Nameless Performance Equal Length Stepped Header

[swift996]

Has this been tested with everything stock (mid pipe and exhaust/mufflers)? I ask because of there are some solid performance gains, I'm very interested. I'm however not interested in having a loud car (hence the stock mufflers). Perhaps I might go with a Borla cat back down the road.

[Spaceywilly]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Doubt it'll be an option, because of:

"In partnership with Element Tuning and Hydra EMS will be offering the Toyota FRS/Subaru BRZ PNP Nemesis 2.7 unit for an extremely low introductory price of $1899, a savings of more than $500! Starting April 1st, 2013, pricing on this model will retail for $2400."

Not many people are going to spend that kind of cash on engine management for these cars. I understand there's benefits for R&D, but most people who get this header and a tune are going with ECUtek, so it doesn't make sense to tell your customers "You'll need to drop an extra $2,400 if you want this part to work properly."

Like OrbitalEllipses said though, there might be something to learn comparing methods between the two.

I don't think he was suggesting that everyone buys a hydra, but companies that are developing new parts probably have the budget to get one and use to it to design their parts. A part that makes more power on a hydra without the crazy torque dip logic confusing things will make more power on an ecutek tune as well.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

I don't think he was suggesting that everyone buys a hydra, but companies that are developing new parts probably have the budget to get one and use to it to design their parts. A part that makes more power on a hydra without the crazy torque dip logic confusing things will make more power on an ecutek tune as well.

Yup. The issue with Ecutek seems be that they haven't sorted everything out yet in terms of all the OEM maps.

While they are continuously updating for customers, it seems to be a source of headaches for parts development.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

I don't think he was suggesting that everyone buys a hydra, but companies that are developing new parts probably have the budget to get one and use to it to design their parts. A part that makes more power on a hydra without the crazy torque dip logic confusing things will make more power on an ecutek tune as well.

Originally Posted by Dimman

Yup. The issue with Ecutek seems be that they haven't sorted everything out yet in terms of all the OEM maps.

While they are continuously updating for customers, it seems to be a source of headaches for parts development.

That's kinda the point though, isn't it? You develop a part that works with a tuning solution that very few people are going to be actually using and you've wasted a lot of time. Unless I'm completely mistaken, we've already determined that the dip issue was not hardware related, it's ECU related, yes? So wouldn't it make sense to tune out the issues with the solution that will actually be used in production? My understanding of this process could be very flawed, but that's the way I see it right now.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

That's kinda the point though, isn't it? You develop a part that works with a tuning solution that very few people are going to be actually using and you've wasted a lot of time. Unless I'm completely mistaken, we've already determined that the dip issue was not hardware related, it's ECU related, yes? So wouldn't it make sense to tune out the issues with the solution that will actually be used in production? My understanding of this process could be very flawed, but that's the way I see it right now.

The current Ecutek system is messing around with the tuning, it seems. I'm pretty sure they admitted that they are still identifying new maps. As they find out more about the ECU they send out patches.

But if a company wants to produce the best parts, they need a stable tuning platform. If Nameless can't rely on the tune to be stable it draws out development. If their tune is stable they can make the best parts possible and wait for Ecutek to stabilize and customers get the updates. If they design to Ecutek's variability, the part may not be as good as it could be and there would be room for improvement still, even after their development time.

Make sense?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Calum

No. Some of the dip has been removed from tuning but it's a harmonics issue with the intake and/or exhaust.

The 'dip' that nameless is seeing with their header looks to be a completely different issue to me. Yes, it's happening at a similar part of the rpm range, but the breadth of the dip is completely different and much too narrow to be a caused by static runner length harmonics.

If you think in terms of filter Q; the first order harmonics aren't going to create a filter with a high enough Q to cause this narrow of a band stop filter AND this much an amplitude change. It could be 2nd, 3rd or even 4th order harmonics, and those might be able to create a high enough filter Q, but the amplitude change wouldn't be this large.

Are we talking about the 'regression' in the new mini-dip, or just the mini-dip in general?

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Are we talking about the 'regression' in the new mini-dip, or just the mini-dip in general?

Doh!

I started talking about one thing then went into something else. I blame monday as nothing is ever my fault.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Calum

Doh!

I started talking about one thing then went into something else. I blame monday as nothing is ever my fault.

I still sort of agree, because the regression is weird and just 'looks' like a wave return change. But the ECU is obviously screwing with it.

To deal with just the mini, left-over dip, there are probably some more things they can try. They could try from the intake side, too as you mentioned.

[Calum]

@johnbradley, or @Jason@Nameless

What fuel you were running for these tests?

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I still sort of agree, because the regression is weird and just 'looks' like a wave return change. But the ECU is obviously screwing with it.

To deal with just the mini, left-over dip, there are probably some more things they can try. They could try from the intake side, too as you mentioned.

Honestly, I think the stock exhaust looks pretty decent. I'm amazed (and giddy) that they're getting this much gain from the exhaust system.

It's my guess that another half liter of intake plenum alone would allow power to keep climbing steadily to redline. With optimized runner length & cross section and plenum size I think they'll see gains like this on top of those from the exhaust.

Anyway I'm just waiting to see if nameless can match the results of the vortech SC without boost.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Nameless intake manifold you say?

Nameless ITBs says I!

[mad_sb]

Originally Posted by Dimman

..

But the high-low 'reverse' is strange. ..

@johnbradley mentioned that he did not have the IAM set to 1 (ignition advance multiplier) so the area it picks up power is because it picks up ignition advance on the 2nd run.

[johnbradley]

Originally Posted by sierra

The direct injection runs all the time but the port injection cuts out from about 3,000rpm to 5,000rpm

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...84&postcount=1

Could it be that with the high torque and fuel demand, the direct injection alone at that rpm range, is close to it's limits and the ECU is bringing it back to safer levels?

Or at WOT on the factory settings according to the logs.

[johnbradley]

Originally Posted by Simmons

Was this in 5th gear?


Simmons

It makes less in 5th than 4th because of the 20 second pull but yes it was 5th. Nameless and myself agreed that since it was believed it HAD to be 5th we wouldnt release data that wasnt. I did a 4th gear pull as well but it hasnt been posted.

Originally Posted by Dimman

Do you have this graph with AFRs?

Is there a corresponding slight richening in the 'regression' area?

I have literally been every direction with AFR and while it likes leaner it doesnt matter once its above a 12.3 or so.