KebabKebab
Junior Member
- Messages
- 63
So what are the numbers on the dyno? What was the increase? I know its variable but would at least provide an indication...
We don't map original ECU's, here with builds in the shop we use stand alone ecu's and then my engine machinist/builder sets them up ether on the engine stand dyno or the rolling road.Hi Motorsport,
Who is doing your mapping for you? Ate you intending to include a remap as part of a package to get the best out of the new headers?
Thanks
Chris
We don't map original ECU's, here with builds in the shop we use stand alone ecu's and then my engine machinist/builder sets them up ether on the engine stand dyno or the rolling road.
There are quite a lot of "remap" shops here in Europe that offer to remap/flash the stock ecu. (UK and US will be rather the same)
On this particular car the customer had a shop he wanted to do the retune so they handled that portion..
In future we may look more in to re-tuning stock ecu's but R&D time to isn't endless and interms of ECU projects we're finishing up ECU conversions for Maserati. (whole other story, not really applicable to GranTurismo)
Anyway we have stock dyno runs and after full headers, no catalyst, bmc air filter other wise stock.
The before and after run's where done at the "tuner" the customer selected.
We do independent benchmarks so we can better see dyno differences (each dyno will vary from a other)
That said just prior to header install the alternator failed during stock pulls at our engine shop (in typical GT/QP style)
So that left us with out 3th party base runs, anyway the runs from the tuner where within expectations. (I'll try do current "after runs" at our engine machinist shop)
I'll post up results later on, I want do to the fourth dyno session at my engine builders, (trying to get in dyno time coming week/s)
FYI mapped no catalyst.
For using stock ECU mapping you'll need the catalyst variant which we're finalizing design on, shouldn't be a huge difference i think as that's based of existing Ferraro 599 product. (stock ecu's very aggressively search for proper cat function hence decat needs to mapped)
Yes it's a lot quicker and importantly a lot smoother, Uphill acceleration in 6th at 2000 rpm is now smooth and strong, aka you don't need to downshift in to 5.Can someone translate to a simpleton? Loud pedal go quicker? Be interested to see 0-60
in all seriousness, those figures look good. I’m interested!
The graph above is a combined graph of power and torque. The power lines are the diagonal lines and the torque lines are the steep then flat lines.Can someone translate to a simpleton? Loud pedal go quicker? Be interested to see 0-60
in all seriousness, those figures look good. I’m interested!
Don't forget these figures are without cats. When that manifold is done then it gets interesting.What would be interesting/wishful thinking is the SI remap with these headers giving us "epic gainz"...as the kids say these days
Great info but It’s 5252rpm that they cross over but only if the BHP and Torque numbers are equal on the Y axis.The graph above is a combined graph of power and torque. The power lines are the diagonal lines and the torque lines are the steep then flat lines.
Power is calculated from the torque and power and torque should always cross at 6500rpm (it's to do with the maths in the calculation)
That will be fairly the same, it will sound different for sure, as we'll use race cats per-bank but placed near the x-pipe.Don't forget these figures are without cats. When that manifold is done then it gets interesting.
Yes, I couldn't remember despite years of poring over these types of graphs in Performance Bikes in the 90's comparing GSXRs, ZXRs, CBRs and YZFs...Great info but It’s 5252rpm that they cross over but only if the BHP and Torque numbers are equal on the Y axis.