FRS AT Dyno and MT Dyno

[feldy]

Someone did back to back pulls with the AT and the MT

Notice the different tunes.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater



comments are Solid line automatic, dotted manual, both stock, same dyno, 20 min apart

Auto runs richer up top, manual runs leaner also pulls more timing in the last 1000 rpms

Any idea on the tunes being different?

[Tbomb 25]

Wow not impressive at all....the manual is much more impressive the long gearing is part of the cause for this no wonder the auto did horrible against the Renault...

[ahausheer]

I thought the locking torque converter should not allow such differences, its as if the torque convert disengaged or slipped? I wonder if the difference is simply due to different engines?

[SUB-FT86]

The auto has slightly better torque but loses 10 whp up top? I don't care really for high end power but I am happy the powerband is nearly identical before 5400 rpms. I'll never go that high most of the times anyway.

Also if the auto is running richer up top then a CAI would be better suited to lean it out a bit right?

[5hairpins]

That was Feedbag's BRZ MT and CarbonBlue's FR-S AT done at Cobb Thursday night.

Feedbag's Build thread has some of that info and pics of the event.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Tbomb 25

Wow not impressive at all....the manual is much more impressive the long gearing is part of the cause for this no wonder the auto did horrible against the Renault...

actually when i redline shift in my auto i can feel the top end loss, so its not just the gearing its also the tune

Originally Posted by ahausheer

I thought the locking torque converter should not allow such differences, its as if the torque convert disengaged or slipped? I wonder if the difference is simply due to different engines?

there really isnt much of a difference, just up top and its all in the tune, tq convert is locked from 1500 rpms to redline, never disengages

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The auto has slightly better torque but loses 10 whp up top? I don't care really for high end power but I am happy the powerband is nearly identical before 5400 rpms. I'll never go that high most of the times anyway.

Also if the auto is running richer up top then a CAI would be better suited to lean it out a bit right?

that's still up in the air as well... dont want to trick your ecu with an intake but genuinely give it more air, tricking the engine will kill it like most CAI do

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

that's still up in the air as well... dont want to trick your ecu with an intake but genuinely give it more air, tricking the engine will kill it like most CAI do

Closed loop operation :O Tricking the engine will make it figure out that you tricked it and add more fuel.

[Turbowned]

Wow, the AT really seems to fall on it's face after ~6200rpm! That's kinda lame.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Wow, the AT really seems to fall on it's face after ~6200rpm! That's kinda lame.

This would explain why the 1/4 miles between the MT and AT have been about 1.1 seconds I bet(14.8 vs 15.9). The gearing even though slightly better should've been it a .3 seconds difference but with the engine making less up top this car with a automatic is essentially a mid range horsepower car.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by feldy

Someone did back to back pulls with the AT and the MT

Notice the different tunes.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater



comments are Solid line automatic, dotted manual, both stock, same dyno, 20 min apart

Auto runs richer up top, manual runs leaner also pulls more timing in the last 1000 rpms

Any idea on the tunes being different?

Son of a bitch. So that isn't a foible, it's how they're tuned from the factory!

Well that sucks.

It's hard to say why -- I can't imagine they are preserving the AT by changing the tune to make less torque.

Guys -- once you can adjust the tune, these cars should make virtually the same power. Yeah, the MT will still have better gearing, but on the track, they will suddenly be MUCH closer in performance.

May I just say "Fuck you, Toyota (or whoever is responsible for the OEM tune)."

Until we see the two tranny's running the same AFR and ignition advance, don't count the AT out of the fight just yet.

[arghx7]

Post data on the timing and AFR. We need to address this with specifics rather than just with generalities and secondhand information. We don't know anything about the fuel trims or knock learning.

[Jordo!]

I'd like to see specifics too, but it was clearly running rich in the other dyno thread too, so sounds like that's just the way it is.

Wonder how they got timing data? Scan tool? Timing light?

[Lonewolf]

With these new dyno plots and the gear ratio spacing differences ("double overdrive on the AT") I am really having second thoughts about an auto now. Granted, I still haven't driven the car, but the weight penalty coupled with all these detrimental AT issues is starting to make me think that unless I get this car in stick (which I can't due to practical reasons) it's not worth it. I'm a sad panda right now...

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by arghx7

Post data on the timing and AFR. We need to address this with specifics rather than just with generalities and secondhand information. We don't know anything about the fuel trims or knock learning.

well that will come with time, the tuning companies dont have the access codes to the ECU just yet to start tinkering that means we cant see that type of data yet, to me seeing that tune, it just means my engines life will be longer than that of a manual car but even though we run richer we still get LOTS more fuel milage, if we run leaner, pull more timing, we will get even better fuel mileage(run leaner means less fuel ) and more power, best of bother worlds

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

With these new dyno plots and the gear ratio spacing differences ("double overdrive on the AT") I am really having second thoughts about an auto now. Granted, I still haven't driven the car, but the weight penalty coupled with all these detrimental AT issues is starting to make me think that unless I get this car in stick (which I can't due to practical reasons) it's not worth it. I'm a sad panda right now...

the auto is good but it isnt the true driving experience that the car was made for(FRS AT driver, came from a manual car before the FRS)