PING

Had both fitted last week and a big, big difference to my MY00 with ye olde 802 ECU ... smoother, more power for longer

TEK1
Sooo much smoother and quicker than before But, the TEK1 appeared to overbooste a little (1.1-2 bar) before settling at .9 bar ish
Has anyone else found this ... should it be of concern?

Plus Dawes
When I fitted the Dawes in standard mode (.7 bar), no overboost .

Now the car holds 1.1 bar comfortably without a hint of overboost.

I'm going on PE's RR next week, so I'll post results.

The only other change to my MY00 wagon is an ITG filter.

Steve

T-uk

I changed from a ae802 to a ae800 ecu and find the peaks similar to what you have described with tek1 only,so I would not worry.fitted a dawes to mine to cure it too .

Lambo

I went to PE last week and had several sessions on the rollers with different combinations;

Car is MY99 AE801 ECU, with SS DP , std cat centre, P1 BBox and ITG filter. Car was running on optimax.

1. With Dawes ( was getting slight overboost ) 249bhp, 238 lbls torque

2. Dawes removed 248 bhp, 220 torque

3. Tek1 252 bhp, 225 torque

4. Tek2 259 bhp, 240 ish torque.

The Dawes compared to the Tek2 were fairly similar except the Tek 2 had a smother torque curve and gave more low down torque, which is what we all really want.
The tek 1 gave a useful increase over the std car ( better low down torque ) and bearing in mind the fact I would need to turn the Dawes down a bit to stop over boosting it wouldn't be far off the Dawes power curve.

I asked about the Dawes/Tek 1 combination but was advised against it as part of the Tek 1 program ( running std boost )is to lean off the fueling higher up the rev range, and the higher fueling is needed when running higher boost.

I was told the Tek2 would give more power ( 270 ish ) and torque if I changed the rest of my exhaust system.

Hope this makes some sense.

Lambo

PING

T-UK

Have you had your fuelling checked? Lambo's comment suggests it could be too lean higher up the rev range ...?

Lambo
Great info ...
So the TEK 2 is obviously better than the TEK1 plus Dawes ... I guess it should be! What held boost did you turn the Dawes down to?
Do you know if the TEK 2 upgrade is customisable or is it an ''As it comes package''?

The exhaust must be a key area ... full decat is obviously most efficient. I've not changed my exhaust, so I would expect maybe 10-15BHP/Torque less than your car (TEK 2 = 245 BHP & 230 ish torque), but all importantly the low down torque is there.

Clearly, you are very pleased with the TEK 2 upgrade - smoother and torquier than the Dawes and TEK 1 option ... I think I may have to invest!

Steve

[Edited by PING - 4/5/2002 10:47:28 AM]

[Edited by PING - 4/5/2002 10:49:54 AM]

john banks

I thought it was Tek 2 which was leaning out at the top end and Tek 1 was just an AE800 ECU, but perhaps I missed it somewhere along the line - sounds like the boundary is a little blurred?

T-uk's car lights up his lambda link to >=9% CO but not his knocklink AFAIK.

PING

John,

So T-UK's car is not too lean then ... Do you think this could be ECUTEK simply being careful / sensible with their advice not to run Dawes with TEK1?

Steve

john banks

Probably. I am puzzled though what Tek 1 is - I thought is was just an AE800 ECU without the leaning out which I thought was Tek 2. If for £150 I can get the AE800 map with a lean out up top it would be ideal for my purposes.

PING

John,

I beleive the TEK 1 is as you say. Apparently in the original 800 map there was a lean spot at lowere revs and at higher revs it was running too rich - I beleive Stephen Dones' software corrected this ... The dyno on their site (www.ecutek.co.uk) suggests a very smooth, consistant and lenghty (in comparison to the 802 anyway) power curve ... that is exactly what I found with or without the Dawes.

The Dawes has added more of the punch in the back again (3750rpm+)as I can hold higher boost

It was £150.00 very well spent!

Steve

john banks

Sorry I am still not clear - does the Tek1 include the leaning out or not?

PING

John,

I believe at the top end it has been leaned out ... guess contact with Stephen may answer the question.

Sorry, but I'm new to this stuff as you've seen on previous threads, so am still getting to grips with the terminology and consequencies of my potential actions!

Steve

WREXY

As far as I remember the Tek 1 is an AE801 map. The richening of the map down low was for one customer only, who got the Tek 1. They found that he was leaning out a little down low on the RR due to an induction kit, so they richened the mix a bit down low.

The TEK2 again, is a pre mapped ECU, similar to a PPP, with better performance. I suppose Steve can correct me, however this is what I remember reading.

Cheers,

Wrexy.

WREXY

I forgot to mention that, I think the fellow was charged extra for the changes to the TEK1 map and also because of the time he spent on the RR. Usually the Tek 1 map is a ready set map.

Cheers,

Wrexy.

lordlucan

Wrexy - that was me, however when you purchase the TEK1 they have my map available as its only a MY00 with full decat and K&N 57.
236bhp b4, 268bhp after !!!

Jase

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

I'm with John on this one, I tried to get to the bottom of this question a while ago without success.

If 'Lambo' had a MY99 with 801 fitted as std and producing 248/220, and then slapped in the TEK1 801 map then why should he then get 252/225? Afterall it's suppossed to be just a copy of the 801 map. This suggests it's an 801 and a bit map (pardon the pun).

I do like the idea of the TEK2 map(can we call that a PPP and a bit map?)producing more than TEK1 or Dawes. I must start saving the pennies.

F
PS can anyone say if you can get just as good results with the reprogramming of the std ECU as an aftermarket ECU?

nom

Floyd - it should be considerably better having the original ECU reprogrammed than putting a new one in. The original ECU is far more complex & specific than an aftermarket one, it's just that the standard map is excessively safe, so it can be driven on 91 octane up Mount Everest & still not have any problems.
After-market ones seem to have problems when running cold, idle troubles, no engine control for when the AC cuts in, etc. (over generalising here!), but the original ECU re-map will keep all of this.
The downside is that the original can't be played with for different occassions (track days or whatnot) as the map is not 'user-editable'.
I think that the list of pros/cons...

PING

WREXY

The TEK2 gives better performance than the PPP ECU? ... That sounds great - wot, smoother, better power curve?

Steve

T-uk

it's a standard MY99 ae800 ECU,that I run on my MY00 decatted car.when I fitted the ae800,I noticed that peak boost would vary quite a bit.the held boost value was about the same as the MY00 ae802(ae800 controls it better though)but the peaks hardly ever changed with the ae802.the ae800 would sometimes peak as high as 17psi and other times peak at 15psi.the ae802 always peaked at 15psi.I just thought that the earlier ECU's must be affected by ambient temp more.

I ran a knocklink and lambdalink for a month before fitting the dawes so that I could get used to standard boost values.since fitting the dawes(15/16psi),the fuelling has never changed.the knocklink greens flash slighlty more over 5000rpm but not enough to worry me.for track work,I am also not worried that my car fuels "pig rich" and hopefully I do not have the lean spot low down,as I don't run an induction filter.

I will be very interested to see how the TEK2 copes on track.john banks and I tested his PPP ECU on track with the dawes and found that over 17psi,for that day,caused intake peak temps to go over 50c.we were able to turn the dawes down and run 16.5psi for the rest of the day and never go over 47c.as the TEK2 runs higher held boost than a standard PPP ECU I think TEK2 users might have to change restrictors to limit the boost slighly on track but this is only my opinion.

lambo,
did you give the ECU time to relearn after the dawes removal?I think that the standard ECU can take upto 20miles to learn after a change.

I actually think that it should be okay to run a dawes with a TEK1 on road,as from my own findings the car seems to be fuelling the same whether at standard boost or +dawes @13psi,15psi or 17psi,so the ECU is seeing the higher boost and upping the fuel to run the same co% at WOT,so I would guess the TEK1 would do the same just at slighly lower reprogrammed co%.

I would also like to add that given the choice between all the above set up's,I would rather run a TEK2 without a Dawes.I feel the boost from what I have heard will be on the limit for the standard turbo and tmic and is all controlled with the ecu.if anyone in scotland has a TEK2 and is willing to let me see how it works on track I will .

PING

T,

Reading between the lines, I guess you are saying that unless one is driving seriously hard (track days, etc.), then it's unlikely that TEK 1 + Dawes will be running too lean ... am I right?

I agree with your comment that TEK 2 must be better than TEK 1 + Dawes, the ECU controlling things must be safer, smoother, etc.

You say the TEK 2 holds boost higher than a PPP ... what levels are we talking?

Steve

dowser

I thought Tek2 was around 1.1 bar....I hope it is more

Richard

john banks

I doubt it will be substantially higher. It is difficult to make a safe one size fits all map with more than 16-17 PSI hence the limits of the PPP? Ecutek will want to avoid the right or wrong controversy over earlier PE Phase I cars I would imagine.

I honestly don't think there is a massive gain to be had over a properly setup decat PPP in terms of peak power whilst retaining reliability - look at the RR results - they are often up there with the remaps in the 270+ BHP zone at PE.

From fiddling with my decat PPP setup and adjusting its boost you can get worthwhile gains in the midrange, and a tiny bit more at the top end - but soon you find that you just don't get any more at the top end before the midrange gains stop, and much over 17 PSI and it gets a bit hot on track.

T-uk

I think I read somewhere that the TEK2 holds upto 17psi.

jb,
a very interesting comparison would be a TEK1 with dawes v PPP ECU with dawes at a rolling road shootout.if the TEK1 is slightly leaner it could be a match for a slightly higher boosting,pig rich PPP ECU.

john banks

True. I don't think there are going to be huge amounts in it though, one AFR point here, 1 PSI there. Arguably if you are leaning out the mixture by 1 AFR point then you need lower boost to keep the in-cylinder temperatures the same. So there is no free lunch if you want a bulletproof setup. I would rather have a rich, not too advanced, medium boosting setup for ultimate safety and hard track use than one where one or more variables were pushed hard. Probably the same for an off the peg ECU? I reckon with the (in)accuracies of rolling roads that the differences would be hard to tell, and wouldn't trust a rolling road to tell me any less than a 20 BHP difference. And the feel on the road is another matter - it can feel slower and not be depending on how smooth it is. Even drag times and time under the bridge at Knockhill say are also very variable - I noted my speed under the bridge and it was quite variable because of my $hite technique and depending on how much I drifted out of the hairpin. But even a 2-3 MPH difference implies a significant difference in power. Same when I chase M3s in my wife's 406. They do not just take off, unexpectedly much to their and my surprise despite just over 100 BHP more and similar weight - I've met the same one twice now!

Lambo

Chaps, been away the weekend so first chance to catchup on this thread.

Ping, I didn't try a Tek1/Dawes combination as Mervin said that they HAD leaned out a Tek 1 higher up the revs and he couldn't be sure of the consequences of adding a Dawes.

T-UK, after taking the Dawes off we didn't run the car any distance to get the ECU to reset its self, perhaps thats why the car produces the same power with/without the Dawes. I'm not sure if Mervin reset the ECU. Obviously when the Tek 1/2 were tried thay would have been reset prior to using.

JB, the Tek 1 ia an Ae800/801 map but I belive that it has been slightly tweeked to optimise fueling whilst retaining std boost.

I do have one question, when I stuck the Dawes on I used part of the existing pipe, between the inlet manifold and the Dawes, not knowing it had the std restrictor in it. When I reinstalled the Dawes, I used a different bit of pipe, without a restrictor, and found the Dawes need two whole turns tighter to get the sames boost.
Is there any advantage to retaing the std restrictor, the car seems less powerful after its removal ?

Cheers
Lambo

john banks

With the Dawes you are better off for control and less spiky boost by not having the restrictor in. With the original ECU you will only get about 8 PSI without the restrictor in - the solenoid has limited flow capacity and needs the restrictor to shift the bandwidth of operation of the solenoid on the boost profile.