DeltaDash Logging of STi PPP Part 2
11 May 2002, 09:35 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK,
So I've got my user's certificate in driving DeltaDash on the STi (I already had it for the MY99-00
) so I went back up to Dave's and we did some proper logging this time. He's now got the TSL centre and BB (very nice 
) but I don't think they make much difference to the performance over the PPP parts - just a significant sound difference
Runs as ever are in 4th gear in Dave's STi PPP vs my standard STi on the same day on the same road (a private road near Dave's house) within half an hour of each other:
STi PPP Boost
STi standard Boost
STi PPP Knock Correction
STi standard Knock Correction
STi PPP Ignition Timing
STi standard Ignition Timing
STi PPP Injector Duty Cycle
STi standard Injector Duty Cycle
STi PPP Waste Gate Duty Cycle
STi standard Waste Gate Duty Cycle
As the PPP uses a Boost clamp, the upper Boost figure seen by the ECU is incorrect so I made a note of some of the Boost readings from Dave's Boost gauge and plugged them into this graph. I "guessed" the boost settings inbetween but it looks feasible. The spiking in the upper rpm range is nothing to do with me, that's what DD read. I've no idea if this is accurate or something to do with the Boost clamp.
STi PPP Boost (as read by DD with clamp)
STi PPP Boost (manually modified)
STi standard Boost
Make of that what you will.
Ta,
Matt
[/b]
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/5/2002 9:38:11 AM]
So I've got my user's certificate in driving DeltaDash on the STi (I already had it for the MY99-00
) so I went back up to Dave's and we did some proper logging this time. He's now got the TSL centre and BB (very nice ) but I don't think they make much difference to the performance over the PPP parts - just a significant sound difference Runs as ever are in 4th gear in Dave's STi PPP vs my standard STi on the same day on the same road (a private road near Dave's house
) within half an hour of each other:STi PPP Boost
STi standard Boost
STi PPP Knock Correction
STi standard Knock Correction
STi PPP Ignition Timing
STi standard Ignition Timing
STi PPP Injector Duty Cycle
STi standard Injector Duty Cycle
STi PPP Waste Gate Duty Cycle
STi standard Waste Gate Duty Cycle
As the PPP uses a Boost clamp, the upper Boost figure seen by the ECU is incorrect so I made a note of some of the Boost readings from Dave's Boost gauge and plugged them into this graph. I "guessed" the boost settings inbetween but it looks feasible. The spiking in the upper rpm range is nothing to do with me, that's what DD read. I've no idea if this is accurate or something to do with the Boost clamp.
STi PPP Boost (as read by DD with clamp)
STi PPP Boost (manually modified)
STi standard Boost
Make of that what you will.
Ta,
Matt
[/b][Edited by mutant_matt - 11/5/2002 9:38:11 AM]
11 May 2002, 10:53 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two look pretty similar to me Theo.....
Got the Boost graph done now with the two cars overlaid and now also including the Miltek Boost curve (that is, the standard STi Type UK with JUST the Miltek fitted)
Tis interesting indeed!
Matt
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/5/2002 12:39:25 PM]
Got the Boost graph done now with the two cars overlaid and now also including the Miltek Boost curve (that is, the standard STi Type UK with JUST the Miltek fitted)
Tis interesting indeed!
Matt
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/5/2002 12:39:25 PM]
06 November 2002, 08:27 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT,
Yes, currently totally standard in the power stakes. As usual, I have worked on the handling and brakes first. I'll be going either PPP or Milltek + possibly EcuTek (depending on looming redundancy), but at the moment, I don't know when.
Matt
Yes, currently totally standard in the power stakes. As usual, I have worked on the handling and brakes first. I'll be going either PPP or Milltek + possibly EcuTek (depending on looming redundancy), but at the moment, I don't know when.
Matt
06 November 2002, 08:49 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I payed a bit more attention in school 
Matt, could you do the same overlay for the ignition timing ? From looking at the graphs there is quite a difference, the standard car having much more advance about 4500 RPM. Where the PPP seems to have dialled in a lot more advance at low RPM BTW.
Might help with spoolup ?
I do realize you need to check advance when upping the boost, but running less advance also means less power (tradeoff) AFAIK.
Also interesting to see that the boost on the "Miltek" car is pretty stable higher up, whereas the PPP seems to "chase". Duty cycle also drops to 0 on the PPP, which means no further protection for those extra cold, oxygyn rich, going up a hill moments ? It almost seems to confirm Mark EMS's findings with the boost creep (go one step further in removing backpressure).
As an aside, DeltaDash is really heaven sent for comparisons like these isn't it ? No more "it feels nippier low down" ... just bare numbers.
Matt, could you do the same overlay for the ignition timing ? From looking at the graphs there is quite a difference, the standard car having much more advance about 4500 RPM. Where the PPP seems to have dialled in a lot more advance at low RPM BTW.
Might help with spoolup ?
I do realize you need to check advance when upping the boost, but running less advance also means less power (tradeoff) AFAIK.
Also interesting to see that the boost on the "Miltek" car is pretty stable higher up, whereas the PPP seems to "chase". Duty cycle also drops to 0 on the PPP, which means no further protection for those extra cold, oxygyn rich, going up a hill moments ? It almost seems to confirm Mark EMS's findings with the boost creep (go one step further in removing backpressure).
As an aside, DeltaDash is really heaven sent for comparisons like these isn't it ? No more "it feels nippier low down" ... just bare numbers.
Trending Topics
06 November 2002, 09:12 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt, does ECUTEK have anything out for the JDM STI7 yet?
Was hoping to be able to take out some of the ignition advance the "Knock Correction" function gives. I seem to be getting a sudden 2 Greens + 1 Amber on the KL with WOT once every 3 weeks.
Seems like my ECU listens and says "...no det, no det, hmmm, its been 20 days since the last mild-det event, lets advance and see....ooops - det! ok lets wait another 3 weeks..."
Cheers.
Was hoping to be able to take out some of the ignition advance the "Knock Correction" function gives. I seem to be getting a sudden 2 Greens + 1 Amber on the KL with WOT once every 3 weeks.
Seems like my ECU listens and says "...no det, no det, hmmm, its been 20 days since the last mild-det event, lets advance and see....ooops - det! ok lets wait another 3 weeks..."
Cheers.
06 November 2002, 09:32 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Certainly the PPP is actively hunting out the modified boost target up top, and seems like they are wanting to taper it quite a bit hence the zero duty cycle and quite high PPP boost reading (ie less modification of MAP signal at high RPM).
The timing is difficult to compare between two cars.
What would be nice would be if the boost curves were a little more upwardly convex rather than concave - seems like the fun ends as soon as it started.
The timing is difficult to compare between two cars.
What would be nice would be if the boost curves were a little more upwardly convex rather than concave - seems like the fun ends as soon as it started.
06 November 2002, 09:38 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, just freewheeling ... maybe they needed to dial in a really high target to get the boost "up there" at 3000 RPM, then calm it down again as soon as the fun starts. Standard car seems to be at 7 psi only at 3000 RPM, PPP at 15 psi, that's a massive difference.
06 November 2002, 10:56 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theo,
I will have a bash at the comparison graphs for you tomorrow (after all, I've got to fill my day up with something whilst I wait for the axe). Bear in mind that (IMHO), the main reason the PPP spools up better is down to the exhaust and not the ECU - look at the Milltek with a standard ECU.....
Matt
I will have a bash at the comparison graphs for you tomorrow (after all, I've got to fill my day up with something whilst I wait for the axe
). Bear in mind that (IMHO), the main reason the PPP spools up better is down to the exhaust and not the ECU - look at the Milltek with a standard ECU.....Matt
06 November 2002, 11:03 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear about the axe thing MM, not nice to hear at all 
As I said, just freewheeling & hoping this thread gets a bit more "attention". Good point about the Milltek & spool up. But you have to wonder why a) the car is a real dog under 4000 RPM standard and b) why Prodrive mapped ignition timing so aggresively low down.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the active knock correction yet mind.
For my info... is Prodrive using the same hardware as on the WRX ?
As I said, just freewheeling & hoping this thread gets a bit more "attention". Good point about the Milltek & spool up. But you have to wonder why a) the car is a real dog under 4000 RPM standard and b) why Prodrive mapped ignition timing so aggresively low down.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding the active knock correction yet mind.
For my info... is Prodrive using the same hardware as on the WRX ?
07 November 2002, 09:09 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
BHP is irrelevant. Torque curve would make more interesting news - that's what counts out in the real world
PPP has 46ft/lb more torque than standard STi, and generally 1000rpm lower.
And the Milltek??
PPP has 46ft/lb more torque than standard STi, and generally 1000rpm lower.
And the Milltek??
07 November 2002, 12:10 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who mentioned Bhp Dave? I think most people know that anyway so 
().
OK, the other graphs are now done:
Knock Correction
Injector Duty Cycle
Waste Gate Duty Cycle (sorry, no Milltek for this one)
and for the set,
Boost
Will have a closer look at the timing because there seems to be some knock in the high rpm range with the Milltek.....
Ta,
Matt
().OK, the other graphs are now done:
Knock Correction
Injector Duty Cycle
Waste Gate Duty Cycle (sorry, no Milltek for this one)
and for the set,
Boost
Will have a closer look at the timing because there seems to be some knock in the high rpm range with the Milltek.....
Ta,
Matt
07 November 2002, 12:48 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
What exactly is the 'milltek' graph ? Is it a catless turbo back exhuast with no ecu change ? Does it use a restrictor to control boost or does it still maintain a cat to keep boost under control ?
Is it safe to say that a full turbo back decat will produce similar results to the PPP (obvioulsy it may not be as safe, but will bhp and torque figures be similar?)
Cheers,
Ray
What exactly is the 'milltek' graph ? Is it a catless turbo back exhuast with no ecu change ? Does it use a restrictor to control boost or does it still maintain a cat to keep boost under control ?
Is it safe to say that a full turbo back decat will produce similar results to the PPP (obvioulsy it may not be as safe, but will bhp and torque figures be similar?)
Cheers,
Ray
07 November 2002, 02:17 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray,
The Milltek is an exhaust sold by Litchfield Imports for the MY01/02 STi. It is a full stainless system which includes a hi-flow cat in the downpipe. It will work with the standard restrictor with no boost control issues (as you can see) and was measured at Powerstaion to give 285 of each from the standard car at 261bhp/255ft-lbs.
I'd say a full decat (or the Milltek) is not as good as the PPP because the PPP holds more boost throughout the range and also has a good torque spread across the range (which is the most important thing). Full decat's (in my experience) require a restrictor which dulls down the spool up and also doesn't increase the torque nearly as much as a remap/PPP.
A full decat with restrictor is better than the standard car but nowhere near as good as a PPP (IMHO). I'd say the Milltek is a close second to the PPP but really it would require an ECU remap (e.g. Ecutek) to be as good.
All runs were in 4th gear from around 1500rpm to the redline (as you can see) and the Standard STi and the PPP ones were driven on the same road by Dave and myself about 15 mins apart. The Milltek runs were done by Rob in Scotland on a seperate occasion.
Matt
The Milltek is an exhaust sold by Litchfield Imports for the MY01/02 STi. It is a full stainless system which includes a hi-flow cat in the downpipe. It will work with the standard restrictor with no boost control issues (as you can see) and was measured at Powerstaion to give 285 of each from the standard car at 261bhp/255ft-lbs.
I'd say a full decat (or the Milltek) is not as good as the PPP because the PPP holds more boost throughout the range and also has a good torque spread across the range (which is the most important thing). Full decat's (in my experience) require a restrictor which dulls down the spool up and also doesn't increase the torque nearly as much as a remap/PPP.
A full decat with restrictor is better than the standard car but nowhere near as good as a PPP (IMHO). I'd say the Milltek is a close second to the PPP but really it would require an ECU remap (e.g. Ecutek) to be as good.
All runs were in 4th gear from around 1500rpm to the redline (as you can see) and the Standard STi and the PPP ones were driven on the same road by Dave and myself about 15 mins apart. The Milltek runs were done by Rob in Scotland on a seperate occasion.
Matt
08 November 2002, 10:36 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And from Razor's thread I've got another one now which compares the Boost curve from Jonno's JDM STi with full decat and larger restrictor to control spiking.....
Ta,
Matt
Ta,
Matt
09 November 2002, 09:14 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Scoobysport, Basildon, UK
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt
How did you arrive at the "manually corrected" boost figure for Dave's car?
The actual data seems to show the boost curving off safely, rather than spiking.
I ask the question as the STi PPP does include a restrictor change. The way the boost curves off is exactly what I would expect with the restrictor changed.
The "manual correction" completely changes how the PPP curve appears and I suspect that it is doing something more like the actual curve, with an offset of say 2-3psi. The wastegate duty cycle would point to this too, especially at upper revs.
How did you arrive at the "manually corrected" boost figure for Dave's car?
The actual data seems to show the boost curving off safely, rather than spiking.
I ask the question as the STi PPP does include a restrictor change. The way the boost curves off is exactly what I would expect with the restrictor changed.
The "manual correction" completely changes how the PPP curve appears and I suspect that it is doing something more like the actual curve, with an offset of say 2-3psi. The wastegate duty cycle would point to this too, especially at upper revs.
09 November 2002, 07:38 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete,
I don't think your curve is correct because at 3000rpm Dave's gauge reads 1.3 bar and at 4000 it reads 1.2 bar (in 4th gear), and it tails off at a consistent rate to the redline. That's pretty much what my graph shows The Boost clamp on the PPP's are annoying when using DD to monitor them as you just can't get accurate (top end boost) figures
I know my "manually adjusted" graph is rough but why do you doubt the general shape of the curve, and the peak at 1.3bar?
Ta,
Matt
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/9/2002 7:48:30 PM]
I don't think your curve is correct because at 3000rpm Dave's gauge reads 1.3 bar and at 4000 it reads 1.2 bar (in 4th gear), and it tails off at a consistent rate to the redline. That's pretty much what my graph shows
The Boost clamp on the PPP's are annoying when using DD to monitor them as you just can't get accurate (top end boost) figures I know my "manually adjusted" graph is rough but why do you doubt the general shape of the curve, and the peak at 1.3bar?
Ta,
Matt
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/9/2002 7:48:30 PM]
11 November 2002, 09:50 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Scoobysport, Basildon, UK
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Matt
The PPP Sti that I have been in spiked to just over 1.2 at 3500 and then held 1.15-1.2 up to around 4500 before slowly tailing off.
I know what you mean about this not working right with DD, but in order to make comparisons, we need some more accurate data.
The PPP Sti that I have been in spiked to just over 1.2 at 3500 and then held 1.15-1.2 up to around 4500 before slowly tailing off.
I know what you mean about this not working right with DD, but in order to make comparisons, we need some more accurate data.
11 November 2002, 03:16 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete,
That sounds close to the data I've got (and the graph I put up) doesn't it? It doesn't really match the graph you put up though
I guess 0.1 bar could easily be accounted for by the weather on the day. What time of year are you talking about? The run I recorded was a couple of weeks ago and the ambient was about 8degC at the time, in 4th gear, two up with Optimax, downhill, with a tail wind and a partridge in a pear tree
Matt
P.S. It's all true except the bit about downhill, the tailwind and the partridge
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/11/2002 3:18:22 PM]
That sounds close to the data I've got (and the graph I put up) doesn't it? It doesn't really match the graph you put up though
I guess 0.1 bar could easily be accounted for by the weather on the day. What time of year are you talking about? The run I recorded was a couple of weeks ago and the ambient was about 8degC at the time, in 4th gear, two up with Optimax, downhill, with a tail wind and a partridge in a pear tree Matt
P.S. It's all true except the bit about downhill, the tailwind and the partridge
[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/11/2002 3:18:22 PM]
