ESM Chips - Information & Help

[Doug]

Nice graph, John. [smiley=thumb.gif]<br><br>Also worth pointing out how much torque difference you get on boost, especially in the 2500-4500 range where your engine will be 90% of the time!!  

[F1 LOTUS]

[quote author=John_W link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=30#43 date=10/16/04 at 16:39:34]<br><br>Interestingly it also seems to show that MBC and BBR actually lose a bit of power and torque low down although they gain at higher revs.<br><br>John   <br><br>[/quote]<br><br><br>Could this be due to the ECM receiving an artificially low boost input therefore fueling the engine leaner than the 'Mountain' chips for similar actual boost levels?...<br>If so is this something that could be optimised on future chips if a 'safe' leaning factor could be established from dyno runs, or is there perhaps another input sensor that could be tweaked manually in sync with an EGT or AF gauge so each owner can optimise fueling for their individual engine spec's???

[ESM]

http://www.motdyn.com/html/exhaust_size.html<br><br>

Optimal exhaust pipe diameter varies with engine displacement, horsepower and whether the engine is normally aspirated or forced induction. Exhaust velocity is directly related to pipe diameter. A general rule  is the smaller the pipe, the higher the velocity. High exhaust gas velocity  helps scavenge the cylinder, especially at lower RPM. However a pipe that is too  small in diameter will have high exhaust gas velocity but restrict air flow,  whereas a pipe that is too large will have a lower exhaust gas velocity but have  high air flow. The optimal pipe diameter is a size that facilitates both high  exhaust gas velocity as well as high air flow. The follow table is a general  guideline for single exhaust systems<br><br>Horsepower Engine Size N/A Forced  Induction Pipe Size<br><br>0-100 0-2.0 L x 50mm<br>101-150 0-2.0 L x  50-60mm<br>151-200 1.5 L-2.5 L x 50-60mm<br>151-250 1.5 L-2.5 L x  60-70mm<br>200-300 5.0 L-5.7 L x 80mm<br>251-up 1.8 L-up x  80mm

[John_W]

Alan,<br>nice minimalist posting, if a bit of a non-sequitur and a tad on the inscrutable side.  :P<br><br>Am I to deduce that:<br>

<br>
•  you're still not convinced of the need for an increase in exhaust size?<br>
• you think that maybe the BBR and MBC data shown on my graph are compromised by a larger exhaust?<br>

<br>???<br>From the information I was given, all curves on the graph are from cars with standard size exhaust (ie 2" with a squash over the crossmember) except for Elanman's S2 which had a larger exhaust fitted (2-1/2" I think).<br><br>I should be getting my new 2-1/4" exhaust fitted this Friday and will then arrange a dyno session with the same chips I tested previously (standard, Kilimanjaro, Everest) to try to quantify any difference. I'm hoping that the 2-1/4" exhaust will help to get rid of the pinch over the crossmember which on a standard exhuaust must reduce the cross-sectional area (and therefore flow) considerably (so it's not 2").<br><br>I'm not expecting any power gain, but I'm hoping for more responsiveness (the "time" factor which is not shown by dyno results only). Also I want to get some more data to establish some facts in this exhaust debate which keeps coming up. Currently we only have Philbo's dyno results showing before & after a big exhaust.<br><br>I'll keep you posted on my exhaust/dyno front.<br><br>John  ;)

[ESM]

Yes it was a bit of a non-sequitur - I had to go and do something before I could flesh it out.  Wasn't a response to Brian's post just something I ran across that I thought would help with the FAQ 'do I need a bigger exhaust'. One thing it doesn't mention is the effect of a catalyst.<br><br>I still don't understand why the chip would give higher boost at low revs.

[John_W]

[quote author=ElanScanMan link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=45#48 date=10/17/04 at 06:48:16]I still don't understand why the chip would give higher boost at low revs.[/quote]<br>Alan,<br>nor do I, especially as one of the reasons you modified the V4 Everest into the V4.1 was to bring the chip control in earlier to get over the "shoulder" in the boost/RPM curve. <br><br>The very existence of that "shoulder" at ~2900 RPM suggests that below 2900 the boost rise is limited by the turbo's capabilities and the BSV doesn't cut in until then. Given that situation, then why do the dyno results show the chip giving ~5 lb-ft improvement at 2000 RPM, ~10 lb-ft at 2500 and ~20 lb-ft by 3000 RPM?<br><br>Maybe ~5lb-ft @ 2000 is just noise, but the others are real. The readings from both were taken from my car, on the same dyno, measured by the same operator about 20 mins apart.<br><br>I don't understand it, but it works.  ;D ;D ;D<br><br>John  ;)<br><br>PS I don't understand why the MBC/BBR curves are so much worse than standard at those same rev values. Would a small leak make such a difference?<br>PPS. Actually there's quite a lot I don't understand about how the different setups respond, but then I suppose that's why you made the Mountain Chips and I have a pile of prototype cupholders in the garage.    :P

[Nige]

John,<br><br>Exhaust on my S2 is 2-1/4".  My exhaust builder didn't think a larger bore would be necessary for the sort of power the engine was likely to develop, seems he was right.

[ESM]

An intermittent lag in the pickup of the boost characterised by an abrupt rise after a few seconds at WOT was noticed by a couple of chip users - the cause is explained below. I've updated the chip to remove this issue. <br><br>People who've made orders since the web site went up can expect them to be sent tomorrow (Wednesday) or at worst the day after. <br><br>Alan <br><br>[quote author=ElanScanMan link=board=boost;num=1096803182;start=0#13 date=10/14/04 at 03:10:41]...When you exceed 2900RPM (or 2600RPM in a V4.1 chip) and the boost is >0 the ECU enters closed loop boost control mode. The first action is to look up an initial BSV value depending on the RPM (in the V4.1 this is about 40%, stock is about 20%). Then the BSV duty is trimmed every 200ms depending on the difference between the target boost and the actual boost - an increment of around 5% if below and a decrement of 2% if above (there is a deadband - a 'close enough' range - of about 0.04bar). Once the revs fall below 2900 (2600 in the V4.1) or boost falls to zero closed loop control mode is switched off.<br><br>The 'step' in boost is caused when the ECU is in closed loop boost control mode already (boost is non-zero and RPM greater than 2900RPM) and the BSV duty is zero, or very low (moderate revs/throttle opening gives a low boost target so the BSV is trimmed progressively down to zero because passive boost is greater than the target). If the pedal is floored in this situation no initial value is looked up (boost control is already in closed loop mode) and so the BSV duty has to built up from a value close to or at zero. Since the duty rises at 25%/s is takes 1.6s to reach the normal starting value never mind the duty required to hit 0.9bar.<br><br>Can I fix it? Er yes, probably - I feel V4.2 coming on  :([/quote]<br><br><br>

[John_W]

[quote author=John_W link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=45#47 date=10/17/04 at 01:54:13]<br>I should be getting my new 2-1/4" exhaust fitted this Friday and will then arrange a dyno session with the same chips I tested previously (standard, Kilimanjaro, Everest) to try to quantify any difference. <br>...<br><br>I'll keep you posted on my exhaust/dyno front.<br><br>John  ;) [/quote]<br><br> >:( Well I won't be getting my exhaust on Friday. Having at last got the 2-1/4" pipe in stock (2 weeks ago) and cut it into workable lengths (1 week ago) the exhaust shop's pipe bending machine has now suffered catastrophic failure. They say it'll take 3 weeks to get the part from the 'States. [smiley=comeandgetsome.gif]<br><br>This has been going on for two months now, and it's approaching the time of year when my car hibernates and when it's difficult to find dry roads to do any meaningful performance logging. [smiley=burnout.gif]<br><br>I'm sorry Alan, but I'd like to hang onto the chip selection for a few more weeks.  :-/<br><br>I just want to get the exhaust fitted and the dyno comparisons done. :-[<br><br>John  :P  

[timhagger]

Installed V4.2 of the Everest chip today and took the S2 out for a spin (almost literally due to the wet weather!). Boost guage reads at about 0.75 but realise they aren't very accurate (must get elanscan on the go!). <br><br>I drove around for about 20 minutes before giving in to the rain. I noticed that even though I drove at a constant speed the unusually high revs would eventually drop down and settle...<br><br>My question relates to the ECU, its need to "relearn" after the battery is disconnected and whether this would affect chip performance?<br><br>How long does it take to fully "relearn", and does driving ability affect what it learns  i.e. If driving like Miss Daisy would the ECU adapt to that driving style until an aggressive style of driving was used instead....?<br><br>A slightly bewildered Timmay!

[ESM]

[quote author=Timmay link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=45#53 date=10/24/04 at 14:17:47]Installed V4.2 of the Everest chip today and took the S2 out for a spin (almost literally due to the wet weather!). Boost guage reads at about 0.75 but realise they aren't very accurate (must get elanscan on the go!).[/quote]<br><br>The boost gauge is a bit suspect. Also bear in mind that the full boost needs full throttle and its not so easy to use that in the wet. <br><br>

<br>I drove around for about 20 minutes before giving in to the rain. I noticed that even though I drove at a constant speed the unusually high revs would eventually drop down and settle...<br>

<br><br>I'm a bit confused about this remark, at constant speed the revs will be determined by which gear you're in and the ratio it gives. The upgrade shouldn't affect the revs (only the rate at which they increase). Boost will be operative only at significant throtte openings.<br><br>

<br><br>My question relates to the ECU, its need to "relearn" after the battery is disconnected and whether this would affect chip performance?<br><br>How long does it take to fully "relearn", and does driving ability affect what it learns  i.e. If driving like Miss Daisy would the ECU adapt to that driving style until an aggressive style of driving was used instead....?<br>

<br><br>The learning of the ECU is often overstated, I believe that the ECU only learns the best starting IAC valve position and in the S2 the typical fuel trim needed to keep the oxygen sensor happy. Neither of these will be influenced by driving style. The learning is continuous anyway, it never becomes writ in stone.<br>

[Jon_B]

Also fitted my Everest chip at the weekend.  Marvellous.  The old MBC's boost was more abrupt/violent in its delivery and it was difficult to set the bleed valve at a level that gave an acceptable gain in performance without hitting the limit.  The chip is far smoother.  Boost now hits around 0.8 on the gauge (I'm aware that it has always under-estimated) under heavy prolonged acceleration with no creep (even with the 2.5" exhaust).  I would imagine that power gains without an exhaust upgrade would be a fair bit lower.  I can only emphasize to S2 owners that they upgrade the exhaust sytem.  This, in my view, was the single biggest increase in power I gained - now compounded with the "McNicol Chip".  Would be interesting to hear from other S2 owners with a standard exhaust to find out what they think.<br><br>Jon

[John_W]

[quote author=John_W link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=45#52 date=10/19/04 at 11:50:31]<br><br> >:( Well I won't be getting my exhaust on Friday. Having at last got the 2-1/4" pipe in stock (2 weeks ago) and cut it into workable lengths (1 week ago) the exhaust shop's pipe bending machine has now suffered catastrophic failure. They say it'll take 3 weeks to get the part from the 'States. [smiley=comeandgetsome.gif]<br><br>This has been going on for two months now, and it's approaching the time of year when my car hibernates and when it's difficult to find dry roads to do any meaningful performance logging. [smiley=burnout.gif]<br><br>I'm sorry Alan, but I'd like to hang onto the chip selection for a few more weeks.  :-/<br><br>I just want to get the exhaust fitted and the dyno comparisons done. :-[John  :P   [/quote]<br>Alan,<br>Having been unable to contact the exhaust fitters by 'phone for the last week, I drove to Banchory today and found the doors padlocked with a note saying that interested parties should  contact a "business recovery" specialist whose telephone number was supplied. :-/<br><br>I think I need to find a new supplier as my half-made exhaust looks to be destined for non-completion. :-[<br><br>I'll sort out all the chips you've sent me and return most of them to you as it looks like this is going to take a while. Dyno run comparisons of standard, Kilimanjaro and Everest chips with standard vs big exhaust are delayed.<br><br>John    

[Monty]

was looking forward to those results  ::) Hope u didn`t lay any cash out  :-/

[John_W]

[quote author=_Monty_ link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=45#57 date=11/07/04 at 12:12:25]was looking forward to those results  ::) Hope u didn`t lay any cash out  :-/[/quote]<br>Monty,<br>I was looking forward to them also. I'll get them sometime. <br><br>No, I didn't lose any money - just time.<br><br>John

[ESM]

Right I've got good news and bad news...<br><br>The bad news is that my stock has run out! I've ordered new parts but there will be a lead time on any new orders (existing orders are ok). I've had an unexpectedly high volume of orders recently.<br><br>The good news is that I also ordered a PROM emulator. This thing connects a laptop directly to the ECU. It allows the PROM tables to be changed on the fly with the engine running. This means I can go down the local dyno and get the a/f ratio tuned without burning 5384759 chips! I can also look at timing and what have you. So next year some time the power should see another upward step....

[grahamec]

Alan<br>That sounds good ( that is the good news ), what kind of upgrades do you expect to achieve ?

[John_W]

Alan,<br>Did you get surprised by the Christmas rush then?  ;D<br><br>That's good news, and your success is well deserved. [smiley=cheers.gif]<br><br>It's also good news that you're investing the profits (?) back into  the business by getting the PROM emulator. (Or is that just your present from Santa for having been such a good boy this year? [smiley=1poke.gif])  <br><br>I certainly look forward to seeing what you can come up with in 2005.<br><br>John  ;)

[Nige]

2005 looks promising already  ;D<br><br>Nige

[ESM]

[quote author=grahame link=board=upgrades;num=1092641037;start=60#60 date=12/07/04 at 10:53:02]Alan<br>That sounds good ( that is the good news ), what kind of upgrades do you expect to achieve ?[/quote]<br><br><br>I don't know, its the old 'how long is a piece of string' question. There have been a few people who have said that high boost power gains are only fully realised if the power enrichment is backed off a bit - this kit will give me the ability to find out for myself. I'll also be able to look at spark advance. It'll make testing a lot easier too since I'll be able to try as many setups as I can create without having to swap chips over.