Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

No proper ECU?

Without a ECU really you aren't realistically going to make any more than 160-170rwkw. So there is a reason you can't believe it - it's because it's not true.

The car should run 110mph with over 200rwkw, I bet it doesn't run better than 104 ;)

How do you get better mileage with 10% ethanol? You need to use more fuel of it to get the benefits from it.

Simlar to E85, but on a lesser scale of course

been using the united 95 e blend in the missus stock as a rock honda for a while now and the economy is just as good as it was with bp98

go figure.. ;)

I have a dyno sheet stating that the car made over 200 rwkw, so what you think the ecu is not standard?

I could make my car pull 600rwkw on a dyno if i wanted, doesn't means it's worth the paper it's printed on. :)

Do you even know if you have an after market ECU? If it's chipped etc?

If you have factory one, it is exactly what we all told you before - it is not possible to "tune" a dead stock ECU.

In that instance I doubt very highly you are making over 200rwkw (legitimately). 200rwkw is pretty much "the limit" for a stock turbo with a proper tuneable ECU and so on.

A tune would cost upwards of $400 for entry level, so if you didn't at the least hand over $500 I reckon you are being led up the garden path.

A properly tuned ECU will give you a much better midrange, drive abilty and improved economy over a stock ECU

It's either you can't read or your having trouble understanding, I know you can't tune a standard ecu. All I said was that the car made over 200 rwkw. I might have said it in a previous post but that was my mistake. Just wish people read the comments before replying

It's either you can't read or your having trouble understanding, I know you can't tune a standard ecu. All I said was that the car made over 200 rwkw. I might have said it in a previous post but that was my mistake. Just wish people read the comments before replying

You asked if it was OK to use a standard ecu? Why would you ask this if you didn't have a standard ecu? Instead of wishing for people to read comments (which they did anyway) start wishing for some common sense. Give santa enough time to locate some and deliver it to you for Christmas.

You have people here trying to help you out based on info you provided and your being a smartass.

at the end of the day, what everyone is saying is that the stock turbo simply cant flow enough for more than 200rwkw

generally speaking they max out at 190-195 rwkw and that is running 14psi with a full ecu (more boost than is really a good idea with a stock turbo)

a stock ecu will hit rich and retard mode when you go over around 10 psi and will pull timing out. this tends to limit the car to say 180rwkw TOPS

these facts have been backed up 11ty billion times on these forums.

what people are saying is that if the car makes over 200rwkw on a stock ecu with a stock turbo, then the "tuner" is fudging the results - which is simple to do.

end of the day, does the car run fast? do you enjoy driving it? are you happy? if yes, then just enjoy it

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

    • Cool to see you're on the forum man, think you've met my twin brother a few times (Brent).
    • Yeah...but NA Mercedes V12.
    • Yeah everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
×
×
  • Create New...