Nameless Performance Equal Length Stepped Header

[OrbitalEllipses]

mmmburrito
mmmmtorques

[BRZ?]

[sw20kosh]

Originally Posted by johnbradley

Video will be a little ways out. Final numbers with the smaller exhaust 188/153 and a best torque run of 186.7/157.2. I'll have the dyno sheets off to Nameless to sort through after I go grab some lunch....3 hours no food sucks. So as you would expect smaller exhaust made less power, but only really seems to have dropped below 4500 for the most part.

I am confused...the dyno posted several days ago showed these same numbers basically. How is it down on power? Only in the lower end?

[wootwoot]

Thank you for all your hard work!

[johnbradley]

Originally Posted by sw20kosh

I am confused...the dyno posted several days ago showed these same numbers basically. How is it down on power? Only in the lower end?

It did 191/162 before and it makes less below 4500 now...

[zuldajin]

[johnbradley]

If I get in trouble for this I am blaming all of you



Please keep in mind this is just the prelimn. I have mountains of data to go through and figure out why it is what it is.

[OrbitalEllipses]

How much less...?

[johnbradley]

10-13 ft lbs down low, 4-5 thru some areas of the powerband. If I knew why after the first flash the torque is up in the dip but then reverts ( I assume electronic interference since its repeatable) after that on the very next pull I can lessen the dip. I am almost willing to pay for the explanation but I am not sure that it would be shared if its known.

[NickFRS]

Originally Posted by Wepeel

F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5

Seeing these results makes me want to go out and buy a BRZ.

Someone has played maple story before.

[johnbradley]

Here is an example of what I am talking about with the torque "regression" as someone called it-



No other changes other than a second pull. The first pull (blue) is immediately following a flash, the red following that. The advance mulitplier was lower on the blue which explains most of it, but additive timing kept the over all timing within a degree. If the dip was limited to that amount every pull then you would never know what was going on unless you were being picky.

[Calum]

AVO posted a while ago about having trouble with the cam phasing sticking. Any chance this could be the cause?

[Sportsguy83]

Originally Posted by johnbradley

Here is an example of what I am talking about with the torque "regression" as someone called it-

No other changes other than a second pull. The first pull (blue) is immediately following a flash, the red following that. The advance mulitplier was lower on the blue which explains most of it, but additive timing kept the over all timing within a degree. If the dip was limited to that amount every pull then you would never know what was going on unless you were being picky.

No expert here, but have read a lot that after a flash, the car needs to adjust and "learn" the new flash. Some have talked about flashing, then letting the car idle 5 minutes before driving away and that after driving, some miles need to be put in the car for the ECU to adjust. May be possible that while the ECU is learning something happens with cam phasing? (this is assuming you guys are flashing and right away running first dyno run then second dyno run, no idle time between flashing and dyno run).

[sierra]

Originally Posted by Calum

AVO posted a while ago about having trouble with the cam phasing sticking. Any chance this could be the cause?

I think it's more likely to be the ECU adjusting to the changes.
My car certainly improved steadily over the first 1000km and then I decided to re-set it to see what would happen. It felt flat again, with some hesitation to the throttle and is gradually improving. I read somewhere it learns and adjusts to changes without being re-set and that it takes some time to optimise those changes.

That same process might slowly eat away at some of the changes that were flashed into it?