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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...