CSG Mike's 2017 Baseline dynos
 

I did some dynoing on both ACN 91 and VP 101 unleaded.

Even after multiple pulls, there was very little power difference between the two fuels. With the early pulls on 101, the ECU attempted to advance timing slightly, and ended up sending knock and sent the advance multiplier down, actually resulting in lower numbers on 101 for quite a while, before getting back up to 91 levels.

Also, on 91, 4 pulls were needed to stabilize the output; the ECU was dumping a ton of fuel up top initially. Each successive pull resulted in the ECU dumping fuel later, until it wasn't dumping fuel at all.

This is the same dyno all the CSG Ace header dynos are performed on; a 2013 dynoed about 165whp here.

I'm tempted to see how long the power carries with a higher redline...

http://i.imgur.com/BXY3nfO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xH9HZcC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/UjZyBV0.jpg

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU_drCNV6I"]2017 Subaru BRZ 6MT baseline dyno - YouTube[/ame]

iphone7 audio doesn't capture the actual exhaust note at all....

Sweet! What exhaust did you put on it already?

Yes the ecu software logic in the 2017 model is new and different to previous model (manuals only the auto appears to be same old logic), their are now two fueling and timing maps. Not sure how the ecu interpolates between the two sets of maps.

The OL fueling maps are even richer than previous stock tunes some areas targeting down to 10.3 afr where the older ecu maps were 10.7

New pi\di ratios with 20 to 30% port injection being used all the time at high load unlike previous mapping with 100% di between 2800 and 4800 or so.

new cam timing maps with addition rows in rpm axis assume for finer control of cam timing

different beast

is that AFR hovering around 13 at WOT?

Yes; it is far, far more stable than the earlier cars.

I would even tentatively say it's safe to track on the stock tune, with an oil cooler!

The oil cooler, is a completely different story.

Shouldn't you be tuned if using racing petrol for it?
It would be interesting to see classic shit vs best public petrol dynos. Usually then the difference is seen on stock ECU.

So the verdict is that the 17 is putting out about 5HP and 5Tq (at peak) more than the first gen? So the literature on the new engine is right? The power curve looks a lot like the old power curve, just shifted up some and with higher AFR.

Thanks for the info!

The ECU attempted to add timing automatically, sensed knock, and de-incremented the advance multiplier.

More pulls brought it back up to 91 levels, but not significantly more.

Isn't that a bit too lean? I believe I run in the lower 12.x afr @ 24 degrees peak. Of course I'm tuned though.

Isn't that a bit too lean? I believe I run in the lower 12.x afr @ 24 degrees peak before the ESC was installed. Of course I'm tuned though.

I see you're on E85 which needs to run richer than gasoline. I'm no expert but you may actually be running a bit lean. I thought E85 was supposed to be like 11.5:1. Gasoline stoichiometry is about 14.7:1.

It's difficult to make a blanket statement without being able to actually tune the car, but at 13:1, there was zero knocking on ACN91.

Is there more power that can be had running slightly richer? Possibly; we won't know until I can tune the car.

My Honda runs between 13-13.6:1 without knock, and makes optimum power at that AFR. The F22C can already hit MBT, so after optimizing ignition timing and then slightly pulling it back to reduce in-cylinder pressures, AFR was adjusted for maximum output, resulting in a range of 13-13.6 throughout the rev range in open loop.

I suspect the 17 tune wasn't as rushed as the original 13's.

Decremented?

Sorry, just poking fun at you, Mike.