This may be true, but I manage 7s at showtime and my car probably weighs about 4k and makes 426 rwhp on the dyno. DA is usually in the 2000s. This should be around 11s, at least i hope haha.
As others mentioned, I'm honestly disappointed by the increase from stock to 93. Making noticeable gains from 5500-6500 isn't enough for me to go with this tune. I'm sure drivability will be better, etc., but that's it?
I wasn't referring to E85. I was speaking on the gains from stock to 93. I'm not a big E85 guy. Can't get it in my area.
E85 still has significant benefits over gas with the right tune.
I see significant gains over 5000. I see nothing significant below that. ~5whp/wtq is within the noise, IMO.
I told him the same thing. If you look at Lund 93 octane tune only or even Steeda's or Bama's 93 octane tunes, stock vs tuned ton of videos out there, it is clear that you gain more than 9 lb ft, more like 20 lb ft range. Even there are other Lund Flex fuel dynos on 93 octane vs e85 videos out there.
It has to be something. Those numbers were with an intake. We can debate on how much of that gain is attributable to an open hood, etc., but a tune that compensates for the change to cone filter element should do something to take advantage of the added flow of an intake, i.e., he'd gain even less if the intake wasn't there, esp. up top.
Haha i am saying all this but i might be in trouble today. My car with stock tune , no tune steeda, intake, h pipe with catback put down 395 whp and 368 lbft of torque running Shell 93 Octane Nitro. As comparison my old ls3 camaro on the same dyno put down 368 whp and 366 lbft with better cooler air. A member here with a gtpp AED e85 tune bigger injectors, steeda intake no restrictor, full exhaust put down 415 whp and 385 lb ft of torque on similar air same dyno. It even depends on the car i guess.
