Rypper1

Does anyone have ET #'s that I can use to compare these tuners? I have talked to a couple of these and wanted a real world comparison. What I am looking at putting on my 06 GT is the JMS package #4 with the 4.10 gears from JMS. They said I should get down to the mid 12's with that package(12.5-12.7). The package is CAI, UDP's, SCT Tuner, Charge Plates, and gears(3.73 or 4.10). I see in the Brenspeed vs Evo thread a comparison of RWHP numbers but haven't found data on ET's to compare. I'm kinda down to EVO vs JMS and leaning toward JMS since he is closer (I plan on letting them do the install). However I got a call from Fred today and his numbers sound good. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks
Randy

ren274u

someone buy me all evo, and jms tune and i will test them all out for you guys

blackout

search please.. the point is Evolution Performance is the best canned tune.

ren274u

because of hp numbers?

chevykiller

Ren,

It's impossible for you to use this data for any real comparisons even if you get it. When comparing tuners, you have to account for RWHP and that's it because that is data that is constant and based on equal variables. Without sounding like a nerd, what I'm basically saying is that when you try to compare ET's to any performance mods, you have to account for driver skill, track conditions, dozens of other car mods that help ET's, and a slew of other things. 2 guys with the exact same tune can run 1-2 seconds difference in ET times just on driver performance alone - now factor in all the other variables and...you get the point.

When comparing tuners, stick with rwhp based on equal mods and that is the best you're going to get.

Mark

Menace

I agree with Chevy.

When I posted my thread, announcing Evolution the victor based on the RWHP gains, that was all it was based on. I may very well knock off another .2 or .3 tenths off my previous best of 13.229 with my Brenspeed tune, or I might not. It's going to all depend on my driving, track conditions, and so on. I don't really see how I would gain RWHP and not gain performance though, that's a bit sketchy.

chevykiller

For you personally, it would only come down to track conditions, reactions, the car running good/bad, etc etc.. Also bear in mind that a little more rwhp could be just the extra ooomf the car needed to start spinnin the tires more and hurt your ET also... Like I said, lot's of variables but yes, on your OWN car, with perhaps a little modification, you should certainly run faster ET's with more rwhp under equal conditions.

But the thread had started with asking for other people's ET's with tunes and that's just plain impossible to make any comparisons to.

Rypper1

Chevy,
I realize that you really can't compare two sets of variables and come up with the same answer. I was just wanting to know what others are getting. Every tuner out there will tell you that they are the best there is. And they should. Who would buy from someone that tells you there are better tuners than they are? While you cannot compare ET to ET without removing some of the variables (driver being the biggest one) It would help to know what the average joe is getting. If you could get an average time (with enough inputs to smooth highs and lows) you could come pretty close. So far I haven't been able to find enough ET #'s to make that possible, and probably wont.

Randy

Daniel60

I have a Brenspeed tune and it rocks like a rocket some days and others it's normal that's because of weather conditions. Anyone telling you that the Brenspeed tune doesn't rock is full of *hit. It does it job and then some.

drbobvs

Amen!

[IMG]local://upfiles/16153/061F9A10FC12402485F1B2FED26AF4C7.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]local://upfiles/16153/61B0404CCF264740B404FD0349092E9A.jpg[/IMG]