Hey guys,
So I've been having a look round the forum and haven't found any data on the difference in power between a 99RON mapped ECU and the bog standard one which I believe is mapped or at least works on 95.
I found a post on Skoda forum which showed some good power gains on a M3 CSL and I think they compared it with an MR2, but the graphics displaying the charts (and therefore the data) were missing.
If everything is standard (apart from precats) on a 1ZZ, would a remap make a measurable difference? Or are there better bang for bucks out there?
Apologies if this is already done and posted to death some where already!
Cheers,
John
so far as I am aware the ecu cannot be mapped in our cars. you would have to go for an add on / piggy back.
I don`t think any meaningful gains can be made without further mods.
Spot on both of you.
Jvan. you cannot find any info as it does not exist, for the reason given by theredone.
Best bang for buck. engine swap (2zz?) or turbo the 1zz.
Or. keep standard and spend the same money on the best tyres and fresh gear and engine oil, and freshen up the suspension.
As under powered as they are in standard form, if they are maintained and operating as well as a X year old car can be.
You can have a whole lot of fun for little cash.
Best bang for the buck is to get some tuition on track. It's the driver that makes the real performance difference.
Having said that, the extra power and flattening out of the torque curve that can be had with a few simple "breather" mods and a piggyback ECU does make it for more of an option than I even ever considered.
Mapping an NA for "better" fuel gets you nowhere. You dont map for 99, you put 99 in to compensate for any advanced timing you map in,to prevent knocking.
Aside from not being able to map the MR2 ECU... It's a pointless exercise without changes to the hardware.
Jvan
Taking on board Mrzwei comment, get your name down on the l viewtopic.php?f=13&t=57127#p661437 (http://www.mr2roc.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=57127#p661437) l thread.
Thanks for the info guys, I'll look into the easier breathing route for now (still using vpower anyway!) I've had a look at the training link, it sounds fun. Will have to consult management...
Unless, as everyone else has said, you're doing big modifications (involving management) then I wouldn't even bother with Vpower. Personally of course.
I would always put super unleaded in performance cars that recommend it, but the MR2 engine is the same engine you'd find in an Avensis or Corolla. I just wouldn't bother!
I only use vpower for its cleansing/lubricating additives
Same old debate.
Mine is turbocharged so I have to run 97.
I would usually have run only 95 but 97 does give slightly better mpg and premium fuels do contain better cleaners and lubricants.
It's up to you.
Do not know if this should be here s:bowdown: :bowdown: s:bowdown:
Had a Dyno test on the car today - posted results in engine performance.
I would say that the car has been more responsive with the improved airflow. No data for pre-mod so I don't know net gain or loss in power.
But, from discussion with the mechanic (and for what its worth) he said that remapping or turbo with fuel change to 99 RON would give measurable gains. With the comment that the driver still needs to know how to use the power s:) :) s:)
The compression ratio of the 1ZZ is not high enough to take advantage of the additional knock protection 99RON gives.
So we're all agreed then... s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
[youtube:tj0b9qvu]WTaBngvsPrc[/youtube:tj0b9qvu]
Quote from: "Alex Knight"[youtube:mpzdnda1]WTaBngvsPrc[/youtube:mpzdnda1]
Old post I know but just had a watch of this video and it has surprised me, I generally use Texaco and when I use the supreme fuel it usually lasts longer and and feels more responsive :-/ a friend of mine started using asda petrol and her sensors starting playing up and engine sounded awful :-/
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Thanks for that vid. I had a post on here a couple of years ago about "Posh Petrol" and none of us could really make up our minds.
This shows that for 10% more money to Shell, you get 5+ ponies over cheap Asda. Or perhaps that Asda fuel is almost as good as it gets and saving 10% of your fuel bill is quite a bit over a year.
Though the fuel sold around the country varies quite a lot in terms of the ethanol content. One Esso/Shell etc station might sell a different mix on a given week to its neighbour across town. I know this due to the problems caused to plastic motorbike tanks which are badly damaged by the ethanol. Bikers across the UK test a selection of garages and report back the variable results. So assume that the petrol you buy is not always what you might think, it could be better or worse on a weekly basis.
Bear in mind that this test was done on a turbo car, that means it is irrelevant to our standard car. Also the MR2 doesn't have an ECU that can vary ignition timing to take advantage of higher octane fuel which some more modern cars do. The only benefit we can get from posh fuel (apart from placebo) is the cleaning agents. Unless you remap for it with a piggyback or standalone ECU.
Quote from: "lamcote"Bear in mind that this test was done on a turbo car, that means it is irrelevant to our standard car. Also the MR2 doesn't have an ECU that can vary ignition timing to take advantage of higher octane fuel which some more modern cars do. The only benefit we can get from posh fuel (apart from placebo) is the cleaning agents. Unless you remap for it with a piggyback or standalone ECU.
I tend to switch between the supreme and regular fuels for the cleaning aspect but how regular should be be doing this in our two's would you reckon ?
At the Texaco garage I use when I fill up the tank from near enough empty to full I do generally see a difference in how long the fuel lasts but couldn't say a 100% amount of days difference as my driving could vary from the last fill to the next etc
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk