World's first FT86 Anti-Reversion,(A/R) Header

[Hyper4mance2k]

Originally Posted by arghx7

We're getting off topic here but yes you are right, it was only used on the early 6 port induction systems before they were operated by smog pump (1989-1991 non turbo) or electric motor (Rx-8 Renesis engines). It's sort of like early VTEC in the sense that, clearly you would be giving up a light to have a single fixed high lift profile, so you needed to have the non-VTEC profile and an oil pressure switching mechanism.

With the n/a rotaries, it's best to have the shorter duration port timing for low load driving and a staging system. The secondary ports were staged with a mechanical linkage in the throttlebody and the aux ports were staged pneumatically with backpressure. That evolved to a vacuum solenoid for the secondary ports on the Rx-8 and electric motor for the auxiliary ports.

We're talking about the same thing.

The secondaries were not staged. The throttle bodies were 3 flanged & staggered to keep velocity up; they opened into an open chamber. All NA rotaries used reflective pulse tuning lengths through an open chamber behind the throttle body.
FWIW Dave Lemon, owner of Mazdatrix, sends people to me for IDA tuning. I know my stuff.

[TylerLieberman]

I'm really confused.

You mentioned stuff about people granny shifting in a manual and then you're going through a bunch of effort to get a shit ton of torque BELOW 2,000rpms... On a 2.0 liter, 12.5:1 CR 4 cylinder, boxer engine...


....I guess I'm just not understanding the mindset.

Only time I'm below 2,000rpm is when I'm leaving a stop light/sign in 1st gear. After that, I'm generally between 2-3.5k when cruising and running through gears. I feel like you really just need a good UEL header/tune and a slight change in final drive. The real torque issue is in the midrange where the large dip is. Get rid of that, and have more aggressive gearing, and the car would feel much more lively.


I appreciate the drive to try something different, but I still question how effective it is. Guess the actual dyno will tell.

[KoolBRZ]

Wryann from VIP Performance ran my car on his dyno today. I had him run 2 pulls from each of the following freshly loaded, tunes; the Factory stock tune, OFT Off-the-Shelf tunes from version 2.0, Stage 2 EL, version 2.0 Stage 2 EL 91 Oct, version 2.0 Stage 2 UEL 91 Oct, and from version 2.062, Stage 2 EL 91 Oct, and Stage 2 UEL 91 Oct.
So, runs 1 & 2 are the Factory stock tune,
Runs 3 & 4 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.0, Stage 2 EL,
Runs 5 & 6 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.0, Stage 2 EL, 91 Oct,
Runs 7 & 8 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.0, Stage 2 UEL, 91 Oct,
Runs 9 & 10 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.062, Stage 2 EL, 91 Oct, and
Runs 11 & 12 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.062, Stage 2 UEL, 91 Oct.
This is not THE comparison yet. I'm going back next week to run the same tunes in the same order on the un-modified header I purchased, just for this comparison. Comparing this weeks runs and next weeks runs will show if my Anti-Reversion inserts have helped or hurt the performance and torque of my car. I'm already happy with the torque I'm getting, from a low of 158, to a high of 169 foot pounds, (#5 was a glitch), but I'll just have to wait and see what the results are from next weeks pulls. I might be missing some top end HP, but I'd happily trade it for more low-end torque. See the pics below for the 12 pulls and a comparison of some other dyno pulls from FT86 automatics.

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by KoolBRZ

Wryann from VIP Performance ran my car on his dyno today. I had him run 2 pulls from each of the following freshly loaded, tunes; the Factory stock tune, OFT Off-the-Shelf tunes from version 2.0, Stage 2 EL, version 2.0 Stage 2 EL 91 Oct, version 2.0 Stage 2 UEL 91 Oct, and from version 2.062, Stage 2 EL 91 Oct, and Stage 2 UEL 91 Oct.
So, runs 1 & 2 are the Factory stock tune,
Runs 3 & 4 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.0, Stage 2 EL,
Runs 5 & 6 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.0, Stage 2 EL, 91 Oct,
Runs 7 & 8 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.0, Stage 2 UEL, 91 Oct,
Runs 9 & 10 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.062, Stage 2 EL, 91 Oct, and
Runs 11 & 12 are OFT Off-the-Shelf version 2.062, Stage 2 UEL, 91 Oct.
This is not THE comparison yet. I'm going back next week to run the same tunes in the same order on the un-modified header I purchased, just for this comparison. Comparing this weeks runs and next weeks runs will show if my Anti-Reversion inserts have helped or hurt the performance and torque of my car. I'm already happy with the torque I'm getting, from a low of 158, to a high of 169 foot pounds, (#5 was a glitch), but I'll just have to wait and see what the results are from next weeks pulls. I might be missing some top end HP, but I'd happily trade it for more low-end torque. See the pics below for the 12 pulls and a comparison of some other dyno pulls from FT86 automatics.

I'm trying to figure out which run is which.
I assumed it's in order of the list, going by you saying #5 had the tq # glitch and your mention of trading top end HP for low end torque (you mentioned running the UEL tune "felt" like it gave you more low end as well... but it doesn't seem to match up to what the graph is showing).
Is this graph saying the stock tunes made the 173hp and 171hp or are the runs not in sequential order like you listed?

[KoolBRZ]

Originally Posted by Andrew025

I'm trying to figure out which run is which.
I assumed it's in order of the list, going by you saying #5 had the tq # glitch and your mention of trading top end HP for low end torque (you mentioned running the UEL tune "felt" like it gave you more low end as well... but it doesn't seem to match up to what the graph is showing).
Is this graph saying the stock tunes made the 173hp and 171hp or are the runs not in sequential order like you listed?

They are in order, and the Factory tune did have the most torque at the lowest RPMs. The peak torque at just 2900 and 2950 RPM respectively. That low-end torque is what I want more of for my Automatic. Max torque for the stock engine is in the 130's to 140's. Bear in mind this is factory software with aftermarket hardware. I have a Skunk2 CAI with unscaled MAF tables, freshly loaded tunes without any time for learning or adjustment, and the numbers are virtually meaningless for comparison to other cars dyno pulls. This is mainly to compare the different tunes on the modified and unmodified "TOP SPEED PRO-1 Performance Header Straight Flex Pipe" headers. Next Friday when we do the next set of dyno pulls with the exact same settings on the unmodified header, I will get to compare the results to determine whether or not my modifications helped, or hurt my low-end torque. Until then these are just an interesting speculation. I am thinking of basing a custom tune on the Factory software though. I like that peak torque below 3000 RPM!

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by KoolBRZ

They are in order, and the Factory tune did have the most torque at the lowest RPMs. The peak torque at just 2900 and 2950 RPM respectively. That low-end torque is what I want more of for my Automatic. Max torque for the stock engine is in the 130's to 140's. Bear in mind this is factory software with aftermarket hardware. I have a Skunk2 CAI with unscaled MAF tables, freshly loaded tunes without any time for learning or adjustment, and the numbers are virtually meaningless for comparison to other cars dyno pulls. This is mainly to compare the different tunes on the modified and unmodified "TOP SPEED PRO-1 Performance Header Straight Flex Pipe" headers. Next Friday when we do the next set of dyno pulls with the exact same settings on the unmodified header, I will get to compare the results to determine whether or not my modifications helped, or hurt my low-end torque. Until then these are just an interesting speculation. I am thinking of basing a custom tune on the Factory software though. I like that peak torque below 3000 RPM!

Got it.
Looks like the uel tune did the opposite of what you thought it did.

[FirestormFRS]

255ft/lbs of torque! Amazing!

[Apoc]

Just a comment on using the different versions of OFT tunes and no octane vs 91 oct. There was little to no change in the these tunes from ver 2.0 to 2.062 for USDM Roms. The release notes will tell you this and comparing images in RomRaider will confirm it. Most version changes are from adding newer roms and correcting definition files. Only change I can see is a tweak to base timing B on no octane vs 91 oct tunes.

[KoolBRZ]

Originally Posted by Apoc

Just a comment on using the different versions of OFT tunes and no octane vs 91 oct. There was little to no change in the these tunes from ver 2.0 to 2.062 for USDM Roms. The release notes will tell you this and comparing images in RomRaider will confirm it. Most version changes are from adding newer roms and correcting definition files. Only change I can see is a tweak to base timing B on no octane vs 91 oct tunes.

I thought so too, until I realized I was supposed to load 2.0 definition files before opening 2.0 tunes, and load 2.062 definition files before opening 2.062 tunes. They are really almost identical though, there's a bigger difference between the EL and UEL tunes. What I'd really like to know is, which definition files are needed in RomRaider to open the Factory rom? I opened it up with the 2.062 definition file and the MAF scale was all screwed up. This led to my MAF mystery post where it was quickly explained that it was probably a definition file problem.
The UEL tune felt better after acclimating and while driving. It also sucked less gas. Every time I ran through the gears in the EL tune I got like 5MPG and my average MPG got chopped by 10 MPG, in only seconds. That's V8 consumption there. This is why I feel that more low-end torque equals more usable power and better MPG in the city, maybe on the highway also.

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by KoolBRZ

I thought so too, until I realized I was supposed to load 2.0 definition files before opening 2.0 tunes, and load 2.062 definition files before opening 2.062 tunes. They are really almost identical though, there's a bigger difference between the EL and UEL tunes. What I'd really like to know is, which definition files are needed in RomRaider to open the Factory rom? I opened it up with the 2.062 definition file and the MAF scale was all screwed up. This led to my MAF mystery post where it was quickly explained that it was probably a definition file problem.
The UEL tune felt better after acclimating and while driving. It also sucked less gas. Every time I ran through the gears in the EL tune I got like 5MPG and my average MPG got chopped by 10 MPG, in only seconds. That's V8 consumption there. This is why I feel that more low-end torque equals more usable power and better MPG in the city, maybe on the highway also.

The mpg gauge is garbage and by no means should you rely on it for any real useful data.

It's incredibly unlikely in real world scenarios that you'll see a 10 mpg difference in your average when driving the same on each tune unless one is running very rich but I highly doubt it.

You should do some data logging on each tune if you actually want to know for sure instead of going off the inaccurate mpg gauge.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by KoolBRZ

They are in order, and the Factory tune did have the most torque at the lowest RPMs. The peak torque at just 2900 and 2950 RPM respectively. That low-end torque is what I want more of for my Automatic. Max torque for the stock engine is in the 130's to 140's. Bear in mind this is factory software with aftermarket hardware. I have a Skunk2 CAI with unscaled MAF tables, freshly loaded tunes without any time for learning or adjustment, and the numbers are virtually meaningless for comparison to other cars dyno pulls. This is mainly to compare the different tunes on the modified and unmodified "TOP SPEED PRO-1 Performance Header Straight Flex Pipe" headers. Next Friday when we do the next set of dyno pulls with the exact same settings on the unmodified header, I will get to compare the results to determine whether or not my modifications helped, or hurt my low-end torque. Until then these are just an interesting speculation. I am thinking of basing a custom tune on the Factory software though. I like that peak torque below 3000 RPM!

Did you use the Vishnu method or similar to quick learn your ECU/set MAF up?

[KoolBRZ]

Originally Posted by Koa

Did you use the Vishnu method or similar to quick learn your ECU/set MAF up?

Nope, no learning at all. I have to be able to reproduce the exact same conditions, by doing a fresh load of each tune, when I dyno the unmodified header this Friday. I have the unmodified header, same brand, same style as the modified header, installed now. It sounds more brassy, not as civilized, but the power feels about the same. If my modified header makes more torque, it's probably not by much. I'll find out this Friday and post the results. I want to get overlays of each tune, because although there isn't much difference between 2.0 and 2.6 91 Octane tunes, there is a big difference between stock, EL, and UEL tunes. I'm particularly interested in the stock tune, because the peak torque is at 2900, before the VVT shift, while the OFT tunes peak torque is at 4500-4600, after the VVT shift. The lower peak torque works better in an automatic, while the higher peak torque works best in a manual.

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by KoolBRZ

The lower peak torque works better in an automatic, while the higher peak torque works best in a manual.

ONLY if you're in manual mode and lugging the engine.


Again, a torque converter works as a torque multiplier and low RPM doesn't really matter because of it.


I'm also assuming that something is up as the stock tune made the best torque when this is not the case for pretty much every other dyno out there... Either the stock tune is closer to what the learned values should be than the retunes. Without seeing AFR we can't know if anything odd is going on either.


Frankly without the ECU properly relearning, this is all a bit worthless...

[KoolBRZ]

Here are the results of this weeks dyno runs compared head-to-head with last weeks. Warning, they are a bit contradictory. There are 12 pulls from 1500 RPMs, and 2 pulls from 3000 RPMs. Those were the first 2 pulls from this week and last week before I asked Wryann to start the pulls from 1500 RPM. So these pulls were as close to identical as I could make them.
1st picture is the 3000 RPM runs, black and blue from last week, light and dark green from today.
pic 2 is OEM tune, this week top, last week bottom
pic 3 is OEM tune, this week top, last week bottom
pic 4 is OFT 2.0 EL, this week top, last week bottom
pic 5 is OFT 2.0 EL, this week top, last week bottom
pic 6 is OFT 2.0 EL 91 Octane, this week top, last week bottom
pic 7 is OFT 2.0 EL 91 Octane, this week top, last week bottom
pic 8 is OFT 2.0 UEL 91 Octane, this week top, last week bottom
pic 9 is OFT 2.0 UEL 91 Octane, this week top, last week bottom
More on next post...