MyCal Stage 4+ 2012 SHO

DJE624 · July 27, 2013, 08:55:25 PM

My initial response after a short ride was favorable. After a few tests with Torque Pro, I'm not so sure now. It does move out as good as the Stage 4 SCT tune out of the hole to 60. Best 0-60 today was 5.47 compared to the 5.45 I had timed with the SCT Tune. But, it was also 15-20 degrees cooler today than when I did the SCT test. My 1/8 time was about a second slower. Don't understand that. Could have been me. My high boost today was 13 vs. 14 with the SCT. They may have dropped it down a pound to cover the extended boost curve. I was expecting very noticeable performance gains and haven't gotten them, yet. I'll give it a while. I don't think I tested the SCT tune for a week or so after I loaded it.

mjhpadi · July 27, 2013, 09:52:50 PM

Hmmm, interesting...I would think about contacting LMS and discussing it with them...maybe they can adjust the tune for improved performance, since you know the numbers from the old tune.

DJE624 · July 27, 2013, 09:59:19 PM

I will try to run some more tests tomorrow. Then Monday I'll try to see what they can do.

DJE624 · July 28, 2013, 12:36:06 AM

I'm sorry I have been ranting so much.

ecoboostsho · July 28, 2013, 08:12:52 AM

Have you scanned it at all? What kind of knock are you getting?

Milhouse86 · July 28, 2013, 10:28:08 AM

That sucks. It was definitely put out there as an improvement. Looks like not so much.

Brucelinc · July 28, 2013, 12:00:05 PM

Dave, does Torque Pro typically show a bit slower times than reality? Based on magazine tests, a stock SHO is usually around 5.2-5.4 0-60. I would expect you to be in the mid 4s with a tune. Not terribly scientific, but using a hand held stopwatch, I clock 0-60 in the 4.5 range with my wife watching the speedometer and operating the stopwatch. I know TSS is in that range, too. Not sure what method he uses. Of course, lots of things impact performance such as altitude, temperature and even your car's mileage.

I still don't know quite what to think about the 4+ tune and MyCal. Unless I can get some real evidence that the "new" 4+ is better (or even different) than the "old" 4+, I think I will stick with what I have and be happy.

DJE624 · July 28, 2013, 12:08:29 PM

From what I have heard, the torque pro may have slightly longer times than actual. A half a second goes by pretty quickly. I am going to do some more testing today. Times may be a little off but hopefully they are good for a comparison of tunes. 4.5 is pretty fast! That's where I would like to be. I better get a wife and a stopwatch!

Brucelinc · July 28, 2013, 12:19:22 PM

Quote from: DJE624 on July 28, 2013, 12:08:29 PM
I better get a wife and a stopwatch!

There are times when I would give you the wife and throw in the stopwatch.

DJE624 · July 28, 2013, 01:35:30 PM

LOL Bruce. I just did some more testing. I am starting to think that the Torque Pro is not the best timing device.

Larrylu · July 28, 2013, 02:03:38 PM

Quote from: DJE624 on July 28, 2013, 01:35:30 PM
LOL Bruce. I just did some more testing. I am starting to think that the Torque Pro is not the best timing device.

Dave this may not apply to you but, when I was doing some 0 to 60 runs and timing them with Torque, I made a little mistake which impacted the results. When I brought up the RPM just prior to launch, the brakes are struggling mightily and a tiny bit of creep can start the Torque clock running a split second before the actual launch. I could hear the brakes creak and groan and suspect that is a possible explanation for slow run. I was told that pumping the brakes a few times would make them hold more solidly, but I don't know for sure on that. You also could try lowering the RPM a bit when torque braking to see if the brakes can hang on better. Good luck and let us know what you learn.

DJE624 · July 28, 2013, 02:09:16 PM

Quote from: Larrylu on July 28, 2013, 02:03:38 PM
Quote from: DJE624 on July 28, 2013, 01:35:30 PM
LOL Bruce. I just did some more testing. I am starting to think that the Torque Pro is not the best timing device.

Dave this may not apply to you but, when I was doing some 0 to 60 runs and timing them with Torque, I made a little mistake which impacted the results. When I brought up the RPM just prior to launch, the brakes are struggling mightily and a tiny bit of creep can start the Torque clock running a split second before the actual launch. I could hear the brakes creak and groan and suspect that is a possible explanation for slow run. I was told that pumping the brakes a few times would make them hold more solidly, but I don't know for sure on that. You also could try lowering the RPM a bit when torque braking to see if the brakes can hang on better. Good luck and let us know what you learn.

I think you are right Larry. I tried launching brake to accelerator too and there is a bit of a lag. That could add a full second. I will try pumping and holding the brake more firmly next test session. What do you think the best rpm for launch would be? I have tried 1500 and 2000. I'm thinking maybe somewhere in between.

EDIT-09/29/2013 After a lot of practice and 2 trips to the track, my launch is much better. Today I recorded a 0-60 MPH time of 5.1 in 68 degree weather launching at 2200 RPMs. Could not be happier with my Stage 4+!

Larrylu · July 28, 2013, 02:18:27 PM

I think with our tunes these engines are a bit tougher for the brakes to hold than stock. My best guess is in agreement with you with the RPM try a middle ground and pump the brakes. Also be aware of possible creep. Good luck. You might check with Todd (TSS). He has a lot of 0 to 60 timing experience. Just not with Torque.

bpd1151 · July 28, 2013, 02:39:16 PM

I routinely launch 'tween 2K & 2200K rpms.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

darreli · July 28, 2013, 03:12:07 PM

I used to launch between 1800-2000. That's what the car liked best. Last week I was launching at around 3000!! Car really liked that!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2