*E-manage Ultimate Tuned* Pics and Dynos Inside
02-13-2007, 06:09 AM
#41
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but you probably spent over $1000 to get about 28hp increase? Wouldn't it be better to save that money towards a turbo kit and gain 150hp???
02-13-2007, 10:31 AM
#42
New Member
Originally Posted by delion21
Correct me if I am wrong but you probably spent over $1000 to get about 28hp increase? Wouldn't it be better to save that money towards a turbo kit and gain 150hp???
02-14-2007, 01:08 PM
#43
Originally Posted by delion21
Correct me if I am wrong but you probably spent over $1000 to get about 28hp increase? Wouldn't it be better to save that money towards a turbo kit and gain 150hp???
$1000 does not even begin to cover the bare minimum requirements of a turbo system.
Also, months of downtime are often required. MONTHS. This is my only car.
Plus, my N/A application is reliable. In order to make a turbo system reliable, you need to add fuel system and a built motor. Then to make any serious power, you need an exhaust system. Add in a high end ECU system, and a much more extensive tuning session compared to N/A, which is not going to be cheap either.
You don't buy a $6000 turbo kit and just slap it on the car. $1000 would barely make a dent...
To do a turbo job right and safe, you need $15k bare minimum IMO
05-19-2007, 12:25 AM
#45
Update (this is for the benefit of anyone who happens to search for info in the future)
I just went out tonight and checked out my AFR's and **** using cipher.
The tune is LOCKED IN, STABLE AS A ROCK.
I have not reset the ECU or anything since I got the thing tuned, and I have not checked AFR until now.
It's still solid stable at 13.1-ish
In case anyone was wondering if the ECU's long-term fuel trim will negate a tune with EU, the answer is no.
The car still feels great, just as good as when it got tuned.
Also checked partial throttle... lite throttle input: AFR = 14.7
moderate throttle to WOT: AFR = 13.1- ish
Idle: 14.7 AFR
This thing should pass smog easily, even with HFC!
I just went out tonight and checked out my AFR's and **** using cipher.
The tune is LOCKED IN, STABLE AS A ROCK.
I have not reset the ECU or anything since I got the thing tuned, and I have not checked AFR until now.
It's still solid stable at 13.1-ish
In case anyone was wondering if the ECU's long-term fuel trim will negate a tune with EU, the answer is no.
The car still feels great, just as good as when it got tuned.
Also checked partial throttle... lite throttle input: AFR = 14.7
moderate throttle to WOT: AFR = 13.1- ish
Idle: 14.7 AFR
This thing should pass smog easily, even with HFC!
Last edited by Wired 24/7; 05-19-2007 at 12:28 AM.
05-20-2007, 03:21 PM
#48
Originally Posted by ZLadie2000
Nice, thanks for the update. When are you getting the exhaust!?? With before and after dynos?
I think it might be better to save some money...
05-20-2007, 11:50 PM
#50
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Mike,
Let me know if you would like to come by some time. I can show you a lot of different hardware and dyno results.
Found some very interesting/unconventional ways of making HP.
Let me know if you would like to come by some time. I can show you a lot of different hardware and dyno results.
Found some very interesting/unconventional ways of making HP.
As long as it involves keeping everyone's pants on
j/k
I definitely want to come by. what time are you there until on weekdays, and what's the address (PM?)
05-21-2007, 09:10 AM
#51
Interesting thread. ~25whp is definitely noticable. Also, the peak does not tel the whole story. The curve could be much beefier without actually raising the peak numbers much but daily drivability could be significantly better. Sounds like you got a mix of both.
So, from what I can gather, your tune added timing and the fueling was leaned out. Do you know how many degrees you were able to add? What's the stock AFR that you were hitting? I am curious how before/after numbers compare, not from teh standpoint of power gains, but from the point of degrees of timing and fueling ratios. If you can provide any info like that, that would be very interesting to me.
Do you know how your EGTs are looking? I'd be curious to see how hot the tune is running.
So, from what I can gather, your tune added timing and the fueling was leaned out. Do you know how many degrees you were able to add? What's the stock AFR that you were hitting? I am curious how before/after numbers compare, not from teh standpoint of power gains, but from the point of degrees of timing and fueling ratios. If you can provide any info like that, that would be very interesting to me.
Do you know how your EGTs are looking? I'd be curious to see how hot the tune is running.
05-21-2007, 10:37 AM
#52
Originally Posted by Ziggyrama
Interesting thread. ~25whp is definitely noticable. Also, the peak does not tel the whole story. The curve could be much beefier without actually raising the peak numbers much but daily drivability could be significantly better. Sounds like you got a mix of both.
So, from what I can gather, your tune added timing and the fueling was leaned out. Do you know how many degrees you were able to add? What's the stock AFR that you were hitting? I am curious how before/after numbers compare, not from teh standpoint of power gains, but from the point of degrees of timing and fueling ratios. If you can provide any info like that, that would be very interesting to me.
Do you know how your EGTs are looking? I'd be curious to see how hot the tune is running.
So, from what I can gather, your tune added timing and the fueling was leaned out. Do you know how many degrees you were able to add? What's the stock AFR that you were hitting? I am curious how before/after numbers compare, not from teh standpoint of power gains, but from the point of degrees of timing and fueling ratios. If you can provide any info like that, that would be very interesting to me.
Do you know how your EGTs are looking? I'd be curious to see how hot the tune is running.
if you read through the thread again and look at the graphs in detail, you'll see what I mean.
The fuel was richened for the most part...
the EU was not used to add timing, but Cipher was, and it was 2 degrees, which is the maximum that cipher will do.
05-21-2007, 11:35 AM
#53
Originally Posted by Wired 24/7
You're all backwards...
if you read through the thread again and look at the graphs in detail, you'll see what I mean.
The fuel was richened for the most part...
the EU was not used to add timing, but Cipher was, and it was 2 degrees, which is the maximum that cipher will do.
if you read through the thread again and look at the graphs in detail, you'll see what I mean.
The fuel was richened for the most part...
the EU was not used to add timing, but Cipher was, and it was 2 degrees, which is the maximum that cipher will do.
Very interesting graphs. Looks like the tune has you going straight for optimal torque AFR of around 13 or so. That's probably where you got half of the power right there. It's very interesting to note how lean your baseline AFR was in comparison. How was your detonation tendency during those runs? I am willing to bet that you may have some more power left in the car with more timing. Going down to low 13s from what you had should buy you more then 2 degrees given the extra cooling you'll have due to extra fuel. Too bad cipher does not allow you to add more. You probably could have gotten more timing out of it safely. I'm curious...how does eManage and Cipher do knock detection? Do they feed off the stock knock sensor?
05-21-2007, 10:21 PM
#54
Originally Posted by Ziggyrama
Ah, got ya. Yes, I found those graphs. For some reason, I missed them when I read the thread the first time. <slap in the forehead>
Very interesting graphs. Looks like the tune has you going straight for optimal torque AFR of around 13 or so. That's probably where you got half of the power right there. It's very interesting to note how lean your baseline AFR was in comparison. How was your detonation tendency during those runs? I am willing to bet that you may have some more power left in the car with more timing. Going down to low 13s from what you had should buy you more then 2 degrees given the extra cooling you'll have due to extra fuel. Too bad cipher does not allow you to add more. You probably could have gotten more timing out of it safely. I'm curious...how does eManage and Cipher do knock detection? Do they feed off the stock knock sensor?
Very interesting graphs. Looks like the tune has you going straight for optimal torque AFR of around 13 or so. That's probably where you got half of the power right there. It's very interesting to note how lean your baseline AFR was in comparison. How was your detonation tendency during those runs? I am willing to bet that you may have some more power left in the car with more timing. Going down to low 13s from what you had should buy you more then 2 degrees given the extra cooling you'll have due to extra fuel. Too bad cipher does not allow you to add more. You probably could have gotten more timing out of it safely. I'm curious...how does eManage and Cipher do knock detection? Do they feed off the stock knock sensor?
Believe me with the +2 degrees and california's shtty 91 octane I am on the threshold of knock all the time.
It doesn't scare or bother me though. And if I take it for any serious driving I put a few gallons of 100oct to give myself a little buffer zone.
05-24-2007, 11:48 AM
#55
Wired. You ever talk to this guy? He seems to have no problem advancing timing on his Z. zzzya
https://my350z.com/forum/tuning/181495-emange-ultimate-na-tuning.html
https://my350z.com/forum/tuning/181495-emange-ultimate-na-tuning.html
05-24-2007, 04:00 PM
#56
Thanks for the link, I don't know how I missed that thread!
It appears that zzzya has self-tuned on the street, not on the dyno.
I PM'd him asking for his maps, but all I know is what I saw on the dyno and what gained or lost power. And advancing timing using EU on the dyno lost power, for me, but I don't know why, since advancing timing using cipher worked fine and made power.
It appears that zzzya has self-tuned on the street, not on the dyno.
I PM'd him asking for his maps, but all I know is what I saw on the dyno and what gained or lost power. And advancing timing using EU on the dyno lost power, for me, but I don't know why, since advancing timing using cipher worked fine and made power.
05-24-2007, 05:25 PM
#58
Originally Posted by Wired 24/7
Thanks for the link, I don't know how I missed that thread!
It appears that zzzya has self-tuned on the street, not on the dyno.
I PM'd him asking for his maps, but all I know is what I saw on the dyno and what gained or lost power. And advancing timing using EU on the dyno lost power, for me, but I don't know why, since advancing timing using cipher worked fine and made power.
It appears that zzzya has self-tuned on the street, not on the dyno.
I PM'd him asking for his maps, but all I know is what I saw on the dyno and what gained or lost power. And advancing timing using EU on the dyno lost power, for me, but I don't know why, since advancing timing using cipher worked fine and made power.
Since you will never exceed MBT on pump gas, the maximum timing you can get away with will always produce maximum power for you. Detonation threshold will always be your limiting factor, not MBT. Speaking from my own tuning experience and what I've seen on many other cars, push timing as far as you can until you start inducing detonation. Once that happens, back off a couple degrees and that's your best power producing timing profile. Then dyno the car to get your numbers. IF you are tuning on race gas, the rules change and you need a dyno during the tuneing to figure out when you exceeded the MBT since that is possible with very high octane.
Seems like one of the tools you used did not do what it advertised. There's really no way you could have made more power by reducing timing. Dyno does have some error margin too so you may have just been a victim of that inaccuracy. Sounds like cipher did the real timing advance where as EU did who knows what. Very interesting.
05-24-2007, 07:21 PM
#59
Originally Posted by Ziggyrama
That sounds like a borked dyno pull. As I see it, I am not even sure why a dyno is needed during timing tuning on pump gas and here's why I say that:
Since you will never exceed MBT on pump gas, the maximum timing you can get away with will always produce maximum power for you. Detonation threshold will always be your limiting factor, not MBT. Speaking from my own tuning experience and what I've seen on many other cars, push timing as far as you can until you start inducing detonation. Once that happens, back off a couple degrees and that's your best power producing timing profile. Then dyno the car to get your numbers. IF you are tuning on race gas, the rules change and you need a dyno during the tuneing to figure out when you exceeded the MBT since that is possible with very high octane.
Seems like one of the tools you used did not do what it advertised. There's really no way you could have made more power by reducing timing. Dyno does have some error margin too so you may have just been a victim of that inaccuracy. Sounds like cipher did the real timing advance where as EU did who knows what. Very interesting.
Since you will never exceed MBT on pump gas, the maximum timing you can get away with will always produce maximum power for you. Detonation threshold will always be your limiting factor, not MBT. Speaking from my own tuning experience and what I've seen on many other cars, push timing as far as you can until you start inducing detonation. Once that happens, back off a couple degrees and that's your best power producing timing profile. Then dyno the car to get your numbers. IF you are tuning on race gas, the rules change and you need a dyno during the tuneing to figure out when you exceeded the MBT since that is possible with very high octane.
Seems like one of the tools you used did not do what it advertised. There's really no way you could have made more power by reducing timing. Dyno does have some error margin too so you may have just been a victim of that inaccuracy. Sounds like cipher did the real timing advance where as EU did who knows what. Very interesting.
And I believe the specific problem is that the ECU pulls back timing when the EU tries to advance it.
The UTEC has absolute control over timing, whereas the EU can only do +/- timing compared to stock. So................ this is why most people go with UTEC nowadays.
Greddy has long promised absolute timing capability with the EU... if that day ever comes, then I will definitely get retuned, but somehow i doubt they are putting all their resources into developing new EU firmware
Last edited by Wired 24/7; 05-24-2007 at 07:27 PM.
05-24-2007, 08:25 PM
#60
Originally Posted by Ziggyrama
Seems like one of the tools you used did not do what it advertised. There's really no way you could have made more power by reducing timing.
I noticed the same thing on my tune. By reducing timing at TQ peak it increased power at the HP peak.
Its the ECU reacting to knock and throwing everything else on the map back.