Osiris uprev tune 05 fx 35.

Just had the FX re-tuned after installing/performing the following mods within the past few months:

1. BG INDUCTION SERVICE PER BUILDUP IN ENGINE
2. CUSTOM OIL SEPERATOR KIT TO STOP OIL INGESTION THROUGH PCV SYSTEM
3. DENSO IRIDIUM SPARK PLUGS
4. MOTUL SYNTHETIC OIL W/ K&N OIL FILTER
5. TRANSGO SHIFT KIT
6. H & R PERFORMANCE LOWERING SPRINGS
7. GTR WHEELS

MAX HP: 250.9 HP
MAX TORQUE: 276.6 FT-LBS

[Dead Link Removed]

IMAG0025_zpshmvm8lk1.jpg

IMAG0022_zps3awjzjwp.jpg
 
Awesome man...will be doing an Uprev tune this summer...I have similar mods so should have similar results.

Sent from my C6606
 
Thats incredible. My car made very simillar HP, and yet your torque number is through the roof.

Your car is supposedly making like 40 more ft-lbs then mine. Mods alone do not explain that difference.

What type of dyno is it?
 
meme405 said:
Thats incredible. My car made very simillar HP, and yet your torque number is through the roof.

Your car is supposedly making like 40 more ft-lbs then mine. Mods alone do not explain that difference.

What type of dyno is it?
Click to expand...

If u looked at the dyno, that's torque spike in the beginning, most likely a glitch. Since it has a huge drop off, torque doesn't drop like that. Still average torque is around 250. Peak HP and torque is great for bragging and etc, but aside from that you need to look at power under the curve and the gains thru out the whole band.

How does it feel now? I just learned recently a shiftkit is best paired with a tune, because you can increase line pressure even more to make the car a beast as well as take full advantage of a shiftkit.



Sent from my GT-I9505G
 
Oh I didn't realize that he had his chart, yes something skewed that result from 2K to 3K. For reference my chart is below.

IMAG0728_zpscfebca4e.jpg

My torque curve is very flat from about 3300 all the way to 6000 I have max torque. Then it drops off.

my final numbers were 253 hp and 237 torque. On a mustang dyno.

---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

Also the dyno chart shows your car pulling well into the 7K mark, which is not right, without different internals a VQ would not achieve that type of RPM.
 
meme405 said:
Oh I didn't realize that he had his chart, yes something skewed that result from 2K to 3K. For reference my chart is below.

IMAG0728_zpscfebca4e.jpg

My torque curve is very flat from about 3300 all the way to 6000 I have max torque. Then it drops off.

my final numbers were 253 hp and 237 torque. On a mustang dyno.

---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

Also the dyno chart shows your car pulling well into the 7K mark, which is not right, without different internals a VQ would not achieve that type of RPM.
Click to expand...

Your dip spike and dip before 3k, is most likely from the torque converter going into full lock up.

My dyno isn't too far off either. I'll dig it up later.

Sent from my GT-I9505G
 
la_fx35 said:
But remember external environment plays a major factor among dyno results
Click to expand...
It also depends on the size of the tuner too that is sitting in your car. :wink:

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

Dyno used was Dynocom. Yes with uprev software you can set the shifts to be as firm as you want them. My FX shifts more quicker and firmly up to 3K rpm, than before the tune.
 
Old thread but I'm bored and must add my 2c... Ain't no way in hell the fx w/those mods is putting that power to the wheels, guaranteed. The mustang dyno is typically going to show you the lowest #'s BUT I was told by an experienced tuner who happens to own a mustang dyno that he can make your results look as good as you wish. I'll venture a guess and say this particular tuner is hoping for more business, with his uber impressive numbers, as apparently he can tune the hell out of an engine or he was confused. The hp portion of that chart climbs as though there's a centrifugal s.c. involved. Either the dyno was calibrated poorly, not at all, dude was confused or those huge tires (32-33 diameter?) were in your favor (head scratch). Though potentially (?) favorable on a dyno, not so much on the street. Either way, nice fx guy!
 
Are you referring to meme's dyno above? Doesn't seem that unreasonable since the power curve looks about the same as any bolt on 350Z or G35. ~20hp from bolt ons and Uprev aren't out of the ordinary on the VQ, see it all the time on the FX as well as the G/Z.

Mustang dyno and dynojet work on the same principal. But on the Mustang, there is also a brake that can simulate additional load. So that's why it reads the lowest usually (they've simulated load). It's to help with accuracy and tuning since a dynojet has rollers of a fixed weight and cars are all different weights. So with a dynojet compared to the street, there can be a significant different in AFR due to the lower load on the dyno. That can lead to issues of running lean and also why a lot of the glory runs you see on dynojets would not be safe to run on the street. If you have a Mustang, that can be adjusted. In theory, the operator could input a higher load on the first run and then lower the load on the 2nd to show bigger gains (dyno results for gasoline additives probably do this). But that doesn't remotely look like what the chart above shows.
 
shadow191 said:
Are you referring to meme's dyno above? Doesn't seem that unreasonable since the power curve looks about the same as any bolt on 350Z or G35. ~20hp from bolt ons and Uprev aren't out of the ordinary on the VQ, see it all the time on the FX as well as the G/Z.

Mustang dyno and dynojet work on the same principal. But on the Mustang, there is also a brake that can simulate additional load. So that's why it reads the lowest usually (they've simulated load). It's to help with accuracy and tuning since a dynojet has rollers of a fixed weight and cars are all different weights. So with a dynojet compared to the street, there can be a significant different in AFR due to the lower load on the dyno. That can lead to issues of running lean and also why a lot of the glory runs you see on dynojets would not be safe to run on the street. If you have a Mustang, that can be adjusted. In theory, the operator could input a higher load on the first run and then lower the load on the 2nd to show bigger gains (dyno results for gasoline additives probably do this). But that doesn't remotely look like what the chart above shows.
Click to expand...

I lumped the two together, didn't I.
Neither one looks/sounds right, especially Exotich's.
The chart, if it were on an algorithmic scale, would make more sense concerning h.p. The climb looks so steep, like one from a centrifugal s.c. I've observed other charts as well and most don't appear to me to have such a strong vertical climb, especially through the middle of the chart. Mine doesn't. The torque starts and stays high while the hp gets up at a lower rpm
Exotich's #'s doesn't add up either. I be willing to bet those tires measure 32-33 inches thus effectively decreasing his final drive which is in no way good for torque multiplication on the road. Off the top of my head, he went from a 3.7 to a 3.5 if those are 32" tires. Stock tires on 18's or 20's measure 30.6".
I've read that tire diameter size can have an affect and it appears, per Exotich's torque, that it would be an opposite affect which explains his torque reading. I'd love to bother my tuner for answers but I've got enough, more pressing questions for him.
I'd post my recent dyno but my last names on it. 190.5 ft lbs and 201.6 hp. My tuner told me his dyno runs 8-15% low w/an average of 10% so conservatively, 209.55 ft lbs and 221.76 hp are my #'s on an AWD.
Mods - Kinetix hfc, Kin. V plenum, pcv delete, k&n drop in, z tube w/modified stock box, unortho. under drive pulley set, iridium plugs, an unusual water inj. setup that I've been toying with but is on the fritz, (weight reduction and brake suspension b.s. that does nothing onthe dyno) and 29" tires giving a 3.9 final drive. He was able to bump the timing a bit, move the rev limiter to 6,900 among other things. It feels good.
One might expect a 3.9 to give a higher torque reading than a 3.5 but I believe it's just the opposite, considering the #'s, on a dyno, certainly a mustang dyno.
My assumptions are w/the understanding that both of the above are AWD. My tuner said the best he's seen was a 350z w/the vq35de @ 250 whp w/full bolt on's, including headers. He also said, as I stated previously, that he can make the charts looks as good as I wish. Did this 350z's dyno adjust for the 10% I do not know. What I do know is these dyno's, the tuners, tire presure, tire size, the conditions, and the inputs give many different results on paper but in the end, toe to toe, same autos w/the same mods, they're a horse a piece, save for the driver. Thanks for the reply shadow191.
 
twinkletoes said:
I lumped the two together, didn't I.
Neither one looks/sounds right, especially Exotich's.
The chart, if it were on an algorithmic scale, would make more sense concerning h.p. The climb looks so steep, like one from a centrifugal s.c. I've observed other charts as well and most don't appear to me to have such a strong vertical climb, especially through the middle of the chart. Mine doesn't. The torque starts and stays high while the hp gets up at a lower rpm
Exotich's #'s doesn't add up either. I be willing to bet those tires measure 32-33 inches thus effectively decreasing his final drive which is in no way good for torque multiplication on the road. Off the top of my head, he went from a 3.7 to a 3.5 if those are 32" tires. Stock tires on 18's or 20's measure 30.6".
I've read that tire diameter size can have an affect and it appears, per Exotich's torque, that it would be an opposite affect which explains his torque reading. I'd love to bother my tuner for answers but I've got enough, more pressing questions for him.
I'd post my recent dyno but my last names on it. 190.5 ft lbs and 201.6 hp. My tuner told me his dyno runs 8-15% low w/an average of 10% so conservatively, 209.55 ft lbs and 221.76 hp are my #'s on an AWD.
Mods - Kinetix hfc, Kin. V plenum, pcv delete, k&n drop in, z tube w/modified stock box, unortho. under drive pulley set, iridium plugs, an unusual water inj. setup that I've been toying with but is on the fritz, (weight reduction and brake suspension b.s. that does nothing onthe dyno) and 29" tires giving a 3.9 final drive. He was able to bump the timing a bit, move the rev limiter to 6,900 among other things. It feels good.
One might expect a 3.9 to give a higher torque reading than a 3.5 but I believe it's just the opposite, considering the #'s, on a dyno, certainly a mustang dyno.
My assumptions are w/the understanding that both of the above are AWD. My tuner said the best he's seen was a 350z w/the vq35de @ 250 whp w/full bolt on's, including headers. He also said, as I stated previously, that he can make the charts looks as good as I wish. Did this 350z's dyno adjust for the 10% I do not know. What I do know is these dyno's, the tuners, tire presure, tire size, the conditions, and the inputs give many different results on paper but in the end, toe to toe, same autos w/the same mods, they're a horse a piece, save for the driver. Thanks for the reply shadow191.
Click to expand...

So your entire analysis of the other car's dyno numbers are because your car didn't achieve the same number?

Every dyno reads differently, things like altitude, air temperature, and myriads of other factors affect a dyno, and a car on the day of the tuning. What I do know is that the Dyno my car was tuned on (and for which that paper came from) is nicknamed "the heartbreaker" because it's a notoriously low reading dyno compared to all others in oregon, washington, BC and alberta. Basically it's one of the toughest dyno's in the PNW.

What I can say, is that keep in mind my car is 6+ years newer than yours, and that could go a long ways towards why my numbers might be slightly higher. Cars lose power as they age, this is just a fact.

Also exotich has factory sized tires as did I at the time of my dyno runs (he is running 295/45 in the rear and 265/50 in the front), that's almost exactly bang on stock.
 
meme405 said:
So your entire analysis of the other car's dyno numbers are because your car didn't achieve the same number?

Every dyno reads differently, things like altitude, air temperature, and myriads of other factors affect a dyno, and a car on the day of the tuning. What I do know is that the Dyno my car was tuned on (and for which that paper came from) is nicknamed "the heartbreaker" because it's a notoriously low reading dyno compared to all others in oregon, washington, BC and alberta. Basically it's one of the toughest dyno's in the PNW.

What I can say, is that keep in mind my car is 6+ years newer than yours, and that could go a long ways towards why my numbers might be slightly higher. Cars lose power as they age, this is just a fact.

Also exotich has factory sized tires as did I at the time of my dyno runs (he is running 295/45 in the rear and 265/50 in the front), that's almost exactly bang on stock.
Click to expand...

No,no no no, not at all fellow fx'er in arms meme405. Please take no offense to my analysis. I'd love to see legit high numbers and if your's are, good for you! You said your fx is 6+ years newer. I didn't know you had a 2nd gen? Now that would make sense as to why the chart looks that way. Years and mileage would be a different story. Say you had an 08 @ 100k and I w/an 03 @ 88k, the 03 would be better off but either way, an insignificant difference imho.

I've heard of and read other dyno's having been referred to as the heartbreaker as well. They were all mustang dynos.

"Also exotich has factory sized tires as did I at the time of my dyno runs (he is running 295/45 in the rear and 265/50 in the front), that's almost exactly bang on stock."

Now this, this I gotta take issue with. In good spirit, no offense and kick me in the nutz if I'm wrong but those tires look HUGE!!! These are the GTR wheels? They look sweet, for sure, but they're 20's, right? There's a lot of sidewall on them thar 20's man. Reminds me of what I have on my little 18's. I gotta stand by what I see in that those tires would measure @ least 32" diameter and I stand by it, possibly looking like a fool (wouldn't be the 1st and won't be the last time) not to mention the fact that would explain the torque reading.

Car for car, mod for mod, all things being equal, you're going to end up with extremely similar results, dyno be damned.

I've got a fun, quick story to share. Alright, so I'm at an intersection waiting for green, in the right lane. Got some jackass to my left. A car pulls to my right in a lane that will end not far on the opposite side of the intersection. I look over and it's a black S5. What year? Didn't ask. Didn't matter. Didn't care. Guy had to merge someway, somehow. I got's my moms in twinkletoes and moms gives me the thumbs up. Guy's got a friend in his. The light turns green and what a great launch @3k rpm's. S5 didn't see that coming, though he surged forward as well. Had him by almost 1 car 1/2 way through. Opposite side of the intersection (four lane divided highway and a major intersection, so large) he's a car and by the time I let of, just shifting into 3rd @ 75ish, he's 1/2 car behind my rear bumper. Was this an A5 w/S5 badging? Was this the worst driver ever? What I can say for sure is he was pissed (by the look on his face) and that was a blast. Thanks for the reply meme405!
 
la_fx35 said:
Your mom must be real proud of that. Did she ask to do that again? (y)
Click to expand...
Whenever she's in the car guy! God I love my mom and she likes to drive fast!
I'm actually glad you chimed in la_fx35. I was wondering, are you seriously trying to rock that aftermarket front bumper alone, or just need a little more time to pay off that walmart body kit you got on lay-away cause I gotta tell you, in all honesty, it's looks a little odd.
Hey guy, just trying to help, naa mee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top