Those with a ECU tune , results please
03-14-16, 04:44 PM
#166
Guys,
I hope RR racing and TTFS can tweak the tunes for high altitude applications at least up here a Mile Hi
I have the utmost respect for Rafi and Simon as they have been awesome with great customer service the past 8-9 months since they've been on the ISF tuning scene
That being said our results so far with the tunes on both ends have been mixed to say the least. The two guys with tunes here that went to the dyno day are:
DCguy: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/gutted primaries/ RR tuned/ dynoed @378 Whp/ dyno sheet on Pg 9/Post 125
Liquidtek: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/ TTFS tuned/ dynoed @ 368 Whp/ dyno sheet Pg 9/Post 126
Two different tunes from both vendors who are active on this forum presently and getting the majority of the business for tuning the ISF currently.
My mods: Borla Exhaust/ HPS intake
My first run back in November netted 357 Whp & last Saturdays run netted 357 Whp essentially showing 0 hp gain
Anyhow we've done some pulls together more so with DCguy and me and you would think he would pull with the mods that he has (Tune/gutted primaries) and my car and his are dead even up to about 130ish
So when you see the results from the dyno day and not getting the numbers wanted/desired it leads to more questions than answers unfortunately
I think it boils down to someone who pays for a tune (whether TTFS or RR racing) expects to see real world results on the road (forget dyno numbers for a second)when your doing pulls with another F that doesn't have the tune or has less mods one would expect that the car with a tune and more mods would pull harder than a car without either??
Hopefully RR-racing & TTFS can adjust and fine tune the tunes for altitude (at least for our circumstances) and then the results will be more favorable.
I hope RR racing and TTFS can tweak the tunes for high altitude applications at least up here a Mile Hi
I have the utmost respect for Rafi and Simon as they have been awesome with great customer service the past 8-9 months since they've been on the ISF tuning scene
That being said our results so far with the tunes on both ends have been mixed to say the least. The two guys with tunes here that went to the dyno day are:
DCguy: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/gutted primaries/ RR tuned/ dynoed @378 Whp/ dyno sheet on Pg 9/Post 125
Liquidtek: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/ TTFS tuned/ dynoed @ 368 Whp/ dyno sheet Pg 9/Post 126
Two different tunes from both vendors who are active on this forum presently and getting the majority of the business for tuning the ISF currently.
My mods: Borla Exhaust/ HPS intake
My first run back in November netted 357 Whp & last Saturdays run netted 357 Whp essentially showing 0 hp gain
Anyhow we've done some pulls together more so with DCguy and me and you would think he would pull with the mods that he has (Tune/gutted primaries) and my car and his are dead even up to about 130ish
So when you see the results from the dyno day and not getting the numbers wanted/desired it leads to more questions than answers unfortunately
I think it boils down to someone who pays for a tune (whether TTFS or RR racing) expects to see real world results on the road (forget dyno numbers for a second)when your doing pulls with another F that doesn't have the tune or has less mods one would expect that the car with a tune and more mods would pull harder than a car without either??
Hopefully RR-racing & TTFS can adjust and fine tune the tunes for altitude (at least for our circumstances) and then the results will be more favorable.
03-14-16, 04:55 PM
#167
Originally Posted by MileHIFcar
Guys,
I hope RR racing and TTFS can tweak the tunes for high altitude applications at least up here a Mile Hi
I have the utmost respect for Rafi and Simon as they have been awesome with great customer service the past 8-9 months since they've been on the ISF tuning scene
That being said our results so far with the tunes on both ends have been mixed to say the least. The two guys with tunes here that went to the dyno day are:
DCguy: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/gutted primaries/ RR tuned/ dynoed @378 Whp/ dyno sheet on Pg 9/Post 125
Liquidtek: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/ TTFS tuned/ dynoed @ 368 Whp/ dyno sheet Pg 9/Post 126
Two different tunes from both vendors who are active on this forum presently and getting the majority of the business for tuning the ISF currently.
My mods: Borla Exhaust/ HPS intake
My first run back in November netted 357 Whp & last Saturdays run netted 357 Whp essentially showing 0 hp gain
Anyhow we've done some pulls together more so with DCguy and me and you would think he would pull with the mods that he has (Tune/gutted primaries) and my car and his are dead even up to about 130ish
So when you see the results from the dyno day and not getting the numbers wanted/desired it leads to more questions than answers unfortunately
I think it boils down to someone who pays for a tune (whether TTFS or RR racing) expects to see real world results on the road (forget dyno numbers for a second)when your doing pulls with another F that doesn't have the tune or has less mods one would expect that the car with a tune and more mods would pull harder than a car without either??
Hopefully RR-racing & TTFS can adjust and fine tune the tunes for altitude (at least for our circumstances) and then the results will be more favorable.
I hope RR racing and TTFS can tweak the tunes for high altitude applications at least up here a Mile Hi
I have the utmost respect for Rafi and Simon as they have been awesome with great customer service the past 8-9 months since they've been on the ISF tuning scene
That being said our results so far with the tunes on both ends have been mixed to say the least. The two guys with tunes here that went to the dyno day are:
DCguy: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/gutted primaries/ RR tuned/ dynoed @378 Whp/ dyno sheet on Pg 9/Post 125
Liquidtek: Joe Z Exhaust/Joe Z intake/ TTFS tuned/ dynoed @ 368 Whp/ dyno sheet Pg 9/Post 126
Two different tunes from both vendors who are active on this forum presently and getting the majority of the business for tuning the ISF currently.
My mods: Borla Exhaust/ HPS intake
My first run back in November netted 357 Whp & last Saturdays run netted 357 Whp essentially showing 0 hp gain
Anyhow we've done some pulls together more so with DCguy and me and you would think he would pull with the mods that he has (Tune/gutted primaries) and my car and his are dead even up to about 130ish
So when you see the results from the dyno day and not getting the numbers wanted/desired it leads to more questions than answers unfortunately
I think it boils down to someone who pays for a tune (whether TTFS or RR racing) expects to see real world results on the road (forget dyno numbers for a second)when your doing pulls with another F that doesn't have the tune or has less mods one would expect that the car with a tune and more mods would pull harder than a car without either??
Hopefully RR-racing & TTFS can adjust and fine tune the tunes for altitude (at least for our circumstances) and then the results will be more favorable.
03-14-16, 05:00 PM
#168
lol dave. It is true, i'm not upset about my numbers by any means, I completely understand that altitude is a whole different animal here in co. Until the supercharger hits the market, low air density will in my opinion will always cause reason for a closer looked at tune. So many variables and in a half hour i can go from 5000 to 9000 back down to 4000, the ecu will never stop learning in my opinion. but generally 97% of the time in the lair of 4800-5800. Glad to see response from both tuners. I will be data logging next week and be the thin air guinea pig for others that also suffer from these issues. Boosted cars have a great advantage here over the F. I wouldn't be discouraged for anyone at sea level or close too, there has been very positive feedback from the tune thread. It's a much more stable environment for the ECU to really peg itself in.
03-14-16, 05:04 PM
#169
At 5,280 ft of elevation at 77°F with 0% relative humidity (not possible) the specific volume of air is 15.82 ft3/lb. Same conditions but at sea level the specific volume is 13.52 ft3/lb.
To get that same lb of air that someone at sea level gets you need to pull in 14.6% more volume or 2.3 ft3. Humidity along with temperature will change those numbers and I used 77°F because that's the SAE corrected temperature.
To get that same lb of air that someone at sea level gets you need to pull in 14.6% more volume or 2.3 ft3. Humidity along with temperature will change those numbers and I used 77°F because that's the SAE corrected temperature.
03-14-16, 05:17 PM
#170
Pole Position
03-14-16, 05:27 PM
#171
lol dave. It is true, i'm not upset about my numbers by any means, I completely understand that altitude is a whole different animal here in co. Until the supercharger hits the market, low air density will in my opinion will always cause reason for a closer looked at tune. So many variables and in a half hour i can go from 5000 to 9000 back down to 4000, the ecu will never stop learning in my opinion. but generally 97% of the time in the lair of 4800-5800.
That's like driving your transmission and almost two others compared to someone at sea level.
Last edited by Bigjon3475; 03-14-16 at 05:31 PM.
...
03-14-16, 05:49 PM
#173
But look at how the baseline worked out for milehifcar, before and after borla... gains zero. Baseline rendered useless, but you know as well as i do, there were definite gains.
03-14-16, 05:51 PM
#174
Pole Position
I know I feel like I wasted $40 bucks for it to spit out almost an identical run as Novembers dyno number
for it to spit out almost an identical run as Novembers dyno number
03-14-16, 06:10 PM
#176
So I looked into the pressure and basically 845'ish mBars is around 4800 ft elevation. Does that sound accurate since you know more about where you got the tests at?
Guessing there weren't any storm fronts where you'd see a large fluctuation in pressures since it was dyno day and all.
03-14-16, 06:17 PM
#177
You've mentioned getting money back multiple times now, but I've seen no evidence from the three tuning companies that they offer that. I wouldn't expect them to, either. They performed a service, jury is still out but I doubt anyone gets their money back from the tune if it does not produce dyno gains. They can always fall back on different day / conditions reasoning which is valid. I'm hopeful that the independent results mirror the claims, and from my driving experience I will expect that they do in fact produce more power. But until we see some independent dynos especially from the sea level guys, the jury is still out.
03-14-16, 07:11 PM
#178
Well just looking into it the program for the dyno basically does all the work for the testers. They simply choose which correction factor, or none at all, and it does all the calculations from the pressures, temps and humidity level it records.
So I looked into the pressure and basically 845'ish mBars is around 4800 ft elevation. Does that sound accurate since you know more about where you got the tests at?
Guessing there weren't any storm fronts where you'd see a large fluctuation in pressures since it was dyno day and all.
So I looked into the pressure and basically 845'ish mBars is around 4800 ft elevation. Does that sound accurate since you know more about where you got the tests at?
Guessing there weren't any storm fronts where you'd see a large fluctuation in pressures since it was dyno day and all.
03-14-16, 07:42 PM
#179
Former Sponsor
Unless it was missed we have posted many before and after graphs of the cars we have tuned (250/350/ISF'S). Same day, same dyno, without being unstrapped from the dyno in between runs. If you are referring to our shop car we have posted a baseline before dyno. We have not posted a after graph of our shop car as we are working on improving our tune. As for a video we apologize we have yet to post a video. We are a small team and at times its only one person at the shop so video taking gets a back seat. But we will take a video in the future.
I know of one customer of ours in this thread that has posted a independent graph and yes we have reached out to him and will optimize his tune for the higher elevation.
All we can do is promise we will continue to post graphs and share. I also am sure more independent graphs from our customers will surface as time goes by.
Please be patient with us we have a lot in store and for those early adopters that get our tune you will not miss out on the advancements and revisions we come out with. The Lexus platform is our top priority, we have invested a great deal in it and are committed to this market.
I know of one customer of ours in this thread that has posted a independent graph and yes we have reached out to him and will optimize his tune for the higher elevation.
All we can do is promise we will continue to post graphs and share. I also am sure more independent graphs from our customers will surface as time goes by.
Please be patient with us we have a lot in store and for those early adopters that get our tune you will not miss out on the advancements and revisions we come out with. The Lexus platform is our top priority, we have invested a great deal in it and are committed to this market.
03-14-16, 07:56 PM
#180
I guess this just has me so curious because the computer is suppose to be correcting for altitude and although it's outside of the range I don't see how it could be making such a large swing. 50 mBars is .73 psi. It makes a difference (something akin to ram-air) but I can't see it making the upgrades null and void.
It would be nice to know what learning number the cars are at (only possible through tech stream apparently). I guess when you reset your computer by unhooking the negative cable you go back to 15 and you really want to be in the 20-23 range? (no idea where the numbers come from. It's from a post earlier in the thread from digger08 I think).
Last edited by Bigjon3475; 03-14-16 at 08:01 PM.