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.
Does anyone know what areas of the vehicle the techs will have to gain access to in order to replace the fuel pulsation dampers and/or fuel lines with this recall? I always like to do a before and after inspection to make sure everything looks right after the work is performed (just in case a future problem develops which could have been attributed to the maintenance procedures of this recall).
It'll be on one or both fuel rails. On my old Honda Civic, it was meshed in-between the feed line from the fuel filter and the fuel rail itself.
I took my IS350 in to the Lexus service center last Friday for the fuel rail recall and I was able to get the car back on the same day. I'm glad that it was a quick turnaround as the loaner ES350 felt completely disconnected to me.
In addition, my IS had been on the sticky dash/door panel replacement list for over a year and I was finally able to get two new front door panels installed during this visit (new dash was installed a few weeks ago). I'm still waiting for the rear door panels to come in but at least the front portion is finally presentable again to the driver and front passenger.
Returning back to my datalog comparison between the 2IS JoeZ intake pipe and the 3IS F-Sport intake pipe, I did a WOT pull in 3rd gear earlier this morning and to my surprise, the 3IS F-Sport pipe was finally able to match the peak MAF g/s reading of 246 g/s that the 2IS JoeZ intake pipe had made several weeks back with only an IAT difference of 4 degrees. Though I still haven't done a back-to-back test between the two pipes, I am becoming more convinced that both intake pipes will achieve similar air flow with only a negligible difference in readings.
Congrats on the doors, I had my dash done and am no regretting not pushing for my doors to be done as well. I am still waiting on OVT to get me a new key to reflash my ecu, after that I will be doing some intake comparisons with a different style of intake. If you are interested in data logging I have good news for you, I took the $30 gamble and ordered the usb adapter from obdlink and it works just fine with torque and even better is that I get 15-16 unique logs per second vs just a few with the bluetooth adapter.
I'm guessing that this is the cable you picked up?
If it significantly improves the refresh rate of the specific items that I try to log when WOT (MAF g/s, Ignition Timing, RPMs), it would be worth the $$. Speaking of datalogs, I have to figure out why my RPMs are no longer showing on the files as you can see on my previous post.
Hopefully you'll get your updated tune file soon. After the recall last week, I tried going to one of the very few gas stations near me that offers E85 so I could make an E30 blend but the traffic to get to the gas pump was horrendously long. I'll have to try again some other time as I want to experiment and see if my ignition timing advance can improve to 32 degrees with a higher octane level (it currently peaks at 30 degrees using 93 octane).
I'm guessing that this is the cable you picked up?
If it significantly improves the refresh rate of the specific items that I try to log when WOT (MAF g/s, Ignition Timing, RPMs), it would be worth the $$. Speaking of datalogs, I have to figure out why my RPMs are no longer showing on the files as you can see on my previous post.
Hopefully you'll get your updated tune file soon. After the recall last week, I tried going to one of the very few gas stations near me that offers E85 so I could make an E30 blend but the traffic to get to the gas pump was horrendously long. I'll have to try again some other time as I want to experiment and see if my ignition timing advance can improve to 32 degrees with a higher octane level (it currently peaks at 30 degrees using 93 octane).
I'd like to know this too as tq can only shove so many bits through the pipeline. I thought about buying WiFi adapter as the car (2013) is also using phone, address book, music etc so you have to disable cars bluetooth to stand a prayer of collecting useful data at higher refresh rates which are still full of huge holes!!
So what's a good OBDII Bluetooth adapter that supports CAN OBDII? My old scanner Actron doesn't support CAN after 2009. I can still read some live data though on it.
Though it's been about a week since I last posted an update, I haven't been resting on my laurels during this time. I've been in the lab collecting more datalogs to determine whether or not my recently acquired 3IS F-Sport intake tube is an equal performer to the 2IS JoeZ pipe. Over the weekend, I did a few more WOT pulls with the 3IS pipe before switching back to the 2IS JoeZ pipe for further analysis. I then went back to the 3IS intake pipe for some final log comparisons.
1) 3IS F-Sport Intake Pipe: Last Saturday, the 3IS pipe logged a range of. 241.6-244.9 with IATs in the high 80s/low 90s which was anticipated based on the slightly warmer temps compared to previous samples:
2) 2IS JoeZ Intake- After making the switch back to the 2IS JoeZ intake pipe, I prepared the IS350 for a week of new WOT testing, Using approximately the same time in the morning and having a similar temperature range each day, these are the results from the JoeZ intake pipe:
a) 10 Sept- A very cool IAT of 82 degrees gave the JoeZ a MAF g/s of 245.1-246.5. Great numbers but it still doesn't exceed the peak MAF g/s that both the JoeZ and 3IS F-Sport intake recorded on previous datalogs with this temp range (246 g/s at 82 deg).
b) 11 Sept- Mid 80s degrees IAT provided a MAF g/s range of 243.3-245.6.
c) 12 Sept- Mid 80s IAT, a single pull going through both 2nd Gear and 3rd Gear yielded a MAF g/s of 244.5-244.96. Very consistent.
3) 3IS F-Sport Intake Pipe- Finally, I reverted back to the 3IS F-Sport intake pipe and did several WOT pulls this morning with IATs at the slightly higher than mid 80s. As you can see below, the readings were wildly variable from a range of 238.5-244.9.
Conclusion
My impressions and initial conclusions from running multiple tests between the JoeZ intake pipe vs the 3IS F-Sport intake pipe over the past few weeks is that while both pipes do appear to have a similar peak MAF g/s of 246.5 g/s, the JoeZ intake pipe is the more consistent performer in my analysis.
With the 3IS F-Sport intake pipe, it looks like it will typically obtain MAF g/s averages in the 242-245 g/s range.
The JoeZ intake pipe appears to consistently obtain averages in the 244-245 g/s range.
At the moment, I'm still leaning towards keeping the 3IS F-Sport Intake pipe for my daily driver setup as it includes the Sound Creator/Generator which adds to the engine revving enjoyment. When it comes to future AutoX or HPDE days, I may switch to the JoeZ pipe if it truly does provide a more consistent peak air flow compared to the 3IS F-Sport intake pipe. I'll still be collecting more datalogs anyways so we'll see if my initial conclusion holds up when the Fall and Winter temps arrive.
Having a difference within 1% isn't bad, it easily could have been the other way around factoring in temperature and barometric pressure. The 3is intake looks like the winner. It keeps the oem look instead the hood and sounds better. Now it's time to insulate the rest. Seriously I believe the first piece to our intake takes in quite a bit of heat from the radiator.
In addition to the above breakdown and analysis of recorded MAF g/s between the 3IS F-Sport Intake pipe and the 2IS JoeZ Intake pipe, I've also been carefully analyzing heat soak and any observable differences I can note between the two pipes using Torque Pro.
Though the 3IS F-Sport pipe is made of plastic and the JoeZ pipe is aluminum, both pipes provided the exact same Intake Air Temperature (IAT) readings whenever I documented the temperatures in a controlled repeatable scenario with the IS350.
- During peak temperatures outside in the afternoon (low 90s), I would drive the IS350 out for lunch and let it sit in the parking lot for 20-30 minutes. Upon my return and starting up the car, the IAT reading would be in the 138F-143F degree range. This applied to both pipes on several occasions.
- When driving in light traffic at an average speed of 45 mph, the IAT would decrease at the same rate for both pipes. After a few minutes of driving, the average IAT range was reduced to 110F-120F degrees for both pipes.
According to some articles found online, the temperature of the intake pipe (based on its material) has little-to-no-impact to the air passing through it when the engine is under load. If that is correct, it's also safe to say that these two pipes show no discernible difference to the IATs recorded.
Having a difference within 1% isn't bad, it easily could have been the other way around factoring in temperature and barometric pressure. The 3is intake looks like the winner. It keeps the oem look instead the hood and sounds better. Now it's time to insulate the rest. Seriously I believe the first piece to our intake takes in quite a bit of heat from the radiator.
We both think alike as you posted about heat soak while I was in the middle of typing up my observable analysis of the two pipes and heat soak.
Yes, the intake system can benefit greatly from insulation as my recorded IAT of 120-140+ degrees will severely hinder WOT performance.
Uh oh...Looks like I need some help with an unexpected check engine light. Using both Torque Pro and OBD Fusion apps, they both pulled a P0138 code. I'm guessing there's an issue with one of the 02 sensors on the headers?
- As I recently had the fuel rail recall, could there be a probability that this was an unexpected consequence from an improper install?
- Is one of the 02 sensors shorting out or could this indicate a potential exhaust leak?
One of the primary 02 sensors was changed when I did the PPE header mod (as the old 02 sensor was seized onto the old headers) though I forget which side was replaced.
What's even weirder is that a week prior, I received a VSC check warning with the traction light off icon but there was no check engine light and no codes that could be extracted by either apps.
I cleared the codes so we'll see if it happens again.
As my rear Michelin PSS tires are inching closer to needing to be replaced, I've begun my research on suitable replacements that won't break the wallet (as Michelin Pilot Sport tires tend to do).
With regards to performance tires (particularly in the UHP category), I've been reading a lot about a new bargain high-performance tire called the G-Max RS that had recently released by General Tires (part of Continental) that may give other UHP low-cost tires (like the current champ Firestone Firehawk Indy 500s) a run for their money.
From what I've been reading, these tires offer similar dry-grip performance as the Firehawk Indy 500s and significantly more wet-grip which would be useful for locations that tend to rain a lot (e.g. Florida). These tires are also 2-3 pounds lighter per tire than the equivalent Indy 500/Michelin PSS tire size as well as offering a higher speed rating (Indy 500) and tread life. Might be something for you guys to consider in the future like I am.
Here are some online reviews of the G-Max RS tires:
Here is the Tire Rack UHP tire test video and full report featuring a good test comparison between the Indy 500s and the G-Max RS: https://youtu.be/Wb5rY3zsIFg
I'm a little slow responding here, but you may also consider the Continental ExtremeContact Sport. I replaced my PSS with these last spring, I haven't missed the PSS. They probably are a step below the Firehawk in absolute grip, but they have a tread wear warranty of 30k miles. I just had mine re-balanced last week so they checked tread depth, the rears are about half worn after two seasons, so they are holding up quite well in my opinion. Maybe at the end of next year I will find out how well the warranty works.
08-27-18, 02:24 PM
I'm still waiting for the rear door panels to come in but at least the front portion is finally presentable again to the driver and front passenger. 
