EcuTek preparing to release PRO ECU software for BRZ

[WillRacer1jz]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Not keep the other set? You plan on driving on summers all year?

If he lives here in Southern California he could drive on summers all year long. A normal winter day in my zip code(90020) is high in the mid 60's and low in the high 40's.

[Superhatch]

Originally Posted by Visconti

So car had no boltons during baseline and STG1 flash.. Now has a header, waiting to hit the dyno again

John

Gotcha. Can't wait for results. Do you know which header he has installed?

[RWD-boxer]

No tune needed ... K&n and unbolt muffler

[RWD-boxer]

Also just pushing the sport switch is huge no more hump on graph

[Visconti]

Originally Posted by RWD-boxer

Also just pushing the sport switch is huge no more hump on graph

What?

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

If they leaned out the high load cells and didn't touch the stoichiometric areas, if anything it should be better for lead foots and unchanged for most people right? If you're going to change fuel economy the low load areas need to be changed. For example dropping cruise AFR to like 18:1 with increased throttle position would give a noticable fuel economy improvement (and a lot of NOx).

In theory yes, however once you are in closed loop operation the sub routines become a nightmare, a little change here, effects way over there type of situations. It takes time, gas, more time, and more gas. The O2 sensors are always aiming for stochimetric when under closed loop operation, now one could change the load change over point in the cruising areas, say 1500 to 2500 RPM, loads 20-40 to drop closed loop, then the ECU will revert back to fuel calculations instead of O2 feedback, then you can truely gain economy say 3 to 5 mpg, but there is a risk even in this because you will be running the engine at higher operating conditions due to the lean AFR, so CATS start breaking apart, cooling systems start to fail... you get the idea

G

[Dimman]

Hmm... 18 whp from a tune on a NA car is pretty spectacular.



Interesting.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by jedibow

In theory yes, however once you are in closed loop operation the sub routines become a nightmare, a little change here, effects way over there type of situations. It takes time, gas, more time, and more gas. The O2 sensors are always aiming for stochimetric when under closed loop operation, now one could change the load change over point in the cruising areas, say 1500 to 2500 RPM, loads 20-40 to drop closed loop, then the ECU will revert back to fuel calculations instead of O2 feedback, then you can truely gain economy say 3 to 5 mpg, but there is a risk even in this because you will be running the engine at higher operating conditions due to the lean AFR, so CATS start breaking apart, cooling systems start to fail... you get the idea

G

Even if you completely avoid the 1.05-1.15 equivalence range where the temperature is greatest? When it switches to open loop the fuel trims are still there, and at 50% load even running a bit lean isn't a big deal, at which point you tell it to switch to stoichiometric and everything is all good. At 18:1 (1.2 equiv) you're at about the same peak temperature as stoichiometric.

It's possible to go much higher but at that point you'd need to be really adjusting timing too, and it would be much harder to figure out the corrected throttle position for the same requested torque level.

[cruzinbill]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Not keep the other set? You plan on driving on summers all year?

No I just use all seasons all year long.

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Even if you completely avoid the 1.05-1.15 equivalence range where the temperature is greatest? When it switches to open loop the fuel trims are still there, and at 50% load even running a bit lean isn't a big deal, at which point you tell it to switch to stoichiometric and everything is all good. At 18:1 (1.2 equiv) you're at about the same peak temperature as stoichiometric.

It's possible to go much higher but at that point you'd need to be really adjusting timing too, and it would be much harder to figure out the corrected throttle position for the same requested torque level.

at 18 to 1 detonation is an issue unless you adjust the timing, correct, but you also have to worry about pre ignition, I don't know if the cylinder head has a proficient design to avoid this.

[Visconti]

Originally Posted by King Tut

Can you please post the actual dynojet files or post a new graph with SAE correction factor and smoothing of 5 which is the industry standard as I am sure you know. Did you have a tach signal? Why did you post in MPH? Also conditions of each run would be nice.

Read read read.. Smoothing 5 is not the industry standard lol

John

[arghx7]

Originally Posted by Visconti

Read read read.. Smoothing 5 is not the industry standard lol

John

I guess it depends on your definition of industry standard... but setting a Dynojet to smoothing 0 and "STD" correction factor almost always gives the highest peak numbers

[Visconti]

Originally Posted by arghx7

I guess it depends on your definition of industry standard... but setting a Dynojet to smoothing 0 and "STD" correction factor almost always gives the highest peak numbers

Graph wasn't choppy to need smoothing.

Changing from sae or std didn't change the delta

I'm interested in the delta not peak numbers

John

[xcelir8brz]

subscribed