DYNO result Evotech, Powerchip, VRP530



1. stock May 2007
2. Powerchip ECU June 2007
3. Evotech ECU Feb 2008(This also includes the VRP 530)
4. Run through the gears, with Evotech and Vrp 530
The first tune (powerchip) produced better Throttle response and felt better over stock, 1/4 mile times suffered and I had the ECU re-tuned and my times improved a little. (powerchip)
In November 2007 I sent my ECU to ADAM at EE. Oliver retuned the ECU , a dyno was not used. There was a small improvement in Trap in the 1/8th and 1/4 mile.
The VRP 530 package plus Evotech tune are #3 and 4
Please check the latest dyno results and let me know if the A/F is unsafe, car was on 93 octane. Let me know if anybody has had any problems with the Evotech ECU tun
1.

2.

3.

4.
Last edited by juicee63; Feb 6, 2008 at 05:50 PM.



I did not cool her and she pulled 430-440 3 times, add 2% for the old model dynojet(according to op) his dyno is lower than newer models.. Car definately has no limiter
438-449 seems to be what he thought the range on a new dynojet would be.
Anybody in LA needing a Dyno DC Performance is tremendous value, 75.00 This is nextto 110 motoring, which I drove by, sorry guys for not stopping , great looking 63 sitting in front.



funny she shifted out to 7th gear at 173 mph!! I definately make it to 200 if the dyno could take it. Just as I suspected from 90-130 the 63 is amazing then it shifts out, 4th gear definately=most power
490 at the wheels LOL!!! How the heck did that happen?
Last edited by juicee63; Feb 6, 2008 at 05:52 PM.
funny she shifted out to 7th gear at 173 mph!! I definately make it to 200 if the dyno could take it. Just as I suspected from 90-130 the 63 is amazing then it shifts out, 4th gear definately=most power
490 at the wheels LOL!!! How the heck did that happen?
Last edited by gripforce-cl65; Feb 6, 2008 at 07:40 PM.
Trending Topics



THAY ARE AWESOME!!! I really got alot of tips from LYLE!! Those vipers were SIK
The Best of Mercedes & AMG



Your car didn't really make 489rwhpIt' s a glitch...Happens all the time.. Infact that entire last run is full of spikes, it should be like the rest of them, more flat..
Last edited by Thericker; Feb 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM.



Your car didn't really make 489rwhpIt' s a glitch...Happens all the time.. Infact that entire last run is full of spikes, it should be like the rest of them, more flat..
The spikes are shift points as we ran to 7th hitting 182 mph
I will ask Chris to explain the "spike" to 489. He stated the car made it but it was due to the inertia produced from "running through the gears".
The spikes in the run are from shifting , the power produced was not a glitch , however spikes are not really a true indicator of usable peak hp as you see in the graph what goes up comes down. The car sweet spot is 90-135. and shifting 6800-7100. In previous dyno runs I think operators stopped short of peak, car must redline IMO.
Last edited by juicee63; Feb 7, 2008 at 02:26 AM.
The spikes are shift points as we ran to 7th hitting 182 mph
I will ask Chris to explain the "spike" to 489. He stated the car made it but it was due to the inertia produced from "running through the gears".
The spikes in the run are from shifting , the power produced was not a glitch , however spikes are not really a true indicator of usable peak hp as you see in the graph what goes up comes down. The car sweet spot is 90-135. and shifting 6800-7100. In prvieous dyno runs I think operators stopped short of peak, car must redline IMO.
Or do you actually believe an ECU tune on N/A 93 octane can garner, 83+ RWHP & 108 RWTO gains
Not unless you're using Turbos or nos
That U would get w/600/65 motors, Think logically, the other (3) Dynos show your aerage being muh lower, but thi 1 3rd i totally higher w/notable pikes...
Erveryone knows a good eu tune is worth @ bet 15-20 rwhp & rwto on N/A vehile
& please lets run my C6 410rwp 397 rwto on the frwy (advantage to you) & you should take me up on that?? my lower weight shouldnt matter at frwy speeds, are you down bro? Halfway? Laters
No hard feeling, just trying to get this straight.
Last edited by Thericker; Feb 7, 2008 at 04:40 AM.



The car went from 408 to 440 and there is alot of room in the tune.



Or do you actually believe an ECU tune on N/A 93 octane can garner, 83+ RWHP & 108 RWTO gains
Not unless you're using Turbos or nos
That U would get w/600/65 motors, Think logically, the other (3) Dynos show your aerage being muh lower, but thi 1 3rd i totally higher w/notable pikes...
Erveryone knows a good eu tune is worth @ bet 15-20 rwhp & rwto on N/A vehile
& please lets run my C6 410rwp 397 rwto on the frwy (advantage to you) & you should take me up on that?? my lower weight shouldnt matter at frwy speeds, are you down bro? Halfway? Laters
No hard feeling, just trying to get this straight.
No biggie bro. Where the heck have you been????
No biggie bro. Where the heck have you been????
Does it look cool? Yes, did my C6 really make 503 rwhp No...
she makes an average 410 rwhp...



Or do you actually believe an ECU tune on N/A 93 octane can garner, 83+ RWHP & 108 RWTO gains
Not unless you're using Turbos or nos
That U would get w/600/65 motors, Think logically, the other (3) Dynos show your aerage being muh lower, but thi 1 3rd i totally higher w/notable pikes...
Erveryone knows a good eu tune is worth @ bet 15-20 rwhp & rwto on N/A vehile
& please lets run my C6 410rwp 397 rwto on the frwy (advantage to you) & you should take me up on that?? my lower weight shouldnt matter at frwy speeds, are you down bro? Halfway? Laters
No hard feeling, just trying to get this straight.
We tend to get caught up with big numbers these days and even amongst friends and forums the term 500whp seems like such a common number thrown out..when most guys have no clue how much power that truly is and how much money it takes to build that (most guys could not control a 120hp stock 1990 Miata around a track either..LOL).
Either way good post Ricker and good dyno pulls Juice. Good read.
Yasin

Sorry for the small attachment....first time I tried to upload anything.
Last edited by BurnR8; Jun 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM. Reason: mistake


