Gained: 21.56hp and 32.96 ft pound of torque

Sscarpaci · Post by **Sscarpaci** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:05 pm

2010 Dodge Challenger R/T 5.7L , K&N CIA, Magnaflow Catback... 85 degrees and 94% humidity. U7135 with the 29 crom...

Stock Tune: 312.34hp @ 326.63 torque

93 CIA Modified Tune: 333.91hp @ 359.32 torque

Gained 21.56hp and 32.96 ft pound of torque

Not sure how happy I am with this, I guess at $16 per 1 hp gain, ok?

Post by **mikel** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:12 pm

You should be ecstatic.

I bet it feels much better, no?

Nothing you ever do to the car will offer that kind of HP/$$, except maybe N2O....

Do you know what they modified in the tune?

rdrdr90 · Post by **rdrdr90** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:27 pm

Exactly my question....what was modified in the tune?

STUNNAH · Post by **STUNNAH** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:06 pm

I thought your car made about 375hp stock???

neonsox · Post by **neonsox** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:50 pm

STUNNAH wrote:I thought your car made about 375hp stock???

His numbers are at the wheels. Not bad gains, though.

Sscarpaci · Post by **Sscarpaci** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:14 pm

I think there is a way to save the tune to my computer and then I would galdly down load it. I know the guy spent a tone of time tweaking the spark and fuel mixture, we took the rev up to I think 6100 or 6300, it really jumps on the first shift. I did not do all the tuning, the guys at Jakes automotive in Sterling Heights, MI did...

mikel :can you drop me a note on how to exactly to get the data so I can share exactly what we did...

I was told that you divide my number by .72 to get the HP at the crank (what Dodge quotes, 370hp). ='s 463.75hp ... I also read it should be more like 20% , 417.39 makes more sense.... you guess

Mike_Levy · Post by **Mike_Levy** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:53 pm

Dividing by .72 is way too much parasitic loss. I lose about that with the Jeep and thats through the transfer case as well, which you don't have. 0.80 is probably closer.

Sscarpaci · Post by **Sscarpaci** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:55 pm

Agreed 100%... but when you are tryin to sell a Dyno Service, go higher or go home....

Post by **mikel** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:00 pm

All that matter with the dyno is to be able to see repeatable results to see gains, and you got them.

DGatzby1 · Post by **DGatzby1** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:30 pm

Now go out and run some 1/4 miles and see what it really does. Sounds like a good tune.

69rrbruce · Post by **69rrbruce** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:11 pm

Sscarpaci wrote:I think there is a way to save the tune to my computer and then I would galdly down load it. I know the guy spent a tone of time tweaking the spark and fuel mixture, we took the rev up to I think 6100 or 6300, it really jumps on the first shift. I did not do all the tuning, the guys at Jakes automotive in Sterling Heights, MI did...

mikel :can you drop me a note on how to exactly to get the data so I can share exactly what we did...

I was told that you divide my number by .72 to get the HP at the crank (what Dodge quotes, 370hp). ='s 463.75hp ... I also read it should be more like 20% , 417.39 makes more sense.... you guess

If you assume you had 370 crank HP (CKHP) with the stock tune:
312.34 RWHP / 370 CKHP = 84.4 % efficiency
So if you use the same 84.4% with modified tune:
333.91/84.4% = 395.63 CKHP

However, if your CKHP was actually 380CKHP then your efficiency % would drop to 82.2 and your modified RWHP would go up to 406.21RWHP.

Conversely, if your CKHP was actually 360CKHP then your efficiency % would rise to 86.7 and your modified RWHP would go down to 385.13RWHP

Just like in politics....you can twist the numbers to go anyway you want.

The proof is when the rubber meets the road!

DGatzby1 · Post by **DGatzby1** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:41 am

^^^ TRUE "the proof is when the rubber meets the road" When he gets some acceleration times he can prove if the dyno is accurate on both the base and modified numbers.

All good calc's shown above. Given the 85% efficiency those seem like reasonable numbers. There is no need to guess at the efficiency numbers. He has the stock brake HP shown. As it is correctly shown, easy enough to calculate the efficiency given his stock numbers against the factory published number at the crank. That was his vehicle's efficiency that day with that density altitude. As he correctly posts, he has the stock vs. the modified HP readings on the same dyno, same day, so no matter what efficiency you want to multiply the numbers by, he gained 25 hp +/-. Pretty good for plugging in a device for a couple of minutes. I would say it looks like the guy did a pretty good job at the tune.

To add, some real good CMR tunes have the tables modified throughout the RPM ranges and not just on the top of the chart, now, those are the tunes you want, because the vehicle will even be stronger with a greater area under the torque curve and feel more response for everyday driving.

Gained: 21.56hp and 32.96 ft pound of torque

Gained: 21.56hp and 32.96 ft pound of torque

RE: Gained: 21.56hp and 32.96 ft pound of torque