Special, special, special shout out to Lawrence at Intec Racing.

As some of you know, my sedan was recently flashed and dyno tuned via Osiris UpRev. The results truly do speak for themselves. I went in not expecting too much gain in peak hp/tq. The car, overall, gained 12 whp and 3 wtq. If you look at the baseline graph, the car had tons of detonation under load. The best way to describe the end result is "neat". The car feels smoother, responsive and on-demand. Unfortunately, I couldn't tell immediately after the tune; however, our local group did a cruise the other day, and the car REALLY shined at WOT. The throttle restriction is 100% GONE. There's a noticeable (extremely) difference at WOT (+ generally more aggressive driving non-WOT). I was told that I pulled away from an e92 M3 (by the owner) during a straight shot across some farm land; I didn't believe him lol.

I'm not entirely too sure how to explain this, but Lawrence tuned the ENTIRE map (topographical map that shows afr values). Not just bits and pieces (like other tuners do...apparently). The analogy I was given: if two cars with the same rated power were side by side, Lawrence's map would essentially allow his car to pull ahead with each shift. In other words, the entire driveability of the car was tuned, not just WOT area of the map, etc.. Does that make sense? He tuned all the transitions (the way he showed me, was via a 10 by 10 graph - each box had a given afr per each individual rpm level...depending on what the car liked, he added/took out fuel as needed. all the extra time was essentially taken to get the car to each "box" on the car's afr map) of the car's map.

By the way, my eco map = 27 mpg on the freeway from Seattle to Edmonds! Damn.

GO INTEC Racing! Modifications: Injen CAI, 4.08 FD Ring and Pinion, HKS Plugs, Invidia exhaust, FI NR TP's. In the near future, performance wise, I do plan on doing headers. Was told that I more than likely would not have to retune (huge +).

I believe the final numbers were: 294 whp and 242 wtq. I was a little disappointed at first, but then I realized...that they weren't inflated like SOME other peoples' graphs (-_- --> i'm pretty set on a gain of 21 whp with just test pipes + tune is impossible).

Dyno Sheet below!

Video

 

Sweet deal. I haven't done anything to my car except add the JWI.

By the way... what the heck is WOT?

 

haha sorry, WOT = wide open throttle
stupid internet lingo... apologies

 

nice... the test pipes do the trick

 

Why was your car detonating to begin with?

 

From increased air flow - intakes, exhaust, test pipes. Which was expected...

 

First time I hear of an N/A G37 detonating, were you on crappy fuel?

 

SHOOT! Quite possibly. Great... I was out of gas...so I filled up in some ghetto area. It was 92 octane Chevron though...none the less?
I'm sure it would've been more noticeable on the dyno though - knock, etc.

Let me post up the dyno graph for you guys to see...

 

Whacha think Sam?

 

Looks good, and that is in-line with what I expected (I think I said 5-12 HP). That change in A/F makes a big difference. I would have gone for 12.5 (right at 12.5 should give the best TQ numbers, and that may be why you only gained a couple FT/LBS.). Anyway, not a big deal, and I think you got what you asked for. The area under the curve is greatly improved across the board, and you gained a lot more than 2 FT/LBS. in a lot of places. Overall, it sounds like the car is running good and strong, and that is really what is important.

 

Numbers do look a little low but that depends on the dyno I guess.. hell I saw modified dyno our car and it got 320whp stock. Anyways 12whp gain is good, specially how a m3 couldnt keep up! Ah man i need to start making mine faster!

 

so is "peak" horsepower and torque, exactly what it sounds like? at the top of the rpms? i don't quite understand how that works. i do see the gains across the board though, as shown in the graph. i initially thought peak meant total gain. obviously doesn't make sense anymore...lol

as far as the 12.5 value goes, isn't 14.7 a perfect burn value? 12.5 seems a little lean don't you think? i dunno, i left it to lawrence (tuner). his experience and training spoke for themselves.

 

Peak is exactly what it sounds like; the absolute single peak number you make regardless of RPM. That does not really indicate your gains across the entire rev band. It looks like you gained 10-15 FT/LBS at 5000 RPM, but that was not your peak value. Your peak came at about 4500 RPM's, and you can see that this was one of the smaller areas of gain across the rev band. You can get the actual dyno file, and export it to excel and compare numbers at various RPM points. You will probably see more gains than what you had at your peak, especially in TQ, at other points. That 2 FT/LBS. just means at your peak TQ value, that is all you gained. When you hear people mention "area under the curve" they are referring to the total gains throughout the entire rev band; not just your peak numbers. Not sure if what I said really make sense.....

First, all cars are different when it comes to A/F. I am sure he played around with some different values to see what worked best. The VQ typically produces max TQ around in the mid-12's. That does not mean it always will, or that it will produce max HP at that same ratio. For a NA VQ motor 12.5 is perfectly safe.

14.7 would be the "perfect" burn ratio for air and gas in a perfect world, but there are other factors in fuel (mainly other non-fuel additives in gas) and the engine that make the perfect mixture less than 14.7 (probably closer 14, or slightly under). Anything less than 14.7 is considered "rich", so as you go down, you have a richer mix (more gas). 12.5 is richer than your current tune, so if anything it would be safer, but less fuel efficient. You were running pretty lean before the tune around 14 (hence why he probably said he picked up some knock), and he brought you down to mid-13's to 12.8 (you were mid-13's for the part of the power band where you make max torque, and again, I am guessing this is why you only saw 2 FT/LBS at peak). I would have personally gone a little richer, but it is really splitting hairs at this point on a NA car.... Overall, the tune looks good and safe.

 

Good to know Jran. I sincerely do appreciate your input, and it all makes sense. Lo did indeed mention "safe tune" with the AFR. Funny, I always thought the lower the number, the more lean the car was running. Whoops. Thanks again man

 

My HR made the most power at around 13.1-13.2 AFR. The VHR from what I've seen certainly likes to run a little richer.