Lotus NA Yota tuning kit on the way

tut · Post by **tut** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:48 pm

We saw that learning function at work when we did a group R/R at Bob Duncans place, Power Systems in Aberdeen, a few years ago.

We were all sceptical about his technique of training the standard Mems with a number of runs on the rollers, I think he unplugged it each time, but we all saw the results on Shugs car, and Robin and Lawrence both agreed that it was above board.

However the consensus was that the power increse would gradually drop off as the ECU decided to return to normal.

tut

robin · Post by **robin** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:04 pm

There is something suspicious here.

#1 Re-flashing the ECU shouldn't cost you anything. I would bet that with a nod and a wink in the right direction the track programme could "find it's way onto" your ECU for beer tokens.

#2 ECU learning. Can someone explain to me how ECU learning can "undo" the performance enhancements of adding manifolds, etc?

Cheers,
Robin

mac · Post by **mac** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:17 pm

I can understand how and ECU could LEARN things - ie with more airflow it would notice a weak mixture and enrich accordingly but a ecu that dumbs down?

Perhaps it's a millenium thing - gets fed up playing with the new stuff after a while and just goes back to staring at the TV.

Mac

SteveBanks · Post by **SteveBanks** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:05 pm

From what I understand, Plans Motorsport are currently charging £795 for a new replacement ECU but Lotus have not released any details regarding a reflash or replacement. Is this right? So have people just jumped to a conclusion that there will be an official Lotus part simply because the Plans ECU has a Lotus part number?

Iâ€™m all confused

And whatâ€™s the stage III mentioned on Elisetalk â€“ ecu/exhaust/induction? Is that official Lotus? If so, does that mean the ECU is programmed for gains from the stage III exhaust and strange mushroom induction? Doesnâ€™t that go against what everyone is saying regarding the ECU?

And why does everything have to be so fcuk complicated?

Jamie, where did you hear about the Emerald? Is it a definite or merely a rumour? Reason I ask is that I waited 2 yrs for an Emerald for my 111s and it was always a promised couple of months away and never materialised.

jamie · Post by **jamie** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:25 pm

Emerald first - Emerald have been making noises about making an ECU for a while now and now they are getting so many calls about it that they could not say no! They have invested 10K into parts etc and programming is underway. Spoke to Dave W and he said he is looking for a pre Xmas release date.

Roomers in the US have been going around about Lotus have been working on a stage 3 which would include zaust by HKS or something similar an induction kit plus a remapped ECU tuned for these bits. It would make sense as Lotus could make a tone of cash on selling it as a set say 2k or something.

Plans has access to Lotusâ€™s parts bin like no other â€“ they can fit an SC â€“as in a 240 cup for a price. I think they have just managed to grab some ECUs maybe from this Stage 3 kit.

ECU learning â€“ my understanding of it is â€“ say you fit an induction kit which provides the engine with more cool air than the standard one â€“ great the engines getting extra air and the power goes up! Now the ECUs learning has a set level of perimeters so if its now getting more air ideally it would increase the fuelling and everything is great. But what it actually does is adjust to take into account the extra air so getting back to the base perimeters.
The idea of it was to allow the engine to work to those original â€˜optimumâ€™ perimeters where ever it finds its self. â€“ not good when you are adding induction kits etcâ€¦.

Gareth · Post by **Gareth** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:14 pm

Having thought about this more, by dropping 2nd cam change to 4500 would be excellent.
Surely by doing this, theoretically you will get a faster 0-60, 0-100 etc?

Andy G · Post by **Andy G** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:16 pm

Gareth wrote:Having thought about this more, by dropping 2nd cam change to 4500 would be excellent.
Surely by doing this, theoretically you will get a faster 0-60, 0-100 etc?

you'd have to hope so, but on the track it would be genial

jamie · Post by **jamie** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:23 pm

I think there are some limitations on cam change over point due to oil pressure. I know the guys in the US have been quite conservative change the cam change over point by just a couple of hundred rpm.

Gareth · Post by **Gareth** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:43 pm

It would also put more pressure on the engine.

ryallm · Post by **ryallm** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:01 pm

Gareth wrote:Having thought about this more, by dropping 2nd cam change to 4500 would be excellent.
Surely by doing this, theoretically you will get a faster 0-60, 0-100 etc?

I am not sure you would be able to lower it that far on a non-supercharged engine. At lower levs, the second, higher lift cam will actually will produce less power than the first cam. I think the idea is to lower the change over to the point where the oomf produced by the 2 cams is roughly the same - no idea exactly where this is in the rev range, but I would be surprised if it was below 5k. I have heard it suggested that Lotus set the change over deliberately high to make the switch to the second cam more dramatic.

Mark

Andy G · Post by **Andy G** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:07 pm

ryallm wrote:I have heard it suggested that Lotus set the change over deliberately high to make the switch to the second cam more dramatic.
Mark

It worked

Sanjøy · Post by **Sanjøy** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:11 pm

Gareth wrote:Having thought about this more, by dropping 2nd cam change to 4500 would be excellent.
Surely by doing this, theoretically you will get a faster 0-60, 0-100 etc?

Can I take that as an apology ?!

Gareth · Post by **Gareth** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:26 pm

Sanjoy wrote:
Gareth wrote:Having thought about this more, by dropping 2nd cam change to 4500 would be excellent.
Surely by doing this, theoretically you will get a faster 0-60, 0-100 etc?
Can I take that as an apology ?!

Nope.
I'm always right...even when I'm wrong I'm right.

I still love your one liners though

robin · Post by **robin** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:39 pm

Gareth wrote:It would also put more pressure on the engine.

Why? The engine could care less about what's happening at 4,500 RPM because whatever it is, it's a doddle compared to what's happening at 8,200 RPM

I do not believe that the ECU can "undo" extra air flow. Either it puts in enough fuel to get close to perfect lambda (a bit on the rich side for safety), or it runs lean and burns the valves/grenades the engine or it runs lean and backs off on ignition to get the reduced power but at least it won't grenade the engine, but it still will be bad for it.

The only way it could "undo" extra air flow would be with a drive-by-wire throttle and it could simply not allow it to open all the way, thus limiting airflow to design maximum. Hmm - do any of these cars have drive-by-wire throttles?

Cheers,
Robin

jamie · Post by **jamie** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:37 pm

06 cars do