Racechip Pro Dyno & 1/4 Mile Results

[MoonRiverOasis]

Last night I was given another reason to love my iPhone - Dynolicious - a $13 app that measures 1/4 mile, 0-xxx km/hr and estimates HP.

According to

it's pretty accurate too. However, please note that this is not intended to become a debate on whether the iPhone + Dynolicious is giving accurate results (the fact of the matter is that it is providing useful comparisons).

In any case, there was finally a small break in the weather this morning, so off to try and find a road not yet clogged with cars I went... Unfortunately I was only able to get a few of runs in before the road started filling up with weekend traffic, and the tests conducted were not ideal either - the road was still damp from the rain, and I was forced to start off on a sandy shoulder so controlling wheelspin proved challenging.

In any case, I know all you really want to see is the results so here we go..

Vehicle: Mitsubishi Pajero Sport GT 2.5L 4x2 4AT

Tests: with and without the Racechip Pro fitted. Note that my dump pipe is out ATM as the car is due for it's 10K service next week, so what you're seeing here is a car that's pretty much stock except for 265/50R20 wheels and tires.

Elevation: 235m

Temp: 25c @ 83% humidity

HP correction factor used: 25%

The graphs:

Acceleration:

Results:

As you can see, there's a few interesting things going on here...

1) The Racechip is not amanaging it's quoted power gain of 30%, rather I'm seeing a gain of around 17%. However, reality is it's probably a little better than that, as it just wasn't possible for me to get a clean launch once the Racechip Pro was in (traffic stopped all testing).

2) The amount of relative power lost in the gear changes - once the Racechip goes in the power lost through the gearchange is substantially worse than stock. I'm guessing this is due to converter slip? Perhaps an auto transmission expert can provide some insight here?

3) The maximum G's recorded (identical) - this also suggests torque converter slip I presume.

4) The stock performance - much better than tests on the same car performed by others.

I'll do some more testing when I get a chance and see if I can improve upon today's (admittedly bad) getaways. In the meantime, if you have an ECU piggyback and an iPhone, feel free to install Dynolicious and share some numbers with us

Edited July 24, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

Interesting. Your gadget recorded peak HP was 144, what is the advertised stock HP of your ride. ?

Mitsubishi specifies 140HP for the car - It recorded 142HP not 144 btw

[MoonRiverOasis]

you can now tweek the chip to get near their advertised gain, hopefully.

Absolutely, way more accurate than my bum on a seat - I'm looking forward to tweaking it

I've previously posted these in another thread, but will re-post them here to save jumping around the forums.. PPV performance numbers derived using a G-Tech Pro:

0-100 KM/Hr - average of 4 runs

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4X4: 15.12

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4X4: 13.28

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4X2: 12.71

G-Wagon 2.8 4AT 4X4: 17.33

Pajero Sport 3.2 4AT 4X4: 13.91

Pajero Sport 2.5 4AT 4X2: 15.11

Ford Everest 2.5 AT 4X2: 16.05

My Pajero Sport 2.5 4AT 4X2 (Stock): 12.01s

Pajero Sport 2.5 4AT 4X2 (w/ Racechip Pro): 10.71s

80-120km/hr, average of 4 runs:

Fortuner 2.7V 4AT 4x4: 11.35

Fortuner 3.0V 4AT 4x4: 10.3

Fortuner 3.0v 4AT 4x2: 10.14

G-Wagon 2.8 4AT 4x4: 14.79

Pajero Sport 3.2 4AT 4x4: 10.86

Pajero Sport 2.5 4AT 4x2: 12.35

Everest 2.5 5AT 4x2: 11.99

My Pajero Sport 2.5 4AT 4X2 (Stock): 8.64s

Pajero Sport 2.5 4AT 4X2 (w/ Racechip Pro): 7.49s

Note that the indicated speed in Dynolicious is a consitent 4km/hr less than what my speedo indicates, and I'm pretty certain the iPhone has an accurate clock, so there's no glaring reason to question these numbers. What doesn't make sense is why my PJS performs so well in stock trim...

I'm now wondering whether the vehicle ECU is somehow adapting to the Racechip, and that is being reflected even when the Racechip comes out? Note that the stock runs I did were undertaken immediately after pulling the chip -it hadn't been out for much more than a couple of minutes.

Well, it's either something like that, or my launches were better than I though they were

Edited July 24, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

It's just dawned on me..

It's obvious that even without the Racechip installed, my PJS is already running an increased fuel rail pressure. That explains the 17% improvement vs 30%, and explains why the stock performance is improved from standard.

The question is still why? I guess I could take the chip out for a week or two and see if performance degrades back to standard, but I'm afraid that would just drive me and the Mrs nuts - we like our HP

Edit: What it doesn't explain is the HP reported by Dynolicious. I am using a correction factor (i.e. drivetrain loss) of 25% - perhaps it really substantially higher? Will need to research it... Another option would be to remove the correction factor altogether, in which case Dynlolicious would be reporting WHP instead.

Edited July 24, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

Edit: What it doesn't explain is the HP reported by Dynolicious. I am using a correction factor (i.e. drivetrain loss) of 25% - perhaps it really substantially higher? Will need to research it... Another option would be to remove the correction factor altogether, in which case Dynlolicious would be reporting WHP instead.

OK, I can't find any form of hard data on drivetrain loss (best I found was 33.5% being used for a Triton, but the dyno results were being disputed..), so I'm deciding that there's just no point in using it. With that removed from the picture, all that's required for an accurate WHP figure is a known vehicle weight. For that I'm using the kerb weights published by Mitsubishi Thailand + my own body weight.

For reference:

Pajero Sport 2.5 GLS: 1930 KG

Pajero Sport 2.5 GT: 1940 KG

Pajero Sport 3.2 GLS: 2100 KG

Pajero Sport 3.2 GT: 2110 KG

So for mine I'm using 2010 KG (1940 + 70 for me). My PJS always has a full tank of diesel, so it's spot-on.

So with that now out of the way, here are the updated WHP figures:

Note that I probably should be using a correction factor of 4% due to the altitiude and weather conditions the tests were run at (see first post for details), but in the interest of "keeping it clean" I'm going to standardize on a 0% correction factor.

In case you're wondering, if I set the drivetrain loss to 34% (it only accepts whole numbers) the results look like this:

Stock: 161HP

w/Racechip Pro: 189 HP

The latter sounds/feels about right. But never mind, 0% drivetrain loss it what I'll be using moving forward..

Edited July 24, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

3) The maximum G's recorded (identical) - this also suggests torque converter slip I presume.

That assumption was incorrect.

I woke up early this morning and hit the "strip" once again.. The 0.93G's is just in fact the cars' traction limit, and over the course of quite a few runs I was only able to match it, never able to best it.

This a great though, because it means I have a benchmark for what signifies a "clean run" (it's an AT, so the only thing I'm doing is getting it off the line cleanly) so all future testing with tweaks and alternative piggybacks can now be more accurately compared.

If you're still interested, stay tuned - I may have some new goodies on the way soon

Edited July 25, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[CDNinKS]

If you're still interested, stay tuned - I may have some new goodies on the way soon

Come on MRO, don't leave us all hanging....how about a hint to the "goodies"

[MoonRiverOasis]

If you're still interested, stay tuned - I may have some new goodies on the way soon

Come on MRO, don't leave us all hanging....how about a hint to the "goodies"

Hehe, I'm not intentionally teasing, it's just that I'm still in the "ask a million questions" phase with a few different vendors

Here's where I'm at:

There are 3 basic types of "piggybacks" for improving commonrail HP:

1. Units that increase the commonrail fuel pressure. This includes Racechip, Racechip Pro, Speedkit and specific modules from vendors like PowerLab, ECU Shop and Lightspeed.

2. Units that vary the injection timing and pulse width. This includes DTE X-Power, Cheetach Tech, and again specific modules from vendors like PowerLab, ECU Shop and Lightspeed.

3. Units that defeat the factory ECU turbo boost limit and/or provide a level of boost control (i.e. increase from standard) - for these you're looking at vendors like PowerLab, ECU Shop and Lightspeed.

Types 1 and 2 can be fitted totally independantly, while type 3 requires more fuel so is dependant on type 1 and/or 2 being fitted.

With electronics alone it appears that 220-240 HP (flywheel) is possible, while with 1+2+3+ an aftermarket turbo, bigger intercooler, dump pipe and air filter you're on your way to high 200's (medium turbo) or mid-300's with a monster turbo. That's not on the radar just yet for me though - from what I've seen of dyno reports and posted videos, going to bigger turbos and intercoolers just means more lag and an even higher starting RPM for initial torque (2400-2600 RPM), which with an Auto transmission just means really bad driveability.

In addition to these you have "throttle controllers" that essentially just re-map your foot input (i.e. non-linear to actual throttle pedal position) - for pretty obvious reasons (i.e. I have good control over my right foot) I'm not terribly excited by these however..

Prices for all the above vary wildly, and many do not offer "plug and play", which is a primary requirement for me - there's no way I'm cutting or tapping into wires in the engine bay and losing my warranty. What I need is systems that can be easily removed before scheduled services, and easily replaced afterwards, heh Portability from this car to the next is another big plus for me, as it means spreading the cost, which in turn allows me to justify spending more

Communications are going slowly however, and I guess I'm probably being super-pendantic in the way I'm approaching it, so it may be a while before I come to any conclusions. Not being in BKK at the moment isn't helping things much either.

I will report back when I have some useful info to share, in the meantime I'll try to get some tweaking time on the Racechip Pro in and get back with my findings there.

BTW - who invited you into Transam and my conversation anyway?!? J/K.. I didnt' think anyone else was reading this, heh

Edited July 26, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[CDNinKS]

BTW - who invited you into Transam and my conversation anyway?!? J/K.. I didnt' think anyone else was reading this, heh

Hey, I read all this stuff with interest......not sure I will get as deep into it as you, but I enjoy hearing your stories and experiences....keep em coming.

BTW, as to something that will bring on the boost sooner, I would be more interested in that for my Navara......I'm always looking at the tach waiting for 2000 rpm and the boost coming online, that's when the Racechip shows its stuff. You can't go more than half throttle in second gear or the tires are squealing

Edited July 26, 2010 by CDNinKS

[MoonRiverOasis]

Hey, I read all this stuff with interest......not sure I will get as deep into it as you, but I enjoy hearing your stories and experiences....keep em coming.

BTW, as to something that will bring on the boost sooner, I would be more interested in that for my Navara......I'm always looking at the tach waiting for 2000 rpm and the boost coming online, that's when the Racechip shows its stuff. You can't go more than half throttle in second gear or the tires are squealing

Great, so long as someone is reading I guess I'll keep posting Truth is this thread is probably going to just turn into my own little "upgrade log" though - I appreciate this kind of thing doesn't do well in the popularity stakes. heh.

As for coming on boost sooner, this is also one of my performance goals. I got all excited by one poster on a Thai-language website, saying he'd got his PJS to come on full boost at 1600 RPM, but then it just turned out he was reading the dyno charts wrong and really just had nfi

I've just had an interesting and unusually lucid reply from one of the vendors, so I might be ordering some parts sooner than expected..

Edited July 26, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[CDNinKS]

I've just had an interesting and unusually lucid reply from one of the vendors, so I might be ordering some parts sooner than expected..

OK, keep me in the loop

[katabeachbum]

very interesting reading MRO

I have been on a 3800km roadtrip In VIGO to Laos, Vientienne and Nong Kai area, so havent glanzed at TV for a week or so.

There are severel reasons why a stock engine performs more than stated. Very seldom less, since that would make customers complain and in some markets have the right to get a new car.

All electronic parts come with tolerances. Car manufactorers use the cheapest available, which is +/- 10% for each part. High end hi fi manufactorers use the +/-3%, and extreme high end choose the +/-0,5% from these. Lets say there are 50 parts in one ECU, and you can calculate how many outputs a 140 hp ECU is actually going to provide. So a 140 hp ECU is easily a 156 hp ECU or perhaps 170 hp.

All other engine parts come with tolerances. Some 4 pots have 4 pistons with exactly same weight, providing a very smooth engine with less vibrations and less heat buildup. Equals more power by same amount of fuel/air. Same goes for valves, heads, cams, airintake without edges, exhaust without edges.

If we started with a stated 140 hp engine with 156 hp ECU and all engine parts made to perfection we are close to 180 hp. Not very likely all this is perfect for one engine, but sh-t happens in one of 500.000 units.

Most autos have manufactorers limits on tourque and hp. Vehicle manufactorer sometimes state less power for engine than reality. Cheaper than detuning engine, and auto trannys manuafctorers warranty remains. Latest Jag is one example. Did a terrific job on tuning the 5,0 kompressor until they discover tourque was 50 Nm higher than ZF accepted. States 660Nm in spec but performs as the 710 Nm.

and in LOS. Tax barrier of 220 hp makes all spec 219 hp only. So called detuned. But performs as their 230-280 hp cousins abroad

When a stock engine performs more than stated, one of the reasons could be ECU demanding higher rail pressure than stated. Higher railpressure makes system work closer to its absolute pressure limit before adding mods. Adding a pressure booster like raceprochips can only ad pressure to pumps and systems limit, so gain is less in % than stated. HP and tourque should now be as stated by raceprochips though

Turbos

The beauty of small turbos is quick response/build up time. Max tourque is achived at low rpm, avoiding what is called turbo lag.

The first turbo petrols in Europe where BMW 2002 and Saab 99. Both 2000cc 4 pots and both 1975 as I recall. They had an increase of approx 40% in power by adding a turbo and decreasing kompression. They where commonly called ketchup engines. No power, no power, no power, oh sh-t here comes the power. they where both fun but demanding to drive.

From the early turbo days, its developed to use smaller and smaller turbos. I believe Maseratis 2000cc V6 in approx 1984 was the first to use 2 very small turbos to achive higher tourque at lower rpm and still 40% gain in max hp and tourque.

Back to LOS 4 pot diesels, the smaller turbo compared to displacement the higher tourque at low rpm. Look at Toyotas 3,0 VNturbo providing max tourque at 1400rpm and ECU restricting tourque to save autobox until max is reached at 3200rpm, while Toyota and Nissans 2,5 VNturbos need 2000rpm to find same amount of tourque.

Tuning these LOS 4 pots diesels, larger turbos would be my last solution. High tourque at low rpm is gold, 50 more hp at 4000rpm is almost worthless for day to day driving

[katabeachbum]

very interesting reading MRO

I have been on a 3800km roadtrip In VIGO to Laos, Vientienne and Nong Kai area, so havent glanzed at TV for a week or so.

There are severel reasons why a stock engine performs more than stated. Very seldom less, since that would make customers complain and in some markets have the right to get a new car.

All electronic parts come with tolerances. Car manufactorers use the cheapest available, which is +/- 10% for each part. High end hi fi manufactorers use the +/-3%, and extreme high end choose the +/-0,5% from these. Lets say there are 50 parts in one ECU, and you can calculate how many outputs a 140 hp ECU is actually going to provide. So a 140 hp ECU is easily a 156 hp ECU or perhaps 170 hp.

All other engine parts come with tolerances. Some 4 pots have 4 pistons with exactly same weight, providing a very smooth engine with less vibrations and less heat buildup. Equals more power by same amount of fuel/air. Same goes for valves, heads, cams, airintake without edges, exhaust without edges.

If we started with a stated 140 hp engine with 156 hp ECU and all engine parts made to perfection we are close to 180 hp. Not very likely all this is perfect for one engine, but sh-t happens in one of 500.000 units.

Most autos have manufactorers limits on tourque and hp. Vehicle manufactorer sometimes state less power for engine than reality. Cheaper than detuning engine, and auto trannys manuafctorers warranty remains. Latest Jag is one example. Did a terrific job on tuning the 5,0 kompressor until they discover tourque was 50 Nm higher than ZF accepted. States 660Nm in spec but performs as the 710 Nm.

and in LOS. Tax barrier of 220 hp makes all spec 219 hp only. So called detuned. But performs as their 230-280 hp cousins abroad

When a stock engine performs more than stated, one of the reasons could be ECU demanding higher rail pressure than stated. Higher railpressure makes system work closer to its absolute pressure limit before adding mods. Adding a pressure booster like raceprochips can only ad pressure to pumps and systems limit, so gain is less in % than stated. HP and tourque should now be as stated by raceprochips though

Turbos

The beauty of small turbos is quick response/build up time. Max tourque is achived at low rpm, avoiding what is called turbo lag.

The first turbo petrols in Europe where BMW 2002 and Saab 99. Both 2000cc 4 pots and both 1975 as I recall. They had an increase of approx 40% in power by adding a turbo and decreasing kompression. They where commonly called ketchup engines. No power, no power, no power, oh sh-t here comes the power. they where both fun but demanding to drive.

From the early turbo days, its developed to use smaller and smaller turbos. I believe Maseratis 2000cc V6 in approx 1984 was the first to use 2 very small turbos to achive higher tourque at lower rpm and still 40% gain in max hp and tourque.

Back to LOS 4 pot diesels, the smaller turbo compared to displacement the higher tourque at low rpm. Look at Toyotas 3,0 VNturbo providing max tourque at 1400rpm and ECU restricting tourque to save autobox until max is reached at 3200rpm, while Toyota and Nissans 2,5 VNturbos need 2000rpm to find same amount of tourque.

Tuning these LOS 4 pots diesels, larger turbos would be my last solution. High tourque at low rpm is gold, 50 more hp at 4000rpm is almost worthless for day to day driving

I remember the outlaws (relative) and his pal had 99 Turbo S, model with water injection, there was a bit of rivalry cos my yank was a daily driver at the time. The turbo was non existant at normal driving rpm so l wasn't impressed. If l remember correct it had a turbo boost gauge on the dash to tell you what the turbo was doing so suppose with that and the clutch you could have some fun but l never felt it. He said it reaches 140mph, which it did after about 10 minutes, well the speedo said it did.

In turn l took him for a ride in the yank and opened his eyes a bit, fear comes to mind, but good fun.

yeah, 35 years ago there was no substitute to cubic inches, and these pioneer turbos only provided 150-160 hp, which at that time was impressing for a 2000cc typically providing 80-100 hp carbed and 100-120 hp injected. the latter bmw2002 tii with kugelfisher injection.

[MoonRiverOasis]

Some great points raised there Kata, thanks!

As for your final statement: "Tuning these LOS 4 pots diesels, larger turbos would be my last solution. High tourque at low rpm is gold, 50 more hp at 4000rpm is almost worthless for day to day driving" - I couldn't agree more.. If it ever came to the point of changing turbos I'd see myself going twin, smaller turbos to keep the lag down.

However, it appears that more than reasonable gains are totally doable with the stock internals and turbo along with some plug-in electronics, so don't anyone get excited about this turning into Thailands' first twin-turbo Pajero Sport, heh

As for petrol turbos, my first introduction to them was as a teenager with a second-hand mid-eighties Nissan Sunny Turbo - a FWD with a 1.5L SOHC engine with an air-cooled turbo and no intercooler. After tuning it had acceptable acceleration (low 14's), but it also had almost impossible to control torque steer, and it cooked turbos like a forest fire. How things have changed... Later projects included A Ford Escort Cosworth turbo which got into the low-13's with tuning - it was fun, but torque was still "all or nothing" which made it an absolute pig to drive in normal traffic. From that I moved onto an R33 Skyline GT-R, which was really just more of the same, amplified, but with the added bonus of brick-like suspension to insure you never wanted to drive it on a daily basis - it was capable of high 11's though, which redeemed it a bit

In reading that back, I'm amazed by how much I've changed over the years too.. I still like some poke, but not at the expense of noise, comfort or drivability.. In my earlier youth I wanted as much noise as possible, I was only comforted in knowing I could take pretty much any other vehicle on, and driveability was simply the sum of acceleration, lateral G's and braking, heh

Edited August 1, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[katabeachbum]

Some great points raised there Kata, thanks!

As for your final statement: "Tuning these LOS 4 pots diesels, larger turbos would be my last solution. High tourque at low rpm is gold, 50 more hp at 4000rpm is almost worthless for day to day driving" - I couldn't agree more.. If it ever came to the point of changing turbos I'd see myself going twin, smaller turbos to keep the lag down.

However, it appears that more than reasonable gains are totally doable with the stock internals and turbo along with some plug-in electronics, so don't anyone get excited about this turning into Thailands' first twin-turbo Pajero Sport, heh

As for petrol turbos, my first introduction to them was as a teenager with a second-hand mid-eighties Nissan Sunny Turbo - a FWD with a 1.5L SOHC engine with an air-cooled turbo and no intercooler. After tuning it had acceptable acceleration (low 14's), but it also had almost impossible to control torque steer, and it cooked turbos like a forest fire. How things have changed... Later projects included A Ford Escort Cosworth turbo which got into the low-13's with tuning - it was fun, but torque was still "all or nothing" which made it an absolute pig to drive in normal traffic. From that I moved onto an R33 Skyline GT-R, which was really just more of the same, amplified, but with the added bonus of brick-like suspension to insure you never wanted to drive it on a daily basis - it was capable of high 11's though, which redeemed it a bit

In reading that back, I'm amazed by how much I've changed over the years too.. I still like some poke, but not at the expense of noise, comfort or drivability.. In my earlier youth I wanted as much noise as possible, I was only comforted in knowing I could take pretty much any other vehicle on, and driveability was simply the sum of acceleration, lateral G's and braking, heh

are we getting older?

twin small turbos is the way to go, just look at bmw, benz and audi. V6 is designed from scratch for twin turbo, inline 4 just need another header/exhaust/air which is required anyway for +280 hp from these diesels

anyway. auto box is the major limit and electronic tuning passes autos limit long before turbos limit

[MoonRiverOasis]

are we getting older?

twin small turbos is the way to go, just look at bmw, benz and audi. V6 is designed from scratch for twin turbo, inline 4 just need another header/exhaust/air which is required anyway for +280 hp from these diesels

anyway. auto box is the major limit and electronic tuning passes autos limit long before turbos limit

No doubt I'm getting older But really, most of my toning-down is due to being married, having kids and having lived with the road conditions and limited accessibility of performance cars here Thailand.. I shudder at the thought of driving any of my old petrol turbo's on the roads here - I'd have a constant migraine and no teeth left from the bumps, and my wife would never understand how on earth I could think those were "nice cars"..

Good point on the auto transmission too - I'd forgotten to bring that one up

[MoonRiverOasis]

Just in from one of the Thai vendors (14K Baht of electronics), looks promising

Edited August 1, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[hakku]

MRO, keep posting, anything that gives measurably more to the wheels is always of interest to all of us (isn't it?) Think the transmission losses are pretty horrific though but seems quite correct.

Does the torque converter not lock up at certain rpm, if so, loss should be less than this number I'd guess, but never mind, you just clean up all the assumptions by using the whp number.

I don't know about you but I do have the experience that real weight is always higher then quoted kerb weights, that is good because it gives you more hp's. Put her on a weight station if you drive by one and see.

hak

[MoonRiverOasis]

OK, big discovery today!

The Racehip Pro I have comes with a "Test Dongle":

The idea with this is that after you've connected the Racechip harness in series with the commonrail plug and factory wiring, you connect this thing to the business-end of the Racechip wiring harness to test that everything is correct before hooking up the actual Racechip box. If you've got everything connected right, the little green LED lights up, if you don't it doesn't.

All of my previous "Stock" tests were performed with the test dongle in place instead of the Raceship itself - with the assumption that it the dongle ought to equal stock perfomance, right? wrong.

Earlier today I removed the entire Racechip harness from the engine bay, and the power drop was noticably more than my tests performed with the dongle in place.. So it would appear that you can achieve a moderate gain in HP just by hooking a resistor and an LED across the commonrail wiring harness alone - talk about "cheap diesel performance"!

I haven't had a chance to re-run all of the numbers yet, but will get onto that as soon as I have some free time and a dry, clear road and report back.

Edited August 2, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

MRO, keep posting, anything that gives measurably more to the wheels is always of interest to all of us (isn't it?) Think the transmission losses are pretty horrific though but seems quite correct.

Does the torque converter not lock up at certain rpm, if so, loss should be less than this number I'd guess, but never mind, you just clean up all the assumptions by using the whp number.

I don't know about you but I do have the experience that real weight is always higher then quoted kerb weights, that is good because it gives you more hp's. Put her on a weight station if you drive by one and see.

hak

Yes, the losses in the AT are horrific - I guess that's why they're called slushboxes

I really don't know if the TC locks up at all in the Pajero Sport, but even if it did it'd only be in 4th and I'm not getting that far in my tests - so I'm basically slipping the whole way. I'm still surprised by how much additional loss I'm seeing even with modest WHP gains though, so I'm wondering if there's something that can be done about that (different tranny fluid perhaps?). I'm not by any stretch a pro when it comes to AT's - in fact this is only the 3rd car I've ever owned with an AT..

Good point on the real weights - I might stop by one of the wiegh stations sometime

Given the test equipment and conditions I'm working in, I'm really only aiming for solid comparative data, so the only thing that's important is that I either keep the run conditions the same (and don't gain any more weight ), or if I can't do that, I redo all the tests so they're on the same baseline - this will become more difficult as more toys arrive though which is why I'm logging down the weather and altitude test are run at. That way even if I can't replicate test conditions I'll still able to equalize the numbers retrospectively..

Edited August 2, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[MoonRiverOasis]

Fluid can and does make a difference if you want to take the chance. Me and modern autos, well, different kettle of fish for me.

In my race hopped up GM autos, Ford type F fluid was recommended by the performance pack manufacturers, performed better, handled the heat better, and it did.

So it's out there if you want to tinker, different fluid l mean. The yanks are on top of the auto tuning tree so perhaps the info is on the Net.

The Vigo only seems to lock up at around 80 km/ph in OD/4

The dongle thing is interesting.

Another member on this site has in the past posted about using different AT transmission fluids, however I have my own reasons to doubt how far their knowledge truly goes, so I'm not ready to make the plunge based on that... I would be curious to hear from someone that works with and truly understands the Asien boxes that go into these things though ;P

Edited August 3, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[elrey]

I'm dying to get one of these chips, just can't justify the price..

[Thaihog]

I'm dying to get one of these chips, just can't justify the price..

You wouldn't happen to be from Yorkshire, would you?

[elrey]

I'm missing the joke, hehehe, from manila,

[Neilly]

There is a version of the dyno app for the Android phone as well...see here Linky Dink

[basjke]

BTW - who invited you into Transam and my conversation anyway?!? J/K.. I didnt' think anyone else was reading this, heh

Hey, I read all this stuff with interest......not sure I will get as deep into it as you, but I enjoy hearing your stories and experiences....keep em coming.

BTW, as to something that will bring on the boost sooner, I would be more interested in that for my Navara......I'm always looking at the tach waiting for 2000 rpm and the boost coming online, that's when the Racechip shows its stuff. You can't go more than half throttle in second gear or the tires are squealing

Isn't closing the EGR valve a cheap solution to bring up the boost sooner.I did it on my Navara and the difference on how it kicks in at low RPM's is remarkably.

[cheshiremusicman]

I finally took the top off the race chip and tinkered. Moved the setting one click on both dials, on one meant going back. Still had the

lag from idle ( auto trans ), BUT, holding the ride on the brakes reached a stall of 1500 RPM and wheels started to break loose, released the brakes and it flew. More tests tomorrow.

I've had the 'Racechip Pro' on my 3litre diesel Fortuner 4x4 now for a couple of months and am still 'fiddling' with the settings to see how the vehicle reacts. The first 'decent run' was about a week ago when I went up to Bangkok. Got stuck in traffic of course when I hit BKK but had been keeping up 120km/h nearly all the way from Hua-Hin. Interesting that my 'info meter' was showing an average fuel consumption of 12.4k/L as I hit the traffic then it dropped to 11.3 by the time I'd reached my destination on the other side of BKK. I finished off the tank with local work and had some 620kms on the trip and all in all it managed a very creditable (IMHO) of 10.354k/L = 30.41mpg which for a 4x4 with aircon running all the time and good acceleration I reckon is good going. I seem to recollect on the old 'Racechip'thread someone with the Fortuner saying that he regularly got 11k/L and he was not talking about long runs. Any comments. I know that fuel consumption is very much related to your 'style' of driving. I don't go mad but I do use the acceleration.

Can one of the many experts on this site tell me what they personally reckon are the best settings for the Fortuner and which of the tuneable dials controls the revs when the unit starts to give the boost to the performance, from the seat of my pants I reckon that with settings D & 1 at the moment the 'power' seems to come in at 2100rpm can this be lowered?. I understand that one of the clickable variable resistors controls the 'Efficiency of the engine' or am I talking rubbish. I would be very interested to know precisely what the two settings are doing just for curiosity, but I assume that one of them is controlling the 'injection pressure', so what is the other doing - changing the injection timing , length of injection, or what?

All in all I am very happy with the 'Racechip' and reckon that it was certainly worth the money and thanks to the person who brought this device to our attention on the Forum.

Happy and safe motoring to you all.

[cheshiremusicman]

Thanks for the above which is fine explaining how to adjust the power levels, but it still doesn't answer my question as to 'Can I make adjustments that will enable the power to come in BELOW 2100rpm', or is this determined by the reaction to the Turbo? It would be great to get the power coming in at lower revs as at the present it means that it feels as though it is just coming in at 120km/h and above in top gear. The power 'seemed' to be still available when I was doing 140 on the odd occasion whilst overtaking, but this is just 'seat of the pants feeling'.

I recently did a long run up to Khon Kaen; some 720 kms each way and on the way back I adjusted the setting from D F to E 2 which seemed to give more boost but still the power felt as though it was coming in at 2100rpm. fuel consumption was great at 12.2 km/L doing 120/130km/h most of the time until I hit BKK on the way back and spent over 90 mins getting across on the 'toll roads' just solid bumper to bumper from the NW to the SW, so this obviously dropped the fuel comsumption levels a lot, but still very impressive.

Can one of our experts please tell me why diesels seem to use so much fuel whilst idling. I have noticed the average fuel consumption readings dropping whilst just sitting in traffic as described above down from 12.5 to 12.1 whilst on the BKK toll road and this after lots of kms establishing the 12.5 average?

[wandrinstar]

BTW - who invited you into Transam and my conversation anyway?!? J/K.. I didnt' think anyone else was reading this, heh

Hey, I read all this stuff with interest......not sure I will get as deep into it as you, but I enjoy hearing your stories and experiences....keep em coming.

BTW, as to something that will bring on the boost sooner, I would be more interested in that for my Navara......I'm always looking at the tach waiting for 2000 rpm and the boost coming online, that's when the Racechip shows its stuff. You can't go more than half throttle in second gear or the tires are squealing

Isn't closing the EGR valve a cheap solution to bring up the boost sooner.I did it on my Navara and the difference on how it kicks in at low RPM's is remarkably.

You can shut it down if your not a Greenie , it runs a bit hotter but you should notice a performance increase.Some turboes dont like the extra heat, so up to you.

[MoonRiverOasis]

Can one of our experts please tell me why diesels seem to use so much fuel whilst idling. I have noticed the average fuel consumption readings dropping whilst just sitting in traffic as described above down from 12.5 to 12.1 whilst on the BKK toll road and this after lots of kms establishing the 12.5 average?

Because when idling, you're getting exactly 0KM/L