I was looking at Nabil's UPRD dyno and I noticed something odd....
12-11-2000, 12:19 PM
#1
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Last week I got my car dynoed. I made 176 fwhp at ~5500s and 193 ft/lbs of torque at ~4400 rpms on a hot motor. My torque is extremely flat and my hp curve is deep and broad. My mods were a intake, y-pipe, and B-pipe.
I just looked a Nabil's before and after Clayton dyno runs and I noticed something very strange that quickly caught my attention. Nabil's baseline run has a very peaky hp curve. Mine is very broad. At 5000 rpms, Nabil's car is only making 155 fwhp while mine is making nearly 173 fwhp. As a matter of fact, my car is making 160+ fwhp from 4400-6000 rpms where as Nabil's hp curve doesn't come remotely close. Upon looking at Nabil's modified hp curve, it becomes much broader and meatier. It looks EXACTLY like my hp curve except that my car is making less power.
I completely understand that the Clayton dyno does give different power numbers than a dynojet, BUT the hp and torque curves should be the exact same between a Dyno Jet and Clayton.
What's the deal? I'm not saying UPRD inflated power numbers and adjusted the baseline run, but strange is going on.
Dave
[Edited by Dave B on 12-11-2000 at 08:54 PM]
I just looked a Nabil's before and after Clayton dyno runs and I noticed something very strange that quickly caught my attention. Nabil's baseline run has a very peaky hp curve. Mine is very broad. At 5000 rpms, Nabil's car is only making 155 fwhp while mine is making nearly 173 fwhp. As a matter of fact, my car is making 160+ fwhp from 4400-6000 rpms where as Nabil's hp curve doesn't come remotely close. Upon looking at Nabil's modified hp curve, it becomes much broader and meatier. It looks EXACTLY like my hp curve except that my car is making less power.
I completely understand that the Clayton dyno does give different power numbers than a dynojet, BUT the hp and torque curves should be the exact same between a Dyno Jet and Clayton.
What's the deal? I'm not saying UPRD inflated power numbers and adjusted the baseline run, but strange is going on.
Dave
[Edited by Dave B on 12-11-2000 at 08:54 PM]
12-11-2000, 12:47 PM
#2
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
I just reviewed Chebosto's Dyno Jet runs and his power with the UPRD ECU lays down the same hp and torque as my car does. The hp and torque curves fit nearly in line with mine, PLUS his runs were in 3rd gear which will inflate hp and torque numbers by roughly 5% above a run in 4th gear (that's what I tested in).
Dave
Dave
12-11-2000, 01:55 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Apples to Oranges Dave....
Originally posted by Dave B
Last week I got my car dynoed. I made 176 fwhp at ~5500s and 193 ft/lbs of torque at ~4400 rpms on a hot motor. My torque is extremely flat and my hp curve is deep and broad. My mods were a intake, y-pipe, and B-pipe.
I just looked a Nabil's before and after Clayton dyno runs and I noticed something very strange that quickly caught my attention. Nabil's baseline run has a very peaky hp curve. Mine is very broad. At 5000 rpms, Nabil's car is only making 155 fwhp while mine is making nearly 170 fwhp. As a matter of fact, my car is making 160+ fwhp from 4700-5900 rpms where as Nabil's hp curve doesn't come remotely close. Upon looking at Nabil's modified hp curve, it becomes much broader and meatier. It looks EXACTLY like my hp curve except that my car is making less power.
I completely understand that the Clayton dyno does give different power numbers than a dynojet, BUT the hp and torque curves should be the exact same between a Dyno Jet and Clayton.
What's the deal? I'm not saying UPRD inflated power numbers and adjusted the baseline run, but strange is going on.
Dave
Last week I got my car dynoed. I made 176 fwhp at ~5500s and 193 ft/lbs of torque at ~4400 rpms on a hot motor. My torque is extremely flat and my hp curve is deep and broad. My mods were a intake, y-pipe, and B-pipe.
I just looked a Nabil's before and after Clayton dyno runs and I noticed something very strange that quickly caught my attention. Nabil's baseline run has a very peaky hp curve. Mine is very broad. At 5000 rpms, Nabil's car is only making 155 fwhp while mine is making nearly 170 fwhp. As a matter of fact, my car is making 160+ fwhp from 4700-5900 rpms where as Nabil's hp curve doesn't come remotely close. Upon looking at Nabil's modified hp curve, it becomes much broader and meatier. It looks EXACTLY like my hp curve except that my car is making less power.
I completely understand that the Clayton dyno does give different power numbers than a dynojet, BUT the hp and torque curves should be the exact same between a Dyno Jet and Clayton.
What's the deal? I'm not saying UPRD inflated power numbers and adjusted the baseline run, but strange is going on.
Dave
But If you're curious to see a DynoJet chart on my car from BEFORE I had installed the UPRD ECU, take a look at this dyno chart from my car done in May 2000.
http://63.204.172.66/maxima/Nabil_dyno_5-6-00b.gif
FYI, my cali-spec '96 5spd power mods include a Stillen Intake, Y-pipe, and muffler, and this dyno was done on a hot motor on a hot afternoon... And seeing how my torque curve is very broad, I'd ask you how you can explain the 10HP difference between our cars. (Hint: SI flows better on top end than CAI)
--Nabil
12-11-2000, 02:02 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Originally posted by Dave B
I just reviewed Chebosto's Dyno Jet runs and his power with the UPRD ECU lays down the same hp and torque as my car does. The hp and torque curves fit nearly in line with mine, PLUS his runs were in 3rd gear which will inflate hp and torque numbers by roughly 5% above a run in 4th gear (that's what I tested in).
Dave
I just reviewed Chebosto's Dyno Jet runs and his power with the UPRD ECU lays down the same hp and torque as my car does. The hp and torque curves fit nearly in line with mine, PLUS his runs were in 3rd gear which will inflate hp and torque numbers by roughly 5% above a run in 4th gear (that's what I tested in).
Dave
Where did you get your info from, Dave?
--Nabil
12-11-2000, 02:45 PM
#6
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
I got my info about the 3rd and 4th gear testing from the dyno technicans at MC Racing in Kansas City where I dynoed. Think about it for a second, your car is gonna have more torque multiplication in 3rd gear vs 4th, hence it's gonna accelerate the drums quicker. Almost all Dyno Jet shops will test your car in 4th gear. Why? Because it's closest to the 1:1 ratio they are looking for (ie less margin for error). The place you and Chebosto are going to is one of few shops that make runs in 3rd. I asked my shop about running in 3rd and they looked me square in the face and said, "Why? You wnat to make it look like you've got 5%more power?". As for the Clayton dyno applying load and the Dyno Jet not applying load, ummmmmmm you sure about that. Last time I checked, the rollers on a Dyno Jet weigh 3000 lbs. If that's not load, then I don't what is considered load.
After reviewing your May 2000 dyno, it is very very very interesting that your car has a completely different hp curve in the baseline (peaky). Then all of a sudden with the UPRD ECU your car has the exact hp curve as shown on your May 2000 dyno. We're talking the EXACT same hp curve to a T. Look at it very closely and you will see I am not lying. Don't you find that a little strange?
Dave
[Edited by Dave B on 12-11-2000 at 04:52 PM]
After reviewing your May 2000 dyno, it is very very very interesting that your car has a completely different hp curve in the baseline (peaky). Then all of a sudden with the UPRD ECU your car has the exact hp curve as shown on your May 2000 dyno. We're talking the EXACT same hp curve to a T. Look at it very closely and you will see I am not lying. Don't you find that a little strange?
Dave
[Edited by Dave B on 12-11-2000 at 04:52 PM]
12-11-2000, 03:48 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Let's look at this one arguement at a time here...
Originally posted by Dave B
I got my info about the 3rd and 4th gear testing from the dyno technicans at MC Racing in Kansas City where I dynoed. Think about it for a second, your car is gonna have more torque multiplication in 3rd gear vs 4th, hence it's gonna accelerate the drums quicker. Almost all Dyno Jet shops will test your car in 4th gear. Why? Because it's closest to the 1:1 ratio they are looking for (ie less margin for error). The place you and Chebosto are going to is one of few shops that make runs in 3rd. I asked my shop about running in 3rd and they looked me square in the face and said, "Why? You wnat to make it look like you've got 5%more power?". As for the Clayton dyno applying load and the Dyno Jet not applying load, ummmmmmm you sure about that. Last time I checked, the rollers on a Dyno Jet weigh 3000 lbs. If that's not load, then I don't what is considered load.
After reviewing your May 2000 dyno, it is very very very interesting that your car has a completely different hp curve in the baseline (peaky). Then all of a sudden with the UPRD ECU your car has the exact hp curve as shown on your May 2000 dyno. Don't you find that a little strange?
Dave
I got my info about the 3rd and 4th gear testing from the dyno technicans at MC Racing in Kansas City where I dynoed. Think about it for a second, your car is gonna have more torque multiplication in 3rd gear vs 4th, hence it's gonna accelerate the drums quicker. Almost all Dyno Jet shops will test your car in 4th gear. Why? Because it's closest to the 1:1 ratio they are looking for (ie less margin for error). The place you and Chebosto are going to is one of few shops that make runs in 3rd. I asked my shop about running in 3rd and they looked me square in the face and said, "Why? You wnat to make it look like you've got 5%more power?". As for the Clayton dyno applying load and the Dyno Jet not applying load, ummmmmmm you sure about that. Last time I checked, the rollers on a Dyno Jet weigh 3000 lbs. If that's not load, then I don't what is considered load.
After reviewing your May 2000 dyno, it is very very very interesting that your car has a completely different hp curve in the baseline (peaky). Then all of a sudden with the UPRD ECU your car has the exact hp curve as shown on your May 2000 dyno. Don't you find that a little strange?
Dave
Heck, even I've been to Stillen, DPR, and Dynamic Autosports and seen them dyno various cars, and they always do the testing in 3rd gear on the NA cars.
Now, your point about closeness to 1:1 gear ratios doesn't apply here... Keep in mind that various cars use different final drive ratios that are almost always going to give you something OTHER than a 1:1 ratio to the wheel (NO production car ever achieves 1:1 ratio to the wheels!!)... I thought you knew that, and your dyno shop technicians better know that if they want to call themselves professionals. ;-P
Also, if you examine the DynoJet machine and understand how it works, you'll see that it measures work and acceleration as functions of distance and TIME, which then it can give you the same results regardless of the gear selected. To give an example of what that means, 3rd gear will take less time to accelerate to redline RPMs and cover a narrower delta of speed (MPH) in the process than 4th gear which will take more time to reach redline RPMS but gain a higher delta of speed (MPH). The RPMs are the same, but the difference is in the directly proportional time vs speed covered by the car over the same rollers (btw, they are 2700lbs per roller for a total of 5400lbs that the car has to accelerate)...
The small differences perceived between the different gears account for different factors including traction on the rollers, turbo spool for turbo cars, friction (or lack thereof), and calculation speed and resolution of the data obtained due to hardware limitations including the dyno computer's processor speed, etc. For a reference on this, read:
http://www.dynojet.com/gmhtpmag.shtml
Anyway, to answer your inquiry about the load applied on the car with the DynoJet and the Clayton, the Clayton Dyno applies active loads to the wheels to simulate real road conditions and demands placed on the engine, while a DynoJet will use inertia to calculate power output from the car. (Sorry I can't put it in clearer terms than this, but that's one of the main points of difference between the two).
Lastly, to answer the last point you made in reference to my (before) DynoJet chart and (after) UPRD Clayton chart taken months later, I'll tell you again that the two charts can not be compared against each other since they were recorded in different ways... Nevertheless, I didn't get the point you tried to make at the end there about being peaky and flat... Can you be more specific as to which ones you are talking about? Thanks.
Regards,
--Nabil
12-11-2000, 04:05 PM
#8
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Originally posted by Dave B
After reviewing your May 2000 dyno, it is very very very interesting that your car has a completely different hp curve in the baseline (peaky). Then all of a sudden with the UPRD ECU your car has the exact hp curve as shown on your May 2000 dyno. We're talking the EXACT same hp curve to a T. Look at it very closely and you will see I am not lying. Don't you find that a little strange?
Dave
[Edited by Dave B on 12-11-2000 at 04:52 PM]
After reviewing your May 2000 dyno, it is very very very interesting that your car has a completely different hp curve in the baseline (peaky). Then all of a sudden with the UPRD ECU your car has the exact hp curve as shown on your May 2000 dyno. We're talking the EXACT same hp curve to a T. Look at it very closely and you will see I am not lying. Don't you find that a little strange?
Dave
[Edited by Dave B on 12-11-2000 at 04:52 PM]
I ONLY have a BEFORE UPRD DynoJet Dyno from May... Seen here:
http://63.204.172.66/maxima/Nabil_dyno_5-6-00b.gif
My AFTER UPRD ECU Clayton dyno charts are here:
http://63.204.172.66/maxima/uprd%201.jpg
http://63.204.172.66/maxima/uprd%202.jpg
The "peaky" second chart is deceiving for the *before* run in uprd%202.jpg, because that particular run the tires lost traction while accelerating, but I published the chart not for the that, rather to demonstrate that the red line run(second UPRD ECU run) demostrated a higher output than the first...
But if you want to compare before and after *on the Clayton machine*, look at the first Clayton chart. uprd%201.jpg
On a related note, a month ago Homiesan in his 5spd '97 w/CAI and removed fog light, y-pipe, Greddy and I had a friendly race from 65 to 130MPH, and we both saw my car pull instantly ahead and put about 6 carlengths by the time we shut down the race. :-)
--Nabil
12-11-2000, 04:52 PM
#9
time to open up a can of whoopass.
well. from the little attention span that i have left from studying for finals, u can see that from my car, i have a 97. i'm running a 96 modified ecu. I never got to run on the clayton due to time restraints. but u can see my car on the pre-ecu mod was fairly good on the clayton, but then the power registered lower on the Dynojet after the ecu mod.
all i'm saying is because we have 2 different types of dynos, you can't compare both of them. just like comparing one dyno from day one to another one on day 2 even at the same place of testing due to atmospheric differences and what not.
what matters is testing the car with and without the ecu on the same say at the same place, which we did... with Nabil's car and the clayton. u see the gains. they are for real. not a kid with a crayon and a scanned image.
WEll just put it this way: Nabil's car pulls so hard in 5th, its like ur in 3rd. thats all the proof i need of power gain. i dont need to see a graph to tell me its there, i can feel it.
as for my car, i feel it too, just not as much as nabil's car.. why? difference in rims, intake, driver weight, year of engines... tho i wouldnt mind a 1 on 1 with nabil's car. hehe.
well. from the little attention span that i have left from studying for finals, u can see that from my car, i have a 97. i'm running a 96 modified ecu. I never got to run on the clayton due to time restraints. but u can see my car on the pre-ecu mod was fairly good on the clayton, but then the power registered lower on the Dynojet after the ecu mod.
all i'm saying is because we have 2 different types of dynos, you can't compare both of them. just like comparing one dyno from day one to another one on day 2 even at the same place of testing due to atmospheric differences and what not.
what matters is testing the car with and without the ecu on the same say at the same place, which we did... with Nabil's car and the clayton. u see the gains. they are for real. not a kid with a crayon and a scanned image.
WEll just put it this way: Nabil's car pulls so hard in 5th, its like ur in 3rd. thats all the proof i need of power gain. i dont need to see a graph to tell me its there, i can feel it.
as for my car, i feel it too, just not as much as nabil's car.. why? difference in rims, intake, driver weight, year of engines... tho i wouldnt mind a 1 on 1 with nabil's car. hehe.
12-11-2000, 06:52 PM
#10
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Nabil and Chebosto-
I don't know what your dyno shops reasoning is, but nearly every single other dyno shop makes their runs in 4th gear. I understand that different cars have different tranny and axle ratios, but in nearly all of them (manual versions), 4th gear is DAMN near close to a 1:1. That's why they dyno in 4th. It's to reduce ratio error on the dyno. I've seen hundreds of F-Body and Mustang dyno scans and nearly all are in 4th (I use to have a Z28). Those who run in 3rd are quickly disregarded. Why? Because of inflated power numebers. Go to http://www.camaroZ28.com and http://www.ls1.com and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not making it up. Power curves will be the same, but the numbers are different.
I find it VERY strange that your hp curves on the May 2000 dyno run (non-UPRD ecu equipped) have the SAME EXACT curve as the Clayton run with the UPRD ecu. The numbers are different, but the hp curve vs rpms is nearly identical. How can you deny the simularity?
As for your car pulling hard in 3rd. I don't doubt it. My car pulls extremely hard in 3rd for being a little 6. Before my y-pipe and B-pipe, 2nd was my best gear. Now 3rd is by far my best gear. 4th gear pulls very hard too, much harder than stock. Running 96mph in the 1/4 mile shows how strongly my car can pull on the topend. Which brings me to another point. Why haven't you guys run your cars at the track before and after the ECU? That right there would clearly show the advantage of the ECU. You guys live in Cali and the tracks are open year round. I don't understand why you guys haven't made any runs yet.
Finally, the reason I brought all this up was because I was getting ready to give UPRD $475 until I got strong doubts about the claims UPRD ecu when comparing dynos. Why, because the ECU is suppose to add a good bit of hp and torque thru the curves except on the topend. I'd believe it, but after comparing curves and numbers, it appears a little too good to be true. This is just my opinion. Another thing I'm doubting about the UPRD ecu is that they are claiming to advance the timing. Last time I checked, you can only advance the timing via the crank position sensor. The crank sensor would have to be "turned" to advance timing, but the crank sensor can't be turned...yet. I think the only thing the UPRD ECU does is change the fuel tables a little. This can be done with a much cheaper S-AFC or Field's AFC and a 1/2 hour of dyno tune. Again this is just my opinion. I think I'm gonna go with a S-AFC and see what happens.
Dave
I don't know what your dyno shops reasoning is, but nearly every single other dyno shop makes their runs in 4th gear. I understand that different cars have different tranny and axle ratios, but in nearly all of them (manual versions), 4th gear is DAMN near close to a 1:1. That's why they dyno in 4th. It's to reduce ratio error on the dyno. I've seen hundreds of F-Body and Mustang dyno scans and nearly all are in 4th (I use to have a Z28). Those who run in 3rd are quickly disregarded. Why? Because of inflated power numebers. Go to http://www.camaroZ28.com and http://www.ls1.com and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not making it up. Power curves will be the same, but the numbers are different.
I find it VERY strange that your hp curves on the May 2000 dyno run (non-UPRD ecu equipped) have the SAME EXACT curve as the Clayton run with the UPRD ecu. The numbers are different, but the hp curve vs rpms is nearly identical. How can you deny the simularity?
As for your car pulling hard in 3rd. I don't doubt it. My car pulls extremely hard in 3rd for being a little 6. Before my y-pipe and B-pipe, 2nd was my best gear. Now 3rd is by far my best gear. 4th gear pulls very hard too, much harder than stock. Running 96mph in the 1/4 mile shows how strongly my car can pull on the topend. Which brings me to another point. Why haven't you guys run your cars at the track before and after the ECU? That right there would clearly show the advantage of the ECU. You guys live in Cali and the tracks are open year round. I don't understand why you guys haven't made any runs yet.
Finally, the reason I brought all this up was because I was getting ready to give UPRD $475 until I got strong doubts about the claims UPRD ecu when comparing dynos. Why, because the ECU is suppose to add a good bit of hp and torque thru the curves except on the topend. I'd believe it, but after comparing curves and numbers, it appears a little too good to be true. This is just my opinion. Another thing I'm doubting about the UPRD ecu is that they are claiming to advance the timing. Last time I checked, you can only advance the timing via the crank position sensor. The crank sensor would have to be "turned" to advance timing, but the crank sensor can't be turned...yet. I think the only thing the UPRD ECU does is change the fuel tables a little. This can be done with a much cheaper S-AFC or Field's AFC and a 1/2 hour of dyno tune. Again this is just my opinion. I think I'm gonna go with a S-AFC and see what happens.
Dave
12-11-2000, 07:03 PM
#11
Well Keven tried to tune w/ the SAFC and didn't really gain anything on his butt dyno. Cheston and Nabil have been around for years and seem like really straight up guys. If this is a hoax, they spent WAY too much time and effort into it. And what would they get in return if it was a hoax? They don't get any $$ out of it. Now that in itself is not reason to plunk down $475 if you have doubts. I think once these ecu's are out and more people post about it, the results will be realy positive. But if both runs are done in third gear for auguments sake and #2 ecu'ed run comes up higher than the 1st non-ecu'd run, doesn't that at least prove relative hp gains??
I think the choices are get in the GP now on faith(your faith anyway), wait until after people get theirs and then pya more, get the JWT's ecu(which is more) or don't get one at all.
Ya know, dyno runs and track time cost $$. I'm sure if someone stepped up and paid these guys for either a dyno or 1/4 run, I bet they would do it for research sake.
I think the choices are get in the GP now on faith(your faith anyway), wait until after people get theirs and then pya more, get the JWT's ecu(which is more) or don't get one at all.
Ya know, dyno runs and track time cost $$. I'm sure if someone stepped up and paid these guys for either a dyno or 1/4 run, I bet they would do it for research sake.
Originally posted by Dave B
Nabil and Chebosto-
I don't know what your dyno shops reasoning is, but nearly every single other dyno shop makes their runs in 4th gear. I understand that different cars have different tranny and axle ratios, but in nearly all of them (manual versions), 4th gear is DAMN near close to a 1:1. That's why they dyno in 4th. It's to reduce ratio error on the dyno. I've seen hundreds of F-Body and Mustang dyno scans and nearly all are in 4th (I use to have a Z28). Those who run in 3rd are quickly disregarded. Why? Because of inflated power numebers. Go to http://www.camaroZ28.com and http://www.ls1.com and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not making it up. Power curves will be the same, but the numbers are different.
I find it VERY strange that your hp curves on the May 2000 dyno run (non-UPRD ecu equipped) have the SAME EXACT curve as the Clayton run with the UPRD ecu. The numbers are different, but the hp curve vs rpms is nearly identical. How can you deny the simularity?
As for your car pulling hard in 3rd. I don't doubt it. My car pulls extremely hard in 3rd for being a little 6. Before my y-pipe and B-pipe, 2nd was my best gear. Now 3rd is by far my best gear. 4th gear pulls very hard too, much harder than stock. Running 96mph in the 1/4 mile shows how strongly my car can pull on the topend. Which brings me to another point. Why haven't you guys run your cars at the track before and after the ECU? That right there would clearly show the advantage of the ECU. You guys live in Cali and the tracks are open year round. I don't understand why you guys haven't made any runs yet.
Finally, the reason I brought all this up was because I was getting ready to give UPRD $475 until I got strong doubts about the claims UPRD ecu when comparing dynos. Why, because the ECU is suppose to add a good bit of hp and torque thru the curves except on the topend. I'd believe it, but after comparing curves and numbers, it appears a little too good to be true. This is just my opinion. Another thing I'm doubting about the UPRD ecu is that they are claiming to advance the timing. Last time I checked, you can only advance the timing via the crank position sensor. The crank sensor would have to be "turned" to advance timing, but the crank sensor can't be turned...yet. I think the only thing the UPRD ECU does is change the fuel tables a little. This can be done with a much cheaper S-AFC or Field's AFC and a 1/2 hour of dyno tune. Again this is just my opinion. I think I'm gonna go with a S-AFC and see what happens.
Dave
Nabil and Chebosto-
I don't know what your dyno shops reasoning is, but nearly every single other dyno shop makes their runs in 4th gear. I understand that different cars have different tranny and axle ratios, but in nearly all of them (manual versions), 4th gear is DAMN near close to a 1:1. That's why they dyno in 4th. It's to reduce ratio error on the dyno. I've seen hundreds of F-Body and Mustang dyno scans and nearly all are in 4th (I use to have a Z28). Those who run in 3rd are quickly disregarded. Why? Because of inflated power numebers. Go to http://www.camaroZ28.com and http://www.ls1.com and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not making it up. Power curves will be the same, but the numbers are different.
I find it VERY strange that your hp curves on the May 2000 dyno run (non-UPRD ecu equipped) have the SAME EXACT curve as the Clayton run with the UPRD ecu. The numbers are different, but the hp curve vs rpms is nearly identical. How can you deny the simularity?
As for your car pulling hard in 3rd. I don't doubt it. My car pulls extremely hard in 3rd for being a little 6. Before my y-pipe and B-pipe, 2nd was my best gear. Now 3rd is by far my best gear. 4th gear pulls very hard too, much harder than stock. Running 96mph in the 1/4 mile shows how strongly my car can pull on the topend. Which brings me to another point. Why haven't you guys run your cars at the track before and after the ECU? That right there would clearly show the advantage of the ECU. You guys live in Cali and the tracks are open year round. I don't understand why you guys haven't made any runs yet.
Finally, the reason I brought all this up was because I was getting ready to give UPRD $475 until I got strong doubts about the claims UPRD ecu when comparing dynos. Why, because the ECU is suppose to add a good bit of hp and torque thru the curves except on the topend. I'd believe it, but after comparing curves and numbers, it appears a little too good to be true. This is just my opinion. Another thing I'm doubting about the UPRD ecu is that they are claiming to advance the timing. Last time I checked, you can only advance the timing via the crank position sensor. The crank sensor would have to be "turned" to advance timing, but the crank sensor can't be turned...yet. I think the only thing the UPRD ECU does is change the fuel tables a little. This can be done with a much cheaper S-AFC or Field's AFC and a 1/2 hour of dyno tune. Again this is just my opinion. I think I'm gonna go with a S-AFC and see what happens.
Dave
12-11-2000, 07:30 PM
#12
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Jeff-
I not knocking Nabil or Chebosto. I think they are great guys and I don't think "they" are trying to spread a hoax. What I doubt is the gains that UPRD is claiming and I think they are tricking Nabil and Chebosto. Why? Read my statements in the other posts. The hp curves are screwy. Clayton dynos and Dyno Jets go about slightly different ways of showing power, but they will read out the same kind of curve vs rpm. Why would it be any different? Everyone think about that. Why would Nabil's car on a Clayton dyno show different curves and power production vs a dyno jet? It's not like the hp curve from 4000-6000 is gonna magically change. If the car's powerband starts at 4500 rpms and goes to 5800 rpms on a Clayton, then that's where it's gonna start and end on a Dyno Jet. Pure and simple.
I know dynoing and running the 1/4 mile costs money, but I don't think money is a problem for these guys. Chebosto is reguraly throwing down large sums of money on cosmetic stuff for his Max and Nabil has a $3000 set of rims on his car.
Keven's "butt" dyno isn't a very effective tool in analyzing the power of the S-AFC (sorry Kev). You need to take it to the dyno and tune it. It's not something you can just "play" with. When I get my S-AFC and tune it on the dyno I will post my gains before and after. Track time will have to wait until the end of Febuaury when they open the track.
Like I said, I'm not knocking either of these guys, I just have serious doubts about the claims, the testing, and the PRICE. Nabil has never dyno jet'd his car since the ECU upgrade. Nabil only made runs on the Clayton. Chebosto on the otherhand dynoed his with a dyno jet, but never on the Clayton. Chebosto is making roughly the same hp as any other 4th gen 5 speed with the same mods minus the ECU, plus his numbers are slightly inflated due to running in 3rd. These guys have never run thier cars at the track to guage the ECU in and out of the car. Like I've said before, even if the 60 foots are bad, the trap speeds will indicate if more power is being made. Hearing things like, "his car pulls like mad in 3rd" or "he pulled 6 cars on a modded Max from 65-130mph" means little to me. I'm sorry.
Dave
I not knocking Nabil or Chebosto. I think they are great guys and I don't think "they" are trying to spread a hoax. What I doubt is the gains that UPRD is claiming and I think they are tricking Nabil and Chebosto. Why? Read my statements in the other posts. The hp curves are screwy. Clayton dynos and Dyno Jets go about slightly different ways of showing power, but they will read out the same kind of curve vs rpm. Why would it be any different? Everyone think about that. Why would Nabil's car on a Clayton dyno show different curves and power production vs a dyno jet? It's not like the hp curve from 4000-6000 is gonna magically change. If the car's powerband starts at 4500 rpms and goes to 5800 rpms on a Clayton, then that's where it's gonna start and end on a Dyno Jet. Pure and simple.
I know dynoing and running the 1/4 mile costs money, but I don't think money is a problem for these guys. Chebosto is reguraly throwing down large sums of money on cosmetic stuff for his Max and Nabil has a $3000 set of rims on his car.
Keven's "butt" dyno isn't a very effective tool in analyzing the power of the S-AFC (sorry Kev). You need to take it to the dyno and tune it. It's not something you can just "play" with. When I get my S-AFC and tune it on the dyno I will post my gains before and after. Track time will have to wait until the end of Febuaury when they open the track.
Like I said, I'm not knocking either of these guys, I just have serious doubts about the claims, the testing, and the PRICE. Nabil has never dyno jet'd his car since the ECU upgrade. Nabil only made runs on the Clayton. Chebosto on the otherhand dynoed his with a dyno jet, but never on the Clayton. Chebosto is making roughly the same hp as any other 4th gen 5 speed with the same mods minus the ECU, plus his numbers are slightly inflated due to running in 3rd. These guys have never run thier cars at the track to guage the ECU in and out of the car. Like I've said before, even if the 60 foots are bad, the trap speeds will indicate if more power is being made. Hearing things like, "his car pulls like mad in 3rd" or "he pulled 6 cars on a modded Max from 65-130mph" means little to me. I'm sorry.
Dave
12-11-2000, 07:53 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,032
I will pay for the runs, BUT
Originally posted by Dave B
Why haven't you guys run your cars at the track before and after the ECU? That right there would clearly show the advantage of the ECU. You guys live in Cali and the tracks are open year round. I don't understand why you guys haven't made any runs yet.
Why haven't you guys run your cars at the track before and after the ECU? That right there would clearly show the advantage of the ECU. You guys live in Cali and the tracks are open year round. I don't understand why you guys haven't made any runs yet.
12-11-2000, 08:04 PM
#14
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Victum-
I won't give you any money regardless of the outcome, but how about this. Take your car to the track BEFORE the ECU and see what she will run. Then after the ECU run it again. Remember that you will need to correct your et for conditions to be more accurate. Record the weather conditions (temp, humidity, baro pressure). The same goes for the dyno. Do a before and after. That's the only way we will know if it's true or not. Right now, we've got no 1/4 mile times and two different cars on two different kinds of dynos. Going by your "butt dyno" won't accomplish anything. It's the most inaccurate dyno out there.
Dave
I won't give you any money regardless of the outcome, but how about this. Take your car to the track BEFORE the ECU and see what she will run. Then after the ECU run it again. Remember that you will need to correct your et for conditions to be more accurate. Record the weather conditions (temp, humidity, baro pressure). The same goes for the dyno. Do a before and after. That's the only way we will know if it's true or not. Right now, we've got no 1/4 mile times and two different cars on two different kinds of dynos. Going by your "butt dyno" won't accomplish anything. It's the most inaccurate dyno out there.
Dave
12-11-2000, 08:13 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,032
Originally posted by Dave B
Victum-
I won't give you any money regardless of the outcome, but how about this. Take your car to the track BEFORE the ECU and see what she will run. Then after the ECU run it again. Remember that you will need to correct your et for conditions to be more accurate. Record the weather conditions (temp, humidity, baro pressure). The same goes for the dyno. Do a before and after. That's the only way we will know if it's true or not. Right now, we've got no 1/4 mile times and two different cars on two different kinds of dynos. Going by your "butt dyno" won't accomplish anything. It's the most inaccurate dyno out there.
Dave
Victum-
I won't give you any money regardless of the outcome, but how about this. Take your car to the track BEFORE the ECU and see what she will run. Then after the ECU run it again. Remember that you will need to correct your et for conditions to be more accurate. Record the weather conditions (temp, humidity, baro pressure). The same goes for the dyno. Do a before and after. That's the only way we will know if it's true or not. Right now, we've got no 1/4 mile times and two different cars on two different kinds of dynos. Going by your "butt dyno" won't accomplish anything. It's the most inaccurate dyno out there.
Dave
OK, I will find a 1/4 mile track and try and run before I leave for Christmas. If not I will have to do it on my 1/8 mile that is my normal track. I can do this even after I get it installed, because I have a friend that has the same car as I do, so I will use his ECU to see the difference in times. Or, I can just race him right off the bat to give you a quick (slightly inaccurate) result.
12-11-2000, 08:19 PM
#16
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
1/8th mile track testing should be okay. The gains will be harder to guage, but they still should be there. What's great about your car is that it's an automatic which makes it very consistent off the line. Keep us posted.
Dave
Dave
12-11-2000, 08:21 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,032
Willl Do.........
No Problem
Originally posted by Dave B
1/8th mile track testing should be okay. The gains will be harder to guage, but they still should be there. What's great about your car is that it's an automatic which makes it very consistent off the line. Keep us posted.
Dave
1/8th mile track testing should be okay. The gains will be harder to guage, but they still should be there. What's great about your car is that it's an automatic which makes it very consistent off the line. Keep us posted.
Dave
12-11-2000, 08:47 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 886
davey. interesting numbers
close to what i had in my 92 max there buddy
i had 176 hp and 202 in torque
mmmmmm
maybe we should port that throttle body of yours
worked for me
lets see what it does on a vq max
what ya say
close to what i had in my 92 max there buddy
i had 176 hp and 202 in torque
mmmmmm
maybe we should port that throttle body of yours
worked for me
lets see what it does on a vq max
what ya say
12-11-2000, 09:35 PM
#19
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Bryan-
I thought your Max was in the upper 160 (~167) fwhp range and ~175 ft/lbs of torque. Atleast that is what I thought I saw on your dyno sheet when we had our cars in that little show and shine car show a while ago.
As for porting the TB. I don't think it's needed. The TB is alread port matched to the intake manifold. The internals of the TB are very smooth.
Dave
I thought your Max was in the upper 160 (~167) fwhp range and ~175 ft/lbs of torque. Atleast that is what I thought I saw on your dyno sheet when we had our cars in that little show and shine car show a while ago.
As for porting the TB. I don't think it's needed. The TB is alread port matched to the intake manifold. The internals of the TB are very smooth.
Dave
12-11-2000, 11:28 PM
#20
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Let's focus on the points here...
Originally posted by Dave B
Jeff-
I not knocking Nabil or Chebosto. I think they are great guys and I don't think "they" are trying to spread a hoax. What I doubt is the gains that UPRD is claiming and I think they are tricking Nabil and Chebosto. Why? Read my statements in the other posts. The hp curves are screwy. Clayton dynos and Dyno Jets go about slightly different ways of showing power, but they will read out the same kind of curve vs rpm. Why would it be any different? Everyone think about that. Why would Nabil's car on a Clayton dyno show different curves and power production vs a dyno jet? It's not like the hp curve from 4000-6000 is gonna magically change. If the car's powerband starts at 4500 rpms and goes to 5800 rpms on a Clayton, then that's where it's gonna start and end on a Dyno Jet. Pure and simple.
I know dynoing and running the 1/4 mile costs money, but I don't think money is a problem for these guys. Chebosto is reguraly throwing down large sums of money on cosmetic stuff for his Max and Nabil has a $3000 set of rims on his car.
Keven's "butt" dyno isn't a very effective tool in analyzing the power of the S-AFC (sorry Kev). You need to take it to the dyno and tune it. It's not something you can just "play" with. When I get my S-AFC and tune it on the dyno I will post my gains before and after. Track time will have to wait until the end of Febuaury when they open the track.
Like I said, I'm not knocking either of these guys, I just have serious doubts about the claims, the testing, and the PRICE. Nabil has never dyno jet'd his car since the ECU upgrade. Nabil only made runs on the Clayton. Chebosto on the otherhand dynoed his with a dyno jet, but never on the Clayton. Chebosto is making roughly the same hp as any other 4th gen 5 speed with the same mods minus the ECU, plus his numbers are slightly inflated due to running in 3rd. These guys have never run thier cars at the track to guage the ECU in and out of the car. Like I've said before, even if the 60 foots are bad, the trap speeds will indicate if more power is being made. Hearing things like, "his car pulls like mad in 3rd" or "he pulled 6 cars on a modded Max from 65-130mph" means little to me. I'm sorry.
Dave
Jeff-
I not knocking Nabil or Chebosto. I think they are great guys and I don't think "they" are trying to spread a hoax. What I doubt is the gains that UPRD is claiming and I think they are tricking Nabil and Chebosto. Why? Read my statements in the other posts. The hp curves are screwy. Clayton dynos and Dyno Jets go about slightly different ways of showing power, but they will read out the same kind of curve vs rpm. Why would it be any different? Everyone think about that. Why would Nabil's car on a Clayton dyno show different curves and power production vs a dyno jet? It's not like the hp curve from 4000-6000 is gonna magically change. If the car's powerband starts at 4500 rpms and goes to 5800 rpms on a Clayton, then that's where it's gonna start and end on a Dyno Jet. Pure and simple.
I know dynoing and running the 1/4 mile costs money, but I don't think money is a problem for these guys. Chebosto is reguraly throwing down large sums of money on cosmetic stuff for his Max and Nabil has a $3000 set of rims on his car.
Keven's "butt" dyno isn't a very effective tool in analyzing the power of the S-AFC (sorry Kev). You need to take it to the dyno and tune it. It's not something you can just "play" with. When I get my S-AFC and tune it on the dyno I will post my gains before and after. Track time will have to wait until the end of Febuaury when they open the track.
Like I said, I'm not knocking either of these guys, I just have serious doubts about the claims, the testing, and the PRICE. Nabil has never dyno jet'd his car since the ECU upgrade. Nabil only made runs on the Clayton. Chebosto on the otherhand dynoed his with a dyno jet, but never on the Clayton. Chebosto is making roughly the same hp as any other 4th gen 5 speed with the same mods minus the ECU, plus his numbers are slightly inflated due to running in 3rd. These guys have never run thier cars at the track to guage the ECU in and out of the car. Like I've said before, even if the 60 foots are bad, the trap speeds will indicate if more power is being made. Hearing things like, "his car pulls like mad in 3rd" or "he pulled 6 cars on a modded Max from 65-130mph" means little to me. I'm sorry.
Dave
Having said that, I will repeat that most runs I've seen at various dyno shops were done in 3rd gear. High horsepower cars not withstanding, 3rd gear is preferred for the lower hp cars (including the Maxima).
Also, to clarify some things you assumed about my car which can stand a correction or clarification: I've run a 1/4 mi track (Dec '99) and got 14.8@94.4 at the time. Since then, I've added the light rims & better tires, new exhaust, S-AFC, and finally the UPRD ECU... So why haven't I run again you may wonder? Well, first I hated the attitude of the people there especially when compared to the brotherly spirit I got from guys at a real road course track like Buttonwillow for example. Second, the track we went to is almost a 2 hour drive from where I live, so it's not exactly a hop and a skip away.
Your arguments about Cheston's and my dyno charts have little truth in them (sorry bud), and I believe that I've addressed them in my last couple of replies.
I don't take UPRD's word for anything nor am I affiliated with them in any way (other than making my car available for them as the guinnea pig and making the programming suggestions on the ECU mod that one time). Also keep in mind that we dynoed Cheston's car at an independent DynoJet shop to obtain his results so there should be no claim to tampering or denying his results/gains.
By the way, the UPRD ECU mod comprises a daughterboard with a programmable and removeable/replaceable chip that holds new timing and fuel maps which override and replace those which the ECU calls upon and references during operation. The cool thing about this is that my ECU maps are fully programmable for later changes or updates for future mods, and that can easily be achieved with either reprogramming my chip or getting a new EPROM chip swapped in there.
Also like Keven & Homiesan, I have an Apex'i S-AFC on my car too, but since I got the UPRD ECU mod, I've reverted to the default values until I schedule a dyno tuning session. And if you're wondering why I haven't done so yet, I've just been too busy in the last 3 months with work and life to worry much about this damned obsession I have in cars.
As for your opinion regarding the viability or validity of the UPRD mod, all I say is that you're entitled to think however you like and believe whatever you want, but I stand behind everything I've said and done, and I offer my car to anyone (here in SoCal) to come down and meet in a friendly meeting and either ride, drive, or race against my car... And everyone who's taken my invitaion and done so has become a believer.
In the end, I say that I've been around on various Maxima boards/lists since late '96, and my motivation for prototyping a particular mod or endorsing a new mod come from my belief that someone has to step forward and take a chance in order for things to happen for our cars, and I don't mind being the one with the guinnea pig car as long as I can justify the merits of the mod.
You see, part of the deal with UPRD was their assurance, for submitting my car to be modified, that I could have asked them too take it out and undo it if I wasn't at all happy with it. But the power difference was immediately apparent for me the moment I drove it that day, and I've been driving it (hard) ever since, and loving it. :-)
So feel free to sit and wait to see how others will offer their testimonies as they start taking delivery of their upgraded ECUs, then make up your mind. In the mean time, I suggest not being so hasty in drumming up negative arguements with no first hand experience with them and effectively busting chops on the daring (and respectable) aftermarket companies that are venturing to support the Maxima.
Regards,
--Nabil
[Edited by Nabil on 12-12-2000 at 01:46 AM]
12-12-2000, 12:47 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 872
So how does the UPRD chip compare to the Y pipe? Which gives more to the Maxima?
12-12-2000, 01:02 AM
#22
"I know dynoing and running the 1/4 mile costs money, but I don't think money is a problem for these guys. Chebosto is reguraly throwing down large sums of money on cosmetic stuff for his Max and Nabil has a $3000 set of rims on his car. "
what the hell is that supposed to mean? Cosmetic stuff? hell. you're the one that put prelude seats in the max before i got my corbeaus. Just because Nabil and I decide where to put our money has nothing to do with running the quarter or dynoing. i could care LESS about running the quarter mile. if i did, i'd have a NOS'ed SC on 15 inch rims and slicks. do i? no i dont. i want my car track worthy.. hence the seats, harness, race rims, and now the ecu and UDP.
"Keven's "butt" dyno isn't a very effective tool in analyzing the power of the S-AFC (sorry Kev). You need to take it to the dyno and tune it. It's not something you can just "play" with. When I get my S-AFC and tune it on the dyno I will post my gains before and after. Track time will have to wait until the end of Febuaury when they open the track. "
the AFC isn't a miracale tool. it's only good for minor tweaks and a "monitor" of your air/fuel mixture.
"Like I said, I'm not knocking either of these guys,"
you just did. read your comment on the first line.
" I just have serious doubts about the claims, the testing, and the PRICE. Nabil has never dyno jet'd his car since the ECU upgrade. Nabil only made runs on the Clayton. Chebosto on the otherhand dynoed his with a dyno jet, but never on the Clayton. Chebosto is making roughly the same hp as any other 4th gen 5 speed with the same mods minus the ECU, plus his numbers are slightly inflated due to running in 3rd. "
hello??? um. i'm running a 96 SE ECU on my 97. am i supposed to get gains at all? no. so, making what i did is remarkable enough. I didn't run on the clayton because that day it was busted. Nabil didn't run on the dynojet because we ran out of time. u wanna pay for his run? then be my guest . if you have troubles with what the graphs say, obviously ur not interested with the GP so just ignore it...
"These guys have never run thier cars at the track to guage the ECU in and out of the car. "
hey. pay for my entry fee and i'll go the minute u say so. i mean, holly crap batman. the ECU worked DAMN well on surface race/tests. we had a run from 30->130 and nabil's car totally beat out a comparable 97 SE...
if you take the data that's been presented and don't take that 15 hp gain as "proof" then i'm sorry something is obviously wrong.
i haven't had time nor the money to go to a decent quarter mile track, but if you really want me to, then i'll go. just supply the greenbacks. and i'll show u my times.
last time i ran was way back of feb 2000, with just a CAI and muffler, and ****ty tires. that got me a 15.1.
i'd say i'll be in the 14s easily. as for nabil's car. he already ran a 14.8 even before his ECU, i'd be expecting some 14.6s... but hell. we're not into straight line sprints...
[Edited by Chebosto on 12-12-2000 at 03:48 AM]
what the hell is that supposed to mean? Cosmetic stuff? hell. you're the one that put prelude seats in the max before i got my corbeaus. Just because Nabil and I decide where to put our money has nothing to do with running the quarter or dynoing. i could care LESS about running the quarter mile. if i did, i'd have a NOS'ed SC on 15 inch rims and slicks. do i? no i dont. i want my car track worthy.. hence the seats, harness, race rims, and now the ecu and UDP.
"Keven's "butt" dyno isn't a very effective tool in analyzing the power of the S-AFC (sorry Kev). You need to take it to the dyno and tune it. It's not something you can just "play" with. When I get my S-AFC and tune it on the dyno I will post my gains before and after. Track time will have to wait until the end of Febuaury when they open the track. "
the AFC isn't a miracale tool. it's only good for minor tweaks and a "monitor" of your air/fuel mixture.
"Like I said, I'm not knocking either of these guys,"
you just did. read your comment on the first line.
" I just have serious doubts about the claims, the testing, and the PRICE. Nabil has never dyno jet'd his car since the ECU upgrade. Nabil only made runs on the Clayton. Chebosto on the otherhand dynoed his with a dyno jet, but never on the Clayton. Chebosto is making roughly the same hp as any other 4th gen 5 speed with the same mods minus the ECU, plus his numbers are slightly inflated due to running in 3rd. "
hello??? um. i'm running a 96 SE ECU on my 97. am i supposed to get gains at all? no. so, making what i did is remarkable enough. I didn't run on the clayton because that day it was busted. Nabil didn't run on the dynojet because we ran out of time. u wanna pay for his run? then be my guest . if you have troubles with what the graphs say, obviously ur not interested with the GP so just ignore it...
"These guys have never run thier cars at the track to guage the ECU in and out of the car. "
hey. pay for my entry fee and i'll go the minute u say so. i mean, holly crap batman. the ECU worked DAMN well on surface race/tests. we had a run from 30->130 and nabil's car totally beat out a comparable 97 SE...
if you take the data that's been presented and don't take that 15 hp gain as "proof" then i'm sorry something is obviously wrong.
i haven't had time nor the money to go to a decent quarter mile track, but if you really want me to, then i'll go. just supply the greenbacks. and i'll show u my times.
last time i ran was way back of feb 2000, with just a CAI and muffler, and ****ty tires. that got me a 15.1.
i'd say i'll be in the 14s easily. as for nabil's car. he already ran a 14.8 even before his ECU, i'd be expecting some 14.6s... but hell. we're not into straight line sprints...
[Edited by Chebosto on 12-12-2000 at 03:48 AM]
12-12-2000, 02:05 AM
#23
"I find it VERY strange that your hp curves on the May 2000 dyno run (non-UPRD ecu equipped) have the SAME EXACT curve as the Clayton run with the UPRD ecu. The numbers are different, but the hp curve vs rpms is nearly identical. How can you deny the simularity?"
that my friend, is just the simliarities of a power curve. simiar in curve, but different none the less. i think you're trying to see things that aren't there.
"Another thing I'm doubting about the UPRD ecu is that they are claiming to advance the timing. Last time I checked, you can only advance the timing via the crank position sensor. The crank sensor would have to be "turned" to advance timing, but the crank sensor can't be turned...yet. I think the only thing the UPRD ECU does is change the fuel tables a little. "
well if you dont believe me on the advance timing, you can check out my Techtom readings.Prior to the ECU upgrade, my stock ECU was about 25 degrees at 25 mph, now, its close to 30 degrees.. i can take pictures if u want.. i just dont get why its so hard to prove to you that this thing works. i mean, you have graphical proof. u have testimony from me and nabil. and indept testimony from emax who doesnt even know me or nabil and he got it. claimed wunders. i mean if you dont like the ecu, then why bother? i think maybe someone here is jealous that he's no longer a contender for the fastest NA max....
12-12-2000, 03:55 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Nabil and Cheston are right...
Dave B:
Based on Cheston's techtom reading I can say that at least 80% of the gain in torque is from the timing advance. Unless you get another CAS (crank angle sensor) and modify it so it can be adjustable there is no other way. Keven97SE tried the apexi ITC and that didn't work. But in the toppend I believe the gain was more from the fuel changes than timing was though. Also the S-AFC is just a fine tuning instrument, on a NA max it would be considered a waste. Now if you ran N20 or a supercharger I could see how its worthwhile. Other than that it seems like the $$ for that could be invested somewhere else. I wouldn't be surprised if you only got an average gain of like 1-4hp/2-5lb-ft. One thing is for certain the stock ECU has to run conservative timing maps for all the people that don't do proper maintence or run the right octane fuel. As for the 3rd gear vs 4th gear I don't think it really matters. But wouldn't 4th gear understate the power/torque since its not a 1:1 ratio?
Nabil or Cheston:
I was wondering does the UPRD ECU increase the rev limiter? Even though the power falls off at 6000rpm on the road course or autoX a higher rev limiter would come in handy. Also I know it has be asked before but, you mean there is no way for you guys to include the 3rd gen maxima for the UPRD ECU? Let say you had someone send you core ECU's for the VG and VE 3rd gens along with some volunteer's (You SoCal 3rd gen guys better step up too). UPRD wouldn't be able to modify the stock ECU? If I was in SoCal I would have gone there just to get my se-r ECU remapped since the price is cheaper than a JWT ECU. I know for a fact that the 3rd gen guys will be able to help you guys out in the sales of the ECU.
[Edited by Nismo87SE on 12-12-2000 at 06:00 AM]
Based on Cheston's techtom reading I can say that at least 80% of the gain in torque is from the timing advance. Unless you get another CAS (crank angle sensor) and modify it so it can be adjustable there is no other way. Keven97SE tried the apexi ITC and that didn't work. But in the toppend I believe the gain was more from the fuel changes than timing was though. Also the S-AFC is just a fine tuning instrument, on a NA max it would be considered a waste. Now if you ran N20 or a supercharger I could see how its worthwhile. Other than that it seems like the $$ for that could be invested somewhere else. I wouldn't be surprised if you only got an average gain of like 1-4hp/2-5lb-ft. One thing is for certain the stock ECU has to run conservative timing maps for all the people that don't do proper maintence or run the right octane fuel. As for the 3rd gear vs 4th gear I don't think it really matters. But wouldn't 4th gear understate the power/torque since its not a 1:1 ratio?
Nabil or Cheston:
I was wondering does the UPRD ECU increase the rev limiter? Even though the power falls off at 6000rpm on the road course or autoX a higher rev limiter would come in handy. Also I know it has be asked before but, you mean there is no way for you guys to include the 3rd gen maxima for the UPRD ECU? Let say you had someone send you core ECU's for the VG and VE 3rd gens along with some volunteer's (You SoCal 3rd gen guys better step up too
). UPRD wouldn't be able to modify the stock ECU? If I was in SoCal I would have gone there just to get my se-r ECU remapped since the price is cheaper than a JWT ECU. I know for a fact that the 3rd gen guys will be able to help you guys out in the sales of the ECU. [Edited by Nismo87SE on 12-12-2000 at 06:00 AM]
12-12-2000, 07:18 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,018
They're just curves, not #s, right?
Originally posted by Dave B
Upon looking at Nabil's modified hp curve, it becomes much broader and meatier. It looks EXACTLY like my hp curve except that my car is making less power.
I completely understand that the Clayton dyno does give different power numbers than a dynojet, BUT the hp and torque curves should be the exact same between a Dyno Jet and Clayton.
Upon looking at Nabil's modified hp curve, it becomes much broader and meatier. It looks EXACTLY like my hp curve except that my car is making less power.
I completely understand that the Clayton dyno does give different power numbers than a dynojet, BUT the hp and torque curves should be the exact same between a Dyno Jet and Clayton.
12-12-2000, 07:32 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
The one thing I don't like about the UPRD data is that I have YET TO SEE a torque plot. HP plots are difficult to judge and misleading...torque plot really are the only effective way to measure one plot vs another for relatively fine changes like the ECU makes.
And I do agree with Dave in that there are some oddities in regards to some of the dyno plots. For example, one of the non-UPRD'd dyno plots of Nabil's car, when I extrapolated the data into a torque curve, showed an odd torque curve where torque continually fell off from 2300 rpm, plateau;d from 5500-6000 (really unusual), with a corresponding HP peak at 6000 rpm (also odd). Just unusual, and I really can't feel good about any of the data until I see a torque plot.
The only thing that makes sense is that, when the torque #s are extrapolated, there's a massive torque increase at ~4500 rpm, which is exactly what Jeff K found on his car with the JWT ECU (dyno'd on a DynoJet, too).
Still, I don't trust my extrapolated torque #s fully, and would really like to see a torque plot from the Clayton sessions.
Not to keep ringing that bell, but I think that a Dynojet session would help a lot to get people to buy into the UPRD ECU results. Maybe not even a pre-ECU baseline would be needed, either, just a plot of "this is the car with the UPRD ECU".
And I do agree with Dave in that there are some oddities in regards to some of the dyno plots. For example, one of the non-UPRD'd dyno plots of Nabil's car, when I extrapolated the data into a torque curve, showed an odd torque curve where torque continually fell off from 2300 rpm, plateau;d from 5500-6000 (really unusual), with a corresponding HP peak at 6000 rpm (also odd). Just unusual, and I really can't feel good about any of the data until I see a torque plot.
The only thing that makes sense is that, when the torque #s are extrapolated, there's a massive torque increase at ~4500 rpm, which is exactly what Jeff K found on his car with the JWT ECU (dyno'd on a DynoJet, too).
Still, I don't trust my extrapolated torque #s fully, and would really like to see a torque plot from the Clayton sessions.
Not to keep ringing that bell, but I think that a Dynojet session would help a lot to get people to buy into the UPRD ECU results. Maybe not even a pre-ECU baseline would be needed, either, just a plot of "this is the car with the UPRD ECU".
12-12-2000, 09:05 AM
#28
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Chebosto-
First off, I'm not trying to attack you or flame you. Let's try to keep this a debate and not a flame fest. I don't care if I don't have the "fastest" Max on this site. It's not the issue here. It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen if I continue to run at my track on street tires. If Nabil ran a 14.8@94mph then that is pretty close to what what I'm running. What were his 60 foots?
The biggest problem I have with this UPRD ECU is that hp curves are funky on Nabil's baseline run with the Clayton. Then after the ECU upgrade, the Clayton hp curve looks exactly like his non-UPRD ECU Dyno Jet dyno from May 2000 and is making nearly the same hp vs rpm AT ALL LEVELS. Also, Chebosto's Max showed a 5hp gains and loss' throughout the powerband with the different ECUs. My experience with the Dyno Jet is that car's can gain or lose 5-6 fwhp and torque between runs. I'm not an expert, but I do know the Clayton dyno and Dyno Jet dyno will show the same kind of curves in relation to rpm. The numbers are different, but the curves are the same. It's not apples to oranges like you guys suggest. Keven is completely right when he says we need torque figures the Clayton runs. It's beyond me why UPRD didn't give you the printout. I'm not saying the UPRD ECU does nothing, I'm just questioning the amount of the quoted gains. After comparing the various dyno plots, something is not right. I have had my doubts in the past about this ECU, but I was gonna give it a shot. Now I'm pulling out until I see better data supporting it's claims because of problems with the data. I think it is great that you guys worked so hard to push this thing thru, but the testing is still lacking. It's lacking in torque numbers on the Clayton, it has questionable results on the Clayton, one car was run on a Clayton and the other was run on a Dyno Jet, and no timeslips have been posted. After looking at all the numbers and dynos, it looks ot me like the UPRD ECU is good for almost 5 fwhp and 5 ft/lbs of torque throughout the powerband. I'd imagine simply tuning a S-AFC would show about the same gains. More power below 4300 rpms would be nice, BUT at the track it isn't gonna help you at at all. The only time you'll be in that part of the rpm range is in 1st gear. You won't be using that part of the rpm range for more than a split second. After that, all your shifts will be entering in at ~4300-4500rpms. I'm not one of those people who go by what others say and testimonials. I need to see the hard numbers before I throw down nearly $500. When I see more before and after dynos and 1/4 mile runsfrom other cars then I'll make my choice. I'm still halfway interested, but I need more info to justify it.
I called my dyno shop and asked exactly why they dyno in 3rd. They said Dyno Jet recommends all pulls be made in 4th because it is the most accurate reading because nearly all cars have a near 1:1 ratio in 4th. "Some" sport compacts that produce low torque numbers like Hondas are dynoed in 3rd to reduce the time it takes to spin the rollers, reduce heat buildup on the engine, and to reduce load on the motor. He said for the Maxima, all runs should be done in 4th because the V6 produces very strong torque compared to a Honda. As for variances in power levels between 3rd and 4th gear testing, he said Honda's will show slightly less hp and torque tested in 3rd, but a Maxima will show slightly more hp and torque in 3rd. He said it's a very hard to explain, but it is in relation to torque. A F-Body will show even bigger gains in 3rd.
As for the money thing, Chebosto. I not knocking you at all. I constantly see you post stuff like buying lighter wheels, seats, wings, etc. I don't think money is that big of a deal to you. What does it cost to dyno or run the 1/4 mile in Cali? As for me and money, well, let's just say that my car is paid for. I could afford something more expensive, but then I couldn't mod it like I do the Maxima. I like having the extra money to play with. I'm not rich, but I live comfortably. 2 dyno pulls in KC costs $38 and $60 for a 1/2 hour. The track costs $9 to run and it's 20 minutes away. I am going to Heartland Park Topeka next spring which is about an hour away and a much stickier track.
Dave
First off, I'm not trying to attack you or flame you. Let's try to keep this a debate and not a flame fest. I don't care if I don't have the "fastest" Max on this site. It's not the issue here. It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen if I continue to run at my track on street tires. If Nabil ran a 14.8@94mph then that is pretty close to what what I'm running. What were his 60 foots?
The biggest problem I have with this UPRD ECU is that hp curves are funky on Nabil's baseline run with the Clayton. Then after the ECU upgrade, the Clayton hp curve looks exactly like his non-UPRD ECU Dyno Jet dyno from May 2000 and is making nearly the same hp vs rpm AT ALL LEVELS. Also, Chebosto's Max showed a 5hp gains and loss' throughout the powerband with the different ECUs. My experience with the Dyno Jet is that car's can gain or lose 5-6 fwhp and torque between runs. I'm not an expert, but I do know the Clayton dyno and Dyno Jet dyno will show the same kind of curves in relation to rpm. The numbers are different, but the curves are the same. It's not apples to oranges like you guys suggest. Keven is completely right when he says we need torque figures the Clayton runs. It's beyond me why UPRD didn't give you the printout. I'm not saying the UPRD ECU does nothing, I'm just questioning the amount of the quoted gains. After comparing the various dyno plots, something is not right. I have had my doubts in the past about this ECU, but I was gonna give it a shot. Now I'm pulling out until I see better data supporting it's claims because of problems with the data. I think it is great that you guys worked so hard to push this thing thru, but the testing is still lacking. It's lacking in torque numbers on the Clayton, it has questionable results on the Clayton, one car was run on a Clayton and the other was run on a Dyno Jet, and no timeslips have been posted. After looking at all the numbers and dynos, it looks ot me like the UPRD ECU is good for almost 5 fwhp and 5 ft/lbs of torque throughout the powerband. I'd imagine simply tuning a S-AFC would show about the same gains. More power below 4300 rpms would be nice, BUT at the track it isn't gonna help you at at all. The only time you'll be in that part of the rpm range is in 1st gear. You won't be using that part of the rpm range for more than a split second. After that, all your shifts will be entering in at ~4300-4500rpms. I'm not one of those people who go by what others say and testimonials. I need to see the hard numbers before I throw down nearly $500. When I see more before and after dynos and 1/4 mile runsfrom other cars then I'll make my choice. I'm still halfway interested, but I need more info to justify it.
I called my dyno shop and asked exactly why they dyno in 3rd. They said Dyno Jet recommends all pulls be made in 4th because it is the most accurate reading because nearly all cars have a near 1:1 ratio in 4th. "Some" sport compacts that produce low torque numbers like Hondas are dynoed in 3rd to reduce the time it takes to spin the rollers, reduce heat buildup on the engine, and to reduce load on the motor. He said for the Maxima, all runs should be done in 4th because the V6 produces very strong torque compared to a Honda. As for variances in power levels between 3rd and 4th gear testing, he said Honda's will show slightly less hp and torque tested in 3rd, but a Maxima will show slightly more hp and torque in 3rd. He said it's a very hard to explain, but it is in relation to torque. A F-Body will show even bigger gains in 3rd.
As for the money thing, Chebosto. I not knocking you at all. I constantly see you post stuff like buying lighter wheels, seats, wings, etc. I don't think money is that big of a deal to you. What does it cost to dyno or run the 1/4 mile in Cali? As for me and money, well, let's just say that my car is paid for. I could afford something more expensive, but then I couldn't mod it like I do the Maxima. I like having the extra money to play with. I'm not rich, but I live comfortably. 2 dyno pulls in KC costs $38 and $60 for a 1/2 hour. The track costs $9 to run and it's 20 minutes away. I am going to Heartland Park Topeka next spring which is about an hour away and a much stickier track.
Dave
12-12-2000, 09:09 AM
#29
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
blackVQ-
I think you're missing the point. The power and torque curves related to rpm of the VQ is gonna be the same whether it's on a Clayton or Dyno Jet. Just the numbers will be slightly different.
Dave
I think you're missing the point. The power and torque curves related to rpm of the VQ is gonna be the same whether it's on a Clayton or Dyno Jet. Just the numbers will be slightly different.
Dave
12-12-2000, 09:20 AM
#30
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Re: Nabil and Cheston are right...
Originally posted by Nismo87SE
Dave B:
Based on Cheston's techtom reading I can say that at least 80% of the gain in torque is from the timing advance. Unless you get another CAS (crank angle sensor) and modify it so it can be adjustable there is no other way. Keven97SE tried the apexi ITC and that didn't work. But in the toppend I believe the gain was more from the fuel changes than timing was though.
Dave B:
Based on Cheston's techtom reading I can say that at least 80% of the gain in torque is from the timing advance. Unless you get another CAS (crank angle sensor) and modify it so it can be adjustable there is no other way. Keven97SE tried the apexi ITC and that didn't work. But in the toppend I believe the gain was more from the fuel changes than timing was though.
In summary, save yourself the time and hassle and don't bother, since you won't find any gains from trying to modify the crank angle sensor on the VQ motor.
--Nabil
12-12-2000, 09:33 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Re: Re: Nabil and Cheston are right...
Just an FYI, I've already modified the crank angle sensor below the pulley where it gave me approximately 15 degrees play movement. But sadly, the ECU didn't get fooled and I saw no gains from it... On further research, I found out later that the ECU takes into account different readings to determine the exact timing it wants to follow from such sensors as the cam angle sensor, and possibly another one if memory serves correctly...
In summary, save yourself the time and hassle and don't bother, since you won't find any gains from trying to modify the crank angle sensor on the VQ motor.
--Nabil
12-12-2000, 09:33 AM
#32
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Nabil-
That's good info to have about modifiying the crank sensor.
Dave
That's good info to have about modifiying the crank sensor.
Dave
12-12-2000, 09:41 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Originally posted by Dave B
Chebosto-
First off, I'm not trying to attack you or flame you. Let's try to keep this a debate and not a flame fest. I don't care if I don't have the "fastest" Max on this site. It's not the issue here. It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen if I continue to run at my track on street tires. If Nabil ran a 14.8@94mph then that is pretty close to what what I'm running. What were his 60 foots?
The biggest problem I have with this UPRD ECU is that hp curves are funky on Nabil's baseline run with the Clayton. Then after the ECU upgrade, the Clayton hp curve looks exactly like his non-UPRD ECU Dyno Jet dyno from May 2000 and is making nearly the same hp vs rpm AT ALL LEVELS. Also, Chebosto's Max showed a 5hp gains and loss' throughout the powerband with the different ECUs. My experience with the Dyno Jet is that car's can gain or lose 5-6 fwhp and torque between runs. I'm not an expert, but I do know the Clayton dyno and Dyno Jet dyno will show the same kind of curves in relation to rpm. The numbers are different, but the curves are the same. It's not apples to oranges like you guys suggest. Keven is completely right when he says we need torque figures the Clayton runs. It's beyond me why UPRD didn't give you the printout. I'm not saying the UPRD ECU does nothing, I'm just questioning the amount of the quoted gains. After comparing the various dyno plots, something is not right. I have had my doubts in the past about this ECU, but I was gonna give it a shot. Now I'm pulling out until I see better data supporting it's claims because of problems with the data. I think it is great that you guys worked so hard to push this thing thru, but the testing is still lacking. It's lacking in torque numbers on the Clayton, it has questionable results on the Clayton, one car was run on a Clayton and the other was run on a Dyno Jet, and no timeslips have been posted. After looking at all the numbers and dynos, it looks ot me like the UPRD ECU is good for almost 5 fwhp and 5 ft/lbs of torque throughout the powerband. I'd imagine simply tuning a S-AFC would show about the same gains. More power below 4300 rpms would be nice, BUT at the track it isn't gonna help you at at all. The only time you'll be in that part of the rpm range is in 1st gear. You won't be using that part of the rpm range for more than a split second. After that, all your shifts will be entering in at ~4300-4500rpms. I'm not one of those people who go by what others say and testimonials. I need to see the hard numbers before I throw down nearly $500. When I see more before and after dynos and 1/4 mile runsfrom other cars then I'll make my choice. I'm still halfway interested, but I need more info to justify it.
I called my dyno shop and asked exactly why they dyno in 3rd. They said Dyno Jet recommends all pulls be made in 4th because it is the most accurate reading because nearly all cars have a near 1:1 ratio in 4th. "Some" sport compacts that produce low torque numbers like Hondas are dynoed in 3rd to reduce the time it takes to spin the rollers, reduce heat buildup on the engine, and to reduce load on the motor. He said for the Maxima, all runs should be done in 4th because the V6 produces very strong torque compared to a Honda. As for variances in power levels between 3rd and 4th gear testing, he said Honda's will show slightly less hp and torque tested in 3rd, but a Maxima will show slightly more hp and torque in 3rd. He said it's a very hard to explain, but it is in relation to torque. A F-Body will show even bigger gains in 3rd.
As for the money thing, Chebosto. I not knocking you at all. I constantly see you post stuff like buying lighter wheels, seats, wings, etc. I don't think money is that big of a deal to you. What does it cost to dyno or run the 1/4 mile in Cali? As for me and money, well, let's just say that my car is paid for. I could afford something more expensive, but then I couldn't mod it like I do the Maxima. I like having the extra money to play with. I'm not rich, but I live comfortably. 2 dyno pulls in KC costs $38 and $60 for a 1/2 hour. The track costs $9 to run and it's 20 minutes away. I am going to Heartland Park Topeka next spring which is about an hour away and a much stickier track.
Dave
Chebosto-
First off, I'm not trying to attack you or flame you. Let's try to keep this a debate and not a flame fest. I don't care if I don't have the "fastest" Max on this site. It's not the issue here. It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen if I continue to run at my track on street tires. If Nabil ran a 14.8@94mph then that is pretty close to what what I'm running. What were his 60 foots?
The biggest problem I have with this UPRD ECU is that hp curves are funky on Nabil's baseline run with the Clayton. Then after the ECU upgrade, the Clayton hp curve looks exactly like his non-UPRD ECU Dyno Jet dyno from May 2000 and is making nearly the same hp vs rpm AT ALL LEVELS. Also, Chebosto's Max showed a 5hp gains and loss' throughout the powerband with the different ECUs. My experience with the Dyno Jet is that car's can gain or lose 5-6 fwhp and torque between runs. I'm not an expert, but I do know the Clayton dyno and Dyno Jet dyno will show the same kind of curves in relation to rpm. The numbers are different, but the curves are the same. It's not apples to oranges like you guys suggest. Keven is completely right when he says we need torque figures the Clayton runs. It's beyond me why UPRD didn't give you the printout. I'm not saying the UPRD ECU does nothing, I'm just questioning the amount of the quoted gains. After comparing the various dyno plots, something is not right. I have had my doubts in the past about this ECU, but I was gonna give it a shot. Now I'm pulling out until I see better data supporting it's claims because of problems with the data. I think it is great that you guys worked so hard to push this thing thru, but the testing is still lacking. It's lacking in torque numbers on the Clayton, it has questionable results on the Clayton, one car was run on a Clayton and the other was run on a Dyno Jet, and no timeslips have been posted. After looking at all the numbers and dynos, it looks ot me like the UPRD ECU is good for almost 5 fwhp and 5 ft/lbs of torque throughout the powerband. I'd imagine simply tuning a S-AFC would show about the same gains. More power below 4300 rpms would be nice, BUT at the track it isn't gonna help you at at all. The only time you'll be in that part of the rpm range is in 1st gear. You won't be using that part of the rpm range for more than a split second. After that, all your shifts will be entering in at ~4300-4500rpms. I'm not one of those people who go by what others say and testimonials. I need to see the hard numbers before I throw down nearly $500. When I see more before and after dynos and 1/4 mile runsfrom other cars then I'll make my choice. I'm still halfway interested, but I need more info to justify it.
I called my dyno shop and asked exactly why they dyno in 3rd. They said Dyno Jet recommends all pulls be made in 4th because it is the most accurate reading because nearly all cars have a near 1:1 ratio in 4th. "Some" sport compacts that produce low torque numbers like Hondas are dynoed in 3rd to reduce the time it takes to spin the rollers, reduce heat buildup on the engine, and to reduce load on the motor. He said for the Maxima, all runs should be done in 4th because the V6 produces very strong torque compared to a Honda. As for variances in power levels between 3rd and 4th gear testing, he said Honda's will show slightly less hp and torque tested in 3rd, but a Maxima will show slightly more hp and torque in 3rd. He said it's a very hard to explain, but it is in relation to torque. A F-Body will show even bigger gains in 3rd.
As for the money thing, Chebosto. I not knocking you at all. I constantly see you post stuff like buying lighter wheels, seats, wings, etc. I don't think money is that big of a deal to you. What does it cost to dyno or run the 1/4 mile in Cali? As for me and money, well, let's just say that my car is paid for. I could afford something more expensive, but then I couldn't mod it like I do the Maxima. I like having the extra money to play with. I'm not rich, but I live comfortably. 2 dyno pulls in KC costs $38 and $60 for a 1/2 hour. The track costs $9 to run and it's 20 minutes away. I am going to Heartland Park Topeka next spring which is about an hour away and a much stickier track.
Dave
Did you read my earlier post yesterday telling you that your observation on that ONE run you call funky should not be considered because my car lost traction on the rollers... Just compare the before and after runs on the first UPRD dyno chart. It's uprd%201.jpg, just ignore the uprd%202.jpg since I posted it only to show the difference between the 2 UPRD ECU run... Geez!!!
As for your 3rd gear & 4th gear assertions, sorry bud, everything I've heard, seen, witnessed here in SoCal goes contrary to what you say... And like I mentioned before, NO CAR puts 1:1 ratio to the ground, regardless of what gear you're in.... That's because the final drive ratio in a car will always put you much higher, and like I said before, the Dyno machines don't care which gear you're in because they measure acceleration, speed, and time taken to do it, and those calculations will yield the same results regardless of the gear (but with very minor exceptions)...
At any rate, I think this will be my last post on this topic as I see that all that needed to be said has been posted already, and any further discussion may end up starting a flame war. However, if anyone is curious about discussing it further, email me at socalnabil@yahoo.com...
Regards,
--Nabil
12-12-2000, 09:44 AM
#34
Timing
Originally posted by Dave B
Nabil-
That's good info to have about modifiying the crank sensor.
Dave
Nabil-
That's good info to have about modifiying the crank sensor.
Dave
The next idea is to intercept the trigger wires directly from the ECU. And build a simply controller to modify the signals. To delay might be easy (for NOS), but to advance will be complicated. I will call some EE friends and see what could be done, if anything.
12-12-2000, 10:36 AM
#35
<img src="http://www.seas.ucla.edu/%7Efarhana/BaseandUPRD1.jpg">
the torque plot on my car can be seen here.
from what i can tell, i saw some kick. hmm.. maybe that's what the difference in area under the curve.
we also lost traction on a few runs, that's why we didn't print them up.
a curve is a curve. doesn't mean squat. i mean, a civic can produce smooth curves, but it's adifferent scale all together.
i'll get u the Techtom readings after my exams are over.
the torque plot on my car can be seen here.
from what i can tell, i saw some kick. hmm.. maybe that's what the difference in area under the curve.
we also lost traction on a few runs, that's why we didn't print them up.
a curve is a curve. doesn't mean squat. i mean, a civic can produce smooth curves, but it's adifferent scale all together.
i'll get u the Techtom readings after my exams are over.
12-12-2000, 12:12 PM
#36
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Nabil and Chebosto-
This doesn't have to turn into a flame a war. That was never my intention.
Why would your car loose traction on the rollers? Why wouldn't they test it again to get a much more accurate baseline number? Why didn't your car loose traction with the UPRD ECU? Why don't we have torque figures? Why is the X/Y axis different on Nabil's orginal baseline? One reads in mph and the other in rpm? We can't even compare the two Chebosto's. Without a baseline, we can't guage what your car is doing at all. It's meaningless. We can't compare your numbers to Chebosto's baseline numbers. Why haven't you dynoed with a Dyno Jet after adding the UPRD ECU? Hell, you wouldn't even have to run a baseline with the stock ECU as far as I'm concerned as long as it's at the same shop as the May 2000 Dyno Jet run and you are running with the same mods, same gear, wheels and tires, and just the UPRD ecu. If your car really does make an extra 15 fwhp and 15 ft/lbs throughout the curves and a little bit on top then I'll believe it and I'm sold. A gain like that can't be denyed or debated. Otherwise, all of this UPRD stuff is highly debateable.
Looking at Chebostos Dyno Jet run, I'm seeing about a 6-8 fwhp and torque gain throughout the range. This difference is within the margin of error on the dyno and within the difference between running an engine at different temps. Some of the gain may also be within the UPRD ECU. My car made 176 fwhp and 193 ft/lbs on one pass and then 171 fwhp and 188 ft/lbs on the 2nd pass. Why did my car make less power? Because the technician accidently let my car sit at an idle on the dyno for over 15 minutes and the car got really really hot. He and I didn't realize this until he tried to start my car with it running....twice
Anyways, it just shows the difference in power on a dyno within 15 minutes of a prior run. The way you guys talk about this chip, the results that you quote, and have "felt", you act as if Chebosto got the crap end of the deal and has a Maxima that is making nearly 25 fwhp and 20 ft/lbs of torque less than Nabil's Maxima with the same mods, just a different year. Doesn't that sound just a little strange? I really don't think the build quality of a 96 VQ and a 97 VQ is gonna result in a difference like that. We're talking about nearly a 15% difference. Nope, sorry, KIA isn't even that bad when it comes to building motors. The only thing that makes a 97 slower than a 95/96 is that the 97 has heavier wheels, slightly more restrictive exhaust right after the cat, and about 40 lbs more weight.If gear ratios were meaningless, then why does Dyno jet recommend all testing be done in 4th? It not some arbitary gear. If it was meaningless then why not test in 1st, 2nd, or 5th? There is a reason. I think you are misunderstanding me when I say a 1:1 ratio. I'm trying to say 4th gear on most manuals is nearly or is a 1.0 ratio. The Maxima's 4th gear is 0.95. See what I'm saying?
Dave
12-12-2000, 12:39 PM
#37
"Why would your car loose traction on the rollers? Why wouldn't they test it again to get a much more accurate baseline number? Why didn't your car loose traction with the UPRD ECU? Why don't we have torque figures? Why is the X/Y axis different on Nabil's orginal baseline? One reads in mph and the other in rpm? We can't even compare the two Chebosto's. Without a baseline, we can't guage what your car is doing at all. It's meaningless."
oh my god. blah blah blah. blah blah ecu blah blah graph blah blah dyno blah blah blah.
take it for whats there. ur trying to see ghosts in the daylite. can't you SEE the base line test?
97 ECU. 96 ECU. 96 UPRD ECU. what's that?
" If your car really does make an extra 15 fwhp and 15 ft/lbs throughout the curves and a little bit on top then I'll believe it and I'm sold. "
dude. what does the graph say.
im not gonna bother debating. this is point less. where's DOug and his THIS THREAD SUCKS gif..
if u think that my car and nabil's car are within the margin of error and that no gains were made: then i have wasted over 4 monthes of my time and money and this whole shabang is pointless, right?
hahahahahha. well. suit your self David. In the mean time, me, emax, and nabil will be toasting some cars while you're contemplating percentage of error on a dyno graph that has already been corrected.
oh my god. blah blah blah. blah blah ecu blah blah graph blah blah dyno blah blah blah.
take it for whats there. ur trying to see ghosts in the daylite. can't you SEE the base line test?
97 ECU. 96 ECU. 96 UPRD ECU. what's that?
" If your car really does make an extra 15 fwhp and 15 ft/lbs throughout the curves and a little bit on top then I'll believe it and I'm sold. "
dude. what does the graph say.
im not gonna bother debating. this is point less. where's DOug and his THIS THREAD SUCKS gif..
if u think that my car and nabil's car are within the margin of error and that no gains were made: then i have wasted over 4 monthes of my time and money and this whole shabang is pointless, right?
hahahahahha. well. suit your self David. In the mean time, me, emax, and nabil will be toasting some cars while you're contemplating percentage of error on a dyno graph that has already been corrected.
12-12-2000, 12:53 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,032
Originally posted by Chebosto
hahahahahha. well. suit your self David. In the mean time, me, emax, and nabil will be toasting some cars while you're contemplating percentage of error on a dyno graph that has already been corrected.
hahahahahha. well. suit your self David. In the mean time, me, emax, and nabil will be toasting some cars while you're contemplating percentage of error on a dyno graph that has already been corrected.
12-12-2000, 03:41 PM
#39
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Copied from the UPRD GP site:
"Here are the results: Torque increased 12.1 ft/lb, while Max Power was increased 5 hp, (seeing nearly a 15.3 hp gain in the midrange at 4500 RPMs.) Mind you that these results are based on an ECU that wasn't meant to be used on a 97, so the gains were quite significant."
Chebosto-
You're dyno comparison is completely flawed. You quote a torque increase of 12.1, 5hp topend gain, and a 15.3 hp gain between a 97 Maxima with a 96 ECU and a 97 Maxima with UPRD tuned 96 ECU. This is completely wrong and should be thrown out because you are confusing people. Your comparison should be between a 97 Maxima with a 97 ECU and a 97 Maxima with the UPRD tuned 96 ECU. Of course your 97 Max is gonna show less power with a 96 ECU. It's the wrong ECU to use.
Now with all that considered, let's compare the your 97 with the 97 ECU vs a 97 with the UPRD ECU, shall we? It looks to me like you're making about an extra 4-7 fwhp and 5-7 ft/lbs of torque from 4500rpms to the end of the powerband. Sorry buddy, that's within the marginal differences of running at different moment on a Dyno Jet. Like I said, my Dyno Jet runs showed differences nearly as high and I did absolutely nothing to my car except let it get too hot. The UPRD ECU might be giving a little power to tie in with the preceived gain of 5-7hp and torque.
You've been quoted as saying "have you ever been shot out of a cannon?" or "having mad power in 3rd". Let's think about this for a moment. Before any of this UPRD ECU stuff happened, you had a 97 Maxima with mods that was making ~170 fwhp and ~187 ft/lbs of torque. Now you've got a Maxima that makes ~176 fwhp and ~192 ft/lbs of torque. You have sworn that you felt a HUGE difference in power with the ECU vs the stock 97 ECU. I wouldn't call a gain of ~6 fwhp and ~6 ft/lbs of torque thru the powerband a huge gain. That's the hard truth. Your UPRD ECU gained you maybe 5 hp and 5 ft/lbs of torque thru the powerband. It DIDN'T gain you 12.1 ft/lbs of torque nor did it gain you 15 fwhp.
Dave
"Here are the results: Torque increased 12.1 ft/lb, while Max Power was increased 5 hp, (seeing nearly a 15.3 hp gain in the midrange at 4500 RPMs.) Mind you that these results are based on an ECU that wasn't meant to be used on a 97, so the gains were quite significant."
Chebosto-
You're dyno comparison is completely flawed. You quote a torque increase of 12.1, 5hp topend gain, and a 15.3 hp gain between a 97 Maxima with a 96 ECU and a 97 Maxima with UPRD tuned 96 ECU. This is completely wrong and should be thrown out because you are confusing people. Your comparison should be between a 97 Maxima with a 97 ECU and a 97 Maxima with the UPRD tuned 96 ECU. Of course your 97 Max is gonna show less power with a 96 ECU. It's the wrong ECU to use.
Now with all that considered, let's compare the your 97 with the 97 ECU vs a 97 with the UPRD ECU, shall we? It looks to me like you're making about an extra 4-7 fwhp and 5-7 ft/lbs of torque from 4500rpms to the end of the powerband. Sorry buddy, that's within the marginal differences of running at different moment on a Dyno Jet. Like I said, my Dyno Jet runs showed differences nearly as high and I did absolutely nothing to my car except let it get too hot. The UPRD ECU might be giving a little power to tie in with the preceived gain of 5-7hp and torque.
You've been quoted as saying "have you ever been shot out of a cannon?" or "having mad power in 3rd". Let's think about this for a moment. Before any of this UPRD ECU stuff happened, you had a 97 Maxima with mods that was making ~170 fwhp and ~187 ft/lbs of torque. Now you've got a Maxima that makes ~176 fwhp and ~192 ft/lbs of torque. You have sworn that you felt a HUGE difference in power with the ECU vs the stock 97 ECU. I wouldn't call a gain of ~6 fwhp and ~6 ft/lbs of torque thru the powerband a huge gain. That's the hard truth. Your UPRD ECU gained you maybe 5 hp and 5 ft/lbs of torque thru the powerband. It DIDN'T gain you 12.1 ft/lbs of torque nor did it gain you 15 fwhp.
Dave
12-12-2000, 05:50 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 939
Originally posted by Dave B
Victum-
Remember that you will need to correct your et for conditions to be more accurate. Record the weather conditions (temp, humidity, baro pressure).
Dave
Victum-
Remember that you will need to correct your et for conditions to be more accurate. Record the weather conditions (temp, humidity, baro pressure).
Dave
[Edited by madmax2k on 12-12-2000 at 07:53 PM]