Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Thanks Tom,

I knew that they were different cause I felt a change when I went from my 95 ECU (now blown up :) ) to a 93 ECU.

BUT NO ONE BELIEVED ME !!!

Thanks for posting up some hard evidence :)

BTW: Do you have the factory maps for the R33 GTS-t in BIN form, or what ever form they need to be to load them up in a Eprom?

I'll see if I can load the stock R33 maps into a Eprom and socket that R32 ECU I have.....

I should've asked you when I saw you last weekend.

Good work.

Jayson

Jay,

I have tried loading the stock R33 ROM data onto an EPROM and use it on R32 ECU. It doesn't work. The K constant is much larger and TP scale is different. R33 ECU must have a different algorithm to calculate the injector pulse time.

Tom

J,

I thought it, you posted it :( Oh yeah, I was with you on this from the start mate!

More evidence to add to the, '95's are better' line of thinking..... Bugalugs ran his stock ECU'd 95 GTS25t to a 13.4 @ near on 107mph at a private drag day last month. His car has a 3" exhaust off the turbo, pod filter, upped boost (12-13 or so psi) & FMIC. Nothing else! It also made 204rwkw at a dyno day last yr. 2 other GTS25t's on the same drag day (not 95's) had more mod's, including a Power FC & Microtech LT12. Bugalugs' car was equal to the LT12 car & faster then the PFC car! Both in ET & TS, & regardless of 60' times.

Makes sense, and in line with what a lot of people have suspected for a while. For it to be empiracally proven, you probably need to get multiple 94/93 ECU's and 95+ ECU's and load them in and see whether it holds the same.

Here in melb a lot of R33's on dyno days and the like can produce some quite high figures (around 170rwkw) and still are running the stock cooler and stock computer... and some of the 93/94 guys (mine is a 94), even with a fair few more mods, only get 180-190rwkw. The ECU difference can account for some 10-20rwkw it seems.

OMG - I bet he was happy !!!

Now the next step is to identify the 'good' ECU's by their firmware version (the MEC no.). Then instead of buying a PFC, it'll be heaps cheaper to buy a 95 model ECU.

Tom - damn shame about that. Hmmmm, I wonder what we can do about it, is it a case of try changing the values and see how it goes?

It's a shame.....

J

Originally posted by whatsisname

His car has a 3" exhaust off the turbo, pod filter, upped boost (12-13 or so psi) & FMIC. Nothing else! It also made 204rwkw at a dyno day last yr.  

I have a '95 GTS-T ('95 ECU) with the same mods making 203rwkw whilst leaning out at the top.

/me gold coats his ECU.

I think the '95 model GTS25t's just became the prefered choice when buying on a very limited performance budget.

I could've saved heaps if I'd have started with a '95! With the usual FMIC, exhaust, pod & extra boost the good ol' 94 ECU went filthy rich giving me a grand total of 126rwkw. The car felt like it too :) It took a Unichip & retune ($1200 later) to give me ~185rwkw. Bugalugs goes out & does the same basic mod's (without touching the ECU) kills my car on the dyno &, more importantly, on the drag strip!

Originally posted by RedLineGTR

think the price for 95 ecus just rose..

Yeah, I'm wish ash's question.

my 97 ecu runs quite lean, possibly different to the earlier maps as well. Would be interesting to see some later model cars if you hve one handy in canberra.

Thanks for doing those comparos tomr33.

Yeah, I would be interested to see series II maps too but don't have them.

I should be able to download maps from any Nissan ECU (except R34 GTR) and do the comparison, just need access to the car or ECU for about half an hour.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • To plug the hole. The engine plant may not have known whether the car it was going into had a gauge or not. It was a long time ago and the integrations might not have been fully modern. Or they might not have cared because the extra inventory and processes to save a few cents on the sender might have cost more anyway. But please tell me you are not still confusing the idea of a pressure gauge sender, and an oil pressure light switch. The switch will be out there. In a separate hole. Probably with only one wire running to it. Running the light.
    • Blower needs to go low on the exhaust side, displacing the AC and PS, which you have to decide whether you want to keep and how and where to relocate if you do. Electric option for PS is, at least, helpful. Sadly, there is no workable 12V electric AC of any value. Whilst the blower is the last compression step before the throttle, and so it might seem a good idea to have it near the inlet manifold (as mentioned above), you probably want it to go through an intercooler first, so, having it on the opposite side of the car facilitates that air flow path. The turbo discharges into the blower, so proximity of the turbo's compressor outlet to the blower's inlet is nice. But then you might want to intercool that too, before boosting it again....which would probably be a ball ache. Routing pipes out to the front and back could be a bit shit. If there was room for (at least) a small (but preferably larger) water to air core on that side, then that would probably be the best approach. I guess a reasonable alternative would be to locate the blower where the alternator is (more or less, associated with the inlet manifold, per Matt's thought), and somehow incorporate a water to air core into the manifold, sort of like they do for modern blown V8s. The big difference here though is that those V8s have only the one throttle (upstream the blower) and only the one compression step (the blower) and no need for too much in the way of bypass/blowoff valves. Whereas in a twin charged 6, you do need to think about one or two bypass valves associated with the 2 compressors and you would prefer to have the intercooling done before the air has to pass through the throttle. You'd like the throttle to work approx the same no matter what the compression is doing. But if it is located in hot air stream before a cooler, then sometimes the air will be real hot, sometimes it will be quite cool, and the throttle mapping/response will be quite different between those two cases. The throttle, if sized for hot air, would be too large for cold conditions. It's all a ball ache.
    • Package SC on exhaust side. Remote mount turbo. Still a fair bit of room when you get creative on the inlet side of the motor too. Especially if you can get really creative with the welding, and effectively build it into the bottom of the inlet manifold. Would definitely take some design work, and some trial and error, to make sure flow works well still! Might be easier to just start with the Nissan March though... All the work is already done for you...
    • I'll sit down and get a post together 馃榿
    • The factory oil pressure sender is no longer in the car that's what is confusing me. In the Taarks adapter I have an aftermarket Bosch style pressure/temp sender and the factory temp sender only. Oil pressure is perfect. Where does the factory oil temp sender go to if there were never any gauges? Why was it there from the factory?
  • Create New...