Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

At a dyno day I noticed that a R33 Series II GTS25t produced a much more linear power curve than my Series I. A performance workshop has told me that this is entirely normal, and it's because the Series II ECU is superior.

Is it reasonably easy to install a Series II ECU into a Series I?

Thanks,

Greg.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29222-series-ii-ecu-into-a-series-i/
Share on other sites

Hrmm. I believe it would be very easy but if you are trying to replace the stock ECU with another stock ECU I have heard that the 1995 model is the pick of the bunch.

I think the money it would take to find a 1995 ECU would be better put into getting a PowerFC.

The ECU itself is very simple to pull out, you can find it behind the passenger side kick panel.

I cannot verify this with any emperical data, it is purely anecdotal, but it has "better" maps.

I believe there were some posts here once with some graphs representing the maps from 95 ECU's and other year stock ECU's. I will use the search button now.

Fair enough i was unaware that the VVT was the same on all RB25DET until much later models. Thus my question has been answered and i will shut up...

Hehe dont shutup, its a good question and I have no proof to back myself up so either of us could be right.

On topic, I agree that as an "upgrade" the 95 ECU is only worthwhile if you can get it for free or swap over your existing 93, 94 ECU. It is well overrated.

i think you guys may be mistaken ... from what i've read and heard i think the reason why 95 is better is that the ecu takes to mods better ... i've heard of disaster stories with mods and early r33's ... in that the power was less with the mods ... but the 95s take it better ... but nowhere as good as a powerfc :) ... thats just what i think .

Thanks for the info everyone. My car is a '95 model but I haven't checked my ECU yet. I do recall the workshop being surprised at the power gain after installing a 3" turbo back, high-flow cat and pod filter - it went from 121kW up to 147kW, however they said the timing had to be pushed back a fair bit as well. (they said that it appeared to have been tuned for the Japanese fuel)

I now have 168kW @10.5psi - nothing wrong with my maximum power, but it would be nice to have the nice linear power delivery that I remember seeing on the Series 2 dyno plot. I have an EBC which has helped to bring on the power earlier (by eliminating the two level boost staging which the factory boost controller produces), but it still doesn't look as linear as I remember the Series 2 being.

Just for kicks, is anyone able to post a Series 2 (in stock form, or close to) dyno plot?

Greg.

i think you guys may be mistaken ... from what i've read and heard i think the reason why 95 is better is that the ecu takes to mods better ... i've heard of disaster stories with mods and early r33's ... in that the power was less with the mods ... but the 95s take it better ... but nowhere as good as a powerfc  :D  ... thats just what i think .

Yes. In 1995 they included magical abilities into the ECU. Each one is factory blessed by a registered fairy and sat upon by a japanese school girl before being excreted into the car at high velocity by a small leprichaun with a big butt.

This makes about as much sense as your post with about as much logic to back it up.

Yes. In 1995 they included magical abilities into the ECU. Each one is factory blessed by a registered fairy and sat upon by a japanese school girl before being excreted into the car at high velocity by a small leprichaun with a big butt.

This makes about as much sense as your post with about as much logic to back it up.

;)

I tested a few different ECUs this week and found none any better than the others but Tomei ECUs have about 10% less power acoss the rev range but no speed cut and a lot higher rev limit.Boost was the same the fuel was good by jap standards but the timing was soft.

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

    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
×
×
  • Create New...