Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RSTuning

350Z Mapped on Stock ECU, Graphs inside!

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I would of thought that the more mods you have on the better the out come will be?

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would of thought that the more mods you have on the better the out come will be?

 

 

+1

That would be logical as long as they air breathing or performance in some way :thumbs:

 

To those asking for what the gains will be, there really is no answer. There isnt the experience in this country to possibly say what the gains are going to be. I would suggest reading up on my350z.com, there is much more experience in mapping there and gains are likely to be better represented over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm... how come this is only just available now, 6 years late?

 

I thought this wasnt possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of seeing the A/F ratio as well, to see how safe the tune is? Also, what fuel was this mapped on, closer to 97RON or to 100RON?

 

Good improvements over stock, but I'd personally want to see how close to the wind I was running just in case I got caught short and could only find 95RON.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFR can be seen in the WHP graph. Seems to hover nicely around 12.5-13 :thumbs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news, I should be studying but this was too tempting to read!

 

Based on the lack of sample size I would suggest it's pointless bombarding RS tuning with 'how much BHP will I make of I have a pop charger and stainless steel exhaust.'

 

I envisage us (as a forum) knowing more and these gains becoming 'clearer' but never guaranteed as more and more members (with various levels of tune) post their results...

 

- Please don't take this wrong way, I'm just trying to be helpful :)

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great news, I should be studying but this was too tempting to read!

 

Based on the lack of sample size I would suggest it's pointless bombarding RS tuning with 'how much BHP will I make of I have a pop charger and stainless steel exhaust.'

 

I envisage us (as a forum) knowing more and these gains becoming 'clearer' but never guaranteed as more and more members (with various levels of tune) post their results...

 

- Please don't take this wrong way, I'm just trying to be helpful :)

 

Matt

 

+1 I agree. This is their first mapped Zed so they probably know as much as we do. At the end of the day I think you'll find it hard to get as much bang for buck performance as having a remap.

 

Well done RS Tuning, about time somebody did this :thumbs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFR can be seen in the WHP graph. Seems to hover nicely around 12.5-13 :thumbs:

Ah, the one I didn't click on then! :blush::lol:

 

That's pretty good looking at that, still be good to know what it's mapped for though.

 

Thought you should only ever run your engine on 98+? I know I have, go out of my way to.

In a perfect world yes, but I normally use 97RON on mine as it's easiest for me to get hold of. Go out to the depths of Wales or Scotland though and try and find the good stuff and you'll struggle, which is why I wouldn't want a map that only let me use that. Been there, done that, made sure I always kept a bottle or two of octane booster on me wherever I went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFR can be seen in the WHP graph. Seems to hover nicely around 12.5-13 :thumbs:

Ah, the one I didn't click on then! :blush::lol:

 

That's pretty good looking at that, still be good to know what it's mapped for though.

:doh::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the cost of the reflash include any additional reflashs in the future? ie for additional mods

 

Which one of the maps does the reflash control or is it a case it wipes all the maps on the ECU and puts on just one or 2 dependant on the clients requirments?

 

Whats your commitment to returning the ECU to stock in the event of an issue and it needs to go back to Nissan (ie for warantee work)? Ie do you take a copy of the original ECU maps and store them... If so how many of those Maps are you storing? Cause there are a few!

 

No torque numbers on the at wheel graph, have you got those?

 

Have you done an further Zeds to do a comparison between Zeds including JDM's.

 

Also, just to get a comparisson based on what the gains are, would you be prepared to stick the car (or would the owner of the car) be prepared to stick the car on another dyno just to get a comparison?

 

Also, I think you may want to mask the owners name and reg... not a great thing on a public forum!

 

Can anyone explaine the AFR drop off? Just wondering because on mine it stays pretty constant all the way through the run...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT the dyno, DynoDynamics are pretty damn consistent from few I've seen in action with the same car(s) so I would trust the numbers. Agree we need wheel torque though.

 

What does your AFR read at Mark? Between 12.5 and 13 for the run seems pretty consistent to me, much better than stock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry chris but I dont trust any dyno unless I have a comparison to check against... I know conditions can make that vary but you can get those close...

 

My dyno sheet is in my thread about the chip so wont post in here and also it dosnt have the numbers on the axis but IIRC its between 12 and 13 but both the air and fule are pretty constant, just not starting at 13.5 and then dropping off... Anyway, would love to get a professionals opinion on the AFR as am sure injectors and pump will come into play,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does your AFR read at Mark? Between 12.5 and 13 for the run seems pretty consistent to me, much better than stock!

 

Chris I dont understand this comment of much better than stock? - Please explain? With the car running slightly leaner at low revs (closer to 14 ish - considered Optimal) and richer towards the ender of the rev band surely better than stock is meaning what?

 

14.7:1 ratio is considered the eutopia of AFR (Air Fuel Ratio for anyone wondering) i.e what most people aim for all the way up the curve, usually most mapper will tend to make the car a touch richer (lower numbers) towards the top end of the scale, both interm of Rev's and Load. I believe to prevent detination and make the car's driveable on the road. I.e not dumping fuel on overrun?

 

Interms of accuracy this will depend massively on the conditions/load etc we all know the stories of denser air on colder days and without such things as wideband Lambda sensors (o2 sensors) you are always going to be fighting a bit of a loosing battle as you are contricted by OEM equipment.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry chris but I dont trust any dyno unless I have a comparison to check against... I know conditions can make that vary but you can get those close...

So you'd ideally want to compare it against your car on the same dyno on the same day? Thats the only real way to test it isnt it.

 

My dyno sheet is in my thread about the chip so wont post in here and also it dosnt have the numbers on the axis but IIRC its between 12 and 13 but both the air and fule are pretty constant, just not starting at 13.5 and then dropping off... Anyway, would love to get a professionals opinion on the AFR as am sure injectors and pump will come into play,

Would obviously need to know the resolution of the graph to determine if it is flatter than this or not. I would expect you want the flattest and closest to perfect AFR, but I dont really know. For the Evo chaps, their AFRs werent very flat at all, but obviously they have more power than a Zed, so its horses for corses! As you say we need a real pro to tell us what the best AFR looks like ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14.7:1 ratio is considered the eutopia of AFR (Air Fuel Ratio for anyone wondering) i.e what most people aim for all the way up the curve, usually most mapper will tend to make the car a touch richer (lower numbers) towards the top end of the scale. I believe to prevent detination and make the car's driveable on the road. I.e not dumping fuel on overrun?

 

Interms of accuracy this will depend massively on the conditions/load etc we all know the stories of denser air on colder days and without such things as wideband Lambda sensors (o2 sensors) you are always going to be fighting a bit of a loosing battle as you are contricted by OEM equipment.

 

Dan

 

I don't think 14.7:1 is considered optimal at all for a car running at full throttle. Maximum power is delivered around Lambda 0.86-0.88 which is more like AFR 12.5 - 12.8:1, depending on the octane of the fuel being used. Lamda 1.00 (AFR approx. 14.7) is considered optimal for emissions via a catalytic convertor and is what you need to be running at idle to pass an MOT emissions test. Lamda 1.05 (approx AFR 15.0 - 15.5:1) would be best for fuel economy in light throttle, low MAP cruising conditions. A car running an AFR of 14.7:1 at full throttle would not last long at all, especially if forced induction was involved. A turbo or supercharged car might have to run nearer 12.0 or 11.5:1 to keep the EGTs down and to be able to run a decent amount of ignition timing.

 

The ECU should adjust it's target AFR depending on MAP (manifold absolute pressure) level so there's no reason you couldn't have all of these conditions being met in a single map.

 

Regarding dyno graphs showing flywheel HP, I think there is some value to these provided they are taken with a small pinch of salt. Firstly corrections can be applied to take into account differing atmospheric conditions from day to day to make runs more comparable. Also having an idea of the transmissions losses can be useful as if they are abnormally high then it would indicate something like a sticking brake caliper. If you didn't attempt to measure the coastdown losses then you perhaps wouldn't see this problem and would just think you got a crap result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14.7:1 ratio is considered the eutopia of AFR (Air Fuel Ratio for anyone wondering) i.e what most people aim for all the way up the curve, usually most mapper will tend to make the car a touch richer (lower numbers) towards the top end of the scale. I believe to prevent detination and make the car's driveable on the road. I.e not dumping fuel on overrun?

 

Interms of accuracy this will depend massively on the conditions/load etc we all know the stories of denser air on colder days and without such things as wideband Lambda sensors (o2 sensors) you are always going to be fighting a bit of a loosing battle as you are contricted by OEM equipment.

 

Dan

 

I don't think 14.7:1 is considered optimal at all for a car running at full throttle. Maximum power is delivered around Lambda 0.86-0.88 which is more like AFR 12.5 - 12.8:1, depending on the octane of the fuel being used. Lamda 1.00 (AFR approx. 14.7) is considered optimal for emissions via a catalytic convertor and is what you need to be running at idle to pass an MOT emissions test. Lamda 1.05 (approx AFR 15.0 - 15.5:1) would be best for fuel economy in light throttle, low MAP cruising conditions. A car running an AFR of 14.7:1 at full throttle would not last long at all, especially if forced induction was involved. A turbo or supercharged car might have to run nearer 12.0 or 11.5:1 to keep the EGTs down and to be able to run a decent amount of ignition timing.

 

The ECU should adjust it's target AFR depending on MAP (manifold absolute pressure) level so there's no reason you couldn't have all of these conditions being met in a single map.

 

Regarding dyno graphs showing flywheel HP, I think there is some value to these provided they are taken with a small pinch of salt. Firstly corrections can be applied to take into account differing atmospheric conditions from day to day to make runs more comparable. Also having an idea of the transmissions losses can be useful as if they are abnormally high then it would indicate something like a sticking brake caliper. If you didn't attempt to measure the coastdown losses then you perhaps wouldn't see this problem and would just think you got a crap result.

 

That was one of my questions, does the reflash give you a single map based on your current setup or does it give you multipul maps like the stock ECU that are used dependant on ambiant temps / conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt that is a great reply - I stand corrected on some aspects but in other i think it was just my poor explanation.

 

My main point is that there are so many variables to AFR its not a linier line that can really be place on a graph. You have to take into account; throttle %, Load % atmopheric conditions etc.

 

I stupidly made the mistake of not taking into consideration that on a RR you are going to be at full throttle and full % load anyway therefore its not going to be anywhere close to the 14.7 that idle requires. :drunk::drunk::drunk: - SORRY!

 

When you state Maximum power is delivered around Lambda 0.86-0.88 which is more like AFR 12.5 - 12.8:1 what is this based on? - Only reason I ask is im genuinely interested not for your own justification

 

target20AFR.jpg - This has always been a good guy for me from Guy Croft. Working on the assumption that the 350 give best power in the 4700 - 5300 rpm range your figures are right (Plus RStuning)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one of my questions, does the reflash give you a single map based on your current setup or does it give you multipul maps like the stock ECU that are used dependant on ambiant temps / conditions?

 

I'd be interested to know that too. I'm guessing that RSTuning just change the Full Throttle map (if there is such a thing in the stock ECU?) and let the stock maps handle all the part throttle stuff. On aftermarket ECUs changes in ambient temps are normally handled through correction factors which get applied to the map, not a whole new map, so it's interesting that Nissan have chose to do it that way.

 

When you state Maximum power is delivered around Lambda 0.86-0.88 which is more like AFR 12.5 - 12.8:1 what is this based on? - Only reason I ask is im genuinely interested not for your own justification

 

Hi Dan,

 

I'm not sure where the Lambda 0.86 figure comes from originally, whether it is the result of lab testing, real world experience, or a combination of the two. I've heard it quoted from many people including Motec and Bosch. To be honest though I can't imagine there's many people running bang on that figure as a good tuner would have to adjust fuel for EGTs, etc. If you're running a turbo or supercharger then adding extra fuel in for a safety margin to cool things down a bit is a good idea. My previous car was an MK1 MX-5 with a T28 turbo kit and when I tuned that I was running no leaner than 12.0:1 at full throttle to keep EGTs down and to allow a decent amount of ignition advance (which lowers EGTs even further).

 

Using AFR as the guide for fuel mixture isn't as accurate as aiming for a Lambda value though as changes in the octane of fuel or the fuel itself can change the afr even though the lambda value remains the same. For example Lambda 1.00 (stoichiometric) for Normal Unleaded might be 14.7:1, Super Unleaded might be 14.5:1, diesel could be 17:1 and ethanol would be more like 9.0:1. All those fuels would have their most complete and emissions friendly burn at Lambda 1.00, even though the AFRs could be completely different at that Lambda value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stock ECU is very very clever in terms of control and ability. There is a target map for WOT (pretty much) then the base fuel tables. There are several advance correction maps then the main advance tables. (and variable cam blah blah)

 

The car has been mapped part throttle AND WOT.

 

I'd be happy for this car to go on another dyno because for those who have done research into our company will know that we are always called for been "low".

 

I regret not putting the stock rom back on the car now but on the gen1 it's not that simple. The car has been on the dyno several times on different days and has always produced the same ore there abouts. In my personal experience the most power can be made round the 12.8 mark and for the extra torque drop to about 12.3 on NA to gain a couple of degrees advance due to a colder chamber.

 

The point here is that if you want the car mapping on the stock ECU it is possible and we can do it. If you feel the need to pull everything apart that's posted up then go ahead but i guarantee you won't find any BS from us. I will be testing that car again very soon and will also lean it out again to test but from our experience last time it prefered to be on the richer side.

 

As for the octane, i believe he was running vpower, this does not mean he can't run 95 if really needed because the ECU has excellent detonation protection built in, including a second advance map if any det occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading. Do you think there is any more to be had from the car or do you feel you have taken the tuning as far as you can get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×