TRUTH/MYTH OF LOTUS ECU

[GTsRasta]

Originally Posted by charliex

A CAI may improve performance over the stock airbox if its correctly designed, tested properly, a clear set(set meaning a list of rules) of 'better' is given, which may or may not include a custom tune for said CAI by a competent tuner.

However in my experience a lot of them are just thrown together and rely on the marketing principles of that it worked on some other car 10 years ago so therefore it'll work on yours too and that there is a sucker born every minute.

Hows that?

I'm 100% satisfied now . To everybody here that participated, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!

Now it's time for Bane to read this thread and see about making a new intake that will encorporate proper designs for the Lotus along with his race header development.

[snuggles1]

Originally Posted by cory1000

its just sad that you have to use slang like that to "fit in"

oh, I must of missed where you disproved me... I dont recall bashing a group buy, I recall discussing it and asking for proof that it works better then stock...

I was about to click off this whole thread when it degraded into personal attacks on rasta's choice of lingo on a totally unrelated site Of course I do the same thing, so forgive me when I change my vocabulary and tone according to audience. ;-)

There was some good technical stuff here but why copy/paste personal stuff? I dont get this part of LT at all.

Rasta, man, u've learned a lot for a 19 yr old, good work. I'm sure u'll find a lot more to absorb...so keep your head about u dude.

I think some people forgot what it was like when they were 19. Yeah, he can rub u the wrong way but in some ways I appreciate the input and enthusiasm. My 2 cents.

Peace out.

[GTsRasta]

Originally Posted by charliex

What MPH are you at when you're in this tapered off top end ?

Not so much MPH, but rpms, especially if you're rowing through gears in tight corners. Here are dynos of the well known low-midranged bias Celica GTS 4-2-1 Weapon R race header...which looks VERY similar to the Forcedfed 4-2-1 race header dynos that have a 7,000-8,000 rpm drop in power:

ForcedFed Lotus 4-2-1 Race Header:

ForcedFed Race Header - Group Buy

Weapon R Celica 4-2-1 Race Header:

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=239178

Originally Posted by killer2239

Beware!!! Im not happy. Not happy at all, well maybe a bit with midrange. The header loose power from approx 7500rpm to redline. And whats sad, is our cams are designed to peak power around 7600-7800rpm, so im now limited on peak power up top.

I did not have time to tune 3500rpm to 5000rpm, but i know i have some power to gain in those areas still. Just no money to go back. Lift is at 5100rpm. However the header does give great gains between 4000-7000rpm. Just after that it goes downhill.

Am i happy or mad? I have to say im mad, i did gain midrange, but i lost the power where it matters the most in a race. Will i try to get a new header in the future? Hell yeah, whenever i get more money i will.

WRLeo - This is no offense to you personally, but for a race header, this header sucks. And i personally dont recommend it to anyone on stock ecu, if they have standalone i would advise people that its a midrange header, not a top end power gainer. I would prefer a header with power gains from 5000 to redline, not start falling short after 7500rpm and causing more power loss than stock header.

I honestly feel i wasted my money with this. Even though i got the great price on it, but the results of midrange are not worth loosing the top end.

If you all redesign the 2zz version header, and want to give it a try for exchanging the headers out for new design, i will be willing to try a new version.

Any questions on something i missed please let me know. Below are dyno results. Sorry they are on MPH instead of RPM on the runs with hydra. They were using injector wire for tach, and hydra screwed with their sensor for reading it.

My 181whp at MWR is now a thing of the past.

Stock ECU vs Hydra tuned


Hydra tuned vs Hydra tuned before header


Stock ECU before header and after header


Stock ECU - Before and after header again, but in engine rpm since stock ecu

This is the best dyno graph and unhappy testimonial I know of. 7,500 rpms is around where it makes less power than stock/ported stock header. And similarly...the 7,000-8,000 rpm range is where the Forcedfed race header started to lose power as well in it's design. That 7,500 rpm cut in power made 900 rpms with less power for that Hydra tuned Corolla XRS owner, which means around 41% of the time you spent in LIFT is now making less power. Unless they sell these off dirt cheap, it's DEFINETALLY not worth it for me. I know you guys value torque more than gold, but you can't just diminish the viability of the 2nd cam like that. Only one guy could bearly tune some top end power back in his GTS when it was NA, but it still wasn't that great:

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247548

Is 900 rpm's of lower power in LIFT and track use that good of a sacrifice for more low-midrange hp/tq???

BTW...GTS's spend their time outside the 1/4 mile, and in the track/autox you know . We're pretty OK in autox too. I can't wait to track mine.

[25psi_Elise_Killer]

i'm gettin a headache just reading this...

[charliex]

Well see i asked what MPH its at, since then it'll help you determine what the end user is looking for, i know very little about AutoX, Randy took me out once, i don't know the RPM ranges used, but from my vague memory about it, it seems like its in the low rpm range for most of the time.

In other words match up the real world usage with the dyno sheets too, a lot of people make the mistake of tuning for WOT and ignore the lower ends then wonder why the car doesn't feel much faster or runs improperly.

[GTsRasta]

How about a properly engineered top end oriented race header with bolt ons on a stock ECU?

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263179

Originally Posted by Redliner9k

Well, last time we went to the dyno to check the gains with the PPE header we left pretty with the results. 8whp is pretty nice.... if it were the true gains of the header. The next day we continued to hear a slight leak that we had heard the night prior on the dyno, but ignored. Hold and behold, we went to check it out and this is what we found out....



The flex pipe shrunk for some reason to 1" in diameter from it;s original 2.5" diameter. That being fixed (removed it ) we went back to the see if it gained anymore and O'happy day it did. Here are the results...



12whp gain and 8 lbs torque :hitit: . Test were done in a 2005 Corolla XRS with Injen CAI, PPE header, 2.5" Crush bent exhaust and decat. Both runs on the stock ECU, no tuning whatsoever.

So who wants another GB? :fawk:

Until Bane finishes the Lotus version...lets see Lotus vehicles get midrange gains 5,200 rpms and up ALONG with 180 peak whp on the stock ECU.

Another motive to me doing all of these stupid posts is to make sure my friend's supercharger build will be the best of the best, and getting one of the first rides in it .

[MaineLotus]

How many times are you going to post the same thing? You posted the same quote and image last month on this forum.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by charliex

Well see i asked what MPH its at, since then it'll help you determine what the end user is looking for, i know very little about AutoX, Randy took me out once, i don't know the RPM ranges used, but from my vague memory about it, it seems like its in the low rpm range for most of the time.

In other words match up the real world usage with the dyno sheets too, a lot of people make the mistake of tuning for WOT and ignore the lower ends then wonder why the car doesn't feel much faster or runs improperly.

+1000

[GTsRasta]

Originally Posted by MaineLotus

How many times are you going to post the same thing? You posted the same quote and image last month on this forum.

To prove a new point. A 4-2-1 header design will give low-midrange gains with some top end loss while a 4-1 header design can give top end gains with some midrange gains that can be tuned for even more power.

One option will make you lose power in the powerband, the other will allow you to have gains all throughout the powerband, especially if you have a standalone ECU to tune it out with.

EDIT: There's something else to add about that PPE race header dyno graph...there's power gained BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER 5,200 rpm, and there's NO LOSS IN POWER ANYWHERE THROUGHOUT THE REV RANGE. I can't wait to see the Lotus version.

[xtn]

Originally Posted by Randy Chase

As I think you are inferring, it is not just the drive wheels that require downforce. Rear grip is rear grip. Fundamentals of oversteer and understeer apply to RWD and FWD and AWD cars.

If you mean I was implying that, then yes. I implied it, and you correctly inferred it from me.

xtn

[SweetDaddyD]

Originally Posted by charliex

A CAI may improve performance over the stock airbox if its correctly designed, tested properly, a clear set(set meaning a list of rules) of 'better' is given, which may or may not include a custom tune for said CAI by a competent tuner.

However in my experience a lot of them are just thrown together and rely on the marketing principles of that it worked on some other car 10 years ago so therefore it'll work on yours too and that there is a sucker born every minute.

Hows that?

Its just marketing drivel, if you see words like 'upto', 'unlimited', 'mega/awesome', 'not approved by the FDA', we've been in business for 10 years selling this stuff, results may vary, results aren't typical, or any such other claims it usually means the real world results haven't been proven, because if they had, they'd give you clear concrete answers, there is no law against giving you hope it might work.

If the things poorly designed, even the best tuner isn't going to be able to make it perfom as well as something properly designed, toyota/yahama didn't just stick a couple of janitors with crayons in a room and get them to design something, they design, test in simulation, build, rebuild, test in the real world, redesign and improve too, i recall boosted saying he was around for some of the airbox or such testing by toyota at the test track.

Toyotas design rules and set is different though to the aftermarket, they'll looking for noise/performance and longevity so they'll create the best they can for that, you can maybe improve on that if technology or ideas have advanced since it was last reengineered, or something was flawed, but beyond that you're just altering the mix percentage between what you call better, and what they do.

Large auto companies spend millions of dollars a day in RnD with simulation systems/supercomputers that cost as much as most aftermarket companies would ever see in profit over their lifetime, they're not screwing around.

Yes there are a lot of substandard designs in the auto industry that can be improved no end, but thats going to go away, and you'll see more marketing leverage based on how it used to be, not how it currently is. Its the substandard designs that everyone uses to base off the sales tactics. As well as changing the set requirements, not caring about the engine lasting 100,000 miles or being emissions compliant lets you do stuff they just can't do.


I used to do Flight Simulators with PC's many years ago, and we'd go along to the various military flight shows and sell out simulators next to the SGI guys, theirs cost millions, ours thousands, or marketing guys lied through their teeth about what they could and couldn't do, the SGI guys used to clench their teeth listening to it all, but at the end of the day ours was way cheaper and the people buying them rationalised the marketing, many years later i worked at SGI and met those guys again, they went off at me for about two hours about it, but it never matters, people just don't really care about technical arguments or prowess, they live on spin doctoring, cost, advertising and hope, SGI have pretty much gone under, their technology has been taken by NVIDIA, microsoft and google, and pretty much everyone has forgotten where it came from and all the credit goes to the latter, because they had a cooler logo, cheaper because someone else funded the RnD, came out at the right time or had a better marketing dept.

Thats why people are buying silly little fans from ebay they put in the air intake of the engines or investing in perputual motion machines.

I vote this the most relevant post of the entire thread to this point. Charlie is no doubt in the very upper percentage of people who really understand the system we have, and is able to manipulate it. Hat's off to him. I wouldn't question him. I'm sure we can all learn a thing or two from him.

As i've posted many times before, I actually used to work in an airflow lab. that did contract testing and design for the OEM's. They do spend MILLIONS on a single air intake- for some kid to come along and plop a pipe and cone on. It is comical at best. There is more than having a "bigger" path to the intake, and as many of the MIL lights on aftermarket intakes prove, one of those very important things is the clean signal from the MAF. Air here needs to be straight as it passes over it, or all the air in the world won't do you any good when the sensor is giving you a bunk signal. Some times velocity trumps volume. Things have changed since the 60's.

All that being said, I still have one of the popular pipe/cone combos. Fixed by putting some honeycell in front of the MAF to straighten airflow over it so I no longer have a MIL. I probably still am losing a couple HP from it. But it does sound fantastic and make maintenance much easier.

[GTsRasta]

Originally Posted by SweetDaddyD

As i've posted many times before, I actually used to work in an airflow lab. that did contract testing and design for the OEM's. They do spend MILLIONS on a single air intake- for some kid to come along and plop a pipe and cone on. It is comical at best. There is more than having a "bigger" path to the intake, and as many of the MIL lights on aftermarket intakes prove, one of those very important things is the clean signal from the MAF. Air here needs to be straight as it passes over it, or all the air in the world won't do you any good when the sensor is giving you a bunk signal. Some times velocity trumps volume. Things have changed since the 60's.

All that being said, I still have one of the popular pipe/cone combos. Fixed by putting some honeycell in front of the MAF to straighten airflow over it so I no longer have a MIL. I probably still am losing a couple HP from it. But it does sound fantastic and make maintenance much easier.

I've been coming to understand these concepts as well...which is why I posted up the Celica GTS "Blue Bomber" perfect CAI hybrid mod back in post #52 of this thread that combines the stock GTS intake 2.5" tube with MAFS housing and it's vanes with our aftermarket intakes by splicing them in half and putting them together...and which has also been proven to get rid of the P0171 code both the Lotus and Celica encounter with 2.7+" intakes...

[Randy Chase]

Originally Posted by xtn

If you mean I was implying that, then yes. I implied it, and you correctly inferred it from me.

xtn

If you meant to imply that my use of English left a bit to be desired, or at least I inferred that, then yes. My fallback is it is my second language.

[TimMullen]

I've gotten lost trying to follow most of the posts in this thread, but there is one thing I would like to point out.

About the dyno charts.

Some of the dyno tests show "increases" in power. But often those are "before and after" dyno runs. Install the mod, run it on the dyno, and show the improvements. Unfortunately, as has been discussed throughout this thread, the ECU "learns" and things change. If the dyno runs were done after the ECU had "learned" the results would probably be very different. But usually, that is not the case. Some of the dynos are misleading because of that. Might even be intentional from some of the vendors as it shows it's mod in a good light. If they did the dyno test after the learning process, it might just be showing the loss - and their product might not be selling. It could also be because they just don't understand that the results will change after a period of time.

[Beanie]

I like pie.

[zOOmz]

[cruise]I have canceled this thread in my area[/cruise]

[GTsRasta]

I like pie too.

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Some of the dyno tests show "increases" in power. But often those are "before and after" dyno runs. Install the mod, run it on the dyno, and show the improvements. Unfortunately, as has been discussed throughout this thread, the ECU "learns" and things change. If the dyno runs were done after the ECU had "learned" the results would probably be very different. But usually, that is not the case. Some of the dynos are misleading because of that. Might even be intentional from some of the vendors as it shows it's mod in a good light. If they did the dyno test after the learning process, it might just be showing the loss - and their product might not be selling. It could also be because they just don't understand that the results will change after a period of time.

This is why I busted my butt to compile independant dynos here by Lotus owners with the same concerns as me, and who didn't just do the before and after dynos in too close of a time-frame....

[Westrock]

I wouldn't really spend too much time on the intake. I mean your talking about a hose thats like 12" long....I don't think there is much left to get out of that. Its just not long enough to be huge source of restriction in my opinion. The exhaust may even be the same situation, where when you take away the header, the catalyst and the muffler your left with about 18" of tubing.

So I think the focus, hardware wise, should be more on the manifold (intake and exhaust) and most likely the head. All of which are still in the "experimental" stages, but hopefully we will see progress.

I myself question the abilities of the ECU just because if you make the engine breathe better, it has to be reflected in the MAF. So as long as the ECU has additional room in the fuel maps, it can take advantage of extra air. Now if the fuel map is not that optimal in the extended area (as in just a "safety net") then yes it would be easy to see how you could loose power. Not because the ECU has learned anything, but just because the operating perameters are rougher. If the ECU sees more airflow through the MAF, it has to add more fuel to maintain the safety of the engine.


***Ignore makes life much easier, you don't even notice them after a while***

[shay2nak]

what does the Ignore function do? Does it blank out the post of a person?

[Westrock]

Originally Posted by shay2nak

what does the Ignore function do? Does it blank out the post of a person?

This is what happens....though if someone quotes them, like I have you, it will show up in that persons post.

So for instance if someone had you set to ignore, they would see a blank post above mine for yours, but what you said would show up in my post since I quoted you.