Thank you Andy

 

ACTUALLY...the JCW is 0.37 inches smaller (reduced) therefore making this 0.37 inch reduction (0.37/2.58) 14.3%!

 

lol, well we'll let Randy stand on at least one leg as a "close enough" merit award

 

Well damn it, it isn't the 13% everyone was quoting ! Can I stand on that, please?


Randy

 

I am for using what ever unit of measure that gives my engine the largest numerical value. Provided that the same system give my personal mass the lowest numerical value!

 

Amen!

 

Yes folks the pulley reduction myth is still alive & kicking. Thus far we agree that of the 4 sizes, 3 are either smaller or larger than any given one. Oh & green Minis are the slowest

 

Jaques at BBM said the stock pulley in my MCSC is smaller than the stock pulley on an 03...Anyone verify?

 

On Saturday, I checked the pulley on a brand new '05 MCS with a vernier caliper and compared it to a pulley from an '03 MCS. They are exactly the same size.

 

I would like to dispel the myths surrounding chip tuning. Why does everyone ask whether their configuration has been tuned on a particular chip? I think many people are confused by what really goes on in chip tuning, and the fact that their configuration has never been tested by the chip manufacturers. Somebody should really clarify for people the difference between dyno tuning and practice of table(s) manipulation. Most manufacturers just manipulate the tables to clean up throttle response, raise the rev limiter and maybe play with the fuel air ratio sometimes without ever really putting any Mini on a dyno. My guess is that companies like MTH, Powerchip and the such do this. Then others basically dyno tune their chip on one configuration and make slight tweaks to the tables based off of their educated guesses. My guess is the Unichip and GIAC has done this. Somebody should explain that the only way to optimally tune for your configuration is to take your car to a dyno and tune it right there through a serious of runs. Somebody should also explain that if you bought the chip thinking it was tuned to your 15% pulley configuration that you don't have to send the chip back or get a new download, just because you added an air intake. First, the Mini chip is quite adaptive and can handle the change that an intake makes, and second, most likely the different download that the chip company gives you is bogus anyway and probably consisted or some engineer changing a few values off of a table because that is how they think the intake will act on the Mini. Somebody should explain to the Mini consumer that 75% of what they feel in the chip is just throttle response. I think there are more myths around chip tuning than almost any of the other Mini performance products.

 

Great timing on this question, dgsz! I just spent most of my day at the chassis dyno doing UNIchip tuning on both my MCS and a Cooper. Here are some answers to your questions:

*The primary purpose of ECU tuning is to optimize the air/fuel ratio. To do this, you need to look at a variety of parameters. Most importantly, an accurate and quick wideband O2 sensor is critical. Next, you must keep ECT and IAT's within a predetermined tolerance to get consistent information. Also, EGT's must be monitored (especially on the MCS) to ensure you're not running misleadingly lean (boosted cars need to run richer than n/a cars to keep EGT's down to a sane level).

Since I'm a UNIchip Custom Tuner, I can definitely speak from experience that all UNichip maps have been designed on a chassis dyno with a wideband O2, not just guesstimations. That said, I can't confirm any other ECU brands that haven't done real dyno tuning. ....and that said, guesstimations aren't always a bad thing, knowing the car and its' systems can let you do "on the fly" adjustments and have them be close enough where they'll be within reason. Of course, this takes experience and wisdom, two attributes not all tuners are blessed with.

The process for generating a Custom Map for the Unichip is not difficult. First we do a few baseline runs on the stock ECU to determine ECT, IAT, EGT, and of course A/F and torque. From there, I'll adjust the fuel and timing to get all the parameters in-line with what is textbook appropriate for maximum power while still leaving a safety buffer. This may take several more pulls to dial-in the mapping, but when it's all done, as SpiderX found out, the car runs very nice, smooth, and as powerful as it possibly can be with that mechanical setup.

*When you do change mechanical setup (as dgsz said, adding a CAI), you can send me your UNIchip module and I'll upload the optimized mapping accordingly. There are subtle changes to the maps for certain bolt-on items. In the example of the CAI, the mapping doesn't change very significantly, so it isn't an emergency to have your software "updated".

*dgsz is mostly right to say that the MINI's ECU is adaptive, it is if you have a catalytic converter with an O2 working properly. However, it's only adaptive at part-throttle! Full-throttle mapping only gets changed by the ECU if the IAT gets too hot (i.e. as I found out today with the 19% pulley), otherwise, what's in the mapping, it what happens at WOT.

*Finally, about the question of throttle response; The UNIchip has parameters to adjust e-gas end points, speed limiter, etc., however I have yet to get into changing any of those beyond what UNIchip optmized when they did their original batch of dyno sessions. Dgsz assumption that "75% of what they feel...is just throttle response" is definitely not correct. I would put that 75% weight on the fuel map, 20% on the timing map, and the balance on the e-gas settings.

I hope that clears up some things, let me know if you have any questions!

Cheers,
Ryan
Ryan@DetroitTuned.com
www.DetroitTuned.com


[For the Newbs:
ECT = Engine Coolant Temp
IAT = Inlet Air Temp
EGT = Exhaust Gas Temp
ECU = Engine Control Unit (aka ECM or DME)
O2 = Oxygen molecule
A/F = Air/Fuel ratio
WOT = Wide Open Throttle (aka full throttle or 'floored')
CAI = Cold Air Intake]

 

I liked this thread better before it was a Unichip advertisement.

Ryephile is failing to point out some serious drawbacks to the Unichip, but he's already had those explained to him before so I won't reiterate them here.

 

Thanks for your reply Ryan. I think my comment about throttle response, didn't really have to do with the Unichip per se, just chips in general. For example, the Jim Conforti chip, when it was first released, had some pretty good reviews saying that it felt much better and more power was there, when in reality after numerous ones had been dynoed only showed a 3hp gain. But I still don't think you have answered a lot of the Myths:

Myth: "I have to get a chip update when I install my CAI." or "will this chip work on my Alta CAI"

These are the kinds of comments that we see all the time on this board, because people don't know what they do exactly.

Also, like Andy said, the Unichip does have the drawbacks associated with piggyback units, not to say it might not be a very good solution, just that it has some possible drawbacks as well for some.

 

Only because its still on the dealer lot and i havent modded it yet. Dont worry though, the reduction in air resistance that im gonna get from my new Alta antenna (see you this evening to pick it up Chad) should drop my et at least a good 5 seconds i think . OOOOH! and if I get a BIG red R and paste it on the trunk i bet i can pick up a few hundred more horsepower too

 

This is not myth. It is a fact

M

 

I see, so then, if I were to shape a car like an R i should be unbeatable right??

 

Rather than reply to my earlier post in this thread, Ryephile chose to send me harassing email after harassing email, even after I told him that I would post the full text of his email if he sent any further ones. He persisted, so I may post his entire email at a later date. Anyway, here is my understanding of the Unichip, information that Ryephile obviously does not want posted (or else he would not have emailed me): The DME (ECU) for the MINI Cooper S has over 100 pins connected to the wiring harness in two terminal blocks. The Unichip uses a total of 4 terminal block connectors to attach between the DME and the wiring harness. This adds over 200 possible points of failure (broken pins, corrosion, etc) between the ECU and the rest of the car. Think about that, 200 additional points of failure in your car! This does not happen in any of the flashed chip applications.

According to Randy Webb, the Unichip works by "modifying the output signal of the crank sensor, and the MAP sensor, and monitoring the TPS, IAT, and boost."

http://www.webbmotorsports.com/forum...opic.php?t=387

So, by modifying the crank angle signal, not only is ignition timing affected, but start of injection timing as well. So, advancing the timing by 20 degrees will also cause the fuel injectors to start spraying 20 degrees earlier, and vice-versa. By modifying the output of the MAP sensor, the ECU is accessing lookup table for injector pulse widths, but is using "tricked" data to determine the injector pulse widths for a given situation. What happens when the adjustment on the MAP signal goes so far as to put the running parameters at a point that is not on the lookup table in the ECU? Let's say we have 2000 mbar actual and 6500 rpm, but we fool the ECU by saying the MAP is seeing 2100 mbar. What happens if there are no values for the combination of 2100 mbar & 6500 rpm?

The Unichip behaves very much like the Apexi AFC in the sense that it's not actually driving the injectors, but rather is having the ECU directly control the injectors. Since the injectors are not directly controlled, it isn't possible to increase the rev limit. Since the throttle isn't directly controlled, any claim that the Unichip alters the relationship between the gas pedal and the throttle is nonsense.

I have seen exactly one real dyno showing the power at the wheels from the addition of the Unichip. It showed a loss in power, not a gain:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=26838

Ryephile (who sells Unichips) has claimed to show "Peak gains of 11Lb-Ft and 9HP":

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...5&postcount=33

Yet he didn't actually use a dyno. He used an Auterra PDA program that by his own admission:

"I was pretty surprised to see such a huge variation in outputs (up to 20Lb-Ft and 10HP!), as I was keeping a close eye on my IAT and ECT, keeping them at 90F and 190F (+/- 2 F) respectively, prior to each run."

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=27311

Randy Webb (who also sells Unichips) has claimed significant gains as well, but his "dyno" plots were done on Unichip's dyno and don't actually show power at the wheels at all. They use a ficticious correction factor (which may vary run to run) to try to guesstimate crank horsepower and torque (which is IMPOSSIBLE to measure except with the engine out of the car on an engine dyno.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=37758

IMHO, Any of the piggybacks (APEXi, Unichip, etc) are band-aids. Instead of tuning the correct way (changing the actual maps in the ECU) they are corrupting signals to try to fool the ECU into delivering fuel and timing different from what it intends to do. The Unichip doesn’t even allow the user to alter anything, it must be done for $$$ at an authorized Unichip dealer on their dyno.

I can definitely see the need for individual tuning for individual setups, but using band-aids to hack into wiring and modify sensor signals is the wrong way to go about it. It renders diagnostics compromised (since the ECU no longer clearly sees what's going on with its surroundings), it increases the likelyhood of electrical failures (every wire you cut and splice and every connector you add increases the likelyhood of failure), and it runs into limits (remember that with any of the currently available piggybacks, you cannot increase the rev limit since they don't drive injectors and ignition directly)

 

I for one, have had pin failures with a unichip harness for a 2002 WRX.

I have also had pin failures on a harness for an e-manage.

Most of these cars were pretty seriously modded and not your "daily drivers", so they saw more abuse then the regular person.

 

It amazes me that the proponents of the Unichip haven't responded (ahem ... Ryephile).

 

i believe there was an error in a previous post that said his numbers werent done on an actual dyno, not true his latest numbers were run on a dyno in this facility, go to this website here

 

Who is the "he" in "his numbers"? Randy? Ryephile? If you know of actual dyno plots (other than paulmon's which I already linked), post 'em up.

 

My last two UNIchip tunings were done on a Mustang IMP-1100. Actual gains were seen with the UNIchip. Afterall, it's math, not magic.

 

Excellent! Mind posting the plots? Also, do you have any comments on the other points I made?

 

Hey andy, please lighten up, you know who mybroscoop was reffering to.. "He" is Ryephile.

 

I for one, would like to see these dyno plots.

I could say that I have gained 50hp with a secret magnet on the fuel line. But we all know that's silly