Gen 5 GT - Bang for Buck Mods / Tune

[bass_straitener]

And Matt retunes for free.

Hard to go past that.

That actually worries me a little as I'm seeing cars with no further mods being added requesting retunes. Unless off course there's new functions being added to his tunes like FFS or LC.

Also the whole loading of revisions, logging, etc is not for everyone.

[KiDo_Tuning]

Comparing a stock LGT 5EAT, it made 141Kw@wheels and went 173Kw tune only.

Even a 3psi boost increase(to 16.4psi) will see 30Kw gain in a manual without even leaning out the AFR's or modifying timing too much and the dump should see closer to 200Kw.

Could we see the dyno graphs for comparison to fish jetski's please.

For a brief comparison check RRUSSH who had 170Kw in Sport mode with 13.2psi with rear STi mufflers on the JEM dyno. Definition update ensures S# is stronger than it ever was before(definition file needed tweaking as there was RT limiters I found)

Now in totally stock form in S# running 14.7psi the power jumps above 170Kw no issues at all now.

[lump_a_charcoal]

And Matt retunes for free.

Hard to go past that.

That actually worries me a little as I'm seeing cars with no further mods being added requesting retunes. Unless off course there's new functions being added to his tunes like FFS or LC.

Also the whole loading of revisions, logging, etc is not for everyone.

There are new functions being added all the time.

[alexeiwoody]

I've been following this thread and Fish Jetski for a little while now - great thread, good research and IMO it's fantastic that you "measure twice and cut once". Instead of what a lot on the forum have been doing lately - "measuring 50 times and then pulling the trigger". Great effort

As for kido tuning and bass straightener, I believe, Manaz, you missed the point of Bruce's post. We all know dynos don't mean much. In this case however - I'd also very much like to see a 200kw same mod gt. I don't for one second believe kido tuning when he says a dump alone will add 30kw to an already tuned stock car. Please at the very least post up a graph or a time slip. So far I see your customer - satogixxer needs a full tbe and some other bolt ons to hit 200.

Lump a charcoal - could you list what new features you mean? I've been told that the gen 5 kido customers have been promised and waiting since December or even earlier for FFS and LC? Has this happened yet?

Back to the good stuff! Fish - I struggled with trying to improve my bottom end for a year on tbe stock engine/turbo with no success. The only mod that finally made this car great to drive around town - E85. Or a twin scroll turbo, but E85 is better. Turbo lag gone, torque is so much more and is there from the get go, on the stock turbo it's basically a v8. I used to rev up to 4000rpm to get to enjoy the pull, now I do the same at 2500-3000.

I can post up the last dyno reading to give you an idea of the curve.

[satogixxer]

So far I see your customer - satogixxer needs a full tbe and some other bolt ons to hit 200.

Well I'm only a customer of Matt's in that I am waiting for LC/FFS to be added to my Scott/Insight tune. My dyno tuning was done by Scott @ Insight (and hence graphs are Scott's tune, not Matt's), and I have stuck with Scott's original tune because I found the feel I had with his tune to be better than Matt's subsequent tweaks to it.

I posted the link to my dyno's only as an indicative comparison, for estimates only, since no other dyno's had been posted.

But I agree entirely - I would also like to see some KiDo tuned dyno graphs to back up what has been claimed! We really need some apples to apples type comparisons here I believe.

Lump a charcoal - could you list what new features you mean? I've been told that the gen 5 kido customers have been promised and waiting since December or even earlier for FFS and LC? Has this happened yet?

I can confirm I've been waiting for Matt to add LC/FFS to my tune for a long time. He's been pretty poor with communication in my opinion, which is disappointing since this was one of the main features that I had been looking at getting added to my tune. But I also understand there is development time and testing required, however being up front about that in the first place so that the customer is aware of the potential time frame involved before a usable product is available would be nice.

[KiDo_Tuning]

So far I see your customer - satogixxer needs a full tbe and some other bolt ons to hit 200.

Well I'm only a customer of Matt's in that I am waiting for LC/FFS to be added to my Scott/Insight tune. My dyno tuning was done by Scott @ Insight (and hence graphs are Scott's tune, not Matt's), and I have stuck with Scott's original tune because I found the feel I had with his tune to be better than Matt's subsequent tweaks to it.

I posted the link to my dyno's only as an indicative comparison, for estimates only, since no other dyno's had been posted.

But I agree entirely - I would also like to see some KiDo tuned dyno graphs to back up what has been claimed! We really need some apples to apples type comparisons here I believe.

Lump a charcoal - could you list what new features you mean? I've been told that the gen 5 kido customers have been promised and waiting since December or even earlier for FFS and LC? Has this happened yet?

I can confirm I've been waiting for Matt to add LC/FFS to my tune for a long time. He's been pretty poor with communication in my opinion, which is disappointing since this was one of the main features that I had been looking at getting added to my tune. But I also understand there is development time and testing required, however being up front about that in the first place so that the customer is aware of the potential time frame involved before a usable product is available would be nice.

There was no 'promise' on time frame Alexei since as I said it would need to be tested. If it had Bricked Michael's ECU then would there have been a thread because of the failure of me testing it fully locally?

The software has been sitting here since November when it was first discussed and I am 99% sure it will work and not brick the ECU. Still I chose to do it at home... the rarity of the manuals ensures that access to suitable cars is also severely limited. We KNOW it works in the 07's and the port over is easy enough. Am I holding it back intentionally? No as the hard work is done... just Beta testing should be MY responsibility not others hence why E85 flex fuel went through nearly 15 months of testing before it even saw another car other than my own!

As it was discussed in another thread, I am doing a road trip this weekend to meet the guy so I can get the tune tested and he does not want the patch, but happy for me to test it thankfully.
If you are happy to sign a waiver I can email the LC FFS patch plus fix the other issues you wanted fixed as well but it should be done before then!

GenV 2012 6MT(different ECU, same as Linc's) went 207.3Kw on the Insight Dyno in December just before Christmas(took DR20T's spot when he dropped out) so the results are extremely comparable.

[Manaz]

As for kido tuning and bass straightener, I believe, Manaz, you missed the point of Bruce's post. We all know dynos don't mean much. In this case however - I'd also very much like to see a 200kw same mod gt. I don't for one second believe kido tuning when he says a dump alone will add 30kw to an already tuned stock car. Please at the very least post up a graph or a time slip. So far I see your customer - satogixxer needs a full tbe and some other bolt ons to hit 200.

Oh, I didn't miss it - I was trying to stop the thread deteriorating into a "some of us don't believe claims made by some others of us" shitfight.

The question here though is - should Matt post a dyno graph that shows a car with dump and tune doing 200kW, would everyone believe it anyway (and would the arguments go away), or would some people then start questioning the type of dyno, or the mode the dyno was operating in, or the dyno parameters (ramp up, etc) used for the run, or the gear used for the run, etc etc.

Some people will doubt the claims made by some people - no matter how little or how much evidence is provided to support the claims. Likewise, some people will trust the claims made by some people, irrespective of evidence that may appear to others to be to the contrary. That's normal. I just don't want to see us all getting angsty with each other over this, or to see the snide (maybe that's too harsh, but I think people will get the drift) comments repeated again and again.

For what it's worth - with a post-FL 4Gen 2.5T and 5EAT gearbox, at least three tuners told me that I should be able to get to ~190kW ATW with VF52, dump/mid-pipe, silicon intake hoses and tune, and MSR said 200kW if I also replace headers.

As I understand it, the auto gearbox holds me back a bit there, and an equivalent manual would be ~10kW or so up on those figures.

What I don't know is how much power the 5Gens generate compared to the 4Gens for equivalent mods. Does anyone have good information on this?

[alexeiwoody]

The question here though is - should Matt post a dyno graph that shows a car with dump and tune doing 200kW, would everyone believe it anyway (and would the arguments go away), or would some people then start questioning the type of dyno, or the mode the dyno was operating in, or the dyno parameters (ramp up, etc) used for the run, or the gear used for the run, etc etc.

Yes he should, that would be a start. According to him he can make 30kw to a tuned car with only a dump pipe. Don't even you find that a little hard to believe?

We can question the dyno later, as to the feasibility of it, the ability of the turbo to flow that much air, the difference between melbourne/sydney etc etc But first we don't have a gen 5 dyno graph, except one from Insight, tuned by Scott, making 200atw with bolt ons and a full TBE. Matt is claiming he can achieve the same result with just a dump pipe. Why is it so hard to just provide a graph, if he keeps mentioning cars he tuned?

By the way "RRUSSH" doesn't have photos up. And from a previous thread - "Karnage" doesn't exist on this or other forums. And another lib's (with a TD06 turbo) gearshifts were never fixed, as claimed by Matt, but confirmed by the owner otherwise.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.... so can we please see some proof or can we stop seeing these claims to drum up business?

For what it's worth - with a post-FL 4Gen 2.5T and 5EAT gearbox, at least three tuners told me that I should be able to get to ~190kW ATW with VF52, dump/mid-pipe, silicon intake hoses and tune, and MSR said 200kW if I also replace headers.

Rob, we have at least 4 well documented gen4 5eat profiles on this forum, with dyno graphs and mod updates. Even if three tuners told you otherwise, you'd still see the reality.

What I don't know is how much power the 5Gens generate compared to the 4Gens for equivalent mods. Does anyone have good information on this?

And that's exactly why 4 people so far in this thread have asked for a graph. So far, no kido tuned gen 5's have a dyno graph. Yet they're all "making between 205-210" with just a TBE.

How does one tuner make so much more power (with less mods) over Scott at Insight, without even using a dyno to make sure the car is safe?


Please Matt, we just want an actual dyno graph or a time slip, preferably at Insight (since you've tuned so many cars there). Just commenting that you've made this happen is starting to look extra dodgy.

[<GB>]

I hope some of you wake up.... And smell the roses ha ha

[owen]

I hope some of you wake up.... And smell the roses ha ha

I have severe hayfever. Roses fuck me up

[<GB>]

You're a fuck up lol

[Fish Jetski]

Whoa, this topic sure has gone off course a little. My tune has FFC and LC, and they are pretty awesome although I try not to put too much pressure on the driveline too often.

Guys - I need some feedback with others with either TBE or Dump ONLY + tune + dyno to back it up on where my tune falls short compared to others'. I think my baseline of 156kw is about right, but my overall gain is not enough, and the turbo (VF54) comes on too far up the rev range for a smallish turbo, especially with the long gearing in the Liberty.

My tune is based around 16.6PSI max - what boost are you guys running to achieve 200kw ATW, or what do you run with E85?

With the same dump pipe + tune mods the VF54 on the 2.5T seems to land slap bang between the TD04 (standard in MY08 WRX, MY09 Forester) and the VF52 (MY09+ WRX) in terms of outright power, and starts to lose boost around 1000RPM higher than the TD04, but it does not come on until about 2500RPM. The big advantage of the TD04, is because it is small it comes on at around 1800RPM, almost like a twin scroll Golf GTI (had a tuned Skoda Octavia RS for a while ) so it has awesome flexibility for a single scroll. So each time, I end up waiting for the VF46 to come on about as long as the VF52, but with only about 50% of the power gain. WTF? I also cruise in 1 gear lower than my MY09 Forester XT that weighs the same, cuts the air like a brick and only has 155kw ATW (with same mods) at 50, 60 and 70km/h.

Please give me some further information so that I can go back to my tuner in the next few days to get some more info on E85, as well as a retune based on the feedback from this thread.

[Manaz]

Whoa, this topic sure has gone off course a little. My tune has FFC and LC, and they are pretty awesome although I try not to put too much pressure on the driveline too often.

Yes, I was trying to avoid that. It seems though that some people can't help themselves.

Guys - I need some feedback with others with either TBE or Dump ONLY + tune + dyno to back it up on where my tune falls short compared to others'. I think my baseline of 156kw is about right, but my overall gain is not enough, and the turbo (VF54) comes on too far up the rev range for a smallish turbo, especially with the long gearing in the Liberty.

For what it's worth - the EJ255 in the 4Gen makes ~130kW ATW stock, and the 5Gen GT makes ~150kW ATW stock. Although there are some differences between the engine itself in the 4Gen GT and 5Gen GT, I'm sure the difference in turbo contributes somewhat to the ~20kW difference, and all other things being equal, if the VF54 can give a better top end, it probably suffers at the bottom end in a direct comparison with the VF46. It would seem to me that the VF52 and VF54 are probably closest in terms of comparison - and a mid 2,000s full boost figure sounds about right in that case.

As I understand it, a dump pipe should have the turbo spooling a little earlier (as it should flow more freely than the stock pipe, and that should let the turbo spin up ~200rpm earlier). Unfortunately your dyno graphs show power and torque curves (for what it's worth, completely ignore those flywheel torque figures, they're WAY out, though you can rely on the shape of the torque curves), but you've not shown any before and after boost curves. They'd tell you if the turbo is boosting "better" than it did before.

My tune is based around 16.6PSI max - what boost are you guys running to achieve 200kw ATW, or what do you run with E85?

I can't comment on the specifics of the 5Gen and VF54, but I know that on 4Gen with either the VF46 (stock) or VF52, 18psi is often used as a safe target. I suspect you'd pick up a decent amount of extra top-end power with another PSI or so of boost if that's safe on the 5Gen and VF54 - again, assuming the VF52 and VF54 are similar, that should be possible. Your graphs not showing boost also means it's hard to tell if the turbo is managing to hold boost all the way to redline, or if it's falling away (and there are ways, in a tune, to influence that). You mentioned 16.6psi max boost - if it only 14.7psi or even less once you get beyond 5,500rpm? The advantage of a VF52 swap over a VF46 on the 4Gen cars is that the VF52 will hold boost longer, but it will come onto boost later (all other things being equal) - in general, stock turbos are selected by manufacturers to ensure good driveability on public roads, and they're not terribly concerned with peak power (note that for several versions now as an example, WRX STIs have basically had the same peak power output - but they drive quite differently across versions).

All that said - check this:

http://sjautomotive.com.au/images/Dynog ... XA-KIT.jpg

With just the XA kit (just a tune, no hardware changes), they're topping 180kW ATW (according to their dyno). MRT say that their "XB kit" (tune, dump, 3" exhaust, CAI) gives another 10kW over the tune alone. So, all things being equal, I'd expect your car to fall somewhere between 180kW and 190kW based on MRT's own documentation (though I personally find it hard to believe that a CAI, dump and full exhaust "only' gets you 10kW).

With the same dump pipe + tune mods the VF54 on the 2.5T seems to land slap bang between the TD04 (standard in MY08 WRX, MY09 Forester) and the VF52 (MY09+ WRX) in terms of outright power, and starts to lose boost around 1000RPM higher than the TD04, but it does not come on until about 2500RPM. The big advantage of the TD04, is because it is small it comes on at around 1800RPM, almost like a twin scroll Golf GTI (had a tuned Skoda Octavia RS for a while ) so it has awesome flexibility for a single scroll. So each time, I end up waiting for the VF46 to come on about as long as the VF52, but with only about 50% of the power gain. WTF? I also cruise in 1 gear lower than my MY09 Forester XT that weighs the same, cuts the air like a brick and only has 155kw ATW (with same mods) at 50, 60 and 70km/h.

Peak power isn't a reasonable way to determine anything about cruising rpm/gear. Torque is more important here, area under the torque curve (and it's shape, not ultimate height), the ratios in the box, the final drive, they all impact at what rpm and gear you cruise at.

One thing to ask Mercury is what were their goals when tuning your car. Were they chasing peak power, or were they chasing a car that was really responsive in the mid-range, etc. You stated at the start that you were happy with the tune, though it seems now that you're less happy when comparing it with other cars (remember though that comparing tunes between different cars isn't necessarily going to work well). Really, don't get hung up on a headline figure produced on a dyno by someone with a vested interest in telling you how good they are - if you're happy with the car, then be happy with it, and don't worry what others may think.

Please give me some further information so that I can go back to my tuner in the next few days to get some more info on E85, as well as a retune based on the feedback from this thread.

E85 may require more mods like fuel pump, injectors, etc.

Go back to the tuner with feedback based on how happy YOU are with how the car drives. Don't worry about what anyone on an Internet forum thinks.

[<GB>]

do you have an upgraded silicon intake pipe too?

[alexeiwoody]

Whoa, this topic sure has gone off course a little. My tune has FFC and LC, and they are pretty awesome although I try not to put too much pressure on the driveline too often.

Guys - I need some feedback with others with either TBE or Dump ONLY + tune + dyno to back it up on where my tune falls short compared to others'. I think my baseline of 156kw is about right, but my overall gain is not enough, and the turbo (VF54) comes on too far up the rev range for a smallish turbo, especially with the long gearing in the Liberty.

My tune is based around 16.6PSI max - what boost are you guys running to achieve 200kw ATW, or what do you run with E85?

With the same dump pipe + tune mods the VF54 on the 2.5T seems to land slap bang between the TD04 (standard in MY08 WRX, MY09 Forester) and the VF52 (MY09+ WRX) in terms of outright power, and starts to lose boost around 1000RPM higher than the TD04, but it does not come on until about 2500RPM. The big advantage of the TD04, is because it is small it comes on at around 1800RPM, almost like a twin scroll Golf GTI (had a tuned Skoda Octavia RS for a while ) so it has awesome flexibility for a single scroll. So each time, I end up waiting for the VF46 to come on about as long as the VF52, but with only about 50% of the power gain. WTF? I also cruise in 1 gear lower than my MY09 Forester XT that weighs the same, cuts the air like a brick and only has 155kw ATW (with same mods) at 50, 60 and 70km/h.

Please give me some further information so that I can go back to my tuner in the next few days to get some more info on E85, as well as a retune based on the feedback from this thread.

I am somewhat limited in answering - I have no idea on the specs of the vf54. If it is a revised vf46, it is a rubbish turbo on pump fuel. I wouldn't expect you to ever enjoy it, if you like the feel of a twinscroll or a powerful NA engine. If it's like a vf52, then it might have something in it.

E85 let's you run around 20psi on a stock engine quite easily and safely. But that's not what makes E85 so good. It's the low end/mid range torque and the almost seamless transition to full boost.

Cylinder pressures are higher (I'll get back to that one), and as a result you get more low end torque. Then - ethanol makes more exhaust gas compared to petrol, and it just spins the tits off that little turbo (vf46 for us gen4s). You're looking at the combined benefit of more torque from the N/A engine side AND earlier/easier building boost from the turbo side. If you ever decide to WOT the car, the vf46 no longer "builds" boost, it feels asif it just "clicks" onto full boost.

Now about the higher cylinder pressures/more torque. Unfortunately you have an increased chance to lift the heads on your block....and blow a headgasket. I'm not saying you definitely will, but this is from a string of 4 unopened engine subies that were converted to ethanol recently, different tuners (very reputable ones at that), different model and mileage subarus (sti, wrx, liberty). The stock headbolts just don't seem rigid enough to literally keep a lid on things.

There is no hard evidence of E85 causing these issues, just curious timing of events and it definitely makes an already existing problem more pronounced. Just keep in mind that the chances are increased, especially if your tuner isn't an expert with the fuel. Aside from that it's safer for the engine in just about every aspect, compared to petrol.

Here's my graph. On a similar dyno my auto lib initially made 160kwatw with a TBE, tmic, turbo inlet pipe on pump at 17.3psi. A manual equivalent makes 180 on the dyno.

Switched to E85 - (upgraded injectors and pump, as ethanol is thicker) and ran 19psi. Nearly 190kwatw of top end, but the power curve is so much closer to flat. This is not a dyno tune, nor is it a finalised tune either.

My e85 vf46 auto tune.

20140404_144509.jpg (119.17 KiB) Viewed 7862 times

Goodluck with yours