Can't wait to see them add suspension, braking, and other handling mods now that it has close to the upper limit of what you can do on the stock turbo.
Watched this video this morning while taking a crap. Yes, my craps take a long time. And yes, I need more fiber. Just sayin...
The short end: 240whp / 318wtq on 100 Octane from their Stage 3 Fiesta ST camera car (protuned by Cobb in CA).
The long end: Matt spends about 10 minutes gushing about how much of a mountain pass / canyon weapon the car is.
Here's hoping. They might still.
Thanks for dropping by, Matt! I was hoping you would. Thanks for clearing that up for us. It really is impressive what that engine can do with just over the shelf tuning. Also, have fun with our friend Eric's turbo ZX3 today.
Similar to what's been said on YouTube (in the comments), you aren't going to get near-identical power figures across the country. Every single chassis dyno is different, even without taking into account things like barometric pressure, ambient temperature, humidity, fuel quality, and the car in question. Those are a lot of x-factors to account for. Luckily enough for the guys at TST, it seems the conditions were fairly close to the same for each of the days they were there (as Matt has said a couple of times in a few different places when allegations were made that COBB is massaging the graphs). As with all things, 'your mileage may vary'. I certainly wouldn't expect to put down those numbers at my local dyno shop (which is a COBB ProTuner -- EFI Logics in Bethel, CT) as they have a Mustang Dynamics AWD500SE that reads notoriously low. Fuel quality variance is also definitely 'a thing'--look at my thread about getting pro-tuned on 93 with Randy Robles from Mountune. We struggled with sub-par fuel until I found an alternative source, and even with my present revision, there is still positive correction (which is great) and the tune very strong and consistent, without being on the ragged edge. As you probably know, all these things make a difference. What's important is not just the absolute numbers, but the relative gains and that real estate under the curve.
Yeah, that is definitely not the reaction I'd have hoped for, either.
Promise Matt, not trying to say you got it pro-tuned and your saying that you didn't. I'm saying I was wrong it what i remembered seeing from the stg3 video. Its been a while since I'd seen it. And you would def remember it bette than me since its your car (well, your staff) and I'm sure your sick of seeing the video by the time its edited,'lol. I was admitting I was wrong on that.
Outliers can and will happen---I've seen it before, and will probably again--in both directions. That's a natural occurrence when you gather a wide enough sample. Some cars & dynos will dyno high, some will dyno absurdly low. I personally don't think it's incumbent on Cobb Tuning to adjust their settings to accommodate what people think is the expected value for a given set of modifications. I also don't see COBB saying x part will yield y horsepower and torque gains in concrete figures--they give very rough percentages based on what they know.
Totally different. Matt can feel free to correct me (if he's even inclined to post here now) but I'm pretty sure what these videos constitute are that COBB has hooked up TST with parts to showcase what they can do. They ran them on the dyno, and that's what turned up. Now, I'll ask you to move on from your crusade to prove something---and I'm not sure whether that's to prove Matt wrong, to prove Cobb wrong, or what. Any result on a dyno should be taken at a grain of salt, because it says 'that is what that car did, on that day, in those conditions, on that dyno'.
