MHP ECU/TCU Thread (updated with v1 gains: Graphs/Spreadsheet Breakdown)
12-29-08, 08:28 PM
#556
Lexus Champion
Congrats Juanca on owning the first IS F to be tuned!!!
Also, huge CONGRATS to Andy and MHP for being the first to crack the vaunted Toyota/Lexus ECU!!!
I'm sure I speak for many when I say that we look forward to seeing the full potential of what you can accomplish!!!
Also, huge CONGRATS to Andy and MHP for being the first to crack the vaunted Toyota/Lexus ECU!!!
I'm sure I speak for many when I say that we look forward to seeing the full potential of what you can accomplish!!!
12-29-08, 08:31 PM
#557
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: OH
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again thanks Juan for getting results so quickly.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
Last edited by MHP; 12-29-08 at 08:37 PM.
12-29-08, 08:37 PM
#558
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK guys, I'm back. I managed to get out of the office early today so I ran to the shop and got my car dynoed!
Before getting into the details, I drove my car HARD for the first 40 miles, then I drove normal, as usual, which is fast but not pushing it too much.
Back to the dyno, weather was hotter than the previous session, but since we're using SAE corrected graphs weather shouldn't matter (except for me because I was sweating like a pig). I did 3 runs, and from the graphs and my conversation with the people at the shop it is confirmed, Andy and MHP did manipulate Lexus' tables. Remember guys that this is the first attempt to tune a Lexus ECU, so there is room for improvement. I've talked to Andy already and we're going to keep working together trying to get better results. Now let's go to the facts:
- I was subjective when talking about the rev limiter, the dyno graph shows that it's at the same spot.
- I can see why I was pulling away from Stan yesterday, the improvement is in the higher rpms.
- Today I dynoed 368whp/350lb-ft, gains are about +17whp/+4lb-ft.
- I'm running richer than before.
I'll have the raw WinPEP files tomorrow, so I'll post better graphs later, for now I'll post what I have, a scan of today's print out.
Before getting into the details, I drove my car HARD for the first 40 miles, then I drove normal, as usual, which is fast but not pushing it too much.
Back to the dyno, weather was hotter than the previous session, but since we're using SAE corrected graphs weather shouldn't matter (except for me because I was sweating like a pig). I did 3 runs, and from the graphs and my conversation with the people at the shop it is confirmed, Andy and MHP did manipulate Lexus' tables. Remember guys that this is the first attempt to tune a Lexus ECU, so there is room for improvement. I've talked to Andy already and we're going to keep working together trying to get better results. Now let's go to the facts:
- I was subjective when talking about the rev limiter, the dyno graph shows that it's at the same spot.
- I can see why I was pulling away from Stan yesterday, the improvement is in the higher rpms.
- Today I dynoed 368whp/350lb-ft, gains are about +17whp/+4lb-ft.
- I'm running richer than before.
I'll have the raw WinPEP files tomorrow, so I'll post better graphs later, for now I'll post what I have, a scan of today's print out.
Excellent and thanks for being so involved.Again thanks Juan for getting results so quickly.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
Its still early but GREAT work. Thanks for offering this to Lexus owners.
12-29-08, 09:11 PM
#560
Lexus Connoisseur
Well done Andy and team. Can't wait to see the progress.
12-29-08, 09:52 PM
#561
Lead Lap
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again thanks Juan for getting results so quickly.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
For those interested in the original dyno....the graph is at post 179.
Colin
Last edited by ISFer; 12-29-08 at 09:56 PM.
12-29-08, 10:14 PM
#562
Again thanks Juan for getting results so quickly.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
Juan's agreed to send his control units back for us to fine tune in an attempt to squeeze out as much safe hp/tq as we can (A/F is definitely rich up top) and get the shift points bumped 200-300rpm over where they are now.
All in all we're quite pleased with the results, as you can see by the A/F we're definitely not running on the ragged edge; this tune would be safe to use anywhere in the country any time of year.
With 17.5% DT loss that's 446HP/424TQ at the flywheel on 93 octane from an otherwise bone stock car.
Mikesrx, already covered.
just imagine if you had a IS-F onsite to tune and upgrade?
12-29-08, 10:49 PM
#563
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: OH
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We only need Juan's controllers back for a day to get it where we want it. Realistically there's not a ton left in that specific tune. The gains closely compare to what we usually see from an otherwise stock E92 M3 on 93.
Though we are going to lean it out up top, we're not going to take anyone's car (unless they request it, and sign a liability waiver/disclaimer) to 13.0:1 A/F simply because one bad tank of gas or cold front could end the motor in an instant.
We all want max power but unless it's specifically requested of us for a race app, etc., we never sacrifice durability/longevity/safety for every last horse.
Though we are going to lean it out up top, we're not going to take anyone's car (unless they request it, and sign a liability waiver/disclaimer) to 13.0:1 A/F simply because one bad tank of gas or cold front could end the motor in an instant.
We all want max power but unless it's specifically requested of us for a race app, etc., we never sacrifice durability/longevity/safety for every last horse.
12-29-08, 11:10 PM
#564
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: OH
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reg the graph, notice that it was hotter and more humid today than when the baseline dynos were done, yet the same CF was used. Also the worst run post tune occured 4 minutes after a previous pull, I'm sure the ECU was pulling timing.
I'll set smoothing at 5 tomorrow when Juan sends me the Winpep files, I'm thinking it may show gains pre 5200rpm. The spikey curve is due to insufficient airflow/cooling on the dyno.
I'll set smoothing at 5 tomorrow when Juan sends me the Winpep files, I'm thinking it may show gains pre 5200rpm. The spikey curve is due to insufficient airflow/cooling on the dyno.
12-30-08, 12:45 AM
#567
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: OH
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the positive comments so far members and mods, we appreciate it!
I'm very interested to get the spreadsheet rpm per rpm breakdown posted. With 8 gears I'm sure the rpm drop between them isn't much. Although gains up to 5200rpm (an area of the curve that would only be seen one time during a race from a dig, not at all from a roll) aren't huge the difference in area under the curve thereafter is significant. We may have gained 17rwhp/4rwtq at peak, but there are definitely larger gains than that elsewhere the band, for instance at 6k it appears there's a ~20rwhp/15rwtq advantage.
I'm very interested to get the spreadsheet rpm per rpm breakdown posted. With 8 gears I'm sure the rpm drop between them isn't much. Although gains up to 5200rpm (an area of the curve that would only be seen one time during a race from a dig, not at all from a roll) aren't huge the difference in area under the curve thereafter is significant. We may have gained 17rwhp/4rwtq at peak, but there are definitely larger gains than that elsewhere the band, for instance at 6k it appears there's a ~20rwhp/15rwtq advantage.
Last edited by MHP; 12-30-08 at 12:49 AM.
12-30-08, 05:14 AM
#568
Although gains up to 5200rpm (an area of the curve that would only be seen one time during a race from a dig, not at all from a roll) aren't huge the difference in area under the curve thereafter is significant. We may have gained 17rwhp/4rwtq at peak, but there are definitely larger gains than that elsewhere the band, for instance at 6k it appears there's a ~20rwhp/15rwtq advantage.
With that said, and I don't know about the rest of y'all, but to me the LOW end power is what I look at for results.
I want the low end torque to move my butt when I step on it, not the high-end hp to let me go xxx mph faster in a 1/4 mile.
I believe that's why this story occurs:
Again though, that's my opinion based on my personal driving style.
Last edited by mikes rx; 12-30-08 at 05:25 AM.
12-30-08, 08:15 AM
#569
Just curious, but why was the shift point NOT changed in this tune as we have all been told numerous times? The gains look ok, but not much different and actually a bit less than what SRT was able to do with just a simple piggyback race ecu to go along with their intake. Their first release was not very good, but once they had an actual IS-F on the dyno they were able to get it right after 8hrs. Here are the results (baseline vs ECU/Intake)
You guys may be on the right track, but there is definitely some room for improvement. Maybe you should meet up with an IS-F owner (Juanca?) and tune the car on the dyno for optimum results rather than guessing and inconveniencing Juanca by having him ship the ECU back once again. Not trying to hate here, just throwing out some things. I do applaud your efforts so far.
You guys may be on the right track, but there is definitely some room for improvement. Maybe you should meet up with an IS-F owner (Juanca?) and tune the car on the dyno for optimum results rather than guessing and inconveniencing Juanca by having him ship the ECU back once again. Not trying to hate here, just throwing out some things. I do applaud your efforts so far.
12-30-08, 10:22 AM
#570
Alright lets try to explain something to me.
? Why are you driving 200 miles then going to the dyno? Everytime I have ever dynoed a car the first thing that happens as I'm having the car strapped down is a ECU reset. I can't see how anything can or will ever be consinsent the way its being done now. My 278whp -280whp and nitrous runs were all right after a ECU reset every dyno session has been. This is the only way to achieve max timing and that's the hardest part to tune. Fuel is easy, keeping max timing is not. 200 miles and the timing is going to be off -4 degree if not more. The more timing you have the leaner it will be. Less timing = richer. Its possable that the tester IS-F just could have some timing issuses going on causing a rich cond. after 200 miles of driving. MHP are you locking the timing on a set accelration curve? Or is their still knock correction?
Now explain this to me. I know and you know I'm stupid so don't beat me up just a logical explanation of why I've been dynoing my cars wrong for the last 10 yrs now.
? Why are you driving 200 miles then going to the dyno? Everytime I have ever dynoed a car the first thing that happens as I'm having the car strapped down is a ECU reset. I can't see how anything can or will ever be consinsent the way its being done now. My 278whp -280whp and nitrous runs were all right after a ECU reset every dyno session has been. This is the only way to achieve max timing and that's the hardest part to tune. Fuel is easy, keeping max timing is not. 200 miles and the timing is going to be off -4 degree if not more. The more timing you have the leaner it will be. Less timing = richer. Its possable that the tester IS-F just could have some timing issuses going on causing a rich cond. after 200 miles of driving. MHP are you locking the timing on a set accelration curve? Or is their still knock correction?
Now explain this to me. I know and you know I'm stupid so don't beat me up just a logical explanation of why I've been dynoing my cars wrong for the last 10 yrs now.
Last edited by HKS350; 12-30-08 at 10:40 AM.