Here's my report of the day's testing.
Disclaimer first: I am providing data and my subjective observations, that is all. I am not endorsing one product over another.
I originally wanted to do my own plotting (with Excel), but was unable to get ascii data, so instead I used the dyno display tool/app and used the best run of the three configurations tested.
Some things to note first:
1) Almost everybody had lower expected peak HP/torque; we are not sure why, but speculate temperature is a factor.
2) We had noticable differences between identical setups. Some of this might be accounted for by different tire sizes, but I doubt that is the only factor. This is why I don't take comparisons between vehicles and locations very seriously. In fact...
3) I had noticeable differences between my own runs, with no changes! I.e., we ran two back-to-back runs; the second was always lower. This is probably due to heat soak of the intercooler. The difference was big enough to wipe out the gains from going to bigger injectors, even!
I am plotting actual HP/torque, not corrected. Since I am making comparisons on my car with a single change between each set of runs, only the differences matter here, not absolute values.
My "baseline" setup is Upsolute + B205 (bought 2 years ago from a shop in England, same part number as the Euro 110 HP 1.9). The Upsolute chip is "normal", i.e. not modified for big injectors.
This first graph shows what happens when you switch to PP520's. Observe that up to 1900 RPM, the B205's do better than the PP520's. The PP520's overtake for a short time, then B205's retake the lead, but then from 2400 RPM and on, the PP520's are in the lead, though by a very small margin. "001" is B205, "003" is PP520.
The second graph compares B205's and B203's (aka "B216", or the "new, improved" B216). Observe that up to nearly 2500 RPM the B205's are in the lead, by quite a clear margin even. From there until about 3500 RPM, they swap places twice. After 3500 RPM, the B203's are in the lead, though not exactly by a commanding lead due to an odd perturbation around 4200 RPM. "001" is B205, "008" is B203.
The last graph below puts PP520's and B203's side-by-side. Observe that the B203's are ahead of the PP520's up to 1800 RPM, but only by a small margin. PP520's take a wide lead from there until 2300 RPM. There is some nearly equal performance for the next 500 RPM or so, then PP520's take the lead until about 3300 RPM. There is again parity for about 500 RPM, then the B203's take the lead until 4100 RPM. There are two more swaps after that. "003" is PP520, "008" is B203.
The smoke levels were also noted during each run. While this is a subjective comparison, the four eyeballs watching were all in agreement so I think our observations are valid. For the purpose of comparison, I'll call "0" to be no smoke, and "10" to be the most smoke I ever saw on my vehicle that day.
The B205's had a short burst of smoke at level 8, then quickly tapered off to a steady 5 for nearly the remainder of the run, but ended at about 6. While I didn't watch the RPM gauge, I'm guessing that the smokey part was everything up to the peak torque RPM. (Same goes for the others.) The PP520's had a burst of 10, then tapered off to 8 for a while, then back up to 9 at the end. The B203's had a burst of 9, then quickly tapered to 4 and gradually reduced to about 2 until the end of the run. One final observation is that the PP520's had a somewhat more "chunky" appearance to the smoke, whereas the B205's and B203's had consistent density.
There is one more test to make, which is mileage comparisons. I have been getting fairly consistent 40-41 mpg for the last 6 months or so with the B205's. I'll report back when I have completed a tank or two of the B203's.
Thanks to Dan for setting this up, and to Ray for the use of his shop, and to Norman for helping everybody get set up.
Chris