Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal@Evolve
This to me looks like you are calling Mike out.
I hope that's not the case.
I know he has dyno results from the cars he has tuned. He chooses not to post up the graphs at this point in his career. We followed the same routine. Until we can see multiple cars producing the same delta we do not post up the results.
Sometimes there is not enough time to data log and verify some essential variables we as tuners like to see.
I know the above as a fact as Mike and I talk quite often about things outside of tuning also and in our talks he mentions to me what he did and did not achieve.
I think you very well remember how many data logs I asked for when we were tuning on your own dyno.
|
Mike does show a graph from a dynapack. A lot. It's even linked in this thread (and many others), so its implied that it's easily reachable and used as a primary means of marketing, thus setting expectations that others can easily reach that number also. I have dynoruns from when his car was dynoed here as well.
I'm not specifically calling anyone out. I'm just stating that
everyone should follow the same set of criteria others are expected to follow. When you do have time, please feel to post some dynos of your own. We'll call it "leading by example".
Horsepower claims are made every day on performance parts:
- Exhausts
- Intakes
- Filters
- Pulleys
- Superchargers
Tunes should
not be the exception when asking for examples and/or proof of one's work. Heck, we've even had a handful of instances on N/A cars in which tunes didn't help at all.
I'm very blunt, sometimes people take it the wrong way and egos get bruised in the process. Maybe that's my fault, but its just like the old saying goes, "put up or shut up". The dynos we posted had almost every tune available to us in the states, with the exception of AA. We don't see many of those here.
If one is going to claim they're the best, everyone wants to see definitive proof of it. Until then, it's magic. Magic consisting of illusions, combined with smoke and mirrors.
Now back to Mike. According to the reviews on the forums, there are a lot of Mike's tunes out there. And a lot of happy users. One of his last posts claimed over 30 of them just in the last session, why wouldn't results be shared? When we do see it, let's see the same info you are requesting from us, including timing and IATs as would only benefit everyone here.
It would definitely add credibility the tuners, as well as back up the claims.
But we don't tune, only validate. And the dyno doesn't discriminate. That's the difference as there's not an agenda to push. We need examples from tuners, tuning facilities
and 3rd parties. We simply can't take only the tuner's word for it anymore.
Producing before/after results on real world vehicles (not his own) should be relatively simple, but doesn't exist. Are we simply supposed to simply take the tuner's word for it? Wouldn't a dyno be an everyday and essential tool used in tuning with plenty of data at hand?
When we do see it, let's get it on a dynojet. It's simply much more common in the US.
Our dyno is always open if needed.
Thanks for keeping it civil.