The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support Fuel Injector Clinic
Please Support Rix Racing

The Tuning Guide Sucks!- Yea, I said it!

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

pickens

20+ Year Contributor
544
5
Jan 17, 2003
Southern California, California
I have yet to see any 2g eclipse put down 300hp w/ the mods listed in the tuning guide. I've seen cars with the mods in the guide (plus a few extras) only put down 240-250 average whp routinely. Now, from the experience w/ my car, I am really starting to believe its not accurate. To run enough psi to make 300hp with the "tuning guides" supporting mods, you will also need to include some injectors and some sort of fuel control (to avoid fuel cut) and possibly race gas. I was also suspect of that tuning guide because it appeared to be to easy. So, I say change the tuning guide or take its misleading information down. But, nevertheless if I am wrong, lets see some dyno charts to back it up!
 
Or we could just put results may vary, and all the people who don't know every car is different will realize that...every car is different. It's not a fact sheet it just gives a good generalization of upgrades.
 
Originally posted by pickens
I have yet to see any 2g eclipse put down 300hp w/ the mods listed in the tuning guide. I've seen cars with the mods in the guide (plus a few extras) only put down 240-250 average whp routinely. Now, from the experience w/ my car, I am really starting to believe its not accurate. To run enough psi to make 300hp with the "tuning guides" supporting mods, you will also need to include some injectors and some sort of fuel control (to avoid fuel cut) and possibly race gas. I was also suspect of that tuning guide because it appeared to be to easy. So, I say change the tuning guide or take its misleading information down. But, nevertheless if I am wrong, lets see some dyno charts to back it up!
It doesn't say anything about whp. I think it's crank hp. Anyone else?
 
Originally posted by flinguist
It doesn't say anything about whp. I think it's crank hp. Anyone else?

I seriously think that its crank hp also. Just because different cars have different results dosent mean "the tuning guide sucks" it simply means your trying to hold whats writtin IN STONE instead of taking it as "it depends on the car and parts selected".

Like an example is this...
If a person goes with a 50trim and another person goes with a s16g as their turbo upgrade in that stage of performance, there going to seriously have different power levels once they start to get into stage 2.


Different results will happen with different trims that are selected and the cars overall condition will also play a factor in the final HP outcome also.



Now what in the world does this have to do with...
Engine Performance
Intermediate performance parts and install discussions (4G63-specific). Basic questions will be moved/deleted





I guess you should tell ludachris to change it to
Results may vary from car to car as far as the final horsepower outcome

eh?
 
Well my point really is, it is highly inaccurate. Of course performance will vary from car to car, BUT claiming 300 hp even at the crank is a bit unrealisitic for the tuning guide and I seriously hope that no one thinks that 300whp is even remotely attainble at that stage. I have yet to see a car or a dyno prove that the tuning guides figures are attainable, and therefore it is misleading people causing many to be dissappointed. I will even go as far to give a better estimate that is more realisitic. I say the tuning guide should read about 275 hp for the stage 1 mods at most and that is still generous.
 
oh, and I thought this would be a good place to post since it is dealing w/ intermediate performance parts. Also, let me add something else, I never cared to much for tuning guides and I don't suggest that anyone pays them more than two cents worth of attention when it comes to building a car. BUT, it seems that many people do believe it is possible and therefore try to follow it with high hopes. I just don't think that we should be passing on false unrealistic information to unsuspecting people.
 
Again, were talking crank horsepower, not wheel horsepower. And the 2G upgrade path recommends a turbo upgrade, and the horsepower level will greatly vary depending on which turbo is chosen. There not rules, there more like guidelines ( in a pirate voice ;) ).

Be safe. :thumb:
 
I always thought it was crank horsepower too. Isn't the rule -15% for FWD and -18% for AWD? That would translate to 255WHP for a FWD that was 300 at the crank and I think that's about right.
 
Originally posted by pickens
I have yet to see any 2g eclipse put down 300hp w/ the mods listed in the tuning guide. I've seen cars with the mods in the guide (plus a few extras) only put down 240-250 average whp routinely. Now, from the experience w/ my car, I am really starting to believe its not accurate. To run enough psi to make 300hp with the "tuning guides" supporting mods, you will also need to include some injectors and some sort of fuel control (to avoid fuel cut) and possibly race gas. I was also suspect of that tuning guide because it appeared to be to easy. So, I say change the tuning guide or take its misleading information down. But, nevertheless if I am wrong, lets see some dyno charts to back it up!

I am sure Ludachris is awaiting your revised version, so get busy! :thumb:
 
Originally posted by pickens
I have yet to see any 2g eclipse put down 300hp w/ the mods listed in the tuning guide. I've seen cars with the mods in the guide (plus a few extras) only put down 240-250 average whp routinely. Now, from the experience w/ my car, I am really starting to believe its not accurate. To run enough psi to make 300hp with the "tuning guides" supporting mods, you will also need to include some injectors and some sort of fuel control (to avoid fuel cut) and possibly race gas. I was also suspect of that tuning guide because it appeared to be to easy. So, I say change the tuning guide or take its misleading information down. But, nevertheless if I am wrong, lets see some dyno charts to back it up!

It can be misleading if you are not selective in your reading.

Originally posted by THE GUIDEA typical Stage 1 setup will raise your DSM's power output to about 300hp at the crank. That can equal mid 13's or possibly high 12 second 1/4 mile times on the track with practice. Keep in mind that not everyone will achieve the same results. The condition of the car will have a huge impact on your results.

Surprisingly the magazine we all don't care for threw some odd ball parts at the their project car and put down 290AWHP. It's possible and without a turbo upgrade also. This link does not include 3 or 4 other parts that were done prior to this run. If you look at the baseline it shows 180+ and stock it should be around 150+


Originally posted by IMPORT TUNERDyno notes: Considering it took no time at all to install the pump, this part was able to get the car to be 10-horsepower shy of the 300 mark.

Funny...

the article
 
I think the tunning guide is fine and accurate enough but that article seems way to good to be true. I have not seen to many stcck DSMs put 180 to the wheels and gaining 100hp to the wheels out of a fuel pump and exhaust that is ridiculous IMO.
 
That was a 1g on import tuner ... 2g have T25s ... nuff said. I also thing this is hp ... not Whp. I think 300 hp is possible when following the upgrade path, but no 300 whp. I strongly believe my car had 270 whp or so after stage one .. so around 300 chp. Who cares anyway??? :confused:
 
i have a subscription to import tuner, and happen to like the mag. i am a car guy, i like all types of cars including honda's. i dont particularly care for how some people fix them up, but " to each his own"
 
You mean to tell me it's not possible to achieve 300 crank horsepower with a T28 or 16G turbo upgrade and supporting mods on a 2G? Here's a quote from the Stage 1 page for the 2G:

"You'll need a T28 or 16G turbo in order to achieve the 300hp goal"

This quote was taken from this page:
http://www.dsmtuners.com/tuning-guide/2gturbo/stage1power.php

Here's another quote from the very same page - at the very first paragraph:

"A typical Stage 1 setup will raise your DSM's power output to about 300hp at the crank. That can equal mid 13's or possibly high 12 second 1/4 mile times on the track with practice. Keep in mind that not everyone will achieve the same results. The condition of the car will have a huge impact on your results."

This guide is a mix of many of the guides posted on the top DSM shop sites in the industry. I did a good amount of research before posting these guides, and also implemented a few good suggestions in order to prevent any misinformation. I know the guide is pretty generic, but it's fairly complete, and is a good tool for newbies to draw a plan from. If you feel you have a more accurate list of mods that will equal 300hp for a 2G, please list it - or tell us what you feel is missing. Then I'd like to see if others agree or disagree with your suggestions - mainly all those who have 300 crank horsepower or more. I encourage criticism, but I think your statement is very unfair and lacks evidence as to why our guide is not accurate.
 
It makes more sense since it was at the crank. Sill gaing 100hp from a fuel pump and downpipe seems really fishy to me even on a 1G. I know they can easily make 300hp on the 14b but with thoose two mods 100hp is alot.
 
Originally posted by jpolizo
I always thought it was crank horsepower too. Isn't the rule -15% for FWD and -18% for AWD? That would translate to 255WHP for a FWD that was 300 at the crank and I think that's about right.

Yes that percentage applies but to the stock HP rating. Just because you increase your HP doesn't mean it takes more HP to manage the driveline.

Example 1. 210hp (crank) stock at 18% is 37.8Hp so we should see ~ 172whp in a stock AWD DSM.

Example 2. 420hp (crank) at 18% 75.6hp which would translate to 334.4whp?

Not where I come from. Since when do you lose 75.6hp in the driveline just because you double your HP? You dont. So that 18% rule is very misleading. How you can apply it is by calculating that figure to the stock HP, then measure your real whp and ad the stock drive line loss to that amount. This will give you a much more accurate crank HP figure.

We assume that stock driveline loss is 37.8hp at 18% of 210hp from the factory. So if your car makes 350 at the wheels then your making 387.8hp at the crank (350whp + 37.8hp which is your 18% loss of factory 210hp = 387.8 crank hp)

Just a because you increase your HP does not mean that your driveline loss doubles. Ofcourse this is a gross simplification because there are many more factors, however thinking that you now have 75hp drive line loss because you doubled your factory HP is not realistic. That type of math is for somebody who when to the dyno and was dissappointed with the results and are looking to make himself feel better.
 
Even though i dont think the tuning guide sucks i think is outdated. This tuning guide might be good back in 1999 but alot has changed since then. More and more people are putting intake manifolds, cams, cam gears, LSD. They should make a part 3. Also it wouldnt hurt to go more in-depth with the suspension mods:dsm:
 
^ I about the Stage III dont you think by the time a person finish's the first two stages that they would probly know enough by then to go on there own?
 
Originally posted by Chris95GST
It makes more sense since it was at the crank. Sill gaing 100hp from a fuel pump and downpipe seems really fishy to me even on a 1G. I know they can easily make 300hp on the 14b but with thoose two mods 100hp is alot.

They also said that when they added the exhaust the boost pressure raised. That 100 HP difference was actually more fuel, better exhaust, and more boost as a result of the exhaust.
 
Originally posted by DSMJim
Yes that percentage applies but to the stock HP rating. Just because you increase your HP doesn't mean it takes more HP to manage the driveline.

Example 1. 210hp (crank) stock at 18% is 37.8Hp so we should see ~ 172whp in a stock AWD DSM.

Example 2. 420hp (crank) at 18% 75.6hp which would translate to 334.4whp?

Not where I come from. Since when do you lose 75.6hp in the driveline just because you double your HP? You dont. So that 18% rule is very misleading. How you can apply it is by calculating that figure to the stock HP, then measure your real whp and ad the stock drive line loss to that amount. This will give you a much more accurate crank HP figure.

We assume that stock driveline loss is 37.8hp at 18% of 210hp from the factory. So if your car makes 350 at the wheels then your making 387.8hp at the crank (350whp + 37.8hp which is your 18% loss of factory 210hp = 387.8 crank hp)

Just a because you increase your HP does not mean that your driveline loss doubles. Ofcourse this is a gross simplification because there are many more factors, however thinking that you now have 75hp drive line loss because you doubled your factory HP is not realistic. That type of math is for somebody who when to the dyno and was dissappointed with the results and are looking to make himself feel better.


I was always under the impression first and foremost that power to the wheels was a percentage, rather than a static loss. Besides it being a precentage loss, that loss is a tad more with AWD vehicles, probably between 20% - 23%. Interesting...
 
Subaru's AWD takes about 28% drivetrain loss.

2wd DSM's will have lower drivetrain loss than any other type of drive system, with FWD there is no heavy driveshaft or rear end like in RWD and no transfer case etC.

FWD is looking at around 12% if that loss from what ive seen..
 
Yeah, I always thought it was a percentage as well (though what I *think* won't buy you a cup of coffee). On the one hand it does seem kind of odd that you'd use twice as much horsepower on the driveline with 2x at the crank.

On the other hand it doesn't seem right that it doesn't use any more. What that would say is that transmission, bearing, and tires, on a 400HP engine at WOT don't run any warmer than they do on a 200HP, or for that matter a 20HP, engine at WOT.

Maybe it's not static, but maybe it's not linear either?
 
"keep in mind everyone will see different results". I read that already, but my criticism is that hardly anyone will see those results. I would have said no one, BUT, I stand corrected as I have found a fwd that put down 270whp. This is supposedly at 20-21psi (16g) w/ race gas. I'm still not sure how fuel cut was avoided, but nevertheless it has been claimed (not proven though). At the very least, I would add to the list a set of injectors and fuel control because I just cannot see, nor have been proved otherwise that 300 "crank" hp can be made w/ out hitting the factory fuel cut.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top