ESM Chips - Performance & discussion

[Ian_W]

Today managed to link up the car with Elanscan to test the performance with the newly installed Everest Chip.<br>Took some logs with the original chip and then some with the Everest. Found with the Everest chip the boost came in very smooth, peaking just under 0.9 bar at approx 6000 revs, but turbo seemed to take a bit longer to spool up without my MBC installed. Gave some nice power in first gear though more than the original chip, but was a little bit down in power with 100% throttle in second gear peaked at 150BHP, where as the original chip peaked around 164BHP. No boost creep occurred when using the Everst chip, expected to hit the boost limiter as I have a 2.5" straight through exhaust fitted.<br>Will email the logs to Alan, so he can kindly inspect them with his expert eye.<br><br>Cheers<br>Ian<br>

[ESM]

Having looked at the logs I fear Ian might actually have a K2 chip (and an early version at that) :-[ - oops.

[John_W]

[quote author=John_W link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=60#73 date=08/27/04 at 09:03:13]Alan,<br>Your package arrived and Andrew & I have shared out the bits. Thanks. We'll be careful which way round we put the chips in  :-*.<br><br>My car's booked in for a new exhaust on Thursday. I'll see if I can book a repeat dyno session for Friday. Hopefully you'll get interesting S2 results on Wednesday and SE results next Friday.<br><br>John  ;)[/quote]<br>Alan,<br>you have interesting mail. More on Friday.<br>John  ;D

[Kuching]

[quote author=Brian_MDB link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=75#79 date=08/29/04 at 23:07:23]Could it just be that the power is coming in sooner but more smoothly and not as aggressive therefore feels slower?<br>Either way you need therapy!  :-*[/quote]<br>You could well be right, It's difficult to make an objective comparison as I don't have Elanscan.<br><br>I start therapy tomorrow at the Barham Institute of Sobriety - I didn't need to book!

[F1 LOTUS]

Hi Alan<br>Received the G1 adaptor today and was able to eventually fit the first of the US development chips which I believe has the more ardous route up Everest?<br>When I saw where the ECM was situated on the LHD cars I just knew I was in for a fun evening...Perhaps if the car's on a lift access would be easier but I just couldn't even see the ECM until I'd taken the drivers seat out and somehow got my head down near the pedals (not now dear!) laying on my back half out of the car, next the challenge was to see the two nuts that have to be slackened in order to remove the ECM as my car has a bunch of wiring and connectors in the way and then my hand was in the way as I held them aside. After getting the ECM to pull out of the brackets slotted holes the installation of the adaptor and chip was a breeze except for trying to remove the two plugs so I left them connected being that the car had not been powered-up for several days. Can't wait to see how it goes now <br>Thanks for your efforts in enabling us to have this option.

[ESM]

The dyno results are in and they are very encouraging. Even with the stock exhaust power and torque are significantly enhanced across the rev range. I'll post more detail once I've had a chance to plot everything up (perhaps John will post something as well). <br><br>The car tested was a UK SE with a standard exhaust. The peak power figures were:<br><br>Stock:  132(161) bhp<br>Kilmanjaro: 148(180) bhp<br>Everest: 165(201) bhp<br><br>The first figure is 'at the wheels' and the figure in brackets is the estimated flywheel power using the same correction factor as Sy & co. used in the dyno shootout. <br><br>The peak torques were:<br><br>Stock:  126 lb.ft <br>Kilmanjaro: 139 lb.ft <br>Everest: 164 lb.ft <br><br>On Friday the tests will be repeated with a bigger bore exhaust - so expect further gains.<br><br>Many thanks to John for his efforts.<br><br>Alan

[ESM]

An important factor in realising the power gains is the timing. Both John and Nige found their base timing was advanced and saw improvements when it was corrected. Nige has gone from around 120 to something like 180bhp!

[John_W]

Alan,<br>Certainly great results. And remember, that's on an otherwise standard car. Lots more to come in both additional power (from the exhaust and other tweaks) and understanding (once we all get our heads round the data). More will be published when I've had a new exhaust fitted, done another set of dyno runs for comparison, and digested the data. <br><br>There is a huge amount of information in the dyno and Elanscan data which can be mined to understand how to get the best out of our cars. It's a case of understanding how all the component pieces work together in the whole (not least, the role of correct static timing is amazing). There's  still a lot more insight to be gained from data, so the possibilities remain exciting.<br><br>I'll wait until next week to provide some intelligent (?) comments once I've considered the results, but if anybody else has some data, let's see it. <br><br>John  ;D ;D ;D<br><br>PS: Alan, I presume that this means chip sales are back on?  ;)

[ESM]

They never stopped!  ::)

[DeeAitch]

Great results, well done Alan  :D <br>You might need a bigger chip pan now

[John_W]

All,<br><br>To provide a bit of extra info following Alan's post, I thought I'd plot these as I feel they're substantiated data. They're the result of the Everest dyno run on my car vs dyno results from Rob's S2 & Philbo's SE published elsewhere on this site. <br><br>The specs of the cars are as follows:<br>Rob:<br>   - S2 with pre-cat only (no main cat) <br>   - Standard size exhaust <br>   - Standard (baffled) silencer<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 <br>   - Fuel Cut Defeater  <br><br>My SE:<br>   - SE with  no cat <br>   - Standard size exhaust <br>   - Standard (baffled) silencer. <br>   - Everest with boost shown by Elanscan to be 0.9  bar. <br>   - K & N air filter (drop-in type, using standard filter housing) <br>   - Dump valve (Bailey DV30 recirculating) <br>   - Otherwise standard. <br><br>Philbo:<br>   - SE with  no cat <br>   - Standard size exhaust <br>   - Standard (baffled) silencer. <br>   - BBR boost upgrade (fitted by Bell & Colvill) <br>   - K & N air filter (drop-in type, using standard filter housing) <br>   - Dump valve (Bailey) <br>   - Otherwise standard. <br><br><br>[smiley=eek2.gif]<br>I think the results are extremely interesting and show the two MBC-type cars to be very similar, whereas the Everest chipped car shows greater power overall and better torque low-down (although less at the high end). Alan's efforts are to be commended. [smiley=wave.gif]   How much does a BBR kit cost again?  ::)<br><br>There's more to it than this, but this much is true, and I'll leave further interpretation until next week after mature consideration.  [smiley=crazy3.gif]<br><br>John    

[ESM]

I smell a rat in some of the data above:<br><br>Torque = 5252*BHP/RPM<br><br>This is a non-negotiable equation BTW so don't argue.<br><br>John's dyno data agrees perfectly with this relationship. The other data is puzzling (ye canna change the laws of physics capt'n). The really odd thing is the consistency between Rob's and Philbo's curves. Power and torque must be measured under different regimes on the dyno(s) concerned (one transiently and the other after settling?) - I can't think of another explanation. Anyone got any insight?<br><br>Alan<br><br>

[Nige]

Thought I'd post a couple of Elanscan generated graphs to show the impact of setting base timing correctly at 16 deg BTDC.  Car is an S2 fitted with a V3 Everest chip and a custom built 2.25" exhaust and no cats at all silencing is straight through.  Also fitted are Magnecor KV85 plug leads, a Turbo Dynamics Viper recirculating dump valve and a drop in KN air filter:<br><br>First, base timing inncorrectly set at 5-6 deg BTDC.  Embarrassed to find it this far out  :-[, it was specifically on the list of things to be checked when car was dealer serviced in June (if you want a job doing etc....) and in all honesty the car performed well in this state particularly after fitting the exhaust in late July.<br><br><br><br>Second, no change beyond setting the base timing correctly at 16 deg BTDC.  The car now performs even better better (what MX5  ;D), a subjective assessment of fuel consumption suggests an improvement,  the car no longer pops spits and bangs after wide open throttle runs and I no longer appear to hit fuel cut caused by boost creep (this latter requires a little more checking out, if so I do not need to port the wastegate).<br><br><br><br>The graphs speak for themselves and as posted already by Alan and John W do demonstrate the remakable effect of getting the basics right, all too easy to overlook and clearly in my case not addressed during dealer servicing  >:(.<br><br>Nige  

[ESM]

It is an impressive power gain for a small adjustment<br><br>The peak power looks more like 160-170 than 180bhp based on this data. Maybe the log I looked at had a downhill blast in it, either that or you weren't trying hard enough this time <br><br>

[ESM]

Ok I've figured out the answer to my torque question above - the torque from Rob and Philbo's dynos were flywheel values (I know because the torque and power curves always cross at 5252RPM and the torque curve crosses the 'fly power' curve at 5252RPM in Rob's dyno graph earlier in this thread). John, I suggest you back-calculate 'at-the-wheels' torques from the 'at-the-wheels' power curves to make the torque comparisons.

[Nige]

Alan,<br><br>Graphs are from the logs I sent you, first one (timing off) 21 Aug, second one (timing correct) 30 Aug.  The logs were not recorded on exactly the same route although elements are the same.  The first one was a deliberate WOT test over 15 miles or so, the second one was my return to work on Mon evening and was constrained by other traffic in many places, so yes I must try harder  ;D.  Hence my wish to confirm whether my boost creep induced fuel cut has gone completely or is simply hiding somewhere.<br><br>Nige

[John_W]

[quote author=ElanScanMan link=board=upgrades;num=1092641209;start=90#94 date=09/01/04 at 15:20:38]John, I suggest you back-calculate 'at-the-wheels' torques from the 'at-the-wheels' power curves to make the torque comparisons.[/quote]<br>Alan,<br>Oops, silly me!  :-[  [smiley=oshame.gif]   Back of the class and 100 lines. I'll redo the graph and edit the posting to show the correct results. If I do it quickly enough, maybe nobody will notice. [smiley=ssst.gif].<br><br>But Alan, if I do that, it'll show a much bigger improvement in low-down torque on the Everest than on the MBC cars.  ;)  ;D ;D <br><br>John    

[ESM]

100 lines is on the light side  [smiley=1poke.gif] How could you believe a car could simultaneously have more power and less torque?  [smiley=duh.gif]  I suggest you do some extra revision [smiley=book.gif]<br><br>Naturally I only mention this for the sake of accuracy not at all because it makes the Everest chip look even better  [smiley=dontknow.gif] [smiley=naughty.gif]

[ESM]

John's comparison graph above is a vivid demostration of the advantages of active boost control over an MBC. The boost can be held at the desired maximum for a much greater portion of the rev-range the MBC is limited to maximum boost at one point (the point where the MBC curves meets the Everest curve). <br><br>However, the dyno data does flatter the chip. The boost control system takes time to reach the correct boost. In the dyno it gets all the time it needs. Data analysis by John has revealed that if you do a fast take-off in first gear the ECU doesn't have time to get anywhere near the boost target before the shift to 2nd. So a tweak to the boost control setup that should enhance the boost pickup is in the pipeline.

[John_W]

For anybody who's been following this lot, I'm afraid I've been let down by the exhaust fitters, so I've had to cancel tomorrow's "big exhaust" dyno run.<br><br>I'll get it eventually, but my "window of opportunity" has been lost, so it'll be about 3 weeks.<br><br>Never mind - a lot of interesting stuff has come out so far, and maybe existing data will show up even more insight when analysed further.<br><br>John  :-/