Cam and Header Install with AF!
#83
11-17-2010, 02:35 PM
#84
11-17-2010, 03:05 PM
#85
11-17-2010, 03:11 PM
I had the DSP for 1.5yrs before going to SC and the DSP did not feel near as strong. Whether the tuning is reserved, I don't know, but there was a distinct difference between the two, and I'm not even comparing the shift point features at all. Strictly tune-tune.
Sure we can go back-forth all night long, but I just wanted to point out that there was no fair comparison between the two tuners in your situation.
#86
11-17-2010, 03:45 PM
#87
11-17-2010, 03:50 PM
DD im in the same case you are, but opposite. I ran with the SC for a while, then switched to DSP about 2 months before going custom tuning. The DSP 93 tune was definitely stronger than the SC 91 tune. Someone else did a study on this comparing the two of them. His findings were DSP had a stronger tune, but when adjusting shift points, the SC was able to run the same times.
Not to create a DSP vs SC battle here, just thought I'd throw my personal testing in there as well.
Not to create a DSP vs SC battle here, just thought I'd throw my personal testing in there as well.
#88
11-17-2010, 03:56 PM
#89
11-17-2010, 03:58 PM
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Centre Co. PA
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD, I did my own study on the difference between the SC and DSP and made a thread on here. Here is a copy and paste of my results. Here is a link to the thread https://dodgeforum.com/forum/3rd-gen...omparison.html
_____________________________
I ran 2 0-60 runs with each tune and one 1/4 mile run. I used the SC to log all of the times for consistency and also used my ipod touch with dynolicious to make sure nothing weird went on when datalogging with the SC and having a DSP tune loaded. WOT shift points were the same with all tunes. This was with no prep to the truck (still had the spare/tailgate/hard tonneau/subs/tool in the the truck).
Anyway, here is what I ended up with:
SC performance 91 with trans tuning:
0-60: 6.68, 6.66
1/4 mi: 15.17@89
DSP 93 canned tune:
0-60: 6.67, 6.66
1/4mi: 15.16@90
DSP 93 HemiFever Tune:
0-60: 6.51, 6.59 (spun)
1/4mi: 14.88@93
The times are kinda deceiving about it. The DSP 93 tune feels like it has more power, but it looses time on the shift from first to second. The SC 91 has a little less power, but with the TM set to 8% it makes up for slightly less power with quicker shifts. I do not have dyno result to confirm this, but that is what my butt dyno says. I think if the DSP had TM adjustments it would be a little quicker.
__________________
_____________________________
I ran 2 0-60 runs with each tune and one 1/4 mile run. I used the SC to log all of the times for consistency and also used my ipod touch with dynolicious to make sure nothing weird went on when datalogging with the SC and having a DSP tune loaded. WOT shift points were the same with all tunes. This was with no prep to the truck (still had the spare/tailgate/hard tonneau/subs/tool in the the truck).
Anyway, here is what I ended up with:
SC performance 91 with trans tuning:
0-60: 6.68, 6.66
1/4 mi: 15.17@89
DSP 93 canned tune:
0-60: 6.67, 6.66
1/4mi: 15.16@90
DSP 93 HemiFever Tune:
0-60: 6.51, 6.59 (spun)
1/4mi: 14.88@93
The times are kinda deceiving about it. The DSP 93 tune feels like it has more power, but it looses time on the shift from first to second. The SC 91 has a little less power, but with the TM set to 8% it makes up for slightly less power with quicker shifts. I do not have dyno result to confirm this, but that is what my butt dyno says. I think if the DSP had TM adjustments it would be a little quicker.
__________________
Last edited by glass3222; 11-17-2010 at 04:07 PM. Reason: added link to my dsp vs sc thread
#90
11-17-2010, 04:03 PM