Bama Tunes
10-10-2008, 10:54 AM
#21
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Escondido, California
Posts: 2,018
I don't think one run really proves too much. Both times at the track that I tested both tunes, I made 3-4 passes with each tune. In my case the the race tune is a little tricker to launch, hence the slower 60' and 1/8 mile times. On the dyno the race tune has more tq below 2000 RPMs, but after that they are both about equal.
I plan on going to the track this weekend, so I will test the tunes again.
I plan on going to the track this weekend, so I will test the tunes again.
10-11-2008, 10:04 AM
#26
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 273
why are you only running 14s??? I ran my 13.3 completely stock...just wondering...reason asking is that I was thinking of ordering the 93 race tune to program into my tuner...they are running a special of only $50...i just bought a jlt cai with the evolution performance tunes and im running the 93 tune right now and dont think its honestly much of a difference from what it was stock...i mean dont get me wrong you can feel a difference but its not as drastic as i was hoping from reading about how so many people say a cai/tune combo is a night and day difference...can someone post up a dyno sheet of stock to bama 93 race tune with exhaust only...want to see a big difference before buying
Here's my race vs torque results. took place on 2 diffrent nights. Rocky mountain raceway. Track altitude is 4400', DA 6350'. that night. I have videos of all 4 races.
3 of the wins were against an '07 GT manual, predator tune and pypes MM.
1st night
Race tune:
R/T .249
60' 2.262
330' 6.097
1/8 9.225
mph 78.59
1000' 11.922
1/4 14.228
mph 97.33
loaded torque tune
r/t .203
60 2.321
330 6.207
1/8 9.352
mph 78.15
1000 12.56
1/4 14.366
mph 97.25
RACE TUNE WINS
Second test sorry, did not load the race tune - torque tune only. Temperature was cooler than the previous test night by 10 degrees.
r/t .295
60' 2.350
330 6.123
1/8 9.240
mph 78.86
1000 11.927
1/4 14.224
mph 97.69
2nd run
r/t .203
60' 2.345
330' 6.169
1/8 9.292
mph 78.82
1000 11.983
1/4 14.284
mph 97.60
The race tune was quicker. The race beat the torque in the 1320 by 0.14 that night. A little over a tenth..that's 1 car length.
The second night..comparing the torque vs the race (from the 1st night) the torque had a faster ET and mph, but still slower in the 60' and 330. I think if I would've loaded the race tune on the second night..it would've beat the torque. It was at least 10 degrees cooler the 2nd night.
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z...ke09052008.flv
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z...=FirstRace.flv
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z...2209052008.flv
3 of the wins were against an '07 GT manual, predator tune and pypes MM.
1st night
Race tune:
R/T .249
60' 2.262
330' 6.097
1/8 9.225
mph 78.59
1000' 11.922
1/4 14.228
mph 97.33
loaded torque tune
r/t .203
60 2.321
330 6.207
1/8 9.352
mph 78.15
1000 12.56
1/4 14.366
mph 97.25
RACE TUNE WINS
Second test sorry, did not load the race tune - torque tune only. Temperature was cooler than the previous test night by 10 degrees.
r/t .295
60' 2.350
330 6.123
1/8 9.240
mph 78.86
1000 11.927
1/4 14.224
mph 97.69
2nd run
r/t .203
60' 2.345
330' 6.169
1/8 9.292
mph 78.82
1000 11.983
1/4 14.284
mph 97.60
The race tune was quicker. The race beat the torque in the 1320 by 0.14 that night. A little over a tenth..that's 1 car length.
The second night..comparing the torque vs the race (from the 1st night) the torque had a faster ET and mph, but still slower in the 60' and 330. I think if I would've loaded the race tune on the second night..it would've beat the torque. It was at least 10 degrees cooler the 2nd night.
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z...ke09052008.flv
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z...=FirstRace.flv
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z...2209052008.flv
10-11-2008, 11:08 AM
#27
4th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,249
Dude....did you not see what altitude I'm at? (Track altitude is 4400', Density Altitude 6350') At 14.2...I've been pretty quick. The other stangs that I know of..all run between 14.6-15.1...except 1..it's a manual/C&L/Brenspeed tune and Kooks LT's...he also ran a 14.2. Yeah..altitude kills, we're at least 1 sec slower than the guys at sea level.
If you use the NHRA corrected formula...it puts me at a 13.08
If you use the NHRA corrected formula...it puts me at a 13.08
10-11-2008, 12:17 PM
#28
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Escondido, California
Posts: 2,018
I know what what you mean, altitude kills. The 1/8 mile track I run at, the altitude is 1700' and the DA in the summer is around 4000-4500' my times usually average 9.2-9.3 my best time is 8.89. So, that puts me in the mid to high 8s
10-11-2008, 12:57 PM
#29
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
Posts: 1,418
I ran a 13.59 last night got to look what altitude Im at but that was with the 93 Race tune and 3.31 gears and my best run I was spinning because they sprayed too much water on the track and couldnt get around the water box... the other ones I didnt launch too good but did smoke a 94 5.0 twice, and a 2002 Camero LS1... so I did ok...
10-11-2008, 01:28 PM
#30
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 273
OIC that makes sense...i didnt even think about that...sorry about that...I just want to be pretty good into the 12s with slicks and want to get as much info as I can before I buy the tune...from what I read bama is pretty much one of the best NA wise...I bought into the evolution performance tune basically because they are gods with forced induction and assumed they would be the same NA
Dude....did you not see what altitude I'm at? (Track altitude is 4400', Density Altitude 6350') At 14.2...I've been pretty quick. The other stangs that I know of..all run between 14.6-15.1...except 1..it's a manual/C&L/Brenspeed tune and Kooks LT's...he also ran a 14.2. Yeah..altitude kills, we're at least 1 sec slower than the guys at sea level.
If you use the NHRA corrected formula...it puts me at a 13.08
If you use the NHRA corrected formula...it puts me at a 13.08
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
