Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Thanks Tom,

I knew that they were different cause I felt a change when I went from my 95 ECU (now blown up :) ) to a 93 ECU.

BUT NO ONE BELIEVED ME !!!

Thanks for posting up some hard evidence :)

BTW: Do you have the factory maps for the R33 GTS-t in BIN form, or what ever form they need to be to load them up in a Eprom?

I'll see if I can load the stock R33 maps into a Eprom and socket that R32 ECU I have.....

I should've asked you when I saw you last weekend.

Good work.

Jayson

Jay,

I have tried loading the stock R33 ROM data onto an EPROM and use it on R32 ECU. It doesn't work. The K constant is much larger and TP scale is different. R33 ECU must have a different algorithm to calculate the injector pulse time.

Tom

J,

I thought it, you posted it :( Oh yeah, I was with you on this from the start mate!

More evidence to add to the, '95's are better' line of thinking..... Bugalugs ran his stock ECU'd 95 GTS25t to a 13.4 @ near on 107mph at a private drag day last month. His car has a 3" exhaust off the turbo, pod filter, upped boost (12-13 or so psi) & FMIC. Nothing else! It also made 204rwkw at a dyno day last yr. 2 other GTS25t's on the same drag day (not 95's) had more mod's, including a Power FC & Microtech LT12. Bugalugs' car was equal to the LT12 car & faster then the PFC car! Both in ET & TS, & regardless of 60' times.

Makes sense, and in line with what a lot of people have suspected for a while. For it to be empiracally proven, you probably need to get multiple 94/93 ECU's and 95+ ECU's and load them in and see whether it holds the same.

Here in melb a lot of R33's on dyno days and the like can produce some quite high figures (around 170rwkw) and still are running the stock cooler and stock computer... and some of the 93/94 guys (mine is a 94), even with a fair few more mods, only get 180-190rwkw. The ECU difference can account for some 10-20rwkw it seems.

OMG - I bet he was happy !!!

Now the next step is to identify the 'good' ECU's by their firmware version (the MEC no.). Then instead of buying a PFC, it'll be heaps cheaper to buy a 95 model ECU.

Tom - damn shame about that. Hmmmm, I wonder what we can do about it, is it a case of try changing the values and see how it goes?

It's a shame.....

J

Originally posted by whatsisname

His car has a 3" exhaust off the turbo, pod filter, upped boost (12-13 or so psi) & FMIC. Nothing else! It also made 204rwkw at a dyno day last yr.  

I have a '95 GTS-T ('95 ECU) with the same mods making 203rwkw whilst leaning out at the top.

/me gold coats his ECU.

I think the '95 model GTS25t's just became the prefered choice when buying on a very limited performance budget.

I could've saved heaps if I'd have started with a '95! With the usual FMIC, exhaust, pod & extra boost the good ol' 94 ECU went filthy rich giving me a grand total of 126rwkw. The car felt like it too :) It took a Unichip & retune ($1200 later) to give me ~185rwkw. Bugalugs goes out & does the same basic mod's (without touching the ECU) kills my car on the dyno &, more importantly, on the drag strip!

Originally posted by RedLineGTR

think the price for 95 ecus just rose..

Yeah, I'm wish ash's question.

my 97 ecu runs quite lean, possibly different to the earlier maps as well. Would be interesting to see some later model cars if you hve one handy in canberra.

Thanks for doing those comparos tomr33.

Yeah, I would be interested to see series II maps too but don't have them.

I should be able to download maps from any Nissan ECU (except R34 GTR) and do the comparison, just need access to the car or ECU for about half an hour.

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...