FAO: Harvey...
 

Could you pass comment just for completeness on this thread regarding Apexi ECUs vs....

https://www.scoobynet.com/apexi-vs-other-t534992.html

The vehicle in question was/is my M/Y 95 WRX Wagon. Subject to map and fuel, it was running 380-400 bhp at Dastek or TEG Sport. Previously, both rolling roads gave very similar results. The car was on a six row Link which I liked, having used a ten row Link on the STi 6 Wagon. I found the software on my lap top easy to use. It should be understood I had spent a lot of time tweaking this map to get the absolute best from it. Apart from it being six row, the lack of temperature compensation was the only real disadvantage and the Link did a good job.

I swapped with a guy in Ireland, the Link and hand held management unit for a new Apexi and Commander, no cash difference, because he had no Apexi mapper.
Andy F. mapped the Apexi and my first impression was how smooth the car was, just like a standard car. Cold start, hot start, in between start, tickover etc. all improved and closed loop lambda was a noticable benefit. The Link did away with the MAF Sensor which had to be refitted for the Apexi. However I felt the car had lost a little of its urgency and this was bourne out at Dastek, later that same day when we appeared to be 15 bhp down. I then spent a couple of weeks trying to find the lost power to no avail. A further run at TEG Sport showed a deficit of 14 bhp on a previous comparable run. Playing about with the map on the rollers, understandably, reduced the deficit but interestingly, using a timing light, it was found that the spark could move through a few degrees on a steady throttle. I understand this may be specific to Apexi for M/Y 93-96 but has been improved on later models. As far as I could tell, this was the reason for the power loss.
Overall impressions of the Apexi were that it made the car nice to drive.

Other work was done on the car and a Sigma ECU fitted with 420.7 bhp at 6,400rpm. There is more to come but as the car is still on one of my own 05-06 20Gs, the turbo is probably the limitting factor for now. We did not map beyond this point due to a missfire, probably specific to my set up. Initial impressions of the Sigma were very good and I drove it for a few weeks in this form but as part of the deal was to further develop the ECU and that is ongoing, I can give my overall impressions shortly if that is of interest.

The Sigma is probably best regarded as a cheaper version of the Gems and it has extra features to add at cost. The Sigma is keenly priced for what it offers and you could run two maps if you wanted. A restricted map to foil cowboy mechanics would probably be useful.

To answer your question further: "How do the above compare with an Ekutec?"
I don't think Ekutec is available for M/Y 98 and prior. So it is only an option for M/Y 99 onwards. If you want to do your own mapping or adjustments then the Ekutec is no use to you as only licenced mappers have access. The Ekutec gives very smooth running, benefitting from all the standard car map settings but with the advantage of tailored mapping for power and the modifications carried out. I would say that if you are going to do lots of mods and need frequent remaps then an Ekutec is probably not for you but it has to have serious consideration if you want a smooth running car without drastic and ongoing mods.

Thanks to Dastek and Steve Simpson/TEG Sport for all the rolling road time which has been very interesting.

Great thanks, very useful info.

My cars actually a MY00 does this bring any other products to mind as at the moment i think an ECUTEK remap would be best. At this stage i have no idea with regards to mapping of things myself.

Harvey,

Can you just confirm that I have understood your comments above correctly.....

With everything the same (i.e. engine, exhaust, turbo etc) except for the ECU, your setup achieved the following results :-

Link ECU 380-400bhp
Apexi ECU 365-385bhp (above result less said 15bhp)
Sigma ECU 420bhp !!

This seems incrediable.

So other work was done before the Sigma was installed.

Harvey,

Was the Apexi using the standard MAF? which would be very much maxxed out on that spec and hence why a slight reduction in output compared to the Link? Bigger maf or MAFSIM would have been a way forward?

Simon

Sorry - my mistake - I didn't read that. I did think that was a bit odd !

Back to back of Apexi - v Link was valid comparison. Apexi exhibited a ignition timing "jitter" of approx 2 degrees.i.e with a "flat" ign map the actual timing as verified with a strobe light was varying by +/- 2 degrees.Thus you could not map as close to the det point as achieved with the Link hence the loss of power.Sigma spark resolution is finer than both other ECU's and also has charge temp ign retard tables so near det mapping is achievable.

Steve.

Ollie : If you don't have aspirations to do your own mapping on an MY00 and you do not have radical requirements like launch control etc. then I would think an Ecutek has to be the best all round choice for you in terms of performance, driveability and value for money.
Thanks for clarifying that Nick. The power on the Link was 380-400 bhp depending on what fuel and map I was running. In like for like circumstances the Apexi was 14 or 15 bhp down but part of that deficit was recovered with tweaking of the map on the rollers.
Simon : The MAF sensor was located in an aluminium tube and was not maxed out. The problem I think was that the timing swung about through quite a large margin and reduced the amount of advance that could be run safely.
I don't have enough experience of the new ECU yet, because of the development work to give a final comment but initial impressions were very good and there was no apparent movement of the timing mark whatsoever.

Very interesting stuff Harvey, thanks for sharing it :)

Ditto

Harvey, could you possibly enlighten us all as to what sort of mods you did to see the improvement in bhp ?