IRPerformance

iTrader: (41)

Exactly what I said before.

RogueFab

iTrader: (2)

RenesisFD, Banzai, and Rotary Experiment Seven are giving you some advice you should seriously consider.

$500-$800 for a retune or $3500+ for new motor +/- turbo next year. Oh and that new motor will still need a retune...

I don't know the maps, but I trust the experts (well, when they all agree).

I am going to be dropping my car off for a tune later this week. I will consult with a few of these guys after I get my car back and if they react like they did here to your tune, I will just take it as a bad roll of the dice and try another shop or begin the learning process and do it myself (more likely).

Good luck.

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. You're not making over 350whp on stock twins at 14psi unless you're fudging something to make numbers.

And it's also very easy to criticize other people on the internet when you stand to lose nothing by **** talking them. Would you post up your maps for open criticism?

I'm sorry, I've bought from you guys in the past, and you seem to make decent stuff (though the motor mounts that I bought from ya'll failed in like 15-20k miles), but you're coming off like a condescending dick here and it looks like you're just trying to scare uneducated owners into your door.

And your wealth of knowledge to back hopping on these coat tails is...?

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

Sorry, that gif has me ing

Banzai-Racing

iTrader: (11)

I have no interest in tuning cars from the East coast. Granted we do have cars shipped to us from all over the country, it is never just for a tune.

Not that I need to defend myself against you, but all you need to do is look at our dyno gallery to see I am not BS'ing anyone. Banzai Racing FD Dyno Gallery

It is funny that you went from telling the OP about all your crap tunes and trying to send him to Speed1 to saying that his tune was just fine, something super fishy there. I am sorry but you are the one coming off as an absolute *******. Feel free to not buy from us again, since I am sure that you think our customer service sucks now that I am pointing that out.

I am not trying to scare anyone into my shop, fact is whoever did the tuning did a shitty job. Are you really trying to deny that setting 1680cc injectors at 1500cc and using the default timing map is not a shitty tune? Nevermind all the other garbage in the map.

Below are just a couple dyno sheets, this is what happens when you get a car tuned by someone that knows what they are doing.

Jim's FD, stock port, sequential 99 twins (never said stock, you did), smog pump, cat Banzai Racing (Phend RX-7 FD3s SMP)

357rwhp/305tq if he would have let me ditch the emmisions the boost would have stabilized.



Joe's FD with our ported engine, sequential 99 specs, water/meth, no cats etc making 413rwhp/359 tq @ 17.7 psi. Banzai Racing Gaglio SMP

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

On a Mustang dyno no less.

People have been making 400rwhp+ on stock turbos on 14psi-18psi for the last decade.

If you search its all in these forums.

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

I did, and I found some interesting stuff.

Other than really crappy image quality for some of the dyno sheets I noticed this 35R tune that only made 343 @ 15psi



I noticed this dyno chart where you were only able to squeeze 338whp @ 15psi out of your Street Ported engine using 99-spec twins



I noticed this one, where you only got 310whp @ 13.7psi (call it 14psi) out of your street ported engine using twins



And yet I also saw this one where you supposedly got 369whp @ 12psi with stock twins...




However, the ONE constant that I also noticed was that not a single one of those cars was tuned in-house at Banzai, but rather that you had to borrow dyno time from some local shop "Wait 4 Me Performance"



I also noticed that what his PFC was reading did not match what you said was on the map he posted. Seems odd that it could happen that way, when the OP himself suggested that he may have the previous map (which was done by a formerly reputable tuner on here, that is now known to make junk maps).

I would never let an internet debate dictate whether or not I purchased parts from a shop. I would only let the quality of the parts dictate that (hence why I went back to a damned good condition pair of stock mounts on my current engine). And honestly, the transmission brace that you guys came out with not too long ago is still on my wish list, I just have other priorities right now. Fact of the matter is Elaine is an absolute sweetheart, and I've never once had anything to complain about when it comes to her (your) customer service.

I hope that, as a business representative, you would not let this conversation influence whether or not you were willing to do business with me in the future..

.

I'm not a tuner, nor do I claim to be and it's not my intention to present myself that way to people who don't know me. As such I didn't even bother downloading the map. However, I also know that his car was previously tuned by Enzo and from what you're saying I wouldn't be surprised if you're looking at Enzo's map.




So.... if that is what happens when cars are tuned by somebody who's competent, than how do you explain all the mediocre dyno plots I linked above? Are you suggesting that whoever tuned them (you) is incompetent?

Banzai-Racing

iTrader: (11)

I really do not see what bearing it has on where I tune cars?

The OP's settings did match, the datalogit has slightly different resolution than the commander. For example a fuel correction can be made on the DL of 1.09 it will show up on the commander as 1.08 or 1.10, just another reason not to tune with the commander.

Maybe you should look at the map before you defend it so fervently.

It is easy to scroll to the bottom of the gallery. The people in our dyno gallery with lower power is pretty simple. Either tired engines, not rebuilt or not the appropriate supporting mods. Obviously the higher powered cars are set up with better mods.

I will talk about one of these since I owe you nothing and this is actually doing far too much as it is. I am not the one in question here, so if you think you are deflecting on to me you are saddly mistaken. I did not tune the OP's car and never offered to do so.

The first one (GT35) for instance was an engine we built for another customer that ran it for 5-6 years then sold it to James used, it is stock ported and he regularly abuses at the track. Go into his gallery and you will see that he has a Turbo XS ebay intercooler with no ducting. Can you say heat soak?

That is still only 9hp lower on a Mustang dyno, (Dynojet would be around 394) than the OP on an engine we built 8 years ago, that has NO porting and a very bad IC..

Nothing incompetent about any of the tuning, just look at the galleries behind the cars and you can see for yourself. You may just find that some of cars with lower power have RB catbacks which are very restrictive. Then go to the top of the page and compare mods with the higher HP cars.

I am not going to hold your hand through every dyno sheet all the information is on the site.

kontakt

Since when did 11.7 become too lean to be safe? A lot of the best tuned cars in this power range that I have come across logs for, or ride in have been run hard for years above 12:1. Most of the "hiccups" that might take out a motor running 11.7 would take out a motor running 11.0 as well.

Why are we all expecting a tune that was asked to be safe also be one of the higher HP tunes at that pressure? 350whp at 14psi through a T3 with a cat is not problematically low. Could it be higher? Yes. Could it be safely higher? Yes. Does getting the absolute most horsepower that you can safely get take a lot of time, which costs money? Yes.

Why should someone have to clean up every table in a tune just to make it "pretty" because the previous tuner made it hideous, when the effect would be a wash anyway? That seems like a waste of time to me. Because the guy who re-tuned the car didn't drop one number from where someone else set it so that he had to raise another one even farther, doubling his work (on the clock), he's bad at his job?

Tell me again why this is a terrible tune from an operational standpoint, and not from a "how you would prefer it to look to get the same effect" standpoint.. Maybe I missed that.

I love pop-up lights

You all throw like girls.


There. I said it.

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

I've got full access to several fully stocked mechanic shops, but borrowing their tools and equipment doesn't mean that I am necessarily going to be as serious about working on a car as a full time mechanic...

Wait.... So when YOU put out low(er) power cars it's because the vehicles lack all possible mechanical advantages. Yet... when somebody else spits out a tune that has moderate power it's because that tuner is essentially a hack?


Hmm... good to know...

Well, as soon as I asked you if you'd be willing to put your own map up for criticism, and you replied, it kinda did become about you... Sorry.

No, you didn't tune the OP's car, but if he had lived in your area of influence I bet you would have, then this thread WOULD have been all about you since your results would have likely been identical to the original dyno sheet.


But.... you just posted up saying that competent tuners put out more power.

Saying that implies that lower power tunes mean that the tune was done incompetently. Yet now, when it's your tune up there and in question, lower power DOESN'T equal incompetence

Sounds a little one sided, don't ya think?




My point is simply that it is VERY easy to ridicule somebody elses work when you have nothing invested. Now that your own handiwork is called into question you seem a bit put off by any thoughts of criticism... If you're not worried about criticism than please, by all means, go ahead and post up the map for the low power 35R that had a tired engine.

RENESISFD

iTrader: (13)

That is why. It is not the way to tune a car.

kontakt

You do realize that the tuner wasn't working from a clean slate, correct?

There is nothing at all in your post about what OPERATIONALLY is wrong with the tune. You only talk about how it is the wrong way to go about getting the same job done. You don't even know who changed which settings in the tune. Was it enzo, or was in the person who re-turned it after enzo.

So, tell me, please... I am actually interested in knowing. What about this tune being set up this way will make the engine either run poorly, or cause damage?

The only thing in any of the posts you quoted that has anything to do with engine performance or damage is a comment about cracked plates. Neither of the examples seem to indicate they were a tuning problem, let alone because of the specific way that it was tuned. Edit: And if that is what was *meant* to be communicated, then communication skills need to be worked on.

Banzai-Racing

iTrader: (11)

Wrong. Many shops rent dyno time. Why do I want the cost and upkeep on a piece of equipment that I only use a few time a month? From a business standpoint that is a ridiculously bad financial decision.

Wrong. When I see a garbage map that means the tuner is a hack. It is very interesting that you are SO defensive of this unnamed tuner. Some cars are only capable of making certain levels of power, based off engine health and modifications. However, the OP's car has a fresh engine and the modifications to make a lot more power then it did, this leaves the tuning, which is abundantly obvious from the posted map.

Wrong & Wrong. You asking me for something does not mean I am going to give you anything. Even if I did, you would not know what you were looking at, since you have already stated you are not a tuner.

It certainly would NOT have been identical, since the shitty mapping would not have been used. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?


Wrong. You called BS on a twins car with cat making over 350whp, I simply proved you WRONG. Competent tuners do make more powerful, better running, more reliable cars. Are you going to argue that a crappy tuner can do the same?

I will repeat myself again;

Some cars are only capable of making certain levels of power, based off engine health and modifications. However, the OP's car has a fresh engine and the modifications to make a lot more power then it did, this leaves the tuning, which is abundantly obvious from the posted map.


What I do not understand is why it seems that YOU have something invested in this?It is not your car, you have absolutely nothing to do with this. You can't even give the OP a professional opinion of his map because you are not capable. I am not going to supply you with anything, I can only guess you are trying to get a free base map, NOT going to happen, sorry.

I am done responding to you since you are obviously quite butt-hurt and are getting far too emotional about this whole thing.

To whoever the other guy is that just decided to chime in...

If the previous map is junk, then any tuner that knows what they are doing would initialize the PFC and start again. You never take a bad map and try to make it right. That is more time consuming then starting from scratch.

In my case (and most real tuners), I have a catalog of 100's of cars that I have tuned with varying mods. It is very easy to select a known good base map from the catalog that you know has similar mods, then modify it to the needs of the new car. Never are 2 cars exactly the same, but some are very close and just need minor tweaking. This saves a lot of time on the dyno.

1. Tuning PIM voltage is never the way a professional tunes a car. It is either used by someone tuning with the commander or sometimes to make temporary changes. After confirming the temporary changes, you then go into the correction map and make the actual changes. After that the correction map is recalculated to the base map leaving the correction map all 1.00.
2. Lying to the ECU about injector sizes to make it run richer is not the correct way to tune. In this case 10.8%. Why not just make the changes to the base map correctly?

I hope that clears up the confusion that you seem to have.

kontakt

I'm not trying to argue, just trying to learn and understand. I understand that you're saying it's not how you should get the results that you want. I guess I was just looking for something more specific about how the results are wrong rather than being told that they were obtained the wrong way. Maybe that's something you can't say without the car in front of you?

cewrx7r1

iTrader: (2)

From the team that wrote the initial and best self tuning notes on the PFC using the DL; I always considered using the INJ ADJ table of PIM volt or rpm scale for controlling fuel along with the INJ correction map as only initial tune quickies.

After that, they all should be moved to the base map for a one on one cell direct tuning. This also allows using Excel work sheets for direct cell AFR tuning, and for charting/smoothing any cells that are off. Otherwise you really have no idea what is exactly happening in the cells total fuel wise.

Years after many DL/PFC secrets were shown and proved, and dispersed to the community, I have and still see "TUNER" maps that are tuned in the 1960s and
1999 PFC way.

I expect more from people who make a living tuning and working on cars.

The map sucks by my standards and I am an amateur.

JWteknix

iTrader: (2)

Chuck can u comment on my map? This argument of the pfc tuning is alittle different cuz they were going off a stock map to tune. He made my map off a Chris Ludwig map I kno karack said he didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. If you could take a look and see what the same tuner did to my map I'd appericiate it. Car ran bad cold and smoked heavy on decel Thanx
James

IRPerformance

iTrader: (41)

I made over 360 rwhp on twins way back in 2000. Agressive tune but its not difficult.

We rent a dyno a well. Eventually I will purchase one but the initial cost, upkeep, and space it takes doesn't make financial sense right now.

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

I made 380whp on twins before I converted to a single, I'm not saying that twins can't make power... I'm questioning Banzai's claim to smashing 350whp at only 13-14psi.

kontakt

Fenda, do keep in mind how much power Brian (Speed1) was throwing down on his twins. Way past 350@14psi.

New means something, but not everything. That is very build dependent. I have seen brand new (but broken in) motors that can barely see 90psi compression, and I have seen engines with a lot of hard miles that still hold well over 100.

I have also seen (and so have you) brand new engines that were junk because of the port work. Being able to see the rubber of the oil control ring through the intake runners, and **** like that. I'm not here to call out any builders as ****, or awesome, or anything like that. I'm also not trying to say that OP's engine is a pile of crap, or that this is the ultimate tune and it surely only made 350whp for other reasons. I'm just pointing out for all involved that new does not necessarily mean good.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

regardless of Banzai using extreme upper end examples(as if everyone should expect them) he is still right that the tune should have been done in a more professional manner and some areas will be problematic for the 35R.

instead of actually tuning the timing maps it was ignored completely.
instead of adjusting injectors and the injection maps the RPM corrections were made.
then there is linearity of the maps, quick jobs are easy to spot because there are cells that usually stand out like a sore thumb, or the whole map looks like a crossword puzzle as well as the correction maps.

RogueFab

iTrader: (2)

Sorry, I forgot this is the internet and nobody knows anyone's background. I am a Mechanical Engineer and I have been working on cars long enough to know who I should and shouldn't listen to... most of the time.

I know since I don't own a tuning shop and have 5000 posts many poeple won't care what I have to say. That is fine.

I wasn't attacking anyone. I only replied becuase I think I would want someone to do the same if I was on the fence about a retune.

Have a nice day

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

This is very true, I think he had 380whp out of his BNRs if I remember correctly. The crazy part was that the rest of his car was so well put together and prepped that he had no trouble keeping up with me when I was meant to be making 460whp on PFS's tune.

Again true. Hell, I've seen it in my own motors! "Brand new" rebuilds that were at 75psi shortly after the break in period ended, then completely dead in under 3,000 miles.

Good point.

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

Fair play, like you said it's the internet and I didn't know what your background is.

You are correct in that a new tune is cheaper than a new engine, the OP was actually pretty smart to get his car re-tuned when he did since his previous map was most certainly completely fucked. I had my own car mapped by the same guy that originally did the OPs and it was NOT pretty.

That being said, what you might not know about the other people you referenced is that Rotary Experiment Seven is NOT a tuner, RenesisFD is who knows (I've never seen him mentioned as a competent tuner, all I know is that he's boys with an uber-mod/admin), and I engaged Banzai because they were very obviously attacking the map with impunity under the assumption that they would not need to be accountable for their assumptions. I simply asked Banzai the uncomfortable questions and pointed out situations where they were obviously not living up to the standards by which they seem to hold others.

Now, I say "assumptions" because that's what those people are basing their positions off of. They are ASSuming that the map was tuned through the hand commander (despite the OP confirming that a datalogit and PC were used), they are ASSuming that the person doing the job had no idea what they were doing, they were ASSuming that the tune would quickly lead to the OP's motor failing. I seem to recall the OP saying that the car was running fine, it idled well, the AFR was steady and acceptable (any "hiccup" that will blow a motor at 11.7:1 would also likely blow the motor at 10.7:1).

When... Well... I've always heard it said that to "assume" something is the quickest way to make an "***" out of "u" and "me".

The OP stated that he was fine with his tune and his original purpose for posting this was just to ask if his power was acceptable. Given his modifications and engine history his power level is right where it should be with a conservative tune. That should have been the end of the story.... And yet it clearly isn't.

I apologize for assuming that you were just one of the many fanboys floating around this site.