Time to over analyze!

[StealBlueSho]

Ok.... here is my question...

12.799 vs 12.415....

The 12.799 was run with a DA of 1454

The 12.415 was run with a DA of -40 and HR springs.

Otherwise the only difference is tuning.

How close do you think these two tunes are?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jordan]

I really think the big difference was in the sixty foot. Other then that with the lower da what not they seem to kind of even out. I feel like more passes between the two tunes would make for a better average. I know gh does good work and livernois is pretty conservative so to me I feel like there is more on the table for gh to grab but I'm also not a tuner

[StealBlueSho]

I really think the big difference was in the sixty foot. Other then that with the lower da what not they seem to kind of even out. I feel like more passes between the two tunes would make for a better average. I know gh does good work and livernois is pretty conservative so to me I feel like there is more on the table for gh to grab but I'm also not a tuner

I tend to agree. Matt said he won't turn it up because of heat issues running the turbos past efficiency, so it's pretty maxed out until the IC comes out.

LMS does tend to leave some on the table, in my last datalog of their E30 tune I easily maxed out the spark available.

LMS runs the turbos on this tune right at the edge of efficiency, Matt's does a bit over, both run similar spark but Matt allows the knock sensors to add 1.5 degrees more on the top end..

I think both tunes are well done, Matt takes full advantage of the pump but due to heat issues can't push the boost to take advantage of the extra psi he can get out of the pump....

If I can get to the track on a day where I can get 3-4 runs in... I think it would be an interesting heads up race between the two tunes...

Just wish I could swap from LMS to GH easily.. it requires a phone call to LMS to swap back to my original strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHOdded]

http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-altitude-calculator.php

The first timeslip - 12.799 time

Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
12.595 @ 109.777 MPH
Extensively Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
12.694 @ 109.036 MPH
Extensively Modified Supercharged and Turbocharged Engines
12.737 @ 108.532 MPH

Second timeslip - 12.415 ET

Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
12.384 @ 109.314 MPH
Extensively Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
12.383 @ 109.327 MPH
Extensively Modified Supercharged and Turbocharged Engines
12.381 @ 109.349 MPH

Looks like tuning does make a difference.  Springs probably cut off maybe a tenth time?  Subtract that & get your answer on the tune, I guess.

[Jordan]

I really think the big difference was in the sixty foot. Other then that with the lower da what not they seem to kind of even out. I feel like more passes between the two tunes would make for a better average. I know gh does good work and livernois is pretty conservative so to me I feel like there is more on the table for gh to grab but I'm also not a tuner

I tend to agree. Matt said he won't turn it up because of heat issues running the turbos past efficiency, so it's pretty maxed out until the IC comes out.

LMS does tend to leave some on the table, in my last datalog of their E30 tune I easily maxed out the spark available.

LMS runs the turbos on this tune right at the edge of efficiency, Matt's does a bit over, both run similar spark but Matt allows the knock sensors to add 1.5 degrees more on the top end..

I think both tunes are well done, Matt takes full advantage of the pump but due to heat issues can't push the boost to take advantage of the extra psi he can get out of the pump....

If I can get to the track on a day where I can get 3-4 runs in... I think it would be an interesting heads up race between the two tunes...

Just wish I could swap from LMS to GH easily.. it requires a phone call to LMS to swap back to my original strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you are right on comparing the two. With the HPFP you are maxing out those lil turbos to the point where both of them are probably getting out about the same amount of power. Even if they are doing it in slightly different ways (more load in GH) After like 14 psi I've heard from some people the efficiency really drops like a rock and the turbos heat soak and in turn everything else does as well. I don't even think an intercooler would solve the problem with the stock turbos being the big bottleneck of the whole system, but I am basing my thoughts off speculation and not data.

[SM105K]

Either way it is interesting....

[shoNoff]

Trap speed should always be looked at for how much horsepower you are making. You basically picked up 1mph. That's roughly 10/15 whp to do that in a SHO. The 60 foot is a massive difference. That could be the added springs or could simply be track prep. Also could be a combo of both. The interesting thing to me is 1/8 trap speed is exactly the same from run to run. I think you are roughly making 10-15 more whp and the springs helped launch the car. Also I think a 12.41 @ 108.96 is about as perfect as a run that you can make on that mph.

[StealBlueSho]

I really think the big difference was in the sixty foot. Other then that with the lower da what not they seem to kind of even out. I feel like more passes between the two tunes would make for a better average. I know gh does good work and livernois is pretty conservative so to me I feel like there is more on the table for gh to grab but I'm also not a tuner

I tend to agree. Matt said he won't turn it up because of heat issues running the turbos past efficiency, so it's pretty maxed out until the IC comes out.

LMS does tend to leave some on the table, in my last datalog of their E30 tune I easily maxed out the spark available.

LMS runs the turbos on this tune right at the edge of efficiency, Matt's does a bit over, both run similar spark but Matt allows the knock sensors to add 1.5 degrees more on the top end..

I think both tunes are well done, Matt takes full advantage of the pump but due to heat issues can't push the boost to take advantage of the extra psi he can get out of the pump....

If I can get to the track on a day where I can get 3-4 runs in... I think it would be an interesting heads up race between the two tunes...

Just wish I could swap from LMS to GH easily.. it requires a phone call to LMS to swap back to my original strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you are right on comparing the two. With the HPFP you are maxing out those lil turbos to the point where both of them are probably getting out about the same amount of power. Even if they are doing it in slightly different ways (more load in GH) After like 14 psi I've heard from some people the efficiency really drops like a rock and the turbos heat soak and in turn everything else does as well. I don't even think an intercooler would solve the problem with the stock turbos being the big bottleneck of the whole system, but I am basing my thoughts off speculation and not data.

I have always suspected (and seen in many datalogs not just my own) that 14-14.5 PSI is a sweet spot on these little turbos. The car seems to run well there.. on my 2010 and my 2016. The only caveat to that was when I was injecting meth.. that made a significant difference in how the car felt pushing past 14psi.  This is of course also subjective to location as those in CO may have a different opinion on that matter...

LMS tends to tune right to the efficiency of components and the V11 tune seems to hold close to 14psi to red line.

Long story..I agree with your assessment. 

Trap speed should always be looked at for how much horsepower you are making. You basically picked up 1mph. That's roughly 10/15 whp to do that in a SHO. The 60 foot is a massive difference. That could be the added springs or could simply be track prep. Also could be a combo of both. The interesting thing to me is 1/8 trap speed is exactly the same from run to run. I think you are roughly making 10-15 more whp and the springs helped launch the car. Also I think a 12.41 @ 108.96 is about as perfect as a run that you can make on that mph.

Thanks! Yes, I noticed that too... I need to get back to Capitol (unfortunately) on a similar night to see how well the LMS tune does at that track.

[shoNoff]

I don't even want to tell you how much boost my car is pushing at 109mph 

Also from my many years of drag racing Ive always been taught. What ever you gain in 60 feet usually doubles out the backdoor. Meaning pick up a tenth in 60 you usually will gain close to 2 tenths in 1/4 mile.