Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

After changing (years ago) from a slightly modded GTST, standard ECU, to an un-tuned Power FC....

I obvisouly noticed a better midrange in power and better drivabilty overall.....even before tuned...and even better after!

My question is this,

If i have a, lets say, a 2000yr, 1.8 Corolla, is it worth adding a piggy back to punch in some extra timing and getting that better feal?

Would it work?

Are NA standard cars already at their optimum or are they running super safe where you could squeeze some extra omph outta them?

What are your thoughts?

NA cars won't lean out as easily as a turbo car, so they don't have to be as careful with the tune I guess. There are always things you can do with an NA though, like advancing the timing for instance.

Are NA standard cars already at their optimum or are they running super safe where you could squeeze some extra omph outta them?

All OEM cars are tuned conservatively. You can always find a little extra by tuning the ECU, especially if you're willing to always run it on a higher octane fuel. Then there's removing inherent restrictions like the intake and exhaust if you're willing to put up with a bit more noise.

As for whether its "worth" it, its up to you. You'll still need to spend money on it, and you won't see the gains you would on an FI car. If you have to have more punch and you can afford it, then do it. But I get the feeling you've got better things to spend your money on than getting a handful of fwkW on a $600 outlay with an A'PEXi S-AFC.

I had a very clean EF falcon.It was one of my most enjoyable cars.

Full exhuast

Headers

XR ECU and fuel reg

Cam

Valve springs

Lowered springs

KYB shocks

Nice wheels

I wish i never sold it. :P

Not the fastest thing in the world,but it sounded horn and was a great drive.I only mod inline 6s though.4s dont do it for me.

Its definitely worth it You will see roughly 14+kw gain from intake + exhaust

Sky is the limit. plenty of go fast bits for them! more than enough market and experience out there

twincam.net will be the best place to ask around :P

I love the power delivery and throttle response from my z...

but nothing compares to the rush when the skyline's on boost :P .

Most n/a 4 banger posers add a cannon and leave it at that.

I would do;

2.5" exhaust

good size extractors (not too large)

hi flow panel filter

adjustable cams

decent Air/Fuel management

in the end its going to be a 1.8 corolla, put a better flowing exhaust on it, filter, spend some money on suspension parts and put some nice work rims on it....

no point in modding the engine with a computer etc to get 5extra fwkw

i had an r33 gts-4 non-turbo with the rb25de engine

it had pod, zorst and unichip ecu which made a ridiculously pathetic 78awkw!

a full 2kw gain for 900bux

:laughing-smiley-014:

Thanks for all your replies.

I guess i was hoping for some sort of easy piggy back ECU that could easily be tuned from the passenger seat....leaving AFR's and punching in an extra 5' of timing or something for $500??

I'm more interested in an increase in low-midrange torque feal, upgrades.

Not interested in top output power ( i guess i shoulda stated that earlier)

Thinking i'll just leave it as is.

Cheers big ears.

Birnie :P

After changing (years ago) from a slightly modded GTST, standard ECU, to an un-tuned Power FC....

I obvisouly noticed a better midrange in power and better drivabilty overall.....even before tuned...and even better after!

My question is this,

If i have a, lets say, a 2000yr, 1.8 Corolla, is it worth adding a piggy back to punch in some extra timing and getting that better feal?

Would it work?

Are NA standard cars already at their optimum or are they running super safe where you could squeeze some extra omph outta them?

What are your thoughts?

It's like giving a fat boy a pair of Nikes and asking him to run quickly... won't happen. So why bother?

worth tuning an NA car? it's not even worth driving one.... :D

ok ok.. some of us haven't earned our boost wings yet. I'm glad my first car was a charade i probably would have killed myself in anything quicker :D

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...