[philcrombie]

I've taken the power graphs for the Maptun and Speedparts Stg1 Aero 9000 and carefully created a single graph to produce results which seem to reflect the general chat on these 2 products.

Anyway - good for a laugh although I'm not sure that the original graphs were too hot - but they must come from somewhere. Interestingly Maptun seems to have the power below 3-3500rpm licked, where Speedparts sees a torque lunge above 3500 (which is also reflected in the power chart, so the graphs can't have been too bad) probably giving a more 2 stage feel to the power.
Anyway - pinch of salt required - wonder if that extra low end from Maptun is worth the extra 150notes.

 

[peter messenger]

i drive a maptun car, i do not consider turbo lag to be a problem, infact it does not exist any more. loads of grunt from 1500rpm.

 

[mark e]

Unfortunately the graphs shown by nearly all tuners are based on static dyno cell readings, which don't actually bear that much relation to real life driving conditions, because the hold the engine at constant revs and meaure the maximum available output. This means that the graphs are effectively free of any turbo lag, as it will be fully up to speed when they take the measurement (eg peak torque on an OEM Aero is quoted at just above 2000rpm by Saab, but in practice most torque is felt around 3000rpm)

There are other characteristics to the mapping other than simply the boost and fuelling for any given rpm. The most significant of these is how quickly the boost is allowed to rise. The safest way is to allow it to gently rise so that there's no overshoot or danger of pre-ignition. However, this can give the impression of a more sluggish drive than the static dyno suggests. A quicker rate of rise gives you a bigger initial hit of acceleration.

Different tuners opt for different mappings. I believe Maptun normally have a slightly slower rise, whereas Speedparts and Abbott have a quicker initial rate of rise, which can in practice make the car seem quicker.

This, however, does not match what the graphs are saying, thus illustrating my point!

 

[philcrombie]

- thats a great point on the static figures - didnt think of that. Its really only a fifth gear pull will get near the actually graphing results. Earlier gears offer far less time for everything to spool up so its going to be down to things like the control of rate of boost increase, as you say, that will make the car feel different.
I'm also quite amazed at how little detail is released on the ECU upgrades - a dubious graph and a peak power/torque figure. Guess the proof is in the driving...

 

[s.s.d.d]

so with speedparts the torque hits or comes in above 3500? now that sounds good 4 the autos comes with a good price too

 

[philcrombie]

hey - I can't see the graphs anymore.. I did see them at one point. Have I bottched the link?

 

[mark e]

lizard, I was saying the opposite- IMO Speedparts and Abbott torque in real driving conditions hits lower down the rev range.

faero, no I can't see the pics- I checked your post and the syntax is OK, and I can't see the pics if I post the URL into a new browser pane.

 

[cdcarlsson]

My data taken back to back from a certain Stage III 9-3 shows that Maptun has more torque at the top end than Speedparts but Speedparts was slightly better at the bottom end. Overall Maptun had the advantage in acceleration.

 

[philcrombie]

For what its worth - I've used the correct fotango links so I don't need to be logged in for you to see them...

 

[aeropilot]

If you take those graphs as gospel

then the smoothness of the Maptun graph compared to the 'spikey' Speedparts one, might indicate a better written program and a nicer driving car.

 

[Robert Watts12]

I Drive a 9-3 Maptun Stage 1 and it is very smoth and incredibly driveable