New JB4 Stinger Dyno Results!

[StungBlueGT2]

368hp/510tq

JB4 on Map 2, DENSO plugs, DIY intakes, rear cat delete, Borla cat-back.

Seems like most of the numbers I've seen online with similar mods have been HP in the 430s/440s and TQ just under 500..

I get that dyno's will all say something different depending on a wide range of factors, but I really wasn't expecting this big of a gap and that low of HP number.

And no, I never did a stock dyno run, I just used other people's numbers as reference.

As others have said it’s simply because you’re comparing an AWD Mustang dyno to a RWD Dynojet. Between the extra drivetrain loss of AWD and the 12-15% variable between dynos you should be right around the 420-440whp other similar Stingers are running.

12% difference i believe

Is this a "set rule?" Fully understanding that dyno's are not 100% accurate to begin with.

Yeah everything I read said 12-15% was the most common difference between those types of dynos. But it’s not a 100% set rule because the amount of “load” can be adjusted too. It’s simply the most common used conversion and should be accurate most of the time.

 

[StungBlueGT2]

Lap3 (David Chung) claims they have this nailed. But Agree Tork is still working on it. The only Lap3 I know of that added the secondary back was @Michael Locke but it was due to turbo burning oil not the ability of the Lap3 to handle the over boost issue. I could be wrong but that's what I have read about so far.

Unfortunately he’s turned out to be a compulsive liar and constantly tries to take advantage of potential customers with misinformation. This is his common theme on IG and many people keep questioning his bogus info which he can never back up with facts...

Bottom line, both chips make the same adjustments to the ECU parameters.

The only way lap3, or any chip, could have done this is if they already enabled EWG control like Terry explained before. At this point nobody has achieved this yet so lap3 is simply putting out more fake news to try to make them look superior to the JB4.

 

[DaBears4Lyfe]

Unfortunately he’s turned out to be a compulsive liar and constantly tries to take advantage of potential customers with misinformation. This is his common theme on IG and many people keep questioning his bogus info which he can never back up with facts...

Bottom line, both chips make the same adjustments to the ECU parameters.

The only way lap3, or any chip, could have done this is if they already enabled EWG control like Terry explained before. At this point nobody has achieved this yet so lap3 is simply putting out more fake news to try to make them look superior to the JB4.

Superior yet stealing the jb4 app interface

 

[JDM_Man]

I'm a but confused on what fuekni need for map 2.

Up here we have husky/mohawk 94 but I much prefer shell 91 as it contains no ethanol.

Your first page shows map 2 on 91 which is what I'm hoping for. But I've seen other documentation asking for 93+ with map 2.

What's wrong with ethanol? Petrocan's 94 uses a 10% mix, and a lot of guys on higher maps run a 30% mix so why do some people avoid it and others put it in specifically.

 

[Tonkabob]

What's wrong with ethanol? Petrocan's 94 uses a 10% mix, and a lot of guys on higher maps run a 30% mix so why do some people avoid it and others put it in specifically.

Ethanol is good up to a point. High octane and cooling. But you need more of it so we run out of fuel at e30 or less.

 

[JDM_Man]

Ethanol is good up to a point. High octane and cooling. But you need more of it so we run out of fuel at e30 or less.

What do yo mean we run out of fuel at e30 or less?

 

[SteveCo]

What's wrong with ethanol?

Ethanol has lower energy by volume than gasoline. So a liter of premium 91 that is pure gasoline will provide better performance and/or mileage than premium 91 that is 10 percent ethanol.

 

[JDM_Man]

Ethanol has lower energy by volume than gasoline. So a liter of premium 91 that is pure gasoline will provide better performance and/or mileage than premium 91 that is 10 percent ethanol.

What about a 94 with 10% Ethanol lol

 

[Revvdmedia]

What about a 94 with 10% Ethanol lol

I don't fully get it either. The suggested mix for Map 3 I believe was E30 which is achieved by adding in a certain amount of E85. So 91 pure gas to 94 E10 to 96+ E30...doesn't make look 94 E10 look so bad with tuning in mind? I don't even know in the USA if they can get 93+ as pure gas anyway.

 

[SteveCo]

I don't even know in the USA if they can get 93+ as pure gas anyway.

91-92 is more common, but some states list 93 as available.

Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

 

[HTmode]

You could and may be fine, but its a gamble depending on what gap Kia set for your specific plugs. Unfortunately even completely stock Stingers had plug & coil issues and multiple people reported stock gaps as bad as .038".

The stock plugs themselves are good and you can run them on higher maps too just as long as your gaps are set around .026". For best performance and power BMS recommends Denso 5346 at .022" gaps, but they arent required.

Some people said they just ran map6 at 1.0-2.0psi until they got new or re-gapped plugs, so they at least get a taste on the extra power.

Awesome! thanks for that info. I might test out map 6 on stock plugs and then re-gap them or swap to Denso 5346 plugs sometimes later this year since my car is still under 5k miles Lol

 

[Tonkabob]

What about a 94 with 10% Ethanol lol

I make a 94 octane E15 blend that works at 22 psi on an ECU tune.
I also start with pure gas (92) to get more octane at lower E levels.

 

[AV8R]

Just a reminder to all members that personal attacks and use of bad language of any kind are a breach of forum rules.
If you dont agree then say so but dont be so critical and rude towards each other its not forum policy. The forum administrator will be taking further action if this continues.

 

[Shrikecorp]

Prefacing, I had no idea what I was doing. I think there was more to be had, but I'll take 382 whp for now.

 

[Shrikecorp]

Prefacing, I had no idea what I was doing. I think there was more to be had, but I'll take 382 whp for now.

View attachment 24312

JB4 log from the best pull.

 

[Kamauxx]

Prefacing, I had no idea what I was doing. I think there was more to be had, but I'll take 382 whp for now.

View attachment 24312

What was your baseline?

 

[Shrikecorp]

What was your baseline?

Too late for that, I'm afraid. Although... could go do it again sometime with the JB4 on map 0. Just the intakes. But $65 for the three, pretty reasonable.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Prefacing, I had no idea what I was doing. I think there was more to be had, but I'll take 382 whp for now.

Looks like they were not doing it right.. Need to start at a low RPM in 5th without pressing kick down, correction factor to STD, for starters. There is skill to getting a good dyno just like getting a good ET at the track.

Log seems generally healthy though.

 

[Shrikecorp]

Looks like they were not doing it right.. Need to start at a low RPM in 5th without pressing kick down, correction factor to STD, for starters. There is skill to getting a good dyno just like getting a good ET at the track.

Log seems generally healthy though.

Thought it might be something like that. First Stinger they'd dealt with. For a newbie, tho, fun experience.

 

[turboAWD]

What about a 94 with 10% Ethanol lol

Hate to break it to you (and I was the same, excited about 94 octane when I lived in SW-Ontario), but Ontario 94 is like US 91-92 based on most tuning results.. So don't get all excited..