When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
More fuel to the fire. Red plot is same as the one I posted a page or two back. This is just to illustrate the difference in area under the curve after a reflash. Where the OEM tune starts to nose over at 5800 and wheezes to it's 6600rpm soft cut, the reflash is still climbing to a peak around 6700 with over rev capability to 7300. Night and day behavior even though the peak is only 14whp difference. At the OEM redline, the reflash is making another 21whp and still pulling hard. Moral is, regardless of which exhaust you do or do not install and which reflash you choose, do it.
This is my tune on EcuTek, still learning the ECU. Maybe 50 total pulls with a variety of exhaust since we got the car 13 months ago. Most of the pros offering reflashes for sale have thousands of pulls with their software and/or SAG's.
I'm frankly surprised they left that much on the table. It's typical for OEM's to dumb things down, but you usually don't see stuff like this on naturally aspirated modern 4 bangers in sporty cars.
The ND is going to turn into an S2000 with all these top end gains
As much as I like the S2000 I would take an ND any day. The low-end and mid-range torque this thing has is massive and the suspension actually works. As a daily driver it's a 15 year difference in tech as far as amenities go. No contest.
I realize that, I was just kidding. The extremely broad torque band is one of my favorite things about the car. Top end HP gains are exactly what this thing needs and that is what you are showing.
I'm frankly surprised they left that much on the table. It's typical for OEM's to dumb things down, but you usually don't see stuff like this on naturally aspirated modern 4 bangers in sporty cars.
It's 95% removing the primary cat.
Even on the BRZ, gutting the cat on the stock header gets you 90% of what a fancy aftermarket header will do.
I'm frankly surprised they left that much on the table. It's typical for OEM's to dumb things down, but you usually don't see stuff like this on naturally aspirated modern 4 bangers in sporty cars.
Well, the rest of the world, including Japan, got 1.5L for tax reasons. It seems like they spent more time developing that combination and then realized from press/owner feedback that 1.5L was not going to cut it in the USA. The 2.0L seems like a quickie shoehorn job in comparison. Witness the tranny issues and the top end strangulation (which the 1.5L apparently has a lot less of). Just my take, mind you . . . .
You're a moron if you honestly think that the 2.0L was a last minute decision and that the transmission issues aren't a metallurgy problem.
I was just musing. No call for the "M" word. I wasn't in on the product planning, and neither were you. But I work full time in engineering and dealing with regulatory agencies, and I know how these things go. I know that Mazda left no fat on the car when it engineered the 1.5L version. It also seems that, other than the motor, there aren't significant differences between the 1.5L and 2.0L cars. Compare that to how different a 1993 NA 1.6L is from a 1994 NA 1.8L . . . everything on the car is upgraded for the bigger motor and evolving safety standards.
Again, my caveat is I'm just thinking out loud. Please don't be triggered.
As much as I like the S2000 I would take an ND any day. The low-end and mid-range torque this thing has is massive and the suspension actually works. As a daily driver it's a 15 year difference in tech as far as amenities go. No contest.
Originally Posted by Chilicharger665
I realize that, I was just kidding. The extremely broad torque band is one of my favorite things about the car. Top end HP gains are exactly what this thing needs and that is what you are showing.
As the current owner of an S2000 and having spent a fair bit of time in an ND, there's absolutely no question that the ND is so, so, so superior for daily driver duties....
Actually the 2.0L decision coming late in the ND development cycle is basically true. The decision was taken after feedback from US that the 1.5L would hurt it in the US market.
The 1.5L is zingy with sport car-y top weighted powerband. The 2.0 SAG is the motor from the 3 almost verbatim, only a slightly different exhaust cam, header and tune.
As an engineer, when scope changes come down the pipe late in the cycle the process is:
1) make it physically fit
2) wire it up
3) turn it on
4) test it per the spec
5) management promises to implement the fixes/improvements for non spec failure type issues at a later date
6) ******* ship it
My ND is the 1.5 Liter version and I am amazed with the Engine until now. It“s stronger that any stock NB1 (Even with 3.9 and 6 speed) and any stock NB2 that I have tested. I use a local Dyno Dynamics and every NB1 with bp4w never reaches 140 Hp, they deliver about low 130 , the NB2 with Bp-ZE never reached the claimed 146, they do about 138/140. And I have dyno“ed over there more than 20 cars.
My little 1.5 made stock 139 Ps and 165 nm stock, and now with Ovtune i am at 153 PS and 175 nm. This was on the 3rd tune, now were are on the 5th revision but due to health issues I have not driven the car for a couple of weeks. Hope to be on dyno maybe next week or the other. Just for curiosity, it weights 980kg with ¼ of tank of fuel on it J
I was just musing. No call for the "M" word. I wasn't in on the product planning, and neither were you. But I work full time in engineering and dealing with regulatory agencies, and I know how these things go. I know that Mazda left no fat on the car when it engineered the 1.5L version. It also seems that, other than the motor, there aren't significant differences between the 1.5L and 2.0L cars. Compare that to how different a 1993 NA 1.6L is from a 1994 NA 1.8L . . . everything on the car is upgraded for the bigger motor and evolving safety standards.
Again, my caveat is I'm just thinking out loud. Please don't be triggered.
AFAIK, the brakes, axles, and diff are all larger on the 2.0 cars.
My ND is the 1.5 Liter version and I am amazed with the Engine until now. It“s stronger that any stock NB1 (Even with 3.9 and 6 speed) and any stock NB2 that I have tested. I use a local Dyno Dynamics and every NB1 with bp4w never reaches 140 Hp, they deliver about low 130 , the NB2 with Bp-ZE never reached the claimed 146, they do about 138/140. And I have dyno“ed over there more than 20 cars.
My little 1.5 made stock 139 Ps and 165 nm stock, and now with Ovtune i am at 153 PS and 175 nm. This was on the 3rd tune, now were are on the 5th revision but due to health issues I have not driven the car for a couple of weeks. Hope to be on dyno maybe next week or the other. Just for curiosity, it weights 980kg with ¼ of tank of fuel on it J
Ps: Power at the fly.
I hope your health improves soon.
The BP-ZE numbers you are saying are in the same format as the 1.5 ND numbers? The 1.5 makes 25 nm more of torque??
Also, it looks like the stock redline was about 7400 and you are going up to 7700 now?
I think a C15-60 Rotrex on one of these engines, revving to 8k, would be insanely fun!
10-18-2016, 01:40 PM
2
