When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hey man, this is how things work when we start acquiring data, in the end it's numbers and who knows, maybe something else is wrong. I would like to see stock ECU vs. Novel on the same day but as you have explained, the convenience isn't there ,today. Still, kudos to you for at least pulling things together and providing some data. In the end, now that you have been potentially burnt by the elusive tune-ability of the ISF, you probably see why a lot of the guys here where so pessimistic and wanted data so bad, I think we all wanted to believe in at least some part of this, even if it didn't yield 50+whp. This thread makes me feel the same way I did when I watched the end of the matrix.
No it's all good this was about discovery good or bad.
Believe it or not I'm still in the good camp.
I know what the dyno said but it just doesn't make sense on how the car 1v1.
I've done that bit before against a less built stang same year.
Last time I did this it was even .
This time I did better against a better car and did it with LESS DYNO hp and Tq? (On a cooler day no less)
That doesn't make sense, but I can reason why either .
No it's all good this was about discovery good or bad.
Believe it or not I'm still in the good camp.
I know what the dyno said but it just doesn't make sense on how the car 1v1.
I've done that bit before against a less built stang same year.
Last time I did this it was even .
This time I did better against a better car and did it with LESS DYNO hp and Tq? (On a cooler day no less)
That doesn't make sense, but I can reason why either .
But facts is facts.
I feel ya! sounds like going to the strip at some point and doing some runs, If you get some consistently lower 1/4mile times compared to ISF's with similar mods, maybe something is working. If you go out there and bust a altitude adjusted really low 12 / high 11 with just a I/E and ECU, maybe there is something there that this dyno run isn't showing.
when you have time I think it would be beneficial to see both ecu's on the dyno the same day. Also with the car in 6th as that may have something to do with your numbers.
another test would be to do some runs with other similarly modded IS-F's. That would certainly give us real world data vs a machine generating numbers.
dont give up just because this test didnt show anything positive
Hey man, this is how things work when we start acquiring data, in the end it's numbers and who knows, maybe something else is wrong. I would like to see stock ECU vs. Novel on the same day but as you have explained, the convenience isn't there ,today. Still, kudos to you for at least pulling things together and providing some data. In the end, now that you have been potentially burnt by the elusive tune-ability of the ISF, you probably see why a lot of the guys here where so pessimistic and wanted data so bad, I think we all wanted to believe in at least some part of this, even if it didn't yield 50+whp. This thread makes me feel the same way I did when I watched the end of the matrix.
Sadly this is consistent with what others have experienced. Remapping the throttle makes a big subjective difference, but no performance difference. No one seems to know exactly what it is with the US configuration, but it doesn't deliver the performance gains it should.
The way the torque curve drops like a rock, I am not enthused at all about an additional 400 rpm. I believe you would need either different cams (maybe RC F?) or some port work to take advantage of the additional revs, but the key to success at higher rpm is making at least the same torque to redline. I don't see that happening in the graph we have here.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the ability to remap the throttle, and eliminating the speed limiter is always good, but the real proof in the pudding is to have more power show up.
So I go out and do a little impromptu real world test and come up with this
WTFO?
(Sorry crappy et, sh1tty launch )
Yes I know , dash command.
Sorry it's the only tool I have to convey to how disjointed this all feels.
3950 lbs car with that trap says cars making 491 crank. Which would be 399 Whp,
3950x (114/228.4)^3
That's in line with predicted and jives with seat of the pants. I know what 40hp feels like VERY well.
Had two Hondas , similar gearing . Older one had 210hp. Newer had 255hp. I drove them both back to back for 3 years I know that feeling.
That difference is what this car feels like it has vs before.
That's all I can say with an indicator data point till I can get a real 1/4 mile done.
Btw gotta give props to the d'man himself . YOUR exhaust is why I bought my (new to Me) F in the first place.
It was installed on the car already before my purchase .
"Meanest, Sweetest, exhaust I have heard on a V-8 production car". Everyone, gear heads to soccer moms loves the sound the car makes. I've only ever seem one other F in San Antonio.(seen far more ferraris and lambos than Fs.)
Thank you! Your products are a special "gift" to this community.
I hope this Novel ECU provides as much enjoyment as your exhaust does. (Tall order for sure!)
But... Judging by my own "smiles per gallon" it's Gonna be COMPETITIVE!
Why not just go to the 1/4 miłe and post your times with trap speeds. This is the easiest way to tell if you make any progress in power. Then again you will need slick to put it down since you break loose the 275s. Do you have an indication what you run in the 1/4 with just your other mods before the Ecu tune?
Why not just go to the 1/4 miłe and post your times with trap speeds. This is the easiest way to tell if you make any progress in power. Then again you will need slick to put it down since you break loose the 275s. Do you have an indication what you run in the 1/4 with just your other mods before the Ecu tune?
Same "style " if you catch my legally evasive wording 106-108
Ets 13.2-13.6
I've noticed this for sure, ALL MY times have gotten WORSE(traction problems, freak I'll be low speed in 2nd 30ish mph , and then when I hammer it I get nice black lines and a very "talkative" trac/esc)
Traps 7-8mph faster. Go freaking figure.
Same "style " if you catch my legally evasive wording 106-108
Ets 13.2-13.6
I've noticed this for sure, ALL MY times have gotten WORSE(traction problems, freak I'll be low speed in 2nd 30ish mph , and then when I hammer it I get nice black lines and a very "talkative" trac/esc)
Traps 7-8mph faster. Go freaking figure.
I also wouldn't worry about the dyno numbers, there was a thread where a borla exhaust apparently made 20whp more then a joe z.
Pretty much you described that when you ran 275 tires you had traction before the ecu. Then after wards all traction was lost. I had the same issue just by doing exhaust which is about 20whp . I had traction with 275 Michelin pss that were around 70-75% . After exhaust all traction was lost . Went to the dragstrip went from 12.78 to 12.55s and picked up 2mph.
I think I'll take you up on your offer , let me borrow that ecu so I can test it and end the scepticism
Or ppl will start asking you to go and buy a set of slicks and hit the drag strip
To gain significant HP and TQ on an NA motor, you must either:
1) Improve breathing by way of cams(i.e. lift and duration), intake manifold revisions, head work, and/or exhaust. On most late model cars, intakes won't gain you squat.
2) Increasing displacment
3) All of the above.
Adjusting timing and revising air/ratios can add some power, but it's generally minimal. Turbo cars make huge gains with simple tunes because you can crank the boost, adjust wastegate duration, lean hard on the timing, etc. Unfortunately with NA motors, gaining even 10% in power will cost you well into the thousands with most cars.
Extending the redline clearly isn't benefiting things on the power side because it's clear the motor reaches max volumetric efficency at 6300rpms. Based on the provided dyno graph and othere I've seen, 6600-6800rpms seems to be the ideal shift point, depending on gear.
And before some you go seeking out trying to port heads, intake manifolds, custom grinding some cams, etc., keep in mind that improving a motor's topend breathing often comes at the expense of low and midrange power. With that in mind,, the car could potentially be slower in the 1/4 mile though it's making more peak power. Power under the curve is the key to acceleration.
To gain significant HP and TQ on an NA motor, you must either:
1) Improve breathing by way of cams(i.e. lift and duration), intake manifold revisions, head work, and/or exhaust. On most late model cars, intakes won't gain you squat.
2) Increasing displacment
3) All of the above.
Adjusting timing and revising air/ratios can add some power, but it's generally minimal. Turbo cars make huge gains with simple tunes because you can crank the boost, adjust wastegate duration, lean hard on the timing, etc. Unfortunately with NA motors, gaining even 10% in power will cost you well into the thousands with most cars.
Extending the redline clearly isn't benefiting things on the power side because it's clear the motor reaches max volumetric efficency at 6300rpms. Based on the provided dyno graph and othere I've seen, 6600-6800rpms seems to be the ideal shift point, depending on gear.
And before some you go seeking out trying to port heads, intake manifolds, custom grinding some cams, etc., keep in mind that improving a motor's topend breathing often comes at the expense of low and midrange power. With that in mind,, the car could potentially be slower in the 1/4 mile though it's making more peak power. Power under the curve is the key to acceleration.
Toyota is notoriously conservative in building their A/F maps. I can easily see 6 - 8% gains just by tightening the fuel maps and taking away some of the safety net. I clearly recall my old '85 FJ1100 trapping at 126 mph with the right main jets and 122 to 124 with one size too big or one size too small. It's not huge until someone is beside you and you pull a couple of car lengths on them.
Has this tune been already out for years and you just decided to inquire to purchase it? I know the IS-F community has been begging for a tune for as long as I remember so I'm curious if it's really been out for a while and you just decided to "take one for the team". If that's the case and it works, mucho props to you my friend.
I am all in for a group buy, hell if there isn't a group buy I'd still be willing to pay full price if it gave at least 20whp.
Next question, I wonder if it has the downstream O2 sensors disabled? If they did we wouldn't have to mess with O2 simulators once we install cat-less headers which would be great.
Final question, will this work with all year USDM IS-F's? 2008-2014?
I'm guessing I should shoot Novel an email with these questions unless somebody here knows the answer?
10-05-15, 03:20 PM
.
