Cobb Tuning's initial test data and driving impressions for the 2006 Subaru WRX MT…
#91
Originally Posted by Christian.
I will load the VF39 vehicle on the same dyno tomorrow and report back to you guys. I need to let you know that the we have two chassis dynos and the one we originally developed the VF39 mapping on is down for servicing. The dyno will most likely read a bit differently because they run different software and they are two different (same MFG and model #, but different units) dynos...which is why the other dyno is down right now. We are upgrading the software and servicing the bearing right now. Regardless, what you want is an FP18G/VF39 comparrison on the same dyno and that is what I will try to post by Friday of this week.
#93
Here you go.
Here is a comparison dyno graph of the VF39 mapping vs. the FP18G mapping for the 2006 WRX MT. As you can see these maps produce very similar power. The FP18G flows a bit more in the upper RPM ranges. I will address any comments or questions as they are posted.
Take care,
Christian.
Take care,
Christian.
#94
Hello Christian,
I am just a little confused as to why there is a difference between the first dyno sheet you showed us and this one.
The first one showed the VF-39 doing 268 HP and 289.9 Ft-Lbs.
Now the new dyno shows the VF-39 at 247 HP and 261.7 Ft-Lbs.
Why is there a 21 HP and a 28 Ft-Lbs difference? Did you use a difference dyno? If so, which one is more accurate? The new numbers seem to be a lot lower then I expected. I thought that the 18G would be around 300 Ft-Lbs and maybe 280 HP.
Please let me know about this.
Thank you
I am just a little confused as to why there is a difference between the first dyno sheet you showed us and this one.
The first one showed the VF-39 doing 268 HP and 289.9 Ft-Lbs.
Now the new dyno shows the VF-39 at 247 HP and 261.7 Ft-Lbs.
Why is there a 21 HP and a 28 Ft-Lbs difference? Did you use a difference dyno? If so, which one is more accurate? The new numbers seem to be a lot lower then I expected. I thought that the 18G would be around 300 Ft-Lbs and maybe 280 HP.
Please let me know about this.
Thank you
#95
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 2,070
Car Info: 1995 Impreza L
Originally Posted by Christian.
I will load the VF39 vehicle on the same dyno tomorrow and report back to you guys. I need to let you know that the we have two chassis dynos and the one we originally developed the VF39 mapping on is down for servicing. The dyno will most likely read a bit differently because they run different software and they are two different (same MFG and model #, but different units) dynos...which is why the other dyno is down right now. We are upgrading the software and servicing the bearing right now. Regardless, what you want is an FP18G/VF39 comparrison on the same dyno and that is what I will try to post by Friday of this week.
Catted DP.
Take care,
Christian.
Catted DP.
Take care,
Christian.
Originally Posted by seattleswimboy
Hello Christian,
I am just a little confused as to why there is a difference between the first dyno sheet you showed us and this one.
The first one showed the VF-39 doing 268 HP and 289.9 Ft-Lbs.
Now the new dyno shows the VF-39 at 247 HP and 261.7 Ft-Lbs.
Why is there a 21 HP and a 28 Ft-Lbs difference? Did you use a difference dyno? If so, which one is more accurate? The new numbers seem to be a lot lower then I expected. I thought that the 18G would be around 300 Ft-Lbs and maybe 280 HP.
Please let me know about this.
Thank you
I am just a little confused as to why there is a difference between the first dyno sheet you showed us and this one.
The first one showed the VF-39 doing 268 HP and 289.9 Ft-Lbs.
Now the new dyno shows the VF-39 at 247 HP and 261.7 Ft-Lbs.
Why is there a 21 HP and a 28 Ft-Lbs difference? Did you use a difference dyno? If so, which one is more accurate? The new numbers seem to be a lot lower then I expected. I thought that the 18G would be around 300 Ft-Lbs and maybe 280 HP.
Please let me know about this.
Thank you
#97
Originally Posted by seattleswimboy
Ok then which one is more accurate? I mean there is a pretty big difference between the two. Thank you
Take care,
Christian.
Last edited by Christian.; 03-22-2006 at 08:41 AM.
#99
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,311
Car Info: 2011 WRX hatch gray
I have a different, but entirely related question. I've been reading about tuning for years but I've never actually played with a real dyno/car/tables; so sorry if I'm missin something.
I have a 2006 WRX wagon and have been planning to get AP to do Stage 1 for a long time. I don't care about peak power as I don't drag my car. This is my daily driver and autox and just weekend fun car so I appreciate these three things (long term reliability, MPG, an low-mid range power)
All dyno pulls are done at WOT, so this leaves out partial throttle applications (street). I noticed that the stage 1 graph and stock shows that you modified the target A/F ratio closer to 13 (stock was closer to 14.5) and pulled down the rich (A/F ~11) crossover point from ~3200rpm (stock) to and smoother transistion between 2600-3000rpm (stage 1). I'm guessing the increase in low power came from this change.
My question: how does this look in partial throttle situations? Is the target A/F the same no matter what throttle position?
I live in California so I get the crappy CA gas which means I'll actually have to use the CAStage1. I noticed that the A/F target on boost for stage1 is not as rich as the stock... does the CAstage1 A/F target lie somewhere between these two curves?
Is there anyway to see the actual boost readings superimposed on these (very helpful, thank you) graphs?
I have a 2006 WRX wagon and have been planning to get AP to do Stage 1 for a long time. I don't care about peak power as I don't drag my car. This is my daily driver and autox and just weekend fun car so I appreciate these three things (long term reliability, MPG, an low-mid range power)
All dyno pulls are done at WOT, so this leaves out partial throttle applications (street). I noticed that the stage 1 graph and stock shows that you modified the target A/F ratio closer to 13 (stock was closer to 14.5) and pulled down the rich (A/F ~11) crossover point from ~3200rpm (stock) to and smoother transistion between 2600-3000rpm (stage 1). I'm guessing the increase in low power came from this change.
My question: how does this look in partial throttle situations? Is the target A/F the same no matter what throttle position?
I live in California so I get the crappy CA gas which means I'll actually have to use the CAStage1. I noticed that the A/F target on boost for stage1 is not as rich as the stock... does the CAstage1 A/F target lie somewhere between these two curves?
Is there anyway to see the actual boost readings superimposed on these (very helpful, thank you) graphs?
#100
Christian- I was wondering if you will be doing a map for the vf34. if so when can we expect it to come out, i am looking to get an AP and STi TMIC with a Turbo back exhuast but i was also wanting to run the vf34 rather than the vf39 or fp18g because of the quicker spool up and high flow capability.
#101
Originally Posted by kreature12
Christian- I was wondering if you will be doing a map for the vf34. if so when can we expect it to come out, i am looking to get an AP and STi TMIC with a Turbo back exhuast but i was also wanting to run the vf34 rather than the vf39 or fp18g because of the quicker spool up and high flow capability.
Take care,
Christian.
#102
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a glass case of emotion.
Posts: 17,962
Car Info: 345/30/19s
Originally Posted by kreature12
Christian- I was wondering if you will be doing a map for the vf34. if so when can we expect it to come out, i am looking to get an AP and STi TMIC with a Turbo back exhuast but i was also wanting to run the vf34 rather than the vf39 or fp18g because of the quicker spool up and high flow capability.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kostamojen
Bay Area
18
08-13-2004 07:19 AM