JWT and Gforce ECU Dyno Comparison Results
08-01-2004, 08:25 PM
#1
JWT and Gforce ECU Dyno Comparison Results
I finally got around to doing a dyno comparison between the JWT ECU and the Gforce ECU. The goal of the test was to do answer two age old questions:
1. Whether the ECU program at wide open throttle (WOT) is fixed (static) or not (varies).
2. Which ECU delivers the most HP and TQ.
Before I discuss the results, here’s how the test was executed:
3 dyno pulls:
1. Do one pull with the JWT.
2. Swap in the Gforce. Do one pull with G-force.
3. Swap in the JWT. Do one pull with JWT.
For a baseline, I used my previous dyno (over 1 year ago). Since my last dyno I did not add any mods (kinda sad huh), but did replace the igition coils (from Hanshin to Mitsubishi), spark plugs (from plat to copper NGKs) and clutch (from ACT to OEM).
All dynos were done on the same Dynojet 248 machine in 4th gear.
My current mods include: hybrid intake, y pipe, MEVI, ECU (JWT or Gforce). The JWT I ordered was SUPPOSED to have 7200 redline, but the dyno shows that it only goes to 7000. Needless to say, I’m ****ed and will be making some angry call to get this corrected.
Here are the results:
HP:
Run 1 (JWT) ~185 HP
Run 2 (Gforce) ~185 HP
Run 3 (JWT) ~186 HP
Max TQ:
Run 1 (JWT) ~175 TQ
Run 2 (Gforce) ~178 TQ
Run 3 (JWT) ~174 TQ
Air/Fuel ratios:
The JWT is relatively flat across all RPMs while the Gforce A/F ratio is lower from about 3300 to 6400.
These results seem to confirm that the JWT ECU uses a static (fixed) program at WOT. That didn’t surprise me. What did surprise me, however is that I expected a bigger difference in terms of HP and TQ between the ECUs. (Of course, the extended redline of the JWT is very beneficial and makes it the superior ECU IMHO).
So then I compared my previous dyno I used as a baseline. This dyno was done with the same mods: hybrid intake, y pipe, MEVI, Gforce ECU. As I noted earlier I did change the coils, plugs and clutch. When comparing the current Gforce dyno with the previous Gforce dyno, the current dyno had a significant drop in HP and TQ, from 3000-5000.
The shop owner and I discussed what could cause this loss. When I mentioned that I changed the plugs from plat to copper, he thought that could be the reason. Has anyone ever compared plugs on a dyno? Any thoughts on this?
I’ll post pics of the dyno runs and A/F ratios soon.
1. Whether the ECU program at wide open throttle (WOT) is fixed (static) or not (varies).
2. Which ECU delivers the most HP and TQ.
Before I discuss the results, here’s how the test was executed:
3 dyno pulls:
1. Do one pull with the JWT.
2. Swap in the Gforce. Do one pull with G-force.
3. Swap in the JWT. Do one pull with JWT.
For a baseline, I used my previous dyno (over 1 year ago). Since my last dyno I did not add any mods (kinda sad huh), but did replace the igition coils (from Hanshin to Mitsubishi), spark plugs (from plat to copper NGKs) and clutch (from ACT to OEM).
All dynos were done on the same Dynojet 248 machine in 4th gear.
My current mods include: hybrid intake, y pipe, MEVI, ECU (JWT or Gforce). The JWT I ordered was SUPPOSED to have 7200 redline, but the dyno shows that it only goes to 7000. Needless to say, I’m ****ed and will be making some angry call to get this corrected.
Here are the results:
HP:
Run 1 (JWT) ~185 HP
Run 2 (Gforce) ~185 HP
Run 3 (JWT) ~186 HP
Max TQ:
Run 1 (JWT) ~175 TQ
Run 2 (Gforce) ~178 TQ
Run 3 (JWT) ~174 TQ
Air/Fuel ratios:
The JWT is relatively flat across all RPMs while the Gforce A/F ratio is lower from about 3300 to 6400.
These results seem to confirm that the JWT ECU uses a static (fixed) program at WOT. That didn’t surprise me. What did surprise me, however is that I expected a bigger difference in terms of HP and TQ between the ECUs. (Of course, the extended redline of the JWT is very beneficial and makes it the superior ECU IMHO).
So then I compared my previous dyno I used as a baseline. This dyno was done with the same mods: hybrid intake, y pipe, MEVI, Gforce ECU. As I noted earlier I did change the coils, plugs and clutch. When comparing the current Gforce dyno with the previous Gforce dyno, the current dyno had a significant drop in HP and TQ, from 3000-5000.
The shop owner and I discussed what could cause this loss. When I mentioned that I changed the plugs from plat to copper, he thought that could be the reason. Has anyone ever compared plugs on a dyno? Any thoughts on this?
I’ll post pics of the dyno runs and A/F ratios soon.
08-01-2004, 08:37 PM
#2
j, so you drove around with the jwt ecu and did a dyno and then unplugged it and then on dyno 3 plugged it back up and got just about the same results? i tended to believe the ecu learns, but this points in the other direction, right ?
also on the plugs, you lost some power with copper ? i was going to put in some coppers this week, now i have no idea ?
also on the plugs, you lost some power with copper ? i was going to put in some coppers this week, now i have no idea ?
08-01-2004, 08:49 PM
#3
Originally Posted by Ceasars Chariot
j, so you drove around with the jwt ecu and did a dyno and then unplugged it and then on dyno 3 plugged it back up and got just about the same results? i tended to believe the ecu learns, but this points in the other direction, right ?
also on the plugs, you lost some power with copper ? i was going to put in some coppers this week, now i have no idea ?
also on the plugs, you lost some power with copper ? i was going to put in some coppers this week, now i have no idea ?
The ECU may adjust, but this test looked at a WOT comparision. since runs #1 (which was in the car for months) and #3 (in the car for a much shorter time and not allowed time to "adjust") have similar HP and TQ numbers, it seems to indicate that at WOT the ECU uses a fixed program.
yah, from what I've read on this site, coppers are supposed to produce a better spark (that's why i got them in the first place). i don't know if the plugs are the culprit or something else or some combination.
08-01-2004, 09:31 PM
#4
Spelled with a I not a L for Iilac. Prounced Ii-eee-ack.
iTrader: (65)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Central Valley, California
Posts: 2,437
Nice, thanks for the infomation j_bryan. I always wonder which ecu made more power. If only gforce cracked the redline limiter, it would be the better buy.
08-02-2004, 09:56 AM
#6
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
In this instance, peak numbers don't really mean that much. 1 or 2 hp here or there make no difference in power in the car. Area under the curve is far more important for this comparison. You need to graph the hp and torque of both ecu's and see which has more area, that would be the better ecu (neagting the increased rev limiter of the JWT).
08-02-2004, 01:55 PM
#8
I've said it before and I'll say it again, ECUs use a fixed program that never changes, ever, at WOT. I confirmed that on a dyno like a year and a half ago and people still didn't believe it.
The definition of open loop (which is what mode the ECU runs in at WOT) is a system which does not use feedback from any sensors to alter performance.
Anyhow yes J, post the graphs or the runviewer files if you have them I'd very much like to see how the number compare across the entire range this is a great comparison of the 2 ECUs.
The definition of open loop (which is what mode the ECU runs in at WOT) is a system which does not use feedback from any sensors to alter performance.
Definitions of Open-loop on the Web:
describes a system that operates without feedback.
http://www.empiremagnetics.com/gloss...ossary_m_r.htm
A system that does not use feedback information to regulate performance.
www.minarikcorp.com/definitions2.html
A system in which there is no feedback. Motor motion is expected to faithfully follow the input command.
www.servomag.com/reference/glossary.htm
describes a system that operates without feedback.
http://www.empiremagnetics.com/gloss...ossary_m_r.htm
A system that does not use feedback information to regulate performance.
www.minarikcorp.com/definitions2.html
A system in which there is no feedback. Motor motion is expected to faithfully follow the input command.
www.servomag.com/reference/glossary.htm
08-02-2004, 01:57 PM
#9
Oh and I'd get on JWTs *** hard for giving you 7000 when you asked for a 7200rpm limiter. They already jerk us off by making us wait 8-12 weeks for a dang ECU, and not getting what you ask for is a slap in the face.
08-02-2004, 07:18 PM
#12
Baseline Gforce vs Current Gforce dyno
The following is a comparison of the baseline dyno with the same mods vs the current Gforce dyno. The only difference between the two dynos is the plugs, ignition coils and clutch. Notice the mid range loss. Could it be that copper plugs don't work as well as everyone says they do?
08-02-2004, 07:42 PM
#14
also, the date's, jan and july.. The temp and humd. could do that.
The jaggedness of the newest dyno line kind of has my intrest peaked.
The OLD line VS new line is night and day. But the 2 new lines look very similar. Maybe I am just overthinking this.
The jaggedness of the newest dyno line kind of has my intrest peaked.
The OLD line VS new line is night and day. But the 2 new lines look very similar. Maybe I am just overthinking this.
08-02-2004, 07:46 PM
#15
Excellent update j - thanks so much! Looking at the tq figures the JWT comes on stronger at 3500-4800 and looks more usable than the peaky TS/GF program. But everything is so close it's within the dyno margin of error. Curious that so different A/F results in the same power.
08-02-2004, 07:55 PM
#16
Originally Posted by Bags
also, the date's, jan and july.. The temp and humd. could do that.
The jaggedness of the newest dyno line kind of has my intrest peaked.
The OLD line VS new line is night and day. But the 2 new lines look very similar. Maybe I am just overthinking this.
The jaggedness of the newest dyno line kind of has my intrest peaked.
The OLD line VS new line is night and day. But the 2 new lines look very similar. Maybe I am just overthinking this.
I also thought the temp could be an issue, but these numbers are SAE corrected.
The newest Gforce dyno line is much more jagged than the baseline Gforce dyno--especially at high rpms...I don't know why. What could cause this?
08-03-2004, 08:16 AM
#19
Originally Posted by j_bryan
I also thought the temp could be an issue, but these numbers are SAE corrected.
The newest Gforce dyno line is much more jagged than the baseline Gforce dyno--especially at high rpms...I don't know why. What could cause this?
The newest Gforce dyno line is much more jagged than the baseline Gforce dyno--especially at high rpms...I don't know why. What could cause this?
it's stil not the same. With the correction factor, they are trying to get as close as possbile, it just puts everyone on the same playing field. Not an exact thing.
And what is the smoothing factor are you using to look at the graph?
It could also just have been a bad hookup from the dyno to your ignition wire
08-03-2004, 12:59 PM
#21
Originally Posted by Bags
OK, so the JWT ECU dyno was done all the way to 7000RPM ?
While the Gforce was done to 6500 RPM?
And there was ZERO gain????
Just trying to understand here
While the Gforce was done to 6500 RPM?
And there was ZERO gain????
Just trying to understand here
08-03-2004, 01:53 PM
#22
You can see the JWT is higher in 3500-4500rpm range because of the ~14:1 AFR vs. the G-Force ~13:1. Then once the G-Force AFR approachs the JWTs AFR around 5000-6000rpm, it gains some.
Comparing the two in the top-end, I'd say the JWT is experiencing some/slight detonation by the jagged line compared to the G-Force.
Also, isn't ~14.5:1 too lean at high rpm? I'd like ~13.5ish to make sure the plug tip stays cool for extended WOT driving times.
I'd rather have the JWT mid-range, but the G-Force top-end AFR, ie ~13.5:1, which is typically "lean best torque at WOT" range.
Comparing the two in the top-end, I'd say the JWT is experiencing some/slight detonation by the jagged line compared to the G-Force.
Also, isn't ~14.5:1 too lean at high rpm? I'd like ~13.5ish to make sure the plug tip stays cool for extended WOT driving times.
I'd rather have the JWT mid-range, but the G-Force top-end AFR, ie ~13.5:1, which is typically "lean best torque at WOT" range.
08-03-2004, 02:13 PM
#23
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by naijai
question what can be done with out actually putting a turbo on yur max to get it into the 200 hp range
there are already several maximas in the 200whp range with just bolt-ons.
08-03-2004, 03:46 PM
#24
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Also, isn't ~14.5:1 too lean at high rpm? I'd like ~13.5ish to make sure the plug tip stays cool for extended WOT driving times.
j_bryan:
Thank you for doing this great comparison
It's rare to find a useful post like this on the Org.
08-03-2004, 05:00 PM
#25
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Dave B
Yes, thank you. This ultra rich A/F above 5000rpms has always been a concern. I've this 14:1 ratio on multiple JWT runs also. It's good to see it's not costing the VQ any power though.
do you mean Lean?
08-03-2004, 06:59 PM
#28
Originally Posted by Bags
And what is the smoothing factor are you using to look at the graph?
It could also just have been a bad hookup from the dyno to your ignition wire
It could also just have been a bad hookup from the dyno to your ignition wire
Originally Posted by MAXimumHP
Do you have the runfiles? Might it be possible to post them up?
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Comparing the two in the top-end, I'd say the JWT is experiencing some/slight detonation by the jagged line compared to the G-Force.
Originally Posted by Dave B
Thank you for doing this great comparison It's rare to find a useful post like this on the Org.
08-03-2004, 08:01 PM
#29
Is the smoothing factor 1 on every single dyno plot you posted? Because it definately looks as though there has been more smoothing factor applied to the 2nd batch of images than the first.
No one really gains any significant amount of peak hp from JWT/MEVI they just get faster because they are making so much more power so much further into every gear. I dynod 182whp with i/y, and then 184 hp with mevi, and then 185whp with mevi/jwt ecu.
No one really gains any significant amount of peak hp from JWT/MEVI they just get faster because they are making so much more power so much further into every gear. I dynod 182whp with i/y, and then 184 hp with mevi, and then 185whp with mevi/jwt ecu.
08-03-2004, 08:32 PM
#30
AFR isn't the only possibility, however your AFR chart is too lean IMO. I'd call JWT and ask them. You can verify it's from detonation by running your car dry and then putting in a few gallons of high-octane and redyno. Just make sure you drive enough to get the good stuff through the lines.
If it is and you don't want to go the JWT route, I'd just get a Walbro HP 255lph pump. It will raise the fuel pressure and bring your AFR down, but it might be too much and you'd need an AFC anyways or an adjustable FPR.
I doubt the copper vs. plat plugs would make any difference as long as they are the proper heat range...coils could, but that's only if they were bad.
All this could just be that we aren't used to seeing a smoothing factor = 1, so it may not be something to worry about. However, the JWT vs. GForce plots makes it apparent something is changing.
If it is and you don't want to go the JWT route, I'd just get a Walbro HP 255lph pump. It will raise the fuel pressure and bring your AFR down, but it might be too much and you'd need an AFC anyways or an adjustable FPR.
I doubt the copper vs. plat plugs would make any difference as long as they are the proper heat range...coils could, but that's only if they were bad.
All this could just be that we aren't used to seeing a smoothing factor = 1, so it may not be something to worry about. However, the JWT vs. GForce plots makes it apparent something is changing.
Originally Posted by j_bryan
Is the AFR soley responsible for this detonation? Are there any other ways to correct this besides using an AFC? Or is it worth the effort to put the platinum plugs and other coils back in and redyno?
08-03-2004, 09:44 PM
#31
Originally Posted by Nealoc187
Is the smoothing factor 1 on every single dyno plot you posted? Because it definately looks as though there has been more smoothing factor applied to the 2nd batch of images than the first.
Perhaps others w/ JWT/MEVI can post their dynos w/ smoothing factor = 1 as a comparison to see if their curves are as jagged as mine?
If you look closely at the second batch of images, only dyno008 (baseline) is much smoother. Dyno010 (new Gforce dyno) is still fairly jagged when compared to dyno008.
08-03-2004, 09:47 PM
#32
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
AFR isn't the only possibility, however your AFR chart is too lean IMO. I'd call JWT and ask them. You can verify it's from detonation by running your car dry and then putting in a few gallons of high-octane and redyno. Just make sure you drive enough to get the good stuff through the lines.
08-04-2004, 06:03 AM
#34
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
What fuel are you using now?
I have no idea where to get 100 octane gas in MD/VA/DC area, but i can do some searching.
08-04-2004, 04:07 PM
#35
could i just buy some toulene and add to my 93 or is it better to purchase 100 octane?
Here's an interesting article on toulene. It suggests going the toulene route.
http://www.elektro.com/~audi/audi/toluene.html
Here's an interesting article on toulene. It suggests going the toulene route.
http://www.elektro.com/~audi/audi/toluene.html
08-04-2004, 06:08 PM
#37
? I was under the impression that anyone anywhere can buy toluene at any paint store... I guess its a good thing my dad started his own painting business if you really do need a license, gonna need lots of toluene if I ever get my turbo in.
08-04-2004, 10:13 PM
#38
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally Posted by Nealoc187
? I was under the impression that anyone anywhere can buy toluene at any paint store... I guess its a good thing my dad started his own painting business if you really do need a license, gonna need lots of toluene if I ever get my turbo in.
