Time Slips and Dyno Section is for posting 1/4 mile time slips and dyno graphs

fastest 1/4 time on stock ECU/IC?

Old 04-30-07, 02:25 PM
  #1  
just dont care.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
jacobcartmill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
fastest 1/4 time on stock ECU/IC?

Hey guys, i was wondering who has run the fastest 1/4 mile time on the stock ECU (no piggybacks or reflashes or anything) and stock IC.
i went back to the track again and squeezed out a [email protected], which from what i'm gathering is pretty fast for the stock ECU and IC at 10psi. this was also on regular street tires.

my mods are:
apex'i intakes
custom downpipe, hiflow cat, RB catback
TB mod, non-seq, removed emissions
MBC set at the stock 10psi

so what's the fastest time someone has run in an FD with the stock ECU and IC?
jacobcartmill is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:26 PM
  #2  
just dont care.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
jacobcartmill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
anyone?
jacobcartmill is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 07:41 PM
  #3  
bryant
10 Year Member
 
bryant's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: montgomery
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that sounds pretty good.
bryant is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 08:40 PM
  #4  
***** "Nazi"...lol!
 
bajaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: near Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 4,958
Received 13 Likes on 13 Posts
Well, that is faster than any magazine ever tested one, for sure.
Great run!
bajaman is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 08:54 PM
  #5  
T3DoW
iTrader: (10)
 
TpCpLaYa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - NW Burbs
Posts: 3,753
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
wow! thats realllly good for stock ic and boost, especially that trap....damn!
TpCpLaYa is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 08:56 PM
  #6  
~17 MPG
iTrader: (1)
 
scotty305's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,742
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
That does sound like a fast time, but it sounds like you might be approaching the safe limits of what you should do with a stock IC & ECU. Unless you've got data to prove otherwise (for instance a dyno sheet demonstrating safe wideband A/F ratios vs. RPM), I'd recommend an ECU and an IC ASAP.

-s-
scotty305 is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 09:46 PM
  #7  
just dont care.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
jacobcartmill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
i dyno'd in february and the AFR was mid 11's on the exact same setup. that was about 3 months ago though, but i havent done anything to the car. mid 11's should be plenty safe.
i suppose i should dyno again to see if the power went up somehow (though i dont see how it could), but as far as it being at the limits -yeah, its definitely at the limits of boost and the crappy IC, but it's obviously still at 10psi with good AFR's. if it was running more than 10psi it would be fuel cutting.
when the boost comes in it spikes to 11psi for a split second and holds 10psi all the way to redline. (crappy MBC)
110.7mph seemed a little high to me too, but i'm not sure.

i was just curious who has run on the stock ECU because its usually the #1 thing to upgrade after intake/exhaust with FD's, and i never hear about people making quick passes on the stock ECU and IC. they just upgrade to a PFC/basemap immediately. as far as i can see, the stock ECU does better than everybody gives it credit for, as long as you decide to keep the boost at 10psi.

Last edited by jacobcartmill; 05-01-07 at 09:59 PM.
jacobcartmill is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 10:05 PM
  #8  
slo
registered user
10 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
slo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
are you sure its a 100% stock ecu, there are many companies over the years that have reprogramed them

Last edited by slo; 05-01-07 at 10:28 PM.
slo is offline  
Old 05-01-07, 10:26 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Stow, Ohio
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that must just be some ridiculous reaction time and an awesome launch. good job
Sr20fd3st is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:16 AM
  #10  
just dont care.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
jacobcartmill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by slo
are you sure its a 100% stock ecu, there are many companies over the years that have reprogramed them

i'm pretty sure its 100% stock... i've overboosted before and its hit fuel cut.

Originally Posted by Sr20fd3st
that must just be some ridiculous reaction time and an awesome launch. good job
the time doesnt start til you cross the starting line (unless its bracket racing).
you can sit on the start line for 30 seconds and run a 13.5
so the r/t doesnt really matter
jacobcartmill is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:27 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
zbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: scranton nd
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sr20fd3st
that must just be some ridiculous reaction time and an awesome launch. good job
id have to disagree


sounds about right... i was at the track for the first time on the new setup this sunday and ran a 12.4 at 109mph on 10psi untuned (high 9's afr's) on a gt42 with soft launchs slipping the clutch... managing a 1.9x 60ft

just for ***** and giggles and for some good logs



quick car for stock equipment though .... good work
zbrown is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:56 AM
  #12  
~17 MPG
iTrader: (1)
 
scotty305's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,742
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by jacobcartmill
I dyno'd in february and the AFR was mid 11's on the exact same setup. that was about 3 months ago though, but i havent done anything to the car. mid 11's should be plenty safe.
Good man. I didn't mean to doubt you; just wanted to hear the rest of the story. You've obviously done things the right way: change something, and verify that it's working well (safely and reliably) before pushing it to the limit. It seems like many of the people on these boards have yet to learn this.



As far as i can see, the stock ECU does better than everybody gives it credit for, as long as you decide to keep the boost at 10psi.
I agree, but it's only because the original settings are so rich to begin with. Our ancient ECUs work pretty well, within their limitations. Just for reference, the original Intel Pentium CPU was introduced in 1993; clock speed was a whopping 66MHz.

-s-
scotty305 is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 08:02 AM
  #13  
Senior Member
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Stow, Ohio
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i've always wondered if the newer jdm cpu was a direct swap in? i know it's faster (32bit instead of 16 bit or something) and it's obd2 (which would make reading any codes so much more convenient.) would also alow tuning thru diagnosis port since it's obd2 by some of the common simple plug n play tuners
Sr20fd3st is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 08:21 AM
  #14  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,886
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
as i said in other thread i doubt u are making only 265 to trap almost 111mph. noone is doing that. people are trapping 110mph with 300 rwhp for the past 10 yrs. is your boost gauge faulty?
matty is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 08:26 AM
  #15  
Do a barrel roll!
15 Year Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Rxmfn7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lower Burrell, PA
Posts: 7,529
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I had trapped 106 MPH on 10PSI/stock ECU with really shitty kumho 712s spinning mostly through 1st and 2nd, but almost 111MPH seems really high for 10psi. Not doubting you, just saying.. When I was running my Pettit ECU and 14psi I was only trapping 113-114.
Rxmfn7 is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 08:27 AM
  #16  
Do a barrel roll!
15 Year Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Rxmfn7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lower Burrell, PA
Posts: 7,529
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
No ,they are not interchangable..


Originally Posted by Sr20fd3st
i've always wondered if the newer jdm cpu was a direct swap in? i know it's faster (32bit instead of 16 bit or something) and it's obd2 (which would make reading any codes so much more convenient.) would also alow tuning thru diagnosis port since it's obd2 by some of the common simple plug n play tuners
Rxmfn7 is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 08:32 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Stow, Ohio
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jacobcartmill
the time doesnt start til you cross the starting line (unless its bracket racing).
you can sit on the start line for 30 seconds and run a 13.5
so the r/t doesnt really matter
i was thinking more along the lines of shifting r/t and throttle control.

and boo to the jdm ecu not being interchangable
Sr20fd3st is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 08:55 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
10 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
driFDer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: socal
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sounds like a great time and a healthy motor! Either your boost gauge is messed up or you can launch reallly good.
driFDer is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 10:40 AM
  #19  
RX7 lover
5 Year Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I got 13.2 at 109 with a 1.9 60ft.

Mods were a racing beat back box, apexi filters - thats it.
BobfisH is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 11:48 AM
  #20  
Full Member
5 Year Member
 
onelife2stories's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: denver
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i didnt notice anyone say anything about weight? maybe jacobcartmill is a smaller guy. take passenger seat out. run on fumes in the tank, lighter wheels and tires, simple things. isnt the rule of thumb .1 seconds for every hundred pounds? (i realize this changes with hp and many other settings, im just repeating what someone told me before)
onelife2stories is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 12:46 PM
  #21  
Rotary Restorer
iTrader: (6)
 
salva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Central FL
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sure you are making more than 256rwhp. I made 295rwhp with similar mods at 10psi awhile back. It may have been a very hot day when you dynoed, but on the average if your motor is healthy you should have no problem making close to 300rwhp with all the bolt ons,IC and the stock computer. The problem with the stock computer is that you are running the risk of blowing up since there is a possibility of overboosting with those mods and the ECU will not help you since its only mapped to about 12psi (I believe) and the fact that the fuel cut comes in pretty suddenly is also another factor in damaging engines.
salva is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:18 PM
  #22  
just dont care.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
jacobcartmill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
salva, i understand what you're saying, but it doesnt overboost as the setup is non-sequential and the boost is reliable, it doesn't boost creep (probably due to my hi-flow cat) and it doesnt hit fuel cut. this is why i keep it at 10psi

1life2stories, i weigh 135lbs and ran with a little under 1/2 tank of gas. i weighed the car with ZERO gas several months ago and it was 2680lbs. i had about 8-9 gallons in the tank and gasoline weighs ~6lbs/gallon, so thats ~51lbs of gasoline.
2680 + 135 + 51 = ~2866lbs race weight (fuel and driver)

for the people that are saying my boost gauge is reading incorrectly (low):
if you hold more than 10.5psi for a second or two the ECU will fuel cut. what i'm alluding to is the fact that my boost gauge CAN'T be wrong, because if i were holding more than 10psi it would be hitting fuel cut.
jacobcartmill is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:37 PM
  #23  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,886
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by BobfisH
I got 13.2 at 109 with a 1.9 60ft.

Mods were a racing beat back box, apexi filters - thats it.
wow..nice f'ing trap
matty is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:39 PM
  #24  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,886
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by jacobcartmill
salva, i understand what you're saying, but it doesnt overboost as the setup is non-sequential and the boost is reliable, it doesn't boost creep (probably due to my hi-flow cat) and it doesnt hit fuel cut. this is why i keep it at 10psi

1life2stories, i weigh 135lbs and ran with a little under 1/2 tank of gas. i weighed the car with ZERO gas several months ago and it was 2680lbs. i had about 8-9 gallons in the tank and gasoline weighs ~6lbs/gallon, so thats ~51lbs of gasoline.
2680 + 135 + 51 = ~2866lbs race weight (fuel and driver)

for the people that are saying my boost gauge is reading incorrectly (low):
if you hold more than 10.5psi for a second or two the ECU will fuel cut. what i'm alluding to is the fact that my boost gauge CAN'T be wrong, because if i were holding more than 10psi it would be hitting fuel cut.
i dont think fuel cut happens that quick..
matty is offline  
Old 05-02-07, 01:44 PM
  #25  
just dont care.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
jacobcartmill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
are you sure? 2 seconds is a long time when you're hammering at full boost. in fact, i think its more like under 1/2 second
jacobcartmill is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: fastest 1/4 time on stock ECU/IC?


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.