John Banks
14 May 2002, 12:34 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes. I really wanted the software from Ecutek and it all stemmed from there. I am offering custom remaps on UK MY99/00 mainly, but can also do STi5/6/P1. There are a lot of ways to make the STi5/6/P1 maps safer. Can't wait for the new age ECUs to get going too.
There are fuel maps with low and high knock compensation maps, same with timing. There are loads of boost control maps with lots of resolution to get it just right. Compatability with Subaru select monitor. Interestingly a soft boost cut at 147 MPH, which can be adjusted, so be nice to me otherwise I'll give you a 71 MPH soft boost cut so you can't beat me at Knockhill
I arrived and left PE with the same power and torque peaks, but that is only half the story.
I had a Dawes running 21 PSI held boost on a new turbo, 17 at 6000, 15.5 at 7000. We dropped that by 1.5-2 PSI midrange and 1-1.5 PSI top end, and then gained massively on spool up with more advance and MORE fuel. Took a tiny bit of fuel off at the top end. End result is a fatter torque curve, much less stressed, more safety features, far more progressive and smoother. And there is a fair bit more to come from the map as it is still conservative. So I arrived and left PE with about 290 BHP, 290 lbft, over 200 BHP at the wheels on a hot day. PE figures are high, but this is not a big turbo at all (it is a TD04), and the torque figures are quite respectable if you look at the dyno site.
There are fuel maps with low and high knock compensation maps, same with timing. There are loads of boost control maps with lots of resolution to get it just right. Compatability with Subaru select monitor. Interestingly a soft boost cut at 147 MPH, which can be adjusted, so be nice to me otherwise I'll give you a 71 MPH soft boost cut so you can't beat me at Knockhill
I arrived and left PE with the same power and torque peaks, but that is only half the story.
I had a Dawes running 21 PSI held boost on a new turbo, 17 at 6000, 15.5 at 7000. We dropped that by 1.5-2 PSI midrange and 1-1.5 PSI top end, and then gained massively on spool up with more advance and MORE fuel. Took a tiny bit of fuel off at the top end. End result is a fatter torque curve, much less stressed, more safety features, far more progressive and smoother. And there is a fair bit more to come from the map as it is still conservative. So I arrived and left PE with about 290 BHP, 290 lbft, over 200 BHP at the wheels on a hot day. PE figures are high, but this is not a big turbo at all (it is a TD04), and the torque figures are quite respectable if you look at the dyno site.
14 May 2002, 08:34 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have detailed before and after above. It is still a TD04L whatever you do to it, you cannot expect big top end from a setup which can deliver full boost by 2700 RPM and a bar at 2500 RPM - that is not what I am shooting for otherwise I would put a VF on it. I also have a restrictive backbox and only a panel filter. The turbo also costs about half as much as the VF series.
I could well believe that a lot of the difference between Star and PE figures is largely to do with cooling - you get your legs swept from under you by the PE fan whereas the earlier topmount fan at Star was no more powerful than the wife's hairdrier - at PE we did multiple runs and the intake temps and figures were very consistent.
Who knows which is "better", but I was quite pleased with the torque figure considering the other figures on the dyno site. And this is still an incredibly conservative map.
How good is the Star top mount fan now? I am sure you are right I won't get the same figures at Star, but at least PE figures are consistent - now the loading has changed at Star how can I compare my car with the 257 BHP I got before on the original turbo and map? I know that about 15% has come off in gear increment times compared with before - this I expect should be reflected in the torque figure. But I am under no illusions that this car will get anywhere near 300 BHP at Star.
I could well believe that a lot of the difference between Star and PE figures is largely to do with cooling - you get your legs swept from under you by the PE fan whereas the earlier topmount fan at Star was no more powerful than the wife's hairdrier - at PE we did multiple runs and the intake temps and figures were very consistent.
Who knows which is "better", but I was quite pleased with the torque figure considering the other figures on the dyno site. And this is still an incredibly conservative map.
How good is the Star top mount fan now? I am sure you are right I won't get the same figures at Star, but at least PE figures are consistent - now the loading has changed at Star how can I compare my car with the 257 BHP I got before on the original turbo and map? I know that about 15% has come off in gear increment times compared with before - this I expect should be reflected in the torque figure. But I am under no illusions that this car will get anywhere near 300 BHP at Star.
14 May 2002, 10:59 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good torque figures john,even by PE standards,should pull out the corners quite well.do you have any graphs that you could post?
turbo sounds good too without going over the top and sounds as though the peak torque will still be quite low down compared to a big turbo.I sometimes wonder if this is the biggest problem with big turbos and eating gearboxes,peak power and torque are brought too close together meaning that on hard gear changes the revs drop back right into peak torque rpm,pulls like **** but at the expense of the drivetrain,my opinion only and crail thrashers not included .your clutch will be on borrowed time though but it will be interesting to see if your box lasts.
"restrictive backbox",there is a cure for this,seems a shame to do everything else right and leave that thing on ,I think HKS/Blitz now come with removable bungs for road use.
how bad is this lean spot low down if you are running a standard paper filter and is the boost control as good as with the Dawes with small peaks and smooth held?.I have to admit that I would like to get rid of the dawes and give full control back to the ecu.
have you noticed a change in the intake/exhaust temp with running better timing/fuelling and is the fcd now removed and true boost shown on delta dash?
turbo sounds good too without going over the top and sounds as though the peak torque will still be quite low down compared to a big turbo.I sometimes wonder if this is the biggest problem with big turbos and eating gearboxes,peak power and torque are brought too close together meaning that on hard gear changes the revs drop back right into peak torque rpm,pulls like **** but at the expense of the drivetrain,my opinion only and crail thrashers not included
.your clutch will be on borrowed time though but it will be interesting to see if your box lasts."restrictive backbox",there is a cure for this,seems a shame to do everything else right and leave that thing on
,I think HKS/Blitz now come with removable bungs for road use.how bad is this lean spot low down if you are running a standard paper filter and is the boost control as good as with the Dawes with small peaks and smooth held?.I have to admit that I would like to get rid of the dawes and give full control back to the ecu.
have you noticed a change in the intake/exhaust temp with running better timing/fuelling and is the fcd now removed and true boost shown on delta dash?
14 May 2002, 11:57 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been looking at some the graphs of scoobs regards *eating gearboxes* and still think it is to do with the sudden increase in torque over such a short rpm.
If you map the car so that there is a gradual increase in torque over a wider rpm area, surely this would be kinder to the gearboxes, instead of *whack*!! "here you go gearbox", have 300 Ib ft torque.....bit like getting a smack in the coupon. Ouch!!
What do other guys think?
A
If you map the car so that there is a gradual increase in torque over a wider rpm area, surely this would be kinder to the gearboxes, instead of *whack*!! "here you go gearbox", have 300 Ib ft torque.....bit like getting a smack in the coupon. Ouch!!
What do other guys think?
A
Trending Topics
14 May 2002, 12:04 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so have you actually changed any thing about the turbo or is it the standard td04l turbo still. if it is there is absolutely no way in hell it can produce that much power. but if you like a piece of paper that say you have, i have got one that says i have got 370bhp!!
t-uk
you keep refering to my old scoob for gearboxes issues, i have really tested mine to distruction, think of it as tolerance testing 
i would not expect every one to have the same issues. the ap organic clutch is more than up to the job. but the gear box will need over 300lb/ft star lbs before it starts breaking
sam
but if you like a piece of paper that say you have, i have got one that says i have got 370bhp!!t-uk
you keep refering to my old scoob for gearboxes issues
, i have really tested mine to distruction, think of it as tolerance testing i would not expect every one to have the same issues. the ap organic clutch is more than up to the job. but the gear box will need over 300lb/ft star lbs before it starts breaking sam
14 May 2002, 12:44 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's been discussed before but I think the heavy duty clutches are harder on the gearboxes than a steady high torque output.
Dumping the clutch in between gear shifts can double the torque through the box momentarily. My AP22 data logger shows this quite clearly as a big spike on the G force graph.
My early graphs had the same spikes as my later graphs even although I have increased torque by over 100lb-ft The spikes were down to the use of the clutch.
My clutch starts to slip at approx 350lb-ft and that's how it will remain (till it's fkd) I consider it my safety valve ! I'm quite sure if I fitted an uprated clutch my gearbox would not survive the shock load, even though it may cope with the steady torque.
All IMHO
[Edited by Cosie Convert - 5/14/2002 12:50:27 PM]
Dumping the clutch in between gear shifts can double the torque through the box momentarily. My AP22 data logger shows this quite clearly as a big spike on the G force graph.
My early graphs had the same spikes as my later graphs even although I have increased torque by over 100lb-ft The spikes were down to the use of the clutch.
My clutch starts to slip at approx 350lb-ft and that's how it will remain (till it's fkd) I consider it my safety valve ! I'm quite sure if I fitted an uprated clutch my gearbox would not survive the shock load, even though it may cope with the steady torque.
All IMHO
[Edited by Cosie Convert - 5/14/2002 12:50:27 PM]
14 May 2002, 12:53 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with how you like your cars set up Sam, it feels good, the sudden rush, but still feel the 'ol box don't like it.
How come you been so quiet to me lately.......thought yed fallen out wi me
A
How come you been so quiet to me lately.......thought yed fallen out wi me
A
14 May 2002, 01:31 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam,
I was actually referring to Alan's car more than yours.we all know that you drive it like it was built for but Alan drives like an ole granny and still has transmission problems.
I was actually referring to Alan's car more than yours.we all know that you drive it like it was built for but Alan drives like an ole granny
and still has transmission problems.
:angre:
14 May 2002, 04:43 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
T-uk - the lean spot is quite marked low down - the lambda voltage reaches zero at full throttle during spool up and the fuelling has several nasty steps in it - this is with just an ITG filter. The standard cars do it too. The boost control needs a lot more parameters to be set than the Dawes, but you can have it how you like it.
Ozzy, bumpsteer being done on Thursday.
Sam, yes the turbo is quite significantly changed. New compressor wheel, cut back blades and flowed - specced to be able to run 1.5 bar. Original actuator though, which limits the top end a bit - still experimenting. At higher airflows the intake temps remain sensible. It holds boost at least 1000 RPM later (17 PSI at 6000 compared with 14 PSI at 6000 on the original turbo, still holding 15-16 PSI at 7000 RPM - standard turbo about 10-11 PSI at 7000 RPM), but only loses 200 RPM at the bottom end. It is not on general release yet - development model. I'm not bothered about bits of paper. I suspect it might give your "371" BHP (I know you don't believe that ) Evo a run for its money in a straight line (corners obviously not and I am still a track beginner) unless you've done more to it since the last Knockhill day, which I'm sure you have 
But as I say I have not gone for all out power but driveability and overall balance. I like it very much and that is all that matters It is substantially quicker than on the standard TD04L, so I think the power figures are not stretching belief too much when you see how it goes - we are only talking about 12 % more power than I got at Star before running much less boost on the original turbo, so it is not totally unbelievable. The torque figure is nice anyway even compared with other PE cars. As I say, I like it and that is all that matters. You will always have the better toys m8!
Ozzy, bumpsteer being done on Thursday.
Sam, yes the turbo is quite significantly changed. New compressor wheel, cut back blades and flowed - specced to be able to run 1.5 bar. Original actuator though, which limits the top end a bit - still experimenting. At higher airflows the intake temps remain sensible. It holds boost at least 1000 RPM later (17 PSI at 6000 compared with 14 PSI at 6000 on the original turbo, still holding 15-16 PSI at 7000 RPM - standard turbo about 10-11 PSI at 7000 RPM), but only loses 200 RPM at the bottom end. It is not on general release yet - development model. I'm not bothered about bits of paper. I suspect it might give your "371" BHP (I know you don't believe that
) Evo a run for its money in a straight line (corners obviously not and I am still a track beginner) unless you've done more to it since the last Knockhill day, which I'm sure you have But as I say I have not gone for all out power but driveability and overall balance. I like it very much and that is all that matters It is substantially quicker than on the standard TD04L, so I think the power figures are not stretching belief too much when you see how it goes - we are only talking about 12 % more power than I got at Star before running much less boost on the original turbo, so it is not totally unbelievable. The torque figure is nice anyway even compared with other PE cars. As I say, I like it and that is all that matters. You will always have the better toys m8!
14 May 2002, 06:35 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I've been on track. Why do you think Sam used to pass everything in sight on trackdays, when I was in the passenger seat giving him tuition on how to drive on the track!!
< gets to hell outta here afore am flamed upon!!!>
Byee
[Edited by AlanG - 5/14/2002 6:45:07 PM]
Why do you think Sam used to pass everything in sight on trackdays, when I was in the passenger seat giving him tuition on how to drive on the track!! < gets to hell outta here afore am flamed upon!!!>
Byee
[Edited by AlanG - 5/14/2002 6:45:07 PM]
14 May 2002, 07:06 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi john
you like it and that all it matters. i think you miss understood me my comment about the power figures are in relation to the standard turbo.
your modified turbo sounds good, very similar power boost level to the VF23 at the top end. i suspect because you are keeping the same exhuast housing and probably the turbine housing you will get faster spool up than a vf23.
why does every one think i have done something to my car!! i have not, i have got plans but that is about as far as it went.
sam
you like it and that all it matters. i think you miss understood me my comment about the power figures are in relation to the standard turbo.
your modified turbo sounds good, very similar power boost level to the VF23 at the top end. i suspect because you are keeping the same exhuast housing and probably the turbine housing you will get faster spool up than a vf23.
why does every one think i have done something to my car!! i have not, i have got plans but that is about as far as it went.
sam
14 May 2002, 07:13 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have you joined them against me as well oh i forgot you still drive a scoob
you have not been on track with the evo with me yet have you? i am far worse with the evo you probably won't be saying much then. actually to be honest that is not true, i can have a full conversation driving the evo on track. i am obviously not pushing it hard enough
sam
oh i forgot you still drive a scoob you have not been on track with the evo with me yet have you?
i am far worse with the evo you probably won't be saying much then. actually to be honest that is not true, i can have a full conversation driving the evo on track. i am obviously not pushing it hard enough sam