuned to yeild a FEW more horsepower but so could the k-pro maps...in fact if you look at the a/f ratio chart you will see that where the BMII/VAFC setup was running LEANER is exactly where the k-pro setup made a lot more power....

Also note how the power never drops off significantly all the way to 8500, the increased redline will land you higher in the revs where you are making more power and thus net better acceleration...

Most importantly the car feels stock again, everything is much smoother and the extra power can DEFINITELY be felt...

When it comes down to it...doug didn't do this to show anybody up, it was simply more research to see exactly how well the k-pro works with every possible setup...and with this one...it worked quite well...

It's my car btw...
im not saying its to show anybody up but honestly it is not fair to show some horribly tuned VAFC setup like that......who tuned your car originally?

never used VAFC so dont know but my idle is totally stock feeling with Guardian and my tq curve is very smooth.


here look at it yourself

this is at 8psi with Guardian Tuning it by itself. remember this is magnaflow catback exhaust and 8 psi on dynojet.
 

·
riiiiiiight
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
jsimon9633 said:
never used VAFC so dont know but my idle is totally stock feeling with Guardian and my tq curve is very smooth.


here look at it yourself

this is at 8psi with Guardian Tuning it by itself.
I've seen your dyno, no need to post it again. I still plan on getting the guardian to compare the two and quite possibly see about getting the two to work together...let the guardian handle the "perfect" a/f ratio and use the k-pro to modify the timing/cam angle etc...best of both worlds...but only time will tell
 

·
2008 Project?
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Nossy said:
I've seen your dyno, no need to post it again. I still plan on getting the guardian to compare the two and quite possibly see about getting the two to work together...let the guardian handle the "perfect" a/f ratio and use the k-pro to modify the timing/cam angle etc...best of both worlds...but only time will tell

thats cool thats what my original question really was....is there enough benefit to justify buying a kpro and then finding a tuner to do it when the guardian I THINK IS doing a damn good job in my case anyway.

and lets be blunt , whatever tuning you had going on before the kpro tune was atrocious


that tq curve is horrible and so is the hp curve

Hondata what gains do you think I could see based on my already posted dyno and setup i spoke off.


im sure not all tunes will be that bad when it comes to a turbo so i want a realistic example instead of the one used.
 

·
ECU Tuner
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
Hondata said:
Lets cut to the chase here. 10-40 ft pounds of torque increase and 40 wheel HP increase. This from ignition, VTEC, cam and fuel tuning.
Bah, humbug. If you had cam angle and ignition advance autotuning and the special "Who me worry"[tm] rod protector interceptor option you'd easily have 100 hp more and wouldn't need no stinking tuning ever at all. :)

But seriously, most impressive, Doug.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
Awesome Hondata!! Its good to know that the kpro is doing wonders to other turbo systems as well.
Guardian is fine and all, but you cannot set it to what you want.... kpro will allow you to tune it however you want.
 

·
2008 Project?
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
so nobody can answer the real question here


so we have established that kpro can tune a horribly tuned turbo setup

but can it outtune guardian? i just gave an example of my setup and wouldnt havent seen any gain with kpro according to those numbers.

when guardian comes out itll be interesting to compare tunes then...its hardly relevant right now ESPECIAlly when you compare to a horribly tuned VAFC setup
at least compare to a decently tuned one using VAFC
 

·
2008 Project?
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
zulusTypeS said:
Awesome Hondata!! Its good to know that the kpro is doing wonders to other turbo systems as well.
Guardian is fine and all, but you cannot set it to what you want.... kpro will allow you to tune it however you want.

if you have a tuner nearby or lots of money to spend on a far away tuner

dont get me wrong the kpro is a hell of a tuning tool but sometimes some people dont have the resources nor the tuner to get it done right.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
JMShipp2 said:
Will you guys be making this tune available to K-Pro users with Cybernation stage 1 kits?
That will be determined next week.

jsimon9633 said:
and lets be blunt , whatever tuning you had going on before the kpro tune was atrocious

that tq curve is horrible and so is the hp curve

Hondata what gains do you think I could see based on my already posted dyno and setup i spoke off.
This is not an us vs them thread. The thrust of this thread is educational. The good folks at Cybernation had all this data yesterday. I spoke to them at some length about it to make sure there was nothing obvious that was missed. We both agree that the VAFC tuning could have been better at the top end above 7000 rpm and under 4000 rpm. From 4000 rpm to redline the VAFC was set at maximum. There was no obvious way to get more fuel to richen up the 4000-6000 rpm area.

So, all power gains in the 4000-6000 area are due to ignition, cam angle and VTEC point. Most of the power gains above 7000 rpm are due to ignition, cam angle and VTEC point. In my experience on this dyno a 0.4 change in AF would be 5-10 hp max out of the 40-60 hp gained.

We both agreed that it was a good idea to test a vehicle that had already been tuned... So I am looking for volunteers in the LA area. You will have to do it in the next week though as I will be away for a month launching the K-Pro in Europe.



The torque curve

I think that you need to understand Dynapack a little better and how it measures as compared to what you are familiar with.

[Physics lesson]
Power = torque * RPM
F=MA (Force = mass * acceleration)

The Dynojet measures acceleration of a series of masses; the wheels, flywheel and 2400kg worth of rollers. From the acceleration of this set of masses the force (torque) is calculated, the RPM measured and a power figure produced. The problem is that with this large inertial mass small changes in engine torque ofer small time intervals. Add this to the software smoothing on the Dynojet software and you will end up a very smooth torque curve.

Change your light wheels and tyres to heavier ones and the power output changes as measured by the Dynojet changes. Lesson here is to not to change your flywheel and wheels while making power modifications if you want repeatability.

[/physics lesson]

The Dynapack measures torque directly from the drivetrain by removing the wheels. The operator has enters the gearbox ratios into the software and thus the RPM and power is calculated. On the Dynapack you can pick up a single cylinder misfire.

Take a look at the power curve (the green line) at 8300 rpm. That is a single cylinder misfire. The Dynapack is measuring that the engine is rotating backwards as a result of the misfire for a very small time interval. You will not get this kind of resolution on a Dynojet and this is why the Dynapack is our measuring instrument of choice.

Therefore the torque (and power) curve is an actual representation of what is going on. This resolution is what we need to tune to the accuracy we want.

To make a comment on your dyno chart I would need to have a printout that shows the axes. Preferrably one that is SAE corrected. Get the torque curve to span as much of the page as possible.

Applying all the elements of tuning to this turbo kit - ignition, cam angle and VTEC point and fuel, makes a great product even better.
 

·
riiiiiiight
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
JMShipp2 said:
Thanks... I am days away from making a final decision, and moving forward with my own car. Access to this particular tune, will certainly aide in my decision to go with it...

Be well,
JMS
well if doug won't give it to you...come by my house with a couple hundred bucks and we can talk ;) :laughing: ...







LoL...TOTALLY COMPLETELY KIDDING...
 

·
2008 Project?
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
Hondata said:
That will be determined next week.



This is not an us vs them thread. The thrust of this thread is educational. The good folks at Cybernation had all this data yesterday. I spoke to them at some length about it to make sure there was nothing obvious that was missed. We both agree that the VAFC tuning could have been better at the top end above 7000 rpm and under 4000 rpm. From 4000 rpm to redline the VAFC was set at maximum. There was no obvious way to get more fuel to richen up the 4000-6000 rpm area.

So, all power gains in the 4000-6000 area are due to ignition, cam angle and VTEC point. Most of the power gains above 7000 rpm are due to ignition, cam angle and VTEC point. In my experience on this dyno a 0.4 change in AF would be 5-10 hp max out of the 40-60 hp gained.

We both agreed that it was a good idea to test a vehicle that had already been tuned... So I am looking for volunteers in the LA area. You will have to do it in the next week though as I will be away for a month launching the K-Pro in Europe.



The torque curve

I think that you need to understand Dynapack a little better and how it measures as compared to what you are familiar with.

[Physics lesson]
Power = torque * RPM
F=MA (Force = mass * acceleration)

The Dynojet measures acceleration of a series of masses; the wheels, flywheel and 2400kg worth of rollers. From the acceleration of this set of masses the force (torque) is calculated, the RPM measured and a power figure produced. The problem is that with this large inertial mass small changes in engine torque ofer small time intervals. Add this to the software smoothing on the Dynojet software and you will end up a very smooth torque curve.

Change your light wheels and tyres to heavier ones and the power output changes as measured by the Dynojet changes. Lesson here is to not to change your flywheel and wheels while making power modifications if you want repeatability.

[/physics lesson]

The Dynapack measures torque directly from the drivetrain by removing the wheels. The operator has enters the gearbox ratios into the software and thus the RPM and power is calculated. On the Dynapack you can pick up a single cylinder misfire.

Take a look at the power curve (the green line) at 8300 rpm. That is a single cylinder misfire. The Dynapack is measuring that the engine is rotating backwards as a result of the misfire for a very small time interval. You will not get this kind of resolution on a Dynojet and this is why the Dynapack is our measuring instrument of choice.

Therefore the torque (and power) curve is an actual representation of what is going on. This resolution is what we need to tune to the accuracy we want.

To make a comment on your dyno chart I would need to have a printout that shows the axes. Preferrably one that is SAE corrected. Get the torque curve to span as much of the page as possible.

Applying all the elements of tuning to this turbo kit - ignition, cam angle and VTEC point and fuel, makes a great product even better.

tnx hondata looking forward to hearing the other point of view from Lee or Chris from CN.

ummm how can anyone make a decision already based on a finished product and a beta product? boggles the mind doesnt it....
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top