451WHP-92oct-EPL Stg3-AMD Tuned

[Jason@Addict]

Congrats to D-Shot, rolled off 451whp yesterday on Dyno Authority's Mustang in Redmond, WA. 500whp coming soon from AMD. This is on our states wonderful 92oct, that works about as good as CA 91.

2000 S4
EPL Stg 3 (Tony is THE MAN)
PJ K04
AWE IC
2.5 Dual
Aquamist HFS-1

[AudiTechS4]

very nice there man congrats

[S4Per]

awesome.

did you use the achtuning baseline config for the dyno or other (that's what I used when I was there)? 3rd gear?

[Matt@JHM]

I'm having a very hard time believing that.

[FrimmelNoJerz]

2nd

[bone_doc S4]

thats a very happy dyno....

what kind of FATS is he doing?

[Jason@Addict]

Here's another run with a little less HP and more TQ, my preffered set up. This dyno is not known for big numbers as anyone who has used it with an Audi can assure. Our test 01.5 S4 stock low mileage great condition car runs 202whp.

Again, this car is running 50/50 Aquamist with dual .7mm jets on 92 octane. FATS from these dyno runs are below.

Thanks for looking, we were impressed with the results too. This would not be possible without Tony and EPL. This car has gone through many files to achieve these numbers. Boost is 24 spike taper to 22.

[Dr.Duct]

nice numbers..

Aqua mist kit is alot like running race gas, correct? So these number's should be compared to race gas numbers. instead of other pump numbers, correct?

either way, its still impressive.. Good work

[Jason@Addict]

I hear ya...but we're running ignition curves that look much more like 94oct then race gas, and therefor I would expect a decent gain from even 100oct in this set up let alone MS109. I'm just saying, we go to the gas station and put in 92oct, not race gas.

[2ndEngineS4]

Take it to the track. Post the video.

end thread.

[generationjdm]

So the car made more power on the mustang dyno then the dyno-jet, HHHHMMM what does that tell ya.. So the car should be in the 120sss mph at almost full weight? Curious why the car lost over 30ftlbs from the top dyno sheet compared to the second sheet?

[Jason@Addict]

Those charts were the same dyno same day, it ran in the 460tq range the rest of the runs, I posted the big horsepower. The 435tq was a one run fluke. Regardless, I don't know what the DynoJet thing is about...

[McKennaS4]

methanol injection will be able to run a closer to race gas timing curve. if you have it accessible, please post the timing curve. there is no doubt that race fuel WITH meth will yield higher numbers and it is a good thing you posted these numbers to enlighten others to the help that meth injection with a good custom tune can do for you. please post the iat logs too if you have them. looking good guys!

[Jason@Addict]

Closer to 5 degrees then 10 at torque peak... IAT's are good though

[McKennaS4]

nice timing curve. i wouldn't say it looks anything like a 94 octane timing curve with awe ics and no meth tho ;) but honestly. these 2 logs should wake people up to meth. btw im a hypocrite because i dont run meth yet. did you guys adjust his hfs-1? im trying to decide that and the 5. appears that the 1 works fine but what is the diff? more failsafes on the 5 or what? sorry i haen't done much research on the kits and if you don't know tha is fine.

[FrimmelNoJerz]

THATS WHAT IVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!!!!
buy my meth kit.

[McKennaS4]

i would frimmel but im looking to go with a progressive kit with a higher quality failsafe. i;d kill myself if i went cheapo on like 300 bucks and it failed on me... can you say... Knock Knock, who's there? , kaboom!

[maxspeed]

hehe, it would be funny to superimpose a 1.8t k04 dyno plot over that, the party would be way over before yours ever really gets started...

[Jason@Addict]

We are the dealer/installer of Aquamist in our area so I do know a little about the new stuff and installing it in these cars. The difference between the HFS-1 and HFS-5 is simply that the HFS-5 matches injector pulsewidth via a high speed valve to regulate flow. This allows a straight percentage of water/meth to be injected in relation to fuel, which is easier to tune for and uses less water/meth in general. That being said, we are seeing less of a need for the more expensive progressive set up in these cars because we all like to either make full boost, or little to no boost, therefore the fact that the system switches on at a point and flows X amount doesn't matter as much. We have an HFS-5 in a car and honestly I didn't really notice the difference of the progressive nature, because pulsewidth just goes from 6ms to 13ms when you hit boost, and doesn't spend much time in between.

That might be different with very large jets, higher meth percentages, very high horsepower, race gas, etc, but the HFS-1 kit works very well for these cars in every installation we have done.

The new HFS-1 series doesn't require a stand alone boost switch either, and has many new features over the older Aquamist stuff, I have included a link to descriptions.

http://http://www.aquamist.co.uk/for.../HFS-5-v3w.pdf

http://http://www.aquamist.co.uk/for...FS-1web-sr.pdf

[FrimmelNoJerz]

i would frimmel but im looking to go with a progressive kit with a higher quality failsafe. i;d kill myself if i went cheapo on like 300 bucks and it failed on me... can you say... Knock Knock, who's there? , kaboom!

cheapo? theres nothing about aquamist thats cheapo..its one of the kits that EPL suggested to me and i bought it from them.

[generationjdm]

Run the car at the track and let the time and mph speak for it self. If the car doesn't go 120+ then you know... What gear did you run the car in?

[bone_doc S4]

I'd say 92oct plus 50/50 meth would yield at least 96/97 octane, def should be more than 94.

Just for reference I do 3.02-3.05 FATS and only did 410 on a conservative mustang.

Regardless, nice #s for pump/meth.

[generationjdm]

Whats the fueling setup on the car ie injectors size maf fpr etc?

[Das General]

i think they use 85mm and 60#

epl used to sell their maf without their tune/kit and it was an 85mm guy

[SoSlow]

i like how these guys try to pawn it off as 92 octane and then at the very bottom of the post put something like "oh yea, aquamist too"

either way, decent numbers, but not just 92 octane like you make it seem

[CHEROHALA]

congrats. lots of haters on this forum.

[EvilllEmpirE]

congrats. lots of haters on this forum.

lol......what r u reading? I see no hating going on this forum.....at least not in this thread.

451 whp on 92 + Water/Meth is what a well-running K04 car can (and should) do. Especially with a Boost profile of 24 --> 22 PSI.......each PSI above 20 usually yields about 15-20 wheel (give or take.....roughly)

Also....202 whp on a Mustang makes that particular Mustang a "hair" happy imho. Bonestock B5 S4's usually Dyno 180ish to 195ish whp max on Mustangs (ie AWE's and GIAC's).

So.....given all these factors....451 is a job well done, but nothing super special

Also.....remember guys, those FATs #'s are on the Dyno runs, not street. In reall world street pulls.....you could safely say it would yield anywhere from (3.0xxx to 3.2xxx FATs times)....depending on road grade.

[Boris]

CAn you just install a WI kit, or do you need to tune for it? I know tuning would be optimal, but Im wondering if you can just put it on?

[McKennaS4]

sure can but i would say you wont yield gains enough to warrant buying it. they are not what i consider cheap so i'd say definately get tuned after. (but this goes for pretty much any mod) i dont think i could ever run off the shelf tune unless i was fluent in tweaking.

[generationjdm]

I've seen cars that made 370whp pull 3.1 fat times so making almost 100whp doesn't seem right to me... I also know cars that pull low 2.8 fat times that hardly crack 400whp.. The graph looks really good nice broad power band good job!

[PinoyS4]

Take it to the track. Post the video.

end thread.

x2

[Boris]

I like the big numbers. But I havent seen any of these high number cars do much on the streets or track over lower rated stg 3's. Doesnt mean they cant, but personally, imo, alot of the higher hp cars havent even trapped faster than some ots kits from awe and apr..

Im not trying to knock the #'s,,, they are impressive , and Im glad you and EPL made them !

So I would like to see this car put it down on a track, Im all for the b5 s4 advancing! nice numbers!

[Das General]

Blah blah blah...at the end of the day you are still comparing dyno numbers, no matter who made the dyno (mustand, jet, yada yada yada).

now to be a hypocrite, 202whp on a mustang is high for stock. typically speaking, as Jackson stated, stock is around 190.

Nice numbers... time to take it to the track. = )

[s2the4]

where is your dyno numbers not running the aquamist? or is your tune made for water injection?

[Jason@Addict]

We have not tuned the current configuration (different maf with other things) for use without water/meth injection. This sheet is was the old set up with 92oct pump gas, and then 105 oct ON THE SAME PUMP GAS FILE. This was with the same full exhaust WITH cats. Not bad, but the car is MUCH stronger now.

[Jason@Addict]

Interesting how close dyno FATS are to street FATS, the first two runs are street today, and the last two are the dyno last friday.

[generationjdm]

Just run the car at the track, who cares about fat times and if the dyno reading is roughly 12-15% higher.

If the car doesn't hit low to mid 120ss for mph then you know how happy the dyno is...

[Dr. Jekyll]

Just run the car at the track, who cares about fat times and if the dyno reading is roughly 12-15% higher then it should be.

If the car doesn't hit low to mid 120ss for mph then you know how happy the dyno is...

Your average k04 car will never crack 400whp on a dyno thats reading perfect, your fueling can tell you exactly what the cars making you don't need a dyno to tell you that...

So where is this "accurate" dyno you are always referring to, located? What exactly is an accurate dyno? I know of 3 mustang 500 SE AWD dyno's, which were calibrated to Mustang's specs, that read a stock S4 at 201-202 whp. Does that mean all 3 are "inaccurate"? If his dyno is "inaccurate" why are his fats times on the dyno the same as the road fats times? Wouldn't that mean the loading is exactly the same?

Now I'm not trying to claim this dyno is a be all end all. Dyno results are all relative. Just as fats times and trap speeds are relative. Comparing them to different results from different users, dynos, tracks, roads etc. is futile. It will never truely be a 1 to 1 comparison, based on a number of factors. That said, you can get a rough estimate of a cars whp, by comparing dynos that read stock S4's the same. But again, it will never be truely a 1 to 1 comparison.

Trap times are not the be all end all either. Track conditions, drivers, timing devices, temp, altitude... etc. all pay a role in trap times as well.

My point is, your claiming of "inaccuracy" is just as bad as a tuner claiming "accuracy" of dyno results(not singling out AMD because they have not made that claim). And saying trap times are the most "accurate" is the same as someone saying Fats times are the most "accurate." Everything is relative. You can draw some rough comparisons and conclusions but they all have to be looked at in context.

[Boris]

Dr. he's just saying that the trap would corroborate with the power that is being shown on this readout. Its that simple. Nothing is perfect.

Look how many people also said take it to the track above^. People have become wary of high hp numbers, with little advancement in real world times.

Personally though, I am estactic. Isnt this a new all time high on straight ko4's? I don t think thats been mentioned. I definately want to get some meth/wi too..

[PinoyS4]

it's all paper power till you run some good times at the track