PRESSERtech Kia Stinger GT Dyno RESULTS!!

[Angel]

You lost the anchors to the car's chassis this way, don't you? Aren't the intakes free-standing in there and can move around?

Mine never moved around that much. Believe or not they were pretty solid although they look like there not because there is no bracket to holt them. When I had my DIY I never had any issues. I think an actual intake is worth the investment hence the reason why I got the AP intakes.

 

[Kazz]

Mine never moved around that much. Believe or not they were pretty solid although they look like there not because there is no bracket to holt them. When I had my DIY I never had any issues. I think an actual intake is worth the investment hence the reason why I got the AP intakes.

The OEM "piping" is rubber, ribbed, and flexible. If you keep it with a DIY setup, the intakes will bounce around. That's why I was asking.

 

[Angel]

The OEM "piping" is rubber, ribbed, and flexible. If you keep it with a DIY setup, the intakes will bounce around. That's why I was asking.

I agree. But its hard to explain. The way the elbow tube angle and the filter, they really don't bounce around. I will let wash explain lol, maybe I am not the best at explaining.

I never noticed mine bouncing around. After I drove for a while and I opened the hood they were always on the same position. At first I thought I would need a custom bracket but I never got one.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Finally got back to the DynoJet today. We did several runs all coming out closer to this.
These are wheel figures. 15% Dyno loss and another 15% AWD Drive train loss, puts me in the 460 hp range. Close to 100 hp gain compared to stock.
View attachment 24597

Thanks for sharing and dont take offense, I think people are just confused by your varying results. Is that the wrong dyno chart, or did you really drop from 380whp to only 345whp now? Also I dont think using 30% drivetrain loss from the dyno & AWD is accurate. My understanding is 10-15% for RWD and 15-20% total for AWD is the most common conversion. That would realistically put you around 430BHP which is still impressive for a mild tune and couple bolt-ons.

and your signature says 430 WHEEL tq and 380 WHP.... doesn't add up.

Yes, those were previous runs with an awful guy running the DynoJet. I will update with these figures because they are consistent.

Which is the correct number to the wheels? 345whp, 383whp or the 407whp you have in your signature now?

Seems to me that you've gone from 383 WHP to 407 WHP with just the secondary downpipes. If so, that's a 29 crank HP increase. Impressive!

Is this correct??? Same dyno and parameters with just new secondary DPs? If so, this is the first confirmation of significant DP gains while using a tune!

 

[Jonathan Lasich]

Is this correct??? Same dyno and parameters with just new secondary DPs? If so, this is the first confirmation of significant DP gains while using a tune!

StungBlueGT2, my comment was based on MisterMac's new published HP numbers in his signature. I can only assume that this is accurate.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

The OEM "piping" is rubber, ribbed, and flexible. If you keep it with a DIY setup, the intakes will bounce around. That's why I was asking.

In theory yes, but in practice its not true if done correctly. And it also depends on which type of DIY version people use. My DIY version uses straight pipes & brackets so it doesnt move at all.

And as others explained the 90degree elbow version wedges itself between the frame and the strut bars for very limited movement as well. I just didnt want any metal to metal contact so I used brackets instead, but still only cost me a little over $100 total. And with the wall of heat shielding between the engine/turbo it stays as cool, if not cooler than any intake available. Hope that helps clarify and happy tuning!

 

[washguy]

The OEM "piping" is rubber, ribbed, and flexible. If you keep it with a DIY setup, the intakes will bounce around. That's why I was asking.

Kazz my intakes are rock solid...first off they don't wobble around...you would just have to do it to see how they are lodged in position. In my post I told you how to stabilize the filters.....The passenger side is anchored to the strut/brace by taking a couple inches of the 3m trim foam tape adhesive.....and placing it under strut and the filter 90 degree elbow ....the elbow is almost touching the underneath of the brace so you just stack 2 pieces together and place under brace and hold elbow to the tape...takes 24 hrs. to fully cure...the filter isn't going anywhere and you cant see the tape. Drivers side intake is held inplace by taking the adhesive and pressing it to fresh air intake and then to the front of the chrome topfront of filter....rock solid.....lets all think about what some folks say about intakes and down pipes....ive read where the both of em hardly do anything....if that's the cause why do the top 1/4 milers have intakes and dps?...I can show you dragys of the 2 tenth increase.....anyone that sez the cai's don't increase the car's performance is just plain foolish.... Wash

 

[MisterMac]

I will attempt to clarify. This post will likely be long...

Yes, This is the same DynoJet machine as the first results I posted last November. However, last November the machine was set-up differently for readings. The DynoJet can be set-up as either RWD or AWD, and have programming for power loss accordingly just from running on the Dyno.

Last year the DynoJet was set-up to automatically factor in 15% Dyno power loss. Thus, I only had to adjust those outputs for the 15% AWD drivetrain loss to achieve approximate crank horse power.

This time there was a different tuner who was kinda ready for me. However, he had set the Dyno up for RWD with a 15% Dyno power loss. Then, when he saw my AWD badging (thank goodness I hadn't removed that badge yet..), he had to change the Dyno set-up to AWD. This process involves both programming and physical gear changes to the DynoJet. When he did that, he neglected to set-up the results to factor in the 15% Dyno power loss. It was set to zero. (Plumb stupid in my opinion, but what do I know?)

Thus Novembers' 383 included the 15% loss factor and this ventures 346 didn't. To equal out, we must divide 346 by .85 to get a direct comparison: 407. If he had set up the Dyno correctly, the graph would show 407. I attribute the 407 - 383 = 24hp gain due to the SSR secondary DP's, freshly cleaned air filters, perhaps some temperature/humidity differences and a better (very subjective) tuner (dyno operator).

Further, the 380/407 must now be adjusted by the average expected AWD drive-train loss (15%) to achieve crank hp: 407 / .85 = 478.

Lastly, for sh!ts, grins, giggles and more potential controversy, it might be fair to adjust the hp output to sea level. The altitude of the tuning shop is 3,996 ft. The experts (mystical creatures known as engineers) quantify horsepower loss at 3% for every 1,000 ft of elevation: 3% * 4 = 12%. I am not aware of another ECU tuner than @PRESSERtech LLC, except Tork. According to their website, Tork is located in Auburn WA and the elevation at their address is 56 ft above sea level. If I adjust my output at crank by 12% to account for the elevation difference it would be 478 / .88 = 543 hp. If I recall correctly, my output compares favorably to their quoted gains.

Again, the bottom line for me is I love my tune. It feels amazing and those who've driven it are out-of-their-minds impressed. Exactly what the power gains are I leave up to the machines and apply my understanding of the information available. For example, it may be possible that because my tune is even more heavily biased toward RWD (upwards of 90+%), my actual drivetrain loss might be less than 15%. Maybe my drive-train loss is only 10% and I have 5% less hp at the crank? I won't shrivel up and die if I have 27 less hp. These things are estimates/educated guesses. The proof only happens when the actual rubber meets the road versus another car, radar/laser gun, 1/4 mile track run, etc....

I hope this helps the community decide between an actual ECU tune vs a piggy-back vs leaving things stock. I'm still running stock plugs, (albeit gapped the same on all six) and have 17,654 miles on my car. No plug issues, snap-my-head-back acceleration AND excellent fuel economy compared to most actual quotes on the forum.

 

[Jonathan Lasich]

I will attempt to clarify. This post will likely be long...

Yes, This is the same DynoJet machine as the first results I posted last November. However, last November the machine was set-up differently for readings. The DynoJet can be set-up as either RWD or AWD, and have programming for power loss accordingly just from running on the Dyno.

Last year the DynoJet was set-up to automatically factor in 15% Dyno power loss. Thus, I only had to adjust those outputs for the 15% AWD drivetrain loss to achieve approximate crank horse power.

This time there was a different tuner who was kinda ready for me. However, he had set the Dyno up for RWD with a 15% Dyno power loss. Then, when he saw my AWD badging (thank goodness I hadn't removed that badge yet..), he had to change the Dyno set-up to AWD. This process involves both programming and physical gear changes to the DynoJet. When he did that, he neglected to set-up the results to factor in the 15% Dyno power loss. It was set to zero. (Plumb stupid in my opinion, but what do I know?)

Thus Novembers' 383 included the 15% loss factor and this ventures 346 didn't. To equal out, we must divide 346 by .85 to get a direct comparison: 407. If he had set up the Dyno correctly, the graph would show 407. I attribute the 407 - 383 = 24hp gain due to the SSR secondary DP's, freshly cleaned air filters, perhaps some temperature/humidity differences and a better (very subjective) tuner (dyno operator).

Further, the 380/407 must now be adjusted by the average expected AWD drive-train loss (15%) to achieve crank hp: 407 / .85 = 478.

Lastly, for sh!ts, grins, giggles and more potential controversy, it might be fair to adjust the hp output to sea level. The altitude of the tuning shop is 3,996 ft. The experts (mystical creatures known as engineers) quantify horsepower loss at 3% for every 1,000 ft of elevation: 3% * 4 = 12%. I am not aware of another ECU tuner than @PRESSERtech LLC, except Tork. According to their website, Tork is located in Auburn WA and the elevation at their address is 56 ft above sea level. If I adjust my output at crank by 12% to account for the elevation difference it would be 478 / .88 = 543 hp. If I recall correctly, my output compares favorably to their quoted gains.

Again, the bottom line for me is I love my tune. It feels amazing and those who've driven it are out-of-their-minds impressed. Exactly what the power gains are I leave up to the machines and apply my understanding of the information available. For example, it may be possible that because my tune is even more heavily biased toward RWD (upwards of 90+%), my actual drivetrain loss might be less than 15%. Maybe my drive-train loss is only 10% and I have 5% less hp at the crank? I won't shrivel up and die if I have 27 less hp. These things are estimates/educated guesses. The proof only happens when the actual rubber meets the road versus another car, radar/laser gun, 1/4 mile track run, etc....

I hope this helps the community decide between an actual ECU tune vs a piggy-back vs leaving things stock. I'm still running stock plugs, (albeit gapped the same on all six) and have 17,654 miles on my car. No plug issues, snap-my-head-back acceleration AND excellent fuel economy compared to most actual quotes on the forum.

MisterMac, thanks for that!
That post clears things up A LOT!! (The first two sentences of the second to last paragraph are, in my mind, the most important)

 

[washguy]

Mr Mac it really doesn't matter about the dyno.....the dyno wasn't setup prolly the first time too..And you know firsthand that by messing with the weather station you can achieve bout any increase you want....lol....the adjusting the dynos weather station for sea level or whatever leaves one with bogus readings....and trying to guess drive line and wheel HP loss percentages to get crank horsepower on the dynojet is bogus too.....Like you said your tune is great ,and you like it is all that matters ! Wash

 

[MisterMac]

Here is nice screenshot from a video of her sitting on the Dyno. These cars look fast even when they are standing still.

 

[washguy]

Mr Mac wheel set up is SWEET ! what are the names of em? thanks....Wash

 

[MisterMac]

Mr Mac wheel set up is SWEET ! what are the names of em? thanks....Wash

Those are the Ark Performance 225s: 19x9.5 +25 squared with 255/35. Also, the lugs are racing in Blue.

 

[Jonathan Lasich]

The @PRESSERtech LLC tune removes all the play in our gas pedal. Touch it and you are moving like lightening! While it is awesome on the road, it made it quite challenging to control acceleration and not trigger the kick down switch. This all contributed to the fugly graphs....

MisterMac, is the increased throttle responsiveness only in Sport mode, or is it also there in other modes such as Comfort and Eco? I'm hoping that there will be an increase in throttle response in comfort mode, and, in combination with a potential increase in low RPM torque (1800-2300 RPM), I won't be forced to constantly switch to Sport mode every time I get in the car.

 

[MisterMac]

MisterMac, is the increased throttle responsiveness only in Sport mode, or is it also there in other modes such as Comfort and Eco? I'm hoping that there will be an increase in throttle response in comfort mode, and, in combination with a potential increase in low RPM torque (1800-2300 RPM), I won't be forced to constantly switch to Sport mode every time I get in the car.

The improved throttle response is noticeable in every mode except eco. It might be there too, however, I've never tried that mode.

That being said, she is definitely faster in sport, but I believe that is due to the different transmission behavior.

 

[Jonathan Lasich]

The improved throttle response is noticeable in every mode except eco. It might be there too, however, I've never tried that mode.

That being said, she is definitely faster in sport, but I believe that is due to the different transmission behavior.

Ha! I like that! Obviously, not your cup of tea! (I use it in winter--the lazy throttle response, and the high gear/low RPM driving style help prevent wheel spin on snow and ice. In summer, it mysteriously disappears from the dashboard!)

Nice to know! Thanks for the info!

 

[MisterMac]

Ha! I like that! Obviously, not your cup of tea! (I use it in winter--the lazy throttle response, and the high gear/low RPM driving style help prevent wheel spin on snow and ice. In summer, it mysteriously disappears from the dashboard!)

Nice to know! Thanks for the info!

Lol, yeah. Don't really have winter here in El Paso.

 

[Ahawk1968]

Been reading up on your latest dyno session, Mac. Man I wish they could get their stuff straight at Top Techs!
Sometime, somewhere we need to find time to bend the law a bit....

 

[StungBlueGT2]

I will attempt to clarify. This post will likely be long...

Yes, This is the same DynoJet machine as the first results I posted last November. However, last November the machine was set-up differently for readings. The DynoJet can be set-up as either RWD or AWD, and have programming for power loss accordingly just from running on the Dyno.

Last year the DynoJet was set-up to automatically factor in 15% Dyno power loss. Thus, I only had to adjust those outputs for the 15% AWD drivetrain loss to achieve approximate crank horse power.

This time there was a different tuner who was kinda ready for me. However, he had set the Dyno up for RWD with a 15% Dyno power loss. Then, when he saw my AWD badging (thank goodness I hadn't removed that badge yet..), he had to change the Dyno set-up to AWD. This process involves both programming and physical gear changes to the DynoJet. When he did that, he neglected to set-up the results to factor in the 15% Dyno power loss. It was set to zero. (Plumb stupid in my opinion, but what do I know?)

Thus Novembers' 383 included the 15% loss factor and this ventures 346 didn't. To equal out, we must divide 346 by .85 to get a direct comparison: 407. If he had set up the Dyno correctly, the graph would show 407. I attribute the 407 - 383 = 24hp gain due to the SSR secondary DP's, freshly cleaned air filters, perhaps some temperature/humidity differences and a better (very subjective) tuner (dyno operator).

Further, the 380/407 must now be adjusted by the average expected AWD drive-train loss (15%) to achieve crank hp: 407 / .85 = 478.

Lastly, for sh!ts, grins, giggles and more potential controversy, it might be fair to adjust the hp output to sea level. The altitude of the tuning shop is 3,996 ft. The experts (mystical creatures known as engineers) quantify horsepower loss at 3% for every 1,000 ft of elevation: 3% * 4 = 12%. I am not aware of another ECU tuner than @PRESSERtech LLC, except Tork. According to their website, Tork is located in Auburn WA and the elevation at their address is 56 ft above sea level. If I adjust my output at crank by 12% to account for the elevation difference it would be 478 / .88 = 543 hp. If I recall correctly, my output compares favorably to their quoted gains.

Again, the bottom line for me is I love my tune. It feels amazing and those who've driven it are out-of-their-minds impressed. Exactly what the power gains are I leave up to the machines and apply my understanding of the information available. For example, it may be possible that because my tune is even more heavily biased toward RWD (upwards of 90+%), my actual drivetrain loss might be less than 15%. Maybe my drive-train loss is only 10% and I have 5% less hp at the crank? I won't shrivel up and die if I have 27 less hp. These things are estimates/educated guesses. The proof only happens when the actual rubber meets the road versus another car, radar/laser gun, 1/4 mile track run, etc....

I hope this helps the community decide between an actual ECU tune vs a piggy-back vs leaving things stock. I'm still running stock plugs, (albeit gapped the same on all six) and have 17,654 miles on my car. No plug issues, snap-my-head-back acceleration AND excellent fuel economy compared to most actual quotes on the forum.

Thank you for clarifying. I’m not familiar with dynos that automatically calculate crank HP instead of WHP, but it makes much more sense now and I see why you’re confused.

Basically your saying the initial 383hp dyno results are already in crank HP since it automatically calculated the estimated 15% dyno/drivetrain loss. And your latest 346hp is true WHP since no adjustments were added to those AWD results.

That means your first dyno is about 326whp=383bhp, so you added about 20whp with the secondary DPs and made 346whp=407bhp on the latest dyno.

So where you keep miscalculating is trying to adjust for drivetrain loss twice. You’re either converting RWD whp to crank with ~15%, OR your converting AWD using ~20%, but not using BOTH calculations for 30%+ losses...

All your math is making things unnecessarily complicated and as you said the math is just estimates anyway. To help everyone understand just stick to the straight WHP results without any conversions so it’s the same results others provide and is as accurate as possible.

Please understand this is not intended to be biased towards any tune and all that matters is that you’re happy with it! I’m simply trying to help everyone stay on the same page with dyno results so misinformation isn’t spread and taken as facts.

So to clear up any confusion the 407hp in your signature should be corrected to “346whp & 407HP at the crank” to be truly accurate. Hope this helps and happy tuning!

 

[MisterMac]

No, that is not correct. Actual WHP is 407.

There are two points of power loss. One is to rotate the Dyno machine axles. The other is what we all have while driving down the road, which is to rotate the cars axles. My non-tuned WHP is 318 (374 crank HP). 407 with the tune (478 crank.)

There is a 15% power loss to rotate the Dyno. Normally you never see that because the machine can be computer calibrated to increase the reading by 15% when it displays the WHP. When you drive down the road, you aren’t spinning a Dyno machine too.

To estimate crank HP you must then account for the 15% drivetrain HP loss for AWD. My HP at the engine approaches 480.

And that’s all I have to say about that.....