# Ecutek remap at The Racing Line Halifax



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

As some of you know I've been looking for a vibrant red GTR, eventually bought Lawsy's example and went to collect it on Saturday. I have owned a couple of Evos for about ten years and most of the tuning and remapping has been done by Matt at TRL and I have been very pleased with his results on the Evos so when he announced late last year he would be doing remaps on GTRs I was quite happy to continue using his skills. Most sane people would use the car for at least a few months to get used to it before going down the tuning route but instead I contacted Matt last week and arranged to go straight from collecting the car to Halifax for a remap.Matt stayed on at his workshop until we arrived mid afternoon with the GTR.
Most Ecutek GTR tuners just place a new generic map on the car and send you on your way but TRL have a Dyno Dynamics rolling road and produce a custom map for each individual car to optimise the performance, giving a rolling road print out of the initial and final runs.Matt informed me that the GTR seems to vary by about 40bhp on the rollers, lowest figure is about 480 and highest of a standard car is about 520. My particular car had a full RC Developments exhaust system and the Middlehurst developed Nismo remap already on the car but I had been informed the Nismo map was not much of an upgrade over standard. We ran it up and immediately noticed fuelling was still quite rich and little increase in boost, it produced 518bhp, about what would be expected from an "average" engine with a better flowing exhaust system. After several runs and modifications to the map we eventually ended up with spot on 600bhp, a very pleasing result for basically an exhaust system and a custom remap, he also did the gearbox software upgrade and the race rom adjustable boost levels. Great customer service, (it was 6.45 when I left the workshop), and an excellent power increase which represented very good value for money. If anybody is thinking of an Ecutek map it is well worth giving Matt a ring.
The two graphs show the initial run at 518 and the final remapped run at 600.


----------



## GTaaaaaarrrrrr! (May 4, 2006)

Nice work Barry. What sort of boost did you run on the second dyno plot?


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

good to see someone else tuning the cars on a dyno.


----------



## HSimon (Jun 4, 2008)

Well done mate,
Yes, Matt is well known in the Evo world, and has done some cracking work, especially on the X. Another knowledgeable chap, and good to see him taking on the GT-R. I dont suppose you can comment on the difference in performance, if you had so little time with it, as standard ?, regards, SIMON.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

GTaaaaaarrrrrr! said:


> Nice work Barry. What sort of boost did you run on the second dyno plot?


Just 1.15bar on the race rom (600bhp) set up and 1.05 on the road setting, which gave 589bhp on the rollers.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Good to see another reputable tuner tinkering with great mapping software.

Matt is certainly well respected.


----------



## B'have (Dec 28, 2011)

Great result! Are you running stock injectors? Do you have an afr plot for the 600hp run? I had a feeling mine were nearing max duty at 582 bhp.


----------



## Ja5on (Nov 18, 2009)

Great results Barry.

Recognise the name from mlr.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

what's mats number?

its ok i got it...I'm only 7 miles from him!!!!

how do you fight the temptation?


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

B'have said:


> Great result! Are you running stock injectors? Do you have an afr plot for the 600hp run? I had a feeling mine were nearing max duty at 582 bhp.


Graph showing an ATW figure with plots for boost and AFR. there is a slight dip in boost at midrange which shows up on the earlier graph of power and torque, we could have probably put in a little more boost in this area but it was already nearly 7pm on a Sat night and you can't feel it on the road.
Injectors are stock, I'm not sure what duty cycle we got up to, I'm sure Matt would be happy to tell you if you phone him. He did say that over 600, for example if I fitted downpipes, he would need to change injectors.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Booked in with Matt for Stage 1. :squintdan


----------



## Visconti (Aug 30, 2011)

great results!

Did you get RaceRom Valet Mode?


----------



## bcl (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm not overly impressed with this tune.
At 5000rpm you've gone from 440 to just 460hp 
Most of the improvement shows up above 5000 rpm
Boost curve should be much flatter between 4500 to 6000rpm.
Under 3300 rpm you've lost torque. Under 3000 rpm boost can be brought in a lot harder, and in fact 2500 to 3000 is where you can really improve torque and the responsiveness of the car.
I always request an ovelay before/after of boost, power and torque for comparison purposes.
A lot of people just focus on the peak number; that's great but you need to analyse the rest of the data.
Brian


----------



## Visconti (Aug 30, 2011)

Now looking at the 600hp graph - Just looks like the car wasn't loaded up correctly on the dyno. That being said I dont think there is any problem with the car or tune.

-John


----------



## bcl (Apr 28, 2011)

Here's my ecutek reference, and demonstrating overlay on 2011 GTR.
1st very conservative Ecutek tune, no other changes other than exhaust,with just 1 pound extra boost (peak boost 15lb compared with 14 stock), resulting power was up around 11% from 2500rpm all the way to 7000rpm. Main difference is felt from 2500 to 3500rpm, with torque up around 25%. That makes the car far more flexible and far better car to drive, and it pulls far stronger from 2000rpm.

Excellent jump in power and torque everywhere; boost is brought in earlier.
Compared with original baseline, torque is up 30% at 2500 and up 25% at 3000rpm, so it is far more responsive low down and more driveable.
Peak power is up from 346 to 384awkw; up 11.0%
Peak torque is up from 611 to 680NM; up 11.3%











Boost used for that tune : 
More boost under 3200rpm, otherwise peak boost up just 1 psi ; 14lb to 15lb ... bugger all.









If the tune is done properly the car will feel great from 2000 rpm. 
Brian


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

bcl said:


> I'm not overly impressed with this tune.
> At 5000rpm you've gone from 440 to just 460hp
> Most of the improvement shows up above 5000 rpm
> Boost curve should be much flatter between 4500 to 6000rpm.
> ...


"there is a slight dip in boost at midrange which shows up on the earlier graph of power and torque, we could have probably put in a little more boost in this area but it was already nearly 7pm on a Sat night and you can't feel it on the road."


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

John,

Presume your saying the car wasn't loaded initially before the dyno pull started?

looking at the dynapack dyno plots; car looks pretty good after the retune , would be good to see a AFR plots from the Dynapack dyno.


----------



## Visconti (Aug 30, 2011)

[email protected] M/S said:


> John,
> 
> Presume your saying the car wasn't loaded initially before the dyno pull started?
> 
> looking at the dynapack dyno plots; car looks pretty good after the retune , would be good to see a AFR plots from the Dynapack dyno.


That or maybe the 'load' setting on the dyno was incorrect.

We have a Dyno Dynamics at our shop - theyre a few different ways to do it incorrectly / cause a graph to look like that.


-John


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

I didn't like the look of the plot that barry posted, but didn't want to be critical of Matt's tuning especially since it was said not to happen on the road, but since bcl has commented, both tunes (also bcl's) have upper midrange sags on their graphs, one explained partly by the boost curve and the other not, but neither were seen on the stock curves. Either the tunes are not right (they look like something from the early days of tuning the R35) or the dyno(s) aren't representative of their smoothness in the real world?


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

I'm worried now. What should I do?


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Ask your tuner:

1. How long have you been tuning R35s using the software you're planning to tune mine with?
2. How experienced are you with R35 or do you map lots of ECUs for lots of different cars? (this can be good or bad depending on your view)
2. How many R35 have you done with the software you're going to use on mine?
3. How many of the spec you're planning on tuning mine to have failed, and if any, what has been learned to mitigate the same in future?
4. What independent results can you produce? (discard anything produced from their own dyno, only consider magazine reviews if the supplier is not an advertiser)
5. What is the arrangement for revisions/datalogging/faults that develop later?
6. What testing has your R35 had in climatic extremes based on your personal experience of tuning them and having your tuning proven through cold winters and very hot summers, ideally including very hot testing overseas?
7. What happens on the autobahn and what are your method for ensuring I don't misfire from maxxing out my injectors? (which will happen with many tunes on stock injectors and no one is given info about it or it isn't accounted for)
8. What is the arrangement for when I can only get 95 RON fuel?
9. Do you really understand GTR boost control and are you confident in getting me a reliable boost curve?
10. Do you really understand GTR knock control?

They'll be crying into their coffee after that interrogation, but no one would touch my GTR without those questions or that I knew them well enough that they really knew what they were doing.


----------



## bcl (Apr 28, 2011)

thistle said:


> ... but since bcl has commented, both tunes (also bcl's) have upper midrange sags on their graphs, one explained partly by the boost curve and the other not, but neither were seen on the stock curves.


I have seen plenty of stock GTR dyno graphs where torque takes a dive at 4000 rpm, reducing to 4500rpm, then increasing again, as per my baseline graph. 
Without wanting to start an argument my experience with 4 of my modified turbo cars is that the Dynpack dyno will pick up undulations in torque variances far better than dd dynos. 

My GTR is yet to go back to my tuner for a 2nd round of tuning (valet mode, launch control etc), but I'd like to see if that torque dip can be smoothed out with more time invested in the tune.

Thistle, do you know why this torque dip occurs? In the past I have seen similar issues where the wastegate control hasn't quite been right where upgraded actuator springs are used, or a possible cam timing issue. My boost is fairly constant, and the purpose of the first tune was to see just what gains cold be made with a minimal boost change. All my tune did was to amplify the toque dip that exists in the base GTR.
Brian


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Have a look at a totally stock 35GTR on a dynapack dyno

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/162279-stock-09-gtr-dynapack-dyno.html


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Three main vehicle (as opposed to dyno) reasons are knock, VE changes and wastegate curve. R35 wastegate curve needs care (with fairly steep but well timed gradients) between 3000-5000 RPM to avoid two common dips, and the results in my testing were poor on stock based boost control, so I rewrote it. However you do it, if you get it perfect on the road it doesn't often look right on dyno and vice versa. Some drivers notice these effects more than others. It was poor boost control on my Subaru Prodrive Performance Pack that got me into boost controller development and tuning in the first place. Really depends how fussy you are and how important linearity is to you, and how rewarding or not you find the technicality or feeling of throttle and boost control balancing steering lock unwinding on corner exit, which is a forte of AWD turbo vehicles.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Just back from TRL in Halifax. 

Got a stage 1 on MY11.

My stock car with just a Y-pipe and No map I had 580 bhp !!!! we were shocked?!?!

After a remap we got 614 bhp !

A have graphs for peeps who want to see but you will have to tell me how to add pic's.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

580 seems a little generous to me.

614 for a remap and y-pipe seems very generous.

Sorry to sound negative but it sounds a bit too good to be true, and you know what they say.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

I agree...I still don't believe its correct. But how to know for sure?

Was done on the same rolling road as Barry's car. So I dont really get it. 

I also got the valet mode and adjustable launch control.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Regardless of _accuracy_, if the paired results are _precise_ the gain in power to weight ratio is like ejecting an overweight bordering obese 6 foot passenger, or the difference resulting from the air density today compared to last week. When you do similar to the older car it is like ejecting a car full of passengers, albeit considering that you could only get a few obese children in the rear seats.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

I could have understood some hp difference but I cant see why there would be such a big difference.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Guys , what's the barometric compensation on the bottom left of the dyno plot please?


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

as Thistle quite rightly says, regardless of the abolsute power being accurate or not, only gaining 34bhp from a remap on a 500bhp turbo charged is in my opinion sadly lacking.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

That said when I got the numbers for my stock run I didn't expect a huge difference.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

Impossible said:


> Just back from TRL in Halifax.
> 
> Got a stage 1 on MY11.
> 
> ...


Scan and save the graphs in "my pictures" on your pc. Use the normal reply section on the thread, then scroll down to manage attachments, press " browse", find the graph in "my pictures" and click on it, then press "upload" and then submit reply.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Thanks Barry


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

The boost graph you have posted looks like standard boost, it is maxing out at about 0.8 bar, mine runs 1.15 in Race mode.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Citroen 2CV output > tuning gain
Claimed losses > VAG 2.0 TDI


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

thistle said:


> Citroen 2CV output > tuning gain
> Claimed losses > VAG 2.0 TDI


Sorry not with you, what does this mean?


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

The gain looks to be less than 28 WHP and the claimed losses are over 140 HP. Both figures are dismal in their own way, regardless of showing a paper figure of 614 BHP. Either your car is not properly tuned or the dyno figures are junk. I would ask for your money back minus the Ecutek license fee and go and pay it to Mr Litchfield, he knows what he is doing with the R35.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

ok im getting it, what are "claimed losses" sorry i'm a bit new to remapping.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Difference between at the wheels and at the flywheel, although they are not labelled. The wheel power is not high but the claimed flywheel figure is. Sometimes the flywheel estimate is calculated by dividing by about 0.77 or thereabouts. This is nearly always a con especially on a higher powered vehicle with low transmission losses like the GTR. Nissan would suggest 0.9 based on their claim of 10% drivetrain losses. However, a chassis dyno has losses of its own and also losses between the tyres and the rollers. A simple divider doesn't do the situation any justice, neither does just going by power at the wheels due to many other errors and biases.

The whole thing is an unconvincing magician's trick.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

John, I didn't know Nissan claimed only 10% drivetrain loss.

140hp drivetrain loss sounds absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

Adamantium said:


> John, I didn't know Nissan claimed only 10% drivetrain loss.
> 
> 140hp drivetrain loss sounds absolutely ridiculous.


Has yours been on the rollers since you had the Stage 4, I would be interested in having a look at the graphs.


----------



## Visconti (Aug 30, 2011)

thistle said:


> The gain looks to be less than 28 WHP and the claimed losses are over 140 HP. Both figures are dismal in their own way, regardless of showing a paper figure of 614 BHP. Either your car is not properly tuned or the dyno figures are junk. I would ask for your money back minus the Ecutek license fee and go and pay it to Mr Litchfield, he knows what he is doing with the R35.


Agree.

If you have any doubt what so ever - swing by Litchfield.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

if im ever in that neck of the woods ill go have a chat with them.


----------

