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

    • Hey guys, I’m a veteran detailer with years of hands-on experience. I’ll be sharing quick, effective detailing tips to help you keep your Skyline (or any ride) looking its best. Got a question? Fire away!
    • I guess when I say it's a POS I mean.. the solution and the stuff has the capacity for maybe... 1 spot. You know, as a spot cleaner. What I really *want* is the ability to do an entire car, all upholstery, all carpet, mats, all seats, door card inserts, A pillars, roof liners, etc. In one go. I get lured by all the jank that comes out and think "I'd like to be able to clean to that degree"
    • I've got one (not the car one, the domestic spot cleaner one, which is basically the same jobbie) and have driven it hard for hours and hours at a time. Grimy sofas, 6' floor rugs, etc. I'd blame your specific example rather than the whole category. I haven't used mine in the car, because.... you know, it's my car. So there is no-one else's ball sweat in the driver's seat, there's no kid food/drink spills or hand prints inside because they've never had an opportunity to put them there. You know, basic, standard Skyline rules.
    • I normally run with I think a 10mm, and definitely use the second handle you can add to a drill. They hurt when they bins up!   For the crush tube, once all subframe is clear, I'd try some stilsons and see if I can get it to start to twist.
    • Probably because they couldn't, because the use of the variable resistor to create a "signal" in the ECU is managed by the ECU's circuitry. The only way that VDO could do it would be if they made a "smart" sensor that directly created the 0-5V signal itself. And that takes us back to the beginning. Well, in that case, you could do the crude digital (ie, binary, on or off) input that I mentioned before, to at least put a marker on the trace. If you pressed the button only at a series of known integer temperatures, say every 2°C from the start of your range of interest up to whatever you can manage, and you know what temperature the first press was at, then you'd have the voltage marked for all of those temperatures. And you can have more than one shot at it too. You can set the car up to get the oil hot (bypass oil coolers, mask off the air flow to oil coolers, and/or the radiator, to get the whole engine a bit hotter, then give it a bit of curry to get some measurements up near the top of the range.   On the subject of the formula for the data you provided, I did something different to Matt's approach, and got a slightly different linear formula, being Temp = -22.45*V + 118.32. Just a curve fit from Excel using all the points, instead of just throwing it through 2 points. A little more accurate, but not drastically different. Rsquared is only 0.9955 though, which is good but not great. If you could use higher order polynomials in the thingo, then a quadratic fit gives an excellent Rsquared of 0.9994. Temp = 2.1059*V^2 - 34.13*V + 133.27. The funny thing is, though, that I'd probably trust the linear fit more for extrapolation beyond the provided data. The quadratic might get a bit squirrely. Hang on, I'll use the formulae to extend the plots.... It's really big so you can see all the lines. I might have to say that I think I really still prefer the quadratic fit. It looks like the linear fit overstates the temperature in the middle of the input range, and would pretty solidly understate what the likely shape of the real curve would say at both ends.
×
×
  • Create New...