Jump to content
SAU Community

Front Pipe + Dump Pipe (Before/After Dyno Results) - 203rwkw Stock ECU/Turbo


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by EnricoPalazzo

Man wats up with ur ECU

your car is a freak

Congrats!! : )

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I swear the 1995 ECU's are different, but I'll check when I get mine done.... One day.....

JiMiH - I wouldn't say the difference was massive, but it was noticable.

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Benm - if you ever have a look at your ECU, let me know what the MEC number is on it.

The MEC number is located on a black sticker on the lid and the back of the ECU covers, and also stamped on the CPU itself.

It'll be something like MEC-R523 etc. The MEC number is the firmware version in the main CPU.

It'll be interesting to see what you have.

Unless you've got a chipped ECU, then that blows that idea out of the water ;)

J

Well I've got a 95 model and my A/F ratio was 10.5:1 before the SAFC tune, so either the ECU has been fiddled with or maybe your fuel pump is not flowing the best or down on press, either way good result, I only managed 188rwkw@12psi and that's with the SAFC, no dump or hiflow cat though do you think the dump is a worthwhile mod?

Originally posted by turbomad

Well I've got a 95 model and my A/F ratio was 10.5:1 before the SAFC tune, so either the ECU has been fiddled with or maybe your fuel pump is not flowing the best or down on press, either way good result, I only managed 188rwkw@12psi and that's with the SAFC, no dump or hiflow cat though do you think the dump is a worthwhile mod?

but look how straight his a/f graph is when on boost. A faulty fuel pump would have it all over the place and not that linear! Sum1 has tinkered with it for sure!

You're always a sceptic aren't you insasnt!

Good work there benm.. although to me it sounds like the A/F is running too nicely for it to be a non-modded ECU (in whatever way). Maybe not though, and it could be a '95 ECU difference if there is such a thing.

For some comparison i should have my '94 dynoed this weekend. I have a HKS dump pipe, front pipe to hiflow cat and straight thru 3" (Super Dragger II), and fairly similar setup with i/c, safc, pod, but now running an EBC.. I changed the oil the other week and should have put some new plugs in before it goes on the rollers (or at least gap checked/re-gapped) to give it peak performance. Will see what mine can get up to. Last was 177 but that was the previous owner on a different dyno without the EBC). Seems like a few are getting right up there to reaching 200rwkw without changing the turbo but of course everybody will argue dyno dynamics.

I'll post what I find out this weekend (with hopefully some people who know a lot more than i do!)

Anybody...Can u measure the A/F ratio via the SAFC ? I have an airflow % is that similar?? Can i work it out via some means?

predator666

we will see if u can beat me this weekend on he same dyno. Thats the only way u can really compare rwkw figures cause all dynos vary.

u need to get the signal from the oxygen sensor to be able to get the a/f ratio. The safc doesent get that sort of signal input i dont think, cant remember what wires i spliced into the ecu!

I see what Jay is getting @ here, & have always wondered about this possible '95 ECU difference? After all the Apexi PFC part # changes after late '94. I realise this is due to a number of changes (ignition amp being one of them) but just maybe........?

Actual dyno figures aside, it certainly is interesting how a number of '95 model GTS25t's have very good A/FR's with OEM ECU's!? And seem to make good power (rwkw) with the OEM ECU. Not all 95's do but I've now seen 5 or more that are "freaks".

Bugalug's car - ~204rwkw, stock ECU, perfect A/FR's throughout the rev range (12:1 peak power)

Benm - Well whadda ya' know! The same mod's as Bug's car - 203rwkw, stock ECU & impressive A/FR's given the norm' for a GTS25t (10.0 - 10.8-1)

rev210 - Very impressive 1/4 results! No doubt helped by a good use of basic mods & driver skill (low 60's for a 205) but none the less a high TS of 104mph. Wish you'd have put it on a known local DD dyno to see what the A/FR's were like rev! (prior to the S-AFC2).

There's more to add to this list but I can't recall names @ the moment? Some of the SDU '95 owners are among the list of outstanding OEM ECU results too.

It could be total coincidence that these "freaks" are '95 models? But I've yet to see a 93-94 GTS25t with a stock ECU running the show produce much better than high 10's - low 11's A/FR @ peak power.

its hard to measure of course once any sort of aftermarket thing goes in.. but i can pull some chip numbers out of my ECU - think my car build is 11/94 so could be an interesting one.

YAY - someone see's what I'm trying to say...... :D:/ :/

Well, when I get off my butt and take my car to a dyno I'll do a comparison cause I've got a 1993 and a 1995 ECU at home (I popped the tacho output on the 1995 :( , and got the 1993 to replace it).

That way I can do a direct back to back dyno run on the same dyno 5 minutes appart.

The 1993 ECU is MEC-R521 serial no., and the 1995 ECU is MEC-R523.

Stay tuned :D

My AFR's non-SAFC are around the 12's at best, for sure.

my ecu is a '522'.

What a rip off I only got the 94 ecu! Thats why my car is so slow! I knew it those bastards! That does it I'm putting the concrete in my boot tonight!

BTW I am pretty sure my R33 is making around 270HP @ the motor maybe a little less. Judging from the cars speed and my previous experiences.

before people ask me "how do I know my AFR's aren't lower?"

Look how much fricken timing I've run on it! Now with the S-afc sorting things I can't run as much if I want the leaner pastures. And I can lean quite alot without dropping below factory advance.

Originally posted by rev210

Further to my post about guesstimating my afr's I should have said my top end would be 9s and the low/mid range max of 12's (non-closed loop stuff).

how is it possible for u to guesstimate your a/f ratio's?? unless u are running behind the car smelling the exhaust fumes. :lol:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • To plug the hole. The engine plant may not have known whether the car it was going into had a gauge or not. It was a long time ago and the integrations might not have been fully modern. Or they might not have cared because the extra inventory and processes to save a few cents on the sender might have cost more anyway. But please tell me you are not still confusing the idea of a pressure gauge sender, and an oil pressure light switch. The switch will be out there. In a separate hole. Probably with only one wire running to it. Running the light.
    • Blower needs to go low on the exhaust side, displacing the AC and PS, which you have to decide whether you want to keep and how and where to relocate if you do. Electric option for PS is, at least, helpful. Sadly, there is no workable 12V electric AC of any value. Whilst the blower is the last compression step before the throttle, and so it might seem a good idea to have it near the inlet manifold (as mentioned above), you probably want it to go through an intercooler first, so, having it on the opposite side of the car facilitates that air flow path. The turbo discharges into the blower, so proximity of the turbo's compressor outlet to the blower's inlet is nice. But then you might want to intercool that too, before boosting it again....which would probably be a ball ache. Routing pipes out to the front and back could be a bit shit. If there was room for (at least) a small (but preferably larger) water to air core on that side, then that would probably be the best approach. I guess a reasonable alternative would be to locate the blower where the alternator is (more or less, associated with the inlet manifold, per Matt's thought), and somehow incorporate a water to air core into the manifold, sort of like they do for modern blown V8s. The big difference here though is that those V8s have only the one throttle (upstream the blower) and only the one compression step (the blower) and no need for too much in the way of bypass/blowoff valves. Whereas in a twin charged 6, you do need to think about one or two bypass valves associated with the 2 compressors and you would prefer to have the intercooling done before the air has to pass through the throttle. You'd like the throttle to work approx the same no matter what the compression is doing. But if it is located in hot air stream before a cooler, then sometimes the air will be real hot, sometimes it will be quite cool, and the throttle mapping/response will be quite different between those two cases. The throttle, if sized for hot air, would be too large for cold conditions. It's all a ball ache.
    • Package SC on exhaust side. Remote mount turbo. Still a fair bit of room when you get creative on the inlet side of the motor too. Especially if you can get really creative with the welding, and effectively build it into the bottom of the inlet manifold. Would definitely take some design work, and some trial and error, to make sure flow works well still! Might be easier to just start with the Nissan March though... All the work is already done for you...
    • I'll sit down and get a post together 😁
    • The factory oil pressure sender is no longer in the car that's what is confusing me. In the Taarks adapter I have an aftermarket Bosch style pressure/temp sender and the factory temp sender only. Oil pressure is perfect. Where does the factory oil temp sender go to if there were never any gauges? Why was it there from the factory?
×
×
  • Create New...