# 2 years in; Milltek out, Nismo in!



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

Had my GTR for just about 2 years now and have decided to make some changes.

Currently running just Miltek y-pipe, which I've liked very much, but have begun to find it a bit loud, and the drone a bit intrusive. Plus it limits track day options.

So the y-pipe is coming off tomorrow at Middlehurst, and I'll be doing some silent running for a while.:nervous:

In it's place, I'm adding 2 modifications though:clap:;

Firstly, the Nismo ' Sports Resetting ECU' developed by Nismo and Middlehurst

And secondly, Nismo's, rear differential cooler

Happy days and I'll report back later in the week

E


----------



## charles charlie (May 3, 2008)

Come on Ed, how much...?

Big wonga for a 1 year left on your warranty!


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Zed Ed said:


> Had my GTR for just about 2 years now and have decided to make some changes.
> 
> Currently running just Miltek y-pipe, which I've liked very much, but have begun to find it a bit loud, and the drone a bit intrusive. Plus it limits track day options.
> 
> ...


Please tell us you're going to do a before and after dyno test! How long have we been waiting for someone to get some real figures on the Nismo ECU?!


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> Please tell us you're going to do a before and after dyno test! How long have we been waiting for someone to get some real figures on the Nismo ECU?!


+100000000000 A must


----------



## _shaun_ (Jan 16, 2007)

Just the Y pipe cause track day issues? Didn't realise it was that loud!

How come the rear diff cooler as well.....not heard of anyone fitting this before....as you mainly hear about oil and transmission coolers...


----------



## paul__k (Dec 8, 2007)

Ed, You only need the Diff cooler if you drive fast...


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

paul__k said:


> Ed, You only need the Diff cooler if you drive fast...


Even CC resisted that one 

@CC. ECU a grand plus VAT, diff cooler circa
£2k plus VAT, both fitted. Not driven just by warranty here, as the Nismo stuff is top notch engineered too. Not hugely adrift of aftermarket cost wise either.

@Shaun. Got Goodwood and Bedford coming up; can't see ypipe passing muster, lol. Plus my Dad would moan about the din, on the way to Le Mans! I think Mizuno is of the view that it is the diff that heats the transmission, so you cool the diff?

@VXR & DY. Sorry to fall short  Not had the time and don't want to delay the mods, given only 6 monthly visits to MH. I know the car well and I'll know whether the results are significant.


----------



## _shaun_ (Jan 16, 2007)

Zed Ed said:


> Even CC resisted that one
> 
> @CC. ECU a grand plus VAT, diff cooler circa
> £2k plus VAT, both fitted. Not driven just by warranty here, as the Nismo stuff is top notch engineered too. Not hugely adrift of aftermarket cost wise either.
> ...


Ohh interesting....so hence a diff cooler rather than the transmission cooler - keep the diff cool and as a result keep the trans temp down...(in theory)


----------



## ANDYR35 (Sep 1, 2008)

Ed,

Let us know what you think to the ECU as i have been chatting to Gary about this option too for when i get my car down there for its 24 monther.


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

ANDYR35 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Let us know what you think to the ECU as i have been chatting to Gary about this option too for when i get my car down there for its 24 monther.


Will do, it's back on Friday.

Might take it to Norfolk with me at the weekend, for a thorough test.


----------



## bluediamond (Sep 6, 2010)

*Just for the record Zed*

I actually liked the rumble the Miltek Y pipe gave me in town and had the rest of the Miltek system fitted at Litchfields in November with a few other bits expecting an enhanced noise but its definitely quieter than it was with only the y pipe.
Its a sweet sophisticated sound that I like but I reckon it would easily pass 98db track limits ( Dont know, haven't been on track since, especially Bedford ) but its weird that its got so much more flow but less noise!!
I think its because the stock system has very little silencing in the rear part anyway but loudness is not really the problem.................


Lack of loudness is. 

So Milteks new "Race" rear section under serious consideration. Wish there was a decent switchable option out there.


----------



## BHopper (Sep 30, 2001)

Zed Ed said:


> Might take it to Norfolk with me at the weekend, for a thorough test.


Hi Ed,

Any update on the Nismo ECU? 

What are your thoughts? Does it transform the way the car feels like people have described a Cobb tune or is it a more subtle remap?

I would be very interested in your review.

Cheers,

Ben.


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

BHopper said:


> Hi Ed,
> 
> Any update on the Nismo ECU?
> 
> ...


early days, as the passenger seat speed limiter kept cutting in at the weekend 

I think it is a subtle change, and so far not as immediately visible as say, the prodrive pack was on my scooby.

However, the car certainly felt more responsive on the fly and quicker, so accelerating out of bends/ over-taking were improved. 

Tranny cooler untested so far; had a quick play and is very audible inside and out , adding another distinct whir to the car! Operated by blue lit push switch that takes the place of the 12v socket to the left of the steering wheel.


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

Based upon my 1/4 mile time of 11.9 even though that was in auto. I would say it's nothing like a COBB.


----------



## BHopper (Sep 30, 2001)

Interesting feedback - thanks guys!


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

AndyBrew said:


> Based upon my 1/4 mile time of 11.9 even though that was in auto. I would say it's nothing like a COBB.


That's slower than what my car ran stock in auto....:nervous:


----------



## Jacey Boy (Apr 24, 2005)

Sounds like a waste of denaro:nervous:


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

alloy said:


> That's slower than what my car ran stock in auto....:nervous:


other than it being a hot day and my first pop at 1/4 mile I haven't any excuses lol!


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Can you get your money back?


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

somehow I doubt it LOL! I'm not to fussed the cars plenty fast enough for me, does seem a bit weird you'd think the extra mid range torque would improve times not make them worse lol!

alloy, when you ran in auto what settings did you have, mine was set to RRR?


----------



## Jaw_F430 (Apr 14, 2009)

AndyBrew said:


> alloy, when you ran in auto what settings did you have, mine was set to RRR?


I ran in auto in RR normal and run 11.8 stock. 15-20 Deg temp, but it is the terminal speed you want to look at for power. The ET is just how efficient you are.


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

118mph


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

thistle said:


> Can you get your money back?


Can you stick AP on when running Nismo ecu?


----------



## Rich-GT (Apr 2, 2008)

Jaw_F430 said:


> I ran in auto in RR normal and run 11.8 stock. 15-20 Deg temp, but it is the terminal speed you want to look at for power. The ET is just how efficient you are.


Jaw is correct the terminal speed is a much better indicator of power than the elapsed time. In fact often a poor launch and a slower ET be combined with a faster terminal than from a good launch.

My standard car did 118.5 MPH with an 11.75 , so the Nismo ECU looks to me like a bit of a scam??? 


Rich


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2003)

thistle said:


> Can you get your money back?


lol


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

AndyBrew said:


> somehow I doubt it LOL! I'm not to fussed the cars plenty fast enough for me, does seem a bit weird you'd think the extra mid range torque would improve times not make them worse lol!
> 
> alloy, when you ran in auto what settings did you have, mine was set to RRR?


Stock ran 11.72 @ 118.4 RRR auto was a warm day last summer, I remember because I got sunburn


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

Mmmm I managed two almost identical times so it seemed to be consistent, my times were 11.98 so nearly a twelve so I appear to have a Nismo ECU that's detuned my car making it three tenths of a second slower lol!

I wonder if taking it off would improve things, it would certainly improve my insurance!


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

To be fair; I don't think it was created with drag times in mind.

Nor is it advertised on the basis of numeric gains, for example, in the way we routinely talk about Cobb tunes

Sounds like you want more power/torque.


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

to be honest I bought the car with it on, I have never driven it without it, however I am paying a good chunk extra on my insurance because of it, have you ever tried to explain to an underwriter than the ECU upgrade you have on your car does not increase power or torque LOL!!!

Having said that, if the upgrade increase mid range torque i.e. more torque sooner then as you are driving through the entire rev range a few times doing the quarter mile I would assume more shove earlier would improve times, and definately not make it slower??

But then I'm no engineer and hardly know one end of a spanner to the other!

Maybe I have managed to buy a Friday afternoon car, or the way I press the loud pedal is all wrong.


----------



## Rich-GT (Apr 2, 2008)

Perhaps it has not got a Nismo ECU fitted???  What evidence do you have? I would say that any worthwhile increase in Torque / HP, be it midrange or elsewhere would show, even if small, an improved 1/4 terminal speed. 

Cobb stage 2 takes the terminal speed, from 118 to 127 MPH. On a poor launch you will probably see 130 MPH.





Rich


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

Rich-GT said:


> Perhaps it has not got a Nismo ECU fitted???  What evidence do you have? I would say that any worthwhile increase in Torque / HP, be it midrange or elsewhere would show, even if small, an improved 1/4 terminal speed.
> 
> Cobb stage 2 takes the terminal speed, from 118 to 127 MPH. On a poor launch you will probably see 130 MPH.
> Rich


you have me wondering now, because the bits were originally fitted to a white car, but I wanted black so they said they would swap the bits over for me :nervous:


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

just double checked and yes it has the NISMO ECU (thank you Tony for your help) I'm not too worried the cars only just done 2000 miles so probably has some loosening up to do, and it had this chump behind the wheel LOL!

The more I think about it I spend more time braking than accelerating as it is why would I need to go quicker


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

Just been out in the GTR, including a few standing starts, on roads I've driven plenty of times

One thing I noticed in auto mode, was traction control intervention on fast pull aways, where previously it wouldn't have cut in at all. 

Given the purpose of the ECU, and my observation, maybe these things impact on drag performance

Need more time with the chip


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Zed Ed said:


> To be fair; I don't think it was created with drag times in mind.
> 
> Nor is it advertised on the basis of numeric gains, for example, in the way we routinely talk about Cobb tunes
> 
> Sounds like you want more power/torque.


Do you have any advertising information in English, curious to see what they are claiming. Maybe it is translation, but I have been reading the "R35 Complete File" on Zinio and most of the stuff talked about ECU tuning doesn't make any sense to me at all, Japanese ECU tuning is another world, and not one from what I read that I envy in any way compared to properly reverse engineering an ECU and adding features to it rather than using off the shelf maps and lots of additional boxes to do things the ECU is more than capable of.

The Mines products aimed at lightening and response looks interesting if expensive. The rest seemed overpriced, underperforming and relying on odd selections of parts, and strange talk about driving emotion and funny badges 

Not really specific to the Nismo stuff in my comments above, but if it doesn't add peak power or peak torque, are they talking throttle response or width of the torque curve, or is it quite nebulous?

For a new ECU I would want reliability and knocking on the door of the 10s, along with a silky smooth drive. That is what I try to deliver anyway, and is what I like driving myself.


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

Zed Ed said:


> One thing I noticed in auto mode, was traction control intervention on fast pull aways, where previously it wouldn't have cut in at all.
> 
> Given the purpose of the ECU, and my observation, maybe these things impact on drag performance


interesting observation as I have never driven a standard car to compare, I haven't noticed this on the road particularly, but getting a quick get away on the strip is very difficult, as you can see from my start in the video it appears to be very slow out of the blocks??

YouTube - Nissan Skyline GTR 500bhp 11.9 @ 118mph santapod

Ignore the 500bhp that didn't come from me but from the lad who uploaded it


----------



## Jaw_F430 (Apr 14, 2009)

Rich-GT said:


> Jaw is correct the terminal speed is a much better indicator of power than the elapsed time. In fact often a poor launch and a slower ET be combined with a faster terminal than from a good launch.
> 
> 
> Rich


Yes that seems correct as I have run 119.5mph but only run a 12.0. I then run [email protected]


----------

