BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I finally got the car to the Dyno today to see how my evolve flash stacked up against my last run with the Conforti Shark tune. I was expecting great things, since the car felt much smoother and stronger everywhere in the rev range. I was very pleased to see that the car made an additional 18WHP over the exact same setup with the Shark Injector tune.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,597 Posts
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Thats incredible. Congrats! Did you use the same dyno on both runs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Thats incredible. Congrats! Did you use the same dyno on both runs?

Yep. Same dyno. Same operator. No tricks of any kind. It really feels like a different car with the Evolve tune!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
Less max torque...interesting. Glad to hear your car is up to snuff now.

Wait, didn't you decide you needed to replace your MAF's after doing the original dyno? It would be interesting to see what the shark tune would have done with proper MAF's before changing tunes to give an apples to apples comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Less max torque...interesting. Glad to hear your car is up to snuff now.

Wait, didn't you decide you needed to replace your MAF's after doing the original dyno? It would be interesting to see what the shark tune would have done with proper MAF's before changing tunes to give an apples to apples comparison.

I agree as far as the apples-apples, but my MAF's were fine. Only used for about 17k miles. I've gotten a couple of PM's from people with similar experiences who didn't wish to speak on this thread. I'm not sure what to make of the max torque either. It makes way more down low (+20~ pounds at 2500 RPM) and it makes more everywhere else, except at that peak spot. I'm very happy, though. Can't wait to do some additional mods...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
I agree as far as the apples-apples, but my MAF's were fine. Only used for about 17k miles. I've gotten a couple of PM's from people with similar experiences who didn't wish to speak on this thread. I'm not sure what to make of the max torque either. It makes way more down low (+20~ pounds at 2500 RPM) and it makes more everywhere else, except at that peak spot. I'm very happy, though. Can't wait to do some additional mods...
Comparing to Jon's (M55555) dyno it looks like the only difference could be attributed to the dyno it was tested on. His peak HP and Torque are both right around +10 on yours. Nice healthy graphs for both!

 
  • Like
Reactions: M55555

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
That makes sense. Usually there is an even bigger discrepency between the Mainline/DynoDynamics type of Dyno's and the Dynojet type dyno's. Invite him to Temecula, so we can use the same dyno!
 
  • Like
Reactions: M55555

·
Company Representative for Evolve Automotive
Joined
·
3,068 Posts
That's a good set of graphs!

There is something wrong with the torque calculation. Our tune has gained HP throughout the RPM range and therefore will have more torque too.

Where ever HP goes up, TORQUE has to go up.

The HP graph is the one to use on a mainline as this is what it measures and then calculates the torque.

As for comparing dynojet figures to mainline - don't even try!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks Sal! Excellent product!
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top