follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Speed By Design
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB > Technical Topics > Engine, Exhaust, Transmission

Engine, Exhaust, Transmission Discuss the FR-S | 86 | BRZ engine, exhaust and drivetrain.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-08-2017, 12:12 PM   #29
justinco
btr.life
 
justinco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: 2022 GR86
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,099
Thanks: 662
Thanked 1,094 Times in 491 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimmSpeed View Post
Should be a cool comparison once you get the GrimmSpeed intake back on. Back when we tested our prototypes against a silicone inlet+ K&N panel filter we saw a couple more ponies in the midrange, and a bit more torque. I really feel like the area that our intake makes power is going to compliment where the 2017 manual cars are making power. Should probably produce a little bit more power in those areas too, so we'll see!

Very few people look at directions anymore, but please make sure to do so with our intake. The most important point is if you put the filter onto the intake tube too far the tube will stick past the venturi on the filter, and give some weird airflow readings. During our dyno testing the difference between a filter that was on too far, and one that wasn't was substantial. I know you said your tuner saw some MAF scaling issues, so you'll want to be sure that you just do not put the filter on the end of the tube farther than 1in MAX. I usually do about .75in, and keeping the filter as straight on the tube will help some too. Should be a cool test!

Chase
Engineering
When I installed it the first time, I broke out the tape measure to make sure it was in the right spot I will make sure to be precise with it this time too.

I already let my tuner know of the change and re-dyno. He wants to see the logs before we put it back on the dyno, to see if anything changes again with the MAF.

Swapping the intake over tonight then I'll dyno again later this week.

Thanks!
__________________
justinco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2017, 12:21 PM   #30
imnotsureaboutbrz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Drives: between cars...
Location: Ohio
Posts: 498
Thanks: 192
Thanked 263 Times in 158 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I will have to disagree on this. Please be aware that the newer changes didn't pass the emission tests in Europe and the manufacturer is selling now the revised models with the old engine (MT & AT). I would say that they felt some pressure to provide more power and tried their best even though they were aware that they'll cross the limits in certain regions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Thissen View Post
I didn't know that either but according to the brochure on toyota.nl, both auto and manual cars have 147kw (~200hp).
https://www.toyota.nl/brochures/gt86-brochure.json
See now that makes sense... I've been watching all these 2017 brz/86 review videos from europe (UK mostly) and wondered why they didn't have the red intake when they popped the hood...
imnotsureaboutbrz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to imnotsureaboutbrz For This Useful Post:
D_Thissen (05-08-2017), nikitopo (05-08-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 02:48 AM   #31
nikitopo
Senior Member
 
nikitopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Drives: '15 BRZ RA
Location: Greece
Posts: 3,787
Thanks: 2,416
Thanked 1,944 Times in 1,261 Posts
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinco View Post
Interesting results from my dyno session with the 2017 car. Largely the same as my 2013 FRS, but with some differences. Primarily, the 2013 FRS made less power stock, while the 2017 BRZ made more power stock. However, peak power was nearly identical between both cars. I was hoping the 2017's would gain more overall, but it looks like they are pretty efficient from the factory compared to the old cars and end up almost the same when you have similar upgrades.

2017 peak power, 91oct street tune: 182hp/147tq @ the wheels (altitude corrected).

Details in the video.
I am accepting such dyno results with a salt of grain. The information here is contradictory to other evidence. Check here: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118320

The real difference of the older stock cars ('13 - '16) with the '17 cars is 5 hp. Additionally, you're saying that the bolt-ons and tune on the new car gave minimal peak gains. If we subtract the 5 hp difference, then I would expect that the peak gains of the same parts on the old car to be also minimal.


My overall point is that the argument "the old cars were not efficient from the factory" is nonsense. It was just a big greenfield for the aftermarket scene and some vendors exaggerated the results for their own benefit with specific products.

Last edited by nikitopo; 05-09-2017 at 03:07 AM.
nikitopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 08:15 AM   #32
Teseo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Drives: frs
Location: Gunsai
Posts: 4,874
Thanks: 7,131
Thanked 2,919 Times in 1,767 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I am accepting such dyno results with a salt of grain. The information here is contradictory to other evidence. Check here: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118320

The real difference of the older stock cars ('13 - '16) with the '17 cars is 5 hp. Additionally, you're saying that the bolt-ons and tune on the new car gave minimal peak gains. If we subtract the 5 hp difference, then I would expect that the peak gains of the same parts on the old car to be also minimal.


My overall point is that the argument "the old cars were not efficient from the factory" is nonsense. It was just a big greenfield for the aftermarket scene and some vendors exaggerated the results for their own benefit with specific products.
13' stock tune sucks ass. Rich on the top and lumpy on idle
Teseo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 08:41 AM   #33
steve99
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Drives: FT86
Location: Australia
Posts: 7,998
Thanks: 1,035
Thanked 4,987 Times in 2,981 Posts
Mentioned: 598 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Heres a log of this guys 2017 stock brz


http://www.datazap.me/u/justinco/201...-2-4-7-9-10-11


Now you will notice two things


1. It doesn't run pig rich like the older cars, 2017 12.5 AFR, the older cars ran down into the high 10 AFR like 10.8


2. The STFT is still active all the way to redline at WOT , ie its running CLOSED loop all the way. This equals better AFR control. The old tunes went OPEN loop fuelling after a short period of WOT.




Around 12 is what most tuners leaned out the old tunes to get a bit more power higher rpm if the fuel was good enough.


In the new tunes its already done so its likely to limit gains you can make with tune alone. Which this guys before and after dyno appear to show.


The 2017 ECU software has changed not just the setting in tune tables.


They have completely revised the fuelling strategy, its much more complex than the old fuelling logic, additional fuel tables and changed logic and runs closed loop almost all the time.


They also have two timing and fueling maps/modes in the ZA1JKxxx roms.

Last edited by steve99; 05-09-2017 at 09:37 AM.
steve99 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to steve99 For This Useful Post:
200hp/tonne (05-09-2017), FRSBRZGT86FAN (06-25-2018), invaliduser (05-09-2017), justinco (05-09-2017), phm14 (05-11-2020), Prodigalson (09-15-2018), sato (05-16-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 09:24 AM   #34
wparsons
Senior Member
 
wparsons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Drives: 2013 Asphalt FR-S Manual
Location: Whitby, ON, Canada
Posts: 6,716
Thanks: 7,875
Thanked 3,351 Times in 2,134 Posts
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I am accepting such dyno results with a salt of grain. The information here is contradictory to other evidence. Check here: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118320

The real difference of the older stock cars ('13 - '16) with the '17 cars is 5 hp. Additionally, you're saying that the bolt-ons and tune on the new car gave minimal peak gains. If we subtract the 5 hp difference, then I would expect that the peak gains of the same parts on the old car to be also minimal.


My overall point is that the argument "the old cars were not efficient from the factory" is nonsense. It was just a big greenfield for the aftermarket scene and some vendors exaggerated the results for their own benefit with specific products.
The factory claim is 5hp, real world dynos show more like 10-15whp more stock vs stock on the same dyno in similar conditions. The <=2016 were a bit overrated on power, the 2017's are more true to the claimed hp.

The tunes on the original cars were rushed, and it showed in many ways. The 2017's have a much more refined tune.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Thissen View Post
@justinco just goes to show how poor the factory exhaust manifold and tune of the first gen 86's were. It would be interesting to see auto-x times between your old frs and new brz though.
Enough that the new ones are a class higher than the earlier cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I will have to disagree on this. Please be aware that the newer changes didn't pass the emission tests in Europe and the manufacturer is selling now the revised models with the old engine (MT & AT). I would say that they felt some pressure to provide more power and tried their best even though they were aware that they'll cross the limits in certain regions.
It's the same engine, just different manifolds and tunes.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound, so people may appear to be bright until you hear them speak...
flickr
wparsons is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wparsons For This Useful Post:
D_Thissen (05-09-2017), justinco (05-09-2017), phm14 (05-11-2020), Teseo (05-09-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 09:38 AM   #35
D_Thissen
Senior Member
 
D_Thissen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Drives: '13 Argento FR-S (Sold)
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,126
Thanks: 3,209
Thanked 1,439 Times in 855 Posts
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
My overall point is that the argument "the old cars were not efficient from the factory" is nonsense. It was just a big greenfield for the aftermarket scene and some vendors exaggerated the results for their own benefit with specific products.
@justinco posted before/after dyno videos of his 2013 frs. Not looking at the actual numbers, there were gains across the rpm band. Early cars had deficiencies, which were corrected for the 2017MY with a revised exhaust manifold, tune and other things. Which is possibly the reason why the gains aren't as great on the newer cars.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4kkTgmjXE"]Scion FRS post upgrade dyno numbers - YouTube[/ame]
__________________
D_Thissen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to D_Thissen For This Useful Post:
justinco (05-09-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 11:03 AM   #36
200hp/tonne
Senior Member
 
200hp/tonne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Drives: Raven Fr-S
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 136
Thanks: 100
Thanked 84 Times in 37 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve99 View Post
Heres a log of this guys 2017 stock brz
They also have two timing and fueling maps/modes in the ZA1JKxxx roms.
Do you know if the ECU hardware is the same?
Also, what is the point behind multiple ignition maps?
__________________
FR-S Mod target: 200 BHp / Tonne
4lb Li Battery, RPF1 17x9, 245 RE71R, RCE T2, OFH, OFT Stg 2, Berk Over+Front Pipe, , STI Eng/Trans Mts, PU Bushings, Forrester Liq-Liq oil cooler, Al Driveshaft, OSGiken Diff

200hp/tonne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 11:33 AM   #37
nikitopo
Senior Member
 
nikitopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Drives: '15 BRZ RA
Location: Greece
Posts: 3,787
Thanks: 2,416
Thanked 1,944 Times in 1,261 Posts
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve99 View Post
1. It doesn't run pig rich like the older cars, 2017 12.5 AFR, the older cars ran down into the high 10 AFR like 10.8
Hi Steve. A few questions ...

How do you monitor the AFRs? I've seen different dynos of the older cars (stock) and the AFRs were totally different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve99 View Post
They have completely revised the fuelling strategy, its much more complex than the old fuelling logic, additional fuel tables and changed logic and runs closed loop almost all the time.
They are running now in closed loop almost all the time for better fuel consumption. This was confirmed by the factory.
nikitopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 11:50 AM   #38
wparsons
Senior Member
 
wparsons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Drives: 2013 Asphalt FR-S Manual
Location: Whitby, ON, Canada
Posts: 6,716
Thanks: 7,875
Thanked 3,351 Times in 2,134 Posts
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
How do you monitor the AFRs? I've seen different dynos of the older cars (stock) and the AFRs were totally different.
If the car in question has been tuned, then the AFR will be whatever the tune is commanding. If you're relying on the stock primary O2, it'll be different because it can only read so low without being re-scaled.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound, so people may appear to be bright until you hear them speak...
flickr
wparsons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 12:19 PM   #39
steve99
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Drives: FT86
Location: Australia
Posts: 7,998
Thanks: 1,035
Thanked 4,987 Times in 2,981 Posts
Mentioned: 598 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
Hi Steve. A few questions ...

How do you monitor the AFRs? I've seen different dynos of the older cars (stock) and the AFRs were totally different.



They are running now in closed loop almost all the time for better fuel consumption. This was confirmed by the factory.



The log above AFR measured by vehicles 02 sensor, the 2017 tune calibrates it down to 10 afr.


The previous tunes only calibrated 02 sensor down to 12.17 afr so even if it ran way richer (which it did) you could not see the correct reading using the vehicle o2 sensor unless you flashed a tune with 02 sensor recalibrated to read lower afr. Or you had to use a tailpipe sensor, these usually read a little different to the vehicle 02 sensor that right near the exhaust port, tailpipe sensor usually read 0.5 to 1 afr point leaner from what ive seen.



Here is log of an older STOCK rom , note how the AFR just flatlines at the sensor reading limit of 12.17, its rearly running afr down to 10.8 or so


http://www.datazap.me/u/steve99/brz-...zoom=1718-1986



See Image at end of this post the STOCK fuel table targeted by ecu in older roms 2012-2016, high rpm/load its targeting in the 10 AFR





Pretty well every tune ive logged tuners have leaned out the old tunes to around 12 to 12.3 at high rpm/load. this was an easy power gain, they also did changes to cam timings.


however ive seen a few kw gained on cars that ran rich by simply leaning them out to what the original tuner set (ie the maf scaling was off due say intake change) correcting the afr got you a few kw without changing anything else.




They don't seem to be claiming better economy figures on our web site still got 7.8l/100km as per old version



A01G is older rom, K00C is 2017 rom


Attached Images
 

Last edited by steve99; 05-09-2017 at 12:48 PM.
steve99 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to steve99 For This Useful Post:
D_Thissen (05-09-2017), justinco (05-09-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 12:49 PM   #40
justinco
btr.life
 
justinco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: 2022 GR86
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,099
Thanks: 662
Thanked 1,094 Times in 491 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I am accepting such dyno results with a salt of grain.
As you should. Pretty sure I made that clear in the video that there are so many variables to take into account, and this was just 1 test. You are welcome to perform your own and share
__________________
justinco is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to justinco For This Useful Post:
D_Thissen (05-09-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 12:58 PM   #41
steve99
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Drives: FT86
Location: Australia
Posts: 7,998
Thanks: 1,035
Thanked 4,987 Times in 2,981 Posts
Mentioned: 598 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 200hp/tonne View Post
Do you know if the ECU hardware is the same?
Also, what is the point behind multiple ignition maps?



The ecu hardware and processor appear to be same.


however while you can flash older roms to the 2017 ecu , don't, their appears to be changes to the Security system in the 2017 and the car wont start ecu and immobiliser modules throw a hissy fit, believe me I know. You can get it working again by resyncing all the security modules, but you need the 2017 rom.




All the changes to fueling strategy and timing strategy are not yet fully understood, especially by opensource guys. Ecutek guys have got most of it sorted, but think theirs still a few unknowns.
steve99 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to steve99 For This Useful Post:
200hp/tonne (05-09-2017)
Old 05-09-2017, 01:16 PM   #42
justinco
btr.life
 
justinco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: 2022 GR86
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,099
Thanks: 662
Thanked 1,094 Times in 491 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve99 View Post
The ecu hardware and processor appear to be same.

however while you can flash older roms to the 2017 ecu , don't, their appears to be changes to the Security system in the 2017 and the car wont start ecu and immobiliser modules throw a hissy fit, believe me I know. You can get it working again by resyncing all the security modules, but you need the 2017 rom.

All the changes to fueling strategy and timing strategy are not yet fully understood, especially by opensource guys. Ecutek guys have got most of it sorted, but think theirs still a few unknowns.
Another thing to add about ECUtek: It seems the RaceRom features (ie: launch control, flat-foot shift, auto-blip downshift, etc) do not work on the 2017 cars. I have done extensive testing with my tuner and cannot see to get them to work. Map switching via the cruise control stalk is also not working, we had to go back to the old style map switching, which works (gas pedal + defrost button).
__________________
justinco is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to justinco For This Useful Post:
D_Thissen (05-09-2017), steve99 (05-09-2017)
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
stock tune only bolt ons dyno slow15frs Engine, Exhaust, Transmission 14 05-12-2016 12:42 AM
Ace Header 4-2-1 CS400 Custom BRZEdit Tune Dyno Results JDM-dono Engine, Exhaust, Transmission 24 05-05-2016 04:54 PM
My Dyno Tune Results brz961 Software Tuning 3 08-28-2014 11:43 PM
Visconti vs FA20Club vs Stock Tune Dyno Results mechaghost Engine, Exhaust, Transmission 153 07-08-2013 11:35 AM
Moar power with simple bolt-ons & ECUTek tune @ OnPoint Dyno l8apexr CANADA 23 04-25-2013 06:50 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.