NewCelica.org Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Recovering Celica Driver
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here you go folks, a Unichip dyno. This is different from my previous dynos because it is on a Dynapack 3000 chassis dyno. I will be going back to ATP in about a month to get a Dynojet dyno, so I can see the differences. Enjoy!



BTW, Larry or any Mod, is it okay to post my dynos in the forums? Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
nice gains. what was the a/f like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Were they able to tune valve timing?

Maybe I don't know what I'm looking at, but why is the torque curve so crazy looking \/\/\ ? Did they shift gears or something? Oh yeah, and like Oli said, did you get any A/F info? 169.6 is still at least 10HP less than what people were able to get with the power FC :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,603 Posts
looks like pretty big gains, what were the conditions of the runs?
how many runs were made?

your torque curve doesn't seem charactaristic of a normal 2zz.
what were your mods at the time?



*****edit*****
I read your mod list.

somethings wrong with your torque curve below 4500. I've never seen a 2zz with it that low.

the top end looks pretty close to the normal torque curve. pre-lift needs some serious tuning, the torque dip shouldn't be that bad.

I'm curious how the unichip makes so much power if it can not affect the vvt system. I did notice your a/f ratios went from 13.0 on the baserun to 13.6 on the test run,

On our cars with the pfc, we didn't see much more than 1-2 hp from going from 12.5ish to 13.5 a/f ratios, n/a that is. with forced induction 11.0 to 11.8-12.0 was a huge jump in power.
 

·
Recovering Celica Driver
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Automaton said:
Were they able to tune valve timing?

Maybe I don't know what I'm looking at, but why is the torque curve so crazy looking \/\/\ ? Did they shift gears or something? Oh yeah, and like Oli said, did you get any A/F info? 169.6 is still at least 10HP less than what people were able to get with the power FC :(
Automation: The guy adjusted the timing, but I don't know if it was the valve timing or not. Sorry, I didn't ask which type of timing he was changing.

As for the dyno, it's not a Dynojet dyno, so the numbers are a bit off. And the reason why the curves look so wavy, it's not drawn the same way as the Dynojet layout. If you open the file up in Photoshop and reduce the height, you'll see the curves start to flatten out. :) I'll have a Dynojet dyno done next month, so you'll see a difference. :)

Oli: I will have a scan soon enough :)
 

·
Recovering Celica Driver
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Illusive said:
looks like pretty big gains, what were the conditions of the runs?
how many runs were made?

your torque curve doesn't seem charactaristic of a normal 2zz.
what were your mods at the time?

*****edit*****
I read your mod list.

somethings wrong with your torque curve below 4500. I've never seen a 2zz with it that low.

the top end looks pretty close to the normal torque curve. pre-lift needs some serious tuning, the torque dip shouldn't be that bad.

I'm curious how the unichip makes so much power if it can not affect the vvt system. I did notice your a/f ratios went from 13.0 on the baserun to 13.6 on the test run,

On our cars with the pfc, we didn't see much more than 1-2 hp from going from 12.5ish to 13.5 a/f ratios, n/a that is. with forced induction 11.0 to 11.8-12.0 was a huge jump in power.
Illusive: Thanks! :) The conditions of the runs were a small turbine fan up front, in a garage, during the late afternoon/early evening of a cool'ish day.

I actually squashed my previous Dynojet dyno and the torque curved looked similar. Chris at Bauer Porsche, in Oakland, actually worked the hardest in the area before lift. He smoothed out the torque curve and totally worked on the A/F ratio (which I will post sometime soon).

It was actually pretty cool, the way they tuned the chip. He went by about 400 rpm intervals tuning the A/F ratio and timing, till he felt he had the best mixture of both. He worked back from 6000 rpm down to @2500 rpm. He tuned the car with the dyno, then ran a "power run" for a read out. This was repeated for a total of 6 "power runs".

My girlfriend and I spent a total of @ 6 hours last Friday watching him tune my car. It was very interesting and we even helped hook up the chassis dyno to my car :) So we were there every step of the tuning.

I hope I answered your questions, and keep an eye out for the A/F ratio scan :)
 

·
Recovering Celica Driver
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Ask and ye shall receive, so here's the printout of my A/F ratio with the torque curves on the side.



:) Red for the first "power run" and yellow for the last. :) Hope this helps everyone out! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
Cheers for the info.


The A/F does look a little crazy but it is only a piggyback i surpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Sorry, but these dynos look all jacked up. Even the A/F. Why is it so crazy all over the place? Couldn't he just tune it for 13.0 and be done with it? Also, from what you say he did not tune vvt... which is where the Power FC users are making some extra power. He could have, but it is not a standard thing to do since not a lot of engines have it, and he would have had to figure out how to control it with the Unichip.

I have a 2003 GT-S with drive by wire, so Unichip was looking like a good option. I don't think this tuner tuned the car for optimal results in this case. The curves should be more smoothed out, and he should have tuned vvt. Did they at least use the custom wiring harnes so that you didn't have to cut up your stock ECU wiring?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,903 Posts
so you lost 5 lbs of peak torque?

I wont say anything ti lthe next dyno cause these ones look whacked out. they appear to be smoothed to thats what confuses me. unless they smoothed some lines and not others lol
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
Automaton said:
Sorry, but these dynos look all jacked up. Even the A/F. Why is it so crazy all over the place? Couldn't he just tune it for 13.0 and be done with it? Also, from what you say he did not tune vvt... which is where the Power FC users are making some extra power. He could have, but it is not a standard thing to do since not a lot of engines have it, and he would have had to figure out how to control it with the Unichip.

I have a 2003 GT-S with drive by wire, so Unichip was looking like a good option. I don't think this tuner tuned the car for optimal results in this case. The curves should be more smoothed out, and he should have tuned vvt. Did they at least use the custom wiring harnes so that you didn't have to cut up your stock ECU wiring?
the A/Fs look pretty normal for a "lazy" tune - basically if you set your fuel maps with equal values all the way down the row you wind up with a/fs that look like that. Piggybacks that have no hysteresis between load cells can also have the same effect - teh transition between cells will have a drastic effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Automaton said:
Were they able to tune valve timing?

Maybe I don't know what I'm looking at, but why is the torque curve so crazy looking \/\/\ ? Did they shift gears or something? Oh yeah, and like Oli said, did you get any A/F info? 169.6 is still at least 10HP less than what people were able to get with the power FC :(

when reading graphs, you should look at the scale of the y-axis. notice how close the increments are(2.5 ft/lbs). when you look at other graphs like this one:

http://newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=144824

you can see the torque is measured in increments of 50ft/lbs.

maybe that's why the torque curve looks so crazy like \/\/\
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
Automaton said:
Sorry, but these dynos look all jacked up. Even the A/F. Why is it so crazy all over the place? Couldn't he just tune it for 13.0 and be done with it? Also, from what you say he did not tune vvt... which is where the Power FC users are making some extra power. He could have, but it is not a standard thing to do since not a lot of engines have it, and he would have had to figure out how to control it with the Unichip.

I have a 2003 GT-S with drive by wire, so Unichip was looking like a good option. I don't think this tuner tuned the car for optimal results in this case. The curves should be more smoothed out, and he should have tuned vvt. Did they at least use the custom wiring harnes so that you didn't have to cut up your stock ECU wiring?
Unichip doesn't make a setup that works for the 2003 GTS. At least they didn't as of end of July. I ordered one from him and the wiring harnsess plugs are completely different for the 03 versus the earlier models. Toyota went from four plugs to five plugs. Also the First part of the A/F looks like mine. Toyota has a two second delay when you hit open loop before the A/F goes away from 14. You can't tune this out with the Unichip. At least that is what the guys at Modern Garage in Salt lake told me this past July. Toyota does this for fuel economy.

Dave
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top