ESM Chips - Performance & discussion

[ESM]

Post here any driving impressions, dyno data, links to ElanScan logs etc. relating to the mountain chips.

[John_W]

All,<br>for posterity (ie so we can find it again) I'm placing a link here to my post about how to adjust the CO pot on SEs to cure a lumpy idle. <br>http://www.lotuselancentral.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=project;action=display;num=1052985604;start=302<br><br>This lumpy idle effect may be experienced after fitting a "mountain" chip owing to these incorporating the latest CO pot calibration available from Lotus, whereas the chip it's replacing is the same vintage as the car (unless you've had the Lotus chip upgrade done).<br><br>John  :)

Edit Nov 2005: Since the migration to the new Forum, the above link has changed. It is now:
http://www.lotuselancentral.com/forum/v ... &start=293
To guard against future database changes, I'd better say that it's on page 15 of the "ECU hack" thread in Projects.

[John_W]

OK, in an attempt to get this thread going here are a couple of ElanScan-based graphs showing some 0-60mph runs from my car before and after fitting the Kilimanjaro chip...<br><br><br><br><br>I'm open to comments, but my observations are:<br>1) I'm useless at doing 0-60 times, but consistent. <br>2) the way I drive I'll never get the Elan to do the quoted 6.7 secs (even if I hold it in second) as I take off gently.  [smiley=gray.gif]<br>3) although the boost gauge shows oodles more boost than before the upgrade (.75 vs 0.5 bar) and subjectively the car feels much more gutsy and willing, I can't prove that by 0-60 times. ie the gradients of the time/velocity graphs are remarkably similar before and after the chip upgrade, meaning similar acceleration (Kilimanjaro runs marginally steeper).  ???<br>4) If the new chip is effectively stuffing more boost in, but I don't see proportionally improved acceleration maybe I need a more free-flowing exhaust. ;D<br><br>Comments?<br><br>John    :)

[ESM]

John,<br><br>Could you compare the injector pulse widths before and after just as a sanity check? Also plot power vs RPM - its messy but it gives an idea of the power curve. <br><br>The odds are the 10.2:1 a/f ratio is the problem. At lower throttle openings the mixture is leaner and the benefit of the boost is felt but at WOT the ECU throws in loads of fuel and the potential benefits aren't realised. I have just written a couple of test chips with a rather leaner power enrichment a/f ratio map. I'll try one or both tomorrow if I get a chance.<br><br>Alan

[Doug]

nice John!!<br>How about a plot of the same runs with time on the X-axis and MAP/boost on the Y-axis?!<br>

[John_W]

Alan, Doug <br>more plots as requested. These first ones are of the various parameters you requested graphed against time. The graphs  show the same portion of the test runs as the second graph above (the one with only three curves). The graphs cover the same time interval insofar as I can show it, ie the 0-60 run plus a couple of seconds deceleration at the end. They show injector pulse width, boost, air/fuel ratio, and lastly power (the last is not very clear). <br> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>These last two show power vs RPM for standard and Kilimanjaro:<br><br><br><br><br><br>Discussion:<br>a) the injector pulse width graphs clearly show what Alan suggested, that the pulse width is greater for the Kilimanjaro at higher revs.<br>b) as I said in my previous post, there's oodles of boost compared with standard (but the mystery is that I don't know what it's doing, 'cos it's not increasing power much or giving appreciably faster 0-60)<br>c) as Alan said, the air-fuel ratio takes a dive at higher revs, however it seems no worse for the Kilimanjaro chip than for the standard.<br>d) there's a slight power increase over standard, but not as much as the increased boost would imply (remember that my exhaust is standard except for the hammer marks where some fitter helped it on)<br>e) I drew on a rough trend line to show the envelope of the standard chip's power and a red oval to show the area where the Kilimanjaro is above it. There is more power, but again not as much as you would infer from the boost levels. <br><br>So, what do you think? A new exhaust, some other restriction, or would some modification to the chip find the missing power?<br><br>Perhaps this is telling us that the Lotus development engineers got it just about right with the package as sold. ie all links of the chain in harmony, with no one bit more or less capable than the others.<br><br>Against that theory, how come people have been putting MBC's on for years and getting power gains? Did those same people also put on an exhaust. What about the aftermarked upgrade chip sold by Lotus dealers. Why did that work? (or did it?)<br><br>Anyway - comments?<br><br>John <br>

[Doug]

John,<br>Thanks, that's great!<br>You obviously have stock exhaust, which is holding up the production of more power.  You just need to unleash it with an exhaust -- remember Philbo's graphs showing significant HP gains from adding exhaust alone!<br><br>[center]http://www.informatica.zen.co.uk/elan/Exhaust.htm[/center]<br>

[ESM]

Good work John.<br><br>I'm struggling to see why a big exhaust would help that much. If you weren't getting the boost or weren't getting the boost over the whole range then a big exhaust would help. Losses go down a bit with the reduction in back pressure - but I doubt it'd be a huge effect. Philbo was peaking at 0.85bar and holding 0.8bar boost before the exhaust  upgrade and getting >1bar after it. This seems a pretty good reason for his power gain. In this case we are getting the intended boost. <br><br>More boost means more air and fuel is going into the engine and that means more energy will be produced. Notionally given the boost has been hiked by 0.15Bar  you'd expect 9% more power  - unless its not all burning. The engine management was set up with 0.65bar in mind and the mapping isn't necessarily going to suit boosts above this very well - its set up for safety in a stuck wastegate situation rather than optimum performance. The reason I'm chasing a/f ratio changes is that others have found that MBCs don't give gains and its been attributed to the mixture. <br><br>You're thinking that Sy, Philbo and BBR people all have got power gains without remapping the a/f ratio so I must be talking bollocks. However, the FCD is the joker in the pack that makes the a/f ratio theory believable. Typically FCDs are set to prevent the MAP sensor reading more than 1.7bar (0.7bar boost) or so. The engine management fuels for this pressure when the actual boost is greater. So at 1 bar of boost then the mixture is 18% leaner and at 1.2bar 29% leaner than the ECU intends. With an FCD the mixture leans out in proportion to boost above its clipping threshold. This could explain Sy's famous 205BHP with MBC/FCD.<br><br>What is really needed is dyno runs. The data from ElanScan is nice but the speed reading is noisy and data rate low...

[John_W]

[quote author=ElanScanMan link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=0#7 date=08/19/04 at 01:26:21]You're thinking that Sy, Philbo and BBR people all have got power gains without remapping the a/f ratio so I must be talking bollocks. [/quote]<br>Alan,<br>that's not how I would put it, but my mind was working along those lines, and I agree with much of what you say (the rest I hadn't considered).<br><br>A question - did any of the chip test pilots have completely standard setups (eg your own?), or was it only [s]the nutters who volunteered [/s]  people who had already made considerable performance modifications who volunteered? ie do we have another log of a mountain chip from a standard car? Come to that do you have any similar graphs from Sy or Stevo et al?<br><br>I also am struggling to understand why all the indicators show that I should be getting ~10% more performance but I can't find it, and why others can find it (although I haven't seen the graphical evidence) with a less sophisticated solution (MBC, BBR etc). <br><br>If I need a new exhaust then OK, but I'm trying to understand why.<br><br>John  ???<br><br>PS anybody know of a dyno in Aberdeen?

[John_W]

[quote author=John_W link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=0#8 date=08/19/04 at 01:43:30]<br>PS anybody know of a dyno in Aberdeen?[/quote]<br>OK, I think I've found one:<br>http://www.bobduncan.fsnet.co.uk/<br>This is the place recommended by Rambo in Reply #12 on: Jul 18th, 2004, 10:57pm here:<br>http://www.lotuselancentral.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=service;action=display;num=1079108954<br><br>Now IF I were to go to this guy, what exactly should I be asking of him?<br><br>Anybody?<br><br>John  ;)

[ESM]

My cars are both standard. My testing has been geared towards checking the boost mapping was functioning as intended rather than looking for the performance gains - I intended to employ dyno runs for that, as I said before the ElanScan data is good for many things but not measuring power... <br><br>I did a few runs yesterday and with same chip got data suggesting more power at the wheels but it's really tough getting convincing data to indicate improvement over stock because the signal to noise on the power measurement is huge and the significance dubious. In the time I had and with the prevailing road conditions I didn't get an opportunity for any full bore 0-60 runs.

[ESM]

If anyone does get some dyno time I'll send them a ZIF socket and a few chips...

[DeeAitch]

Just a thought, if we compare in gear acceleration times - say 30 to 50 in 3rd or 50 - [s]90[/s] 70 ::) in 4th then it removes the need for a racing driver to get the 0-60 thing bang on everytime.<br>Alan, as I have the 9929 do I need a new chip?  

[rob]

I also am struggling to understand why all the indicators show that I should be getting ~10% more performance but I can't find it, and why others can find it (although I haven't seen the graphical evidence) with a less sophisticated solution (MBC, BBR etc).  <br>

<br><br>as if by magic, graphical evidence  ;)<br><br><br><br>http://www.lotuselancentral.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=ukevent;action=display;num=1070549885;start=129#129

[John_W]

[quote author=Rob link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=0#13 date=08/19/04 at 08:13:14]as if by magic, graphical evidence  ;)<br>http://www.lotuselancentral.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=ukevent;action=display;num=1070549885;start=129#129[/quote]<br>Rob,<br>thanks for that.<br><br>Can you please confirm that you got those (very good) results for the 195bhp run with the following set-up:<br>   - S2 with pre-cat only (no main cat, tasteful Azure Blue colour)<br>   - Standard size exhaust<br>   - Standard (baffled) silencer (or is it a SS straight-through?)<br>   - MBC with boost set at 15 psi (1 bar)<br>   - K & N air filter (drop-in type, using standard filter housing)<br>   - Dump valve (like you, I dont think this would have much effect on the dyno) <br>   - Fuel Cut Defeater <br>And nothing else? (Like nitro? Oversize injectors? You can tell me, I won't let on to Sy.)<br><br>If so, I still can't understand my results, as mine were achieved with a very similar set-up, as follows:<br>   - SE with  no cat (tasteful Pacific Blue colour)<br>   - Standard size exhaust<br>   - Standard (baffled) silencer.<br>   - Kilimanjaro with boost shown by Elanscan to be 0.8  bar.<br>   - K & N air filter (drop-in type, using standard filter housing)<br>   - Dump valve (Bailey DV30 recirculating)<br>   - Otherwise standard.<br><br>Please let me know, as I'm trying to do the Sherlock Holmes bit to find where all that lovely boost shown on ElanScan goes when it gets into my engine, and why it doesn't come out at the wheels (exhaust is my current prime suspect).<br><br>If you have an Elanscan run of a 0-60 I'd be very interested in seeing it. I'll also try to get one from Andrew Ennis and Ben Weston for comparison. <br><br>[quote author=Dave link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=0#12 date=08/19/04 at 05:35:15]Just a thought, if we compare in gear acceleration times - say 30 to 50 in 3rd or 50 - [s]90[/s] 70 ::) in 4th then it removes the need for a racing driver to get the 0-60 thing bang on everytime. [/quote]<br>Dave,<br>what you suggest sounds very scientific and it would be good to build up such a database. However for my immediate investigation, I think a couple of 0-60 dashes tell a good story.<br><br>[quote author=ElanScanMan link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=0#11 date=08/19/04 at 03:50:19]If anyone does get some dyno time I'll send them a ZIF socket and a few chips...[/quote]<br>Alan,<br>OK, I admit I haven't the faintest what a ZIF socket is. Is it a quick-change device for chips? Would the chips be an assortment of different mountain chips with varying a/f calibrations?<br><br>John  :)

[DeeAitch]

John, <br>The trouble with 0-60 is you have to get everything spot on for each run - revs, clutch, wheel spin, gear shift etc - or you will not get a good comparison. You won't believe the stick magazines dish out to get those nice times they publish.<br>In gear times remove all this, simply get a constant speed, floor it and read the result, you could even get 'er indoors to do it whilst you watch telly! That way we can all do the same (not the 'er indoors bit ::)) and compare results.

[John_W]

Rob,<br>afraid my graphs don't show anything very clearly. The Kilimanjaro definitely shows higher readings than standard, though.<br><br><br><br>nb these graphs cover about 15 mins of data each, not just the 0-60 dashes previously shown. Maybe I'll try plotting them again over the restricted 0-60 dataset.<br><br>John  ???

[Doug]

sounds like Rob-C has a standard exhaust as well.<br><br>problem is the stock exhaust is so pinched that you just can't increase the flow much more than stock boost levels!!

[ESM]

John,<br><br>ZIF = zero insertion force. There is a lever at the side that grips/releases the pins. When you are looking at the power curves bear in mind that powers for all throttle openings are there, so the WOT stuff forms the top edge of the data. If you can be bothered sort the data by throttle % and plot only the 100% power data.<br><br>Against my better judgement here is data taken for an overtake I did yesterday. The chip was experimental, setup:<br><br>0.8bar maximum boost, the boost is delivered proportionally with RPM as with stock chip<br>Power enrichment a/f ratio table modified to give 12.2 at full enrichment. <br><br>The road is basically flat but has a couple of hollows.<br><br><br>