Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

How much did you pay for EcuTek in Aus if you mind telling me? or pm whatever you prefer thanks

Tunehouse charged me $1700 for the tune. I have no idea how much of that was the license component.

  • 5 years later...

Thought I'd post an update on this, as the one thing I had noticed about six months later was some detonation when driving out of a parking station at low RPM, high load (i.e. uphill).

I've rarely had any time to myself to drop in on these guys during the week but I took advantage of my work-from-home situation (I still hate you, CCP!) and drop it in to Tunehouse for another run.

There have been a number of improvements made in the software, which I neglected to ask but we're now up to version 11 (I presume we're talking about ECUtek, not the Nissan firmware). My instructions were clear - dial out the detonation even if it means losing response, torque, overall power, etc.

The motor was around 30,000kms old at the time of the initial tune, if I remember correctly. This tune was at around 60,000kms last week. Despite the low kms, it was suggested that the OEM spark plugs be replaced (they installed HKS M54XL Super Fire) and give the MAFs a clean while they're at it, so I ran along with that.

The torque has definitely been dialled out of the low RPM range with less aggressive timing, which is what I anticipated and so the response off the line at the lights isn't as snappy when light on the throttle. WOT response from a standstill is still reasonably aggressive. I actually appreciate that because I'm not jolting the car as often, which was an annoyance before no matter how lightly I would feather the accelerator. I'm sure my passengers will appreciate it all the more! Better yet, my VDC isn't triggering as aggressively as it used to either, despite my aged but not worn Pilot Sport 3 rubber on the rear. Overall, the car is still just as fun for me but now it's a little easier to tame.

Surprisingly, we gained a further 5kW and another 9Nm of peak torque since the last dyno tune six years ago. Still, even if I lost 5kW, I'd rather that to egg-shaped cylinders from all that detonation.

Dyno Tune Update 2020.jpg

Edited by The Max

@The Max

Its interesting to see your figures to be honest. It makes me wonder a few things, my 5AT 370gt pulled 218rwkw with similar tq.
my friends with the same transmission was 217.5rwkw. (both Uprev)


Wonder if thats a tuner thing or ecutek.

 

** Both of ours stock pulled around 195rwkw on 2 separate dyno's.

Could be a number of factors but my concern was primarily not to be as aggressive on the timing to avoid the detonation, so it could well be that I lost performance in that area.

Maybe the difference in transmissions plays a part (as in greater inefficiency)? The only real way of being sure where the point of difference is would be to get back to basics, putting your engine and mine on an engine dyno first, to take the transmission out of the equation.

18 hours ago, The Max said:

Thought I'd post an update on this, as the one thing I had noticed about six months later was some detonation when driving out of a parking station at low RPM, high load (i.e. uphill).

I've rarely had any time to myself to drop in on these guys during the week but I took advantage of my work-from-home situation (I still hate you, CCP!) and drop it in to Tunehouse for another run.

There have been a number of improvements made in the software, which I neglected to ask but we're now up to version 11 (I presume we're talking about ECUtek, not the Nissan firmware). My instructions were clear - dial out the detonation even if it means losing response, torque, overall power, etc.

The motor was around 30,000kms old at the time of the initial tune, if I remember correctly. This tune was at around 60,000kms last week. Despite the low kms, it was suggested that the OEM spark plugs be replaced (they installed HKS M54XL Super Fire) and give the MAFs a clean while they're at it, so I ran along with that.

The torque has definitely been dialled out of the low RPM range with less aggressive timing, which is what I anticipated and so the response off the line at the lights isn't as snappy when light on the throttle. WOT response from a standstill is still reasonably aggressive. I actually appreciate that because I'm not jolting the car as often, which was an annoyance before no matter how lightly I would feather the accelerator. I'm sure my passengers will appreciate it all the more! Better yet, my VDC isn't triggering as aggressively as it used to either, despite my aged but not worn Pilot Sport 3 rubber on the rear. Overall, the car is still just as fun for me but now it's a little easier to tame.

Surprisingly, we gained a further 5kW and another 9Nm of peak torque since the last dyno tune six years ago. Still, even if I lost 5kW, I'd rather that to egg-shaped cylinders from all that detonation.

Dyno Tune Update 2020.jpg

was that done in a different gear to previous run? asking as the diff ratio is way different,,,,

 

3 hours ago, DashyyPC said:

Its interesting to see your figures to be honest. It makes me wonder a few things, my 5AT 370gt pulled 218rwkw with similar

depends on teh correction factor use, these runs are with DIN70020 which is not as common, not sure how much of an impact that has on the output.

 

11 hours ago, Ben C34 said:

was that done in a different gear to previous run? asking as the diff ratio is way different,,,,

You know what? I never even paid any attention to that until you pointed it out! I have no idea how the Dynapack dyno works, in terms of how it works out the diff ratio, but it definitely raises an important question. Six years had passed since the last time it was dyno'ed and unless they do keep notes on exactly how the dyno was done on each occasion, it's likely that the method had changed for whatever reason.

Seems a bit high though, doesn't it?

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

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...