Planning 2014 Standalone Upgrade - Question...
- Thread starter Grandavi
- Start date
SC61 MK3;1915038 said:
Ever thought of going standalone? And it's not about tuning the car better than the toyota ecu, it's about getting the tune to suit your driving style and parts.
SC61 MK3;1915038 said:
what do you mean? Please expand on that...
I am not seeking to go standalone to say "hey! this is better than Toyota achieved way back in 1988!!!".
Im looking at it because
1. I like having more power.. it feels good and suits the car better
2. I like having an engine.. by modifying a stock engine, I am changing the ECU parameters.. (umm.. you know what I mean?)
3. I dont want to do this again.. ever! But.. I also dont ever want to part with the car. So... safe runs.. hard runs. I want to enjoy the car.
My post is about, should I go with a standalone, followed by, what are the pros/cons, what are the best systems to use, etc.. I am edumacating myself by asking others and researching the responses.
The AFM issue was included solely because that is how I am running right now and so far, from what I am researching, the best possible way to run is to go standalone simply because its the only way I can alter the ECU's parameters enough and to gain enough engine control to run safely.
at least.. that is what I am understanding to this point.
I prefer TCCS+Piggyback than standalone after all the things 3p14 explained in his thread but..
Technology was from decades ago, and actual technology is great: sequential injection and ignition, etc.. It would request lots of programming to achieve all the safety features of TCCS.
I haven't any doubt a standalone can be tuned within one week, as we talk about tuning and setting up.. Does the cost of all this is profitable for this power goal? I doubt.
Grant, if you want fine tune + datalogging, you may have a look at MAFT Pro or Map Ecu. In both cases you will need a laptop (or CarPC? ) for datalogging.
I think a standalone is required when you hardly mod the internals of the engine: bore, stroke, head port, valves, etc..
AFAIC when only externals are modified, a piggyback seems enough. But not a random one, for my project I choose Mapecu (plus my own board) , because it can tune fuel and ignition. The cheapest (safc, etc) cannot tune ignition, and as ignition map is trimmed when you trim fuel, then I do want to let the timing as close as factory specs.
Technology was from decades ago, and actual technology is great: sequential injection and ignition, etc.. It would request lots of programming to achieve all the safety features of TCCS.
I haven't any doubt a standalone can be tuned within one week, as we talk about tuning and setting up.. Does the cost of all this is profitable for this power goal? I doubt.
Grant, if you want fine tune + datalogging, you may have a look at MAFT Pro or Map Ecu. In both cases you will need a laptop (or CarPC? ) for datalogging.
I think a standalone is required when you hardly mod the internals of the engine: bore, stroke, head port, valves, etc..
AFAIC when only externals are modified, a piggyback seems enough. But not a random one, for my project I choose Mapecu (plus my own board) , because it can tune fuel and ignition. The cheapest (safc, etc) cannot tune ignition, and as ignition map is trimmed when you trim fuel, then I do want to let the timing as close as factory specs.
Last edited:
External parameters are relearned by the stock EcuGrandavi;1915055 said:
I can't think a standalone can be as safe as the stock Ecu, it will allow tuning mistakes or failures that TCCS won't . It has been stated some posts ago, Toyota engineer worked hard for that.
Pros for standalone are the technology as I stated before, wideband and egt handling, etc.. Does that worth it?
Personally, I think I will go with standalone when TCCS+Piggyback+External part won't allow me to upgrade, if upgrade is needed..
Rollus;1915058 said:
How far will map-ecu take you though? Can you raise the rev limit with it? What about further raising fuel cut with it? When you're running a much bigger turbo and you're greatly changing when and how much air the engine is receiving, the timing and fuel might be off for what the engine needs. It might pull too much timing or not enough fuel. What about if you wanted to go a step further and eliminate the ignition system and run the dh61 igniter? Or even run 12 injectors instead of 6?
It's all about what your future plans are with the engine..
It's not even installed yet..IndigoMKII;1915071 said:
No I cannot. Do I want high, medium, low power band? I want medium, because I don't wan't to kick my and mine passenger ass with a high or agressive power
It's why after the BPUs' we upgrade charged air system, fuel system, and ignition (at least sparks) all together no?
MAFT and Mapecu can achieve this for, from what I've understood, 500bhp (I may be wrong)
For that I agree a standalone is needed. But when you want that, how many horsepower do you have? Is your car still a street one?
I do want to learn, with basic upgrades and cannot afford a standalone which also be overkill for my actual plans, which aren't more than Grandavi ones
Last edited:
Grandavi;1915055 said:
At times it seems like you are concerned the stock ECU isn't safe. I dont understand this thought. The factory ECU is about the safest tune possible. With the Lex AFM and 550 injectors you've messed with the factory fuel delivery and you should trim to account for that. My understanding is that it's quite easy to use a piggyback to apply an across the board trim to account for the different air and fuel factors due to the lex afm and 550s.
If you're seeking the safest, most complete tune with your current set-up, I dont think a standalone is your answer. It seems Pi agrees, at least to some extent, and he knows a hell of a lot more about the factory ECU and its abilities than any "tuning shop" I know.
The ONLY reasons for going to a stand alone is if you are "maxing" out the capabilities of what the stock ecu can handle along with some fine tuning from piggy backs. IMO it should not even be an option unless you want way more than 500whp, running race fuel and high boost 25+psi, Running very large injectors or want to run e85, or have a highly modified engine wanting to raise rev limiter (e.g. built head w/high lift cams, ect.)
If you don't fall into any of those categories the stock ecu is the safest and most reliable WITH A PROPER SETUP OF COURSE
If you don't fall into any of those categories the stock ecu is the safest and most reliable WITH A PROPER SETUP OF COURSE
SC61 MK3;1915090 said:
For e85 I think properly sized fuel system and a piggyback (for flex) is enough. Narrow band lambda needs also to be tweaked.
SC61 MK3;1915090 said:
But when does the ecu with the lex afm start to see fuel cut? There's no other way to raise fuel cut other than going speed density, thus tricking the ecu. So you're no longer using the ECU's parameters at all, the ecu thinks it's still seeing near stock levels of air and fuel so yet again, timing isn't even considered to be altered. With the lex afm and raising the fuel cut, you're just tricking the ecu to seeing the same air when it's getting 25% more. The ecu is far more reliable than any standalone could be unless many many hours are devoted to tuning everything possible.
As for a BPU system, I'd say the ecu is at it's very limit. Beyond BPU, you're playing on a dangerous edge.
SC61 MK3;1915090 said:
Okay, this is probably the most appropriate response according to my setup (as seen in the original post). I can't run E85 because I am in Canada.. we dont have it.
I dont want to exceed 500 rwhp, if I get anywhere near 400 I'm smiling. As is (if they dyno was correct) the 300 rwhp with 367 torque is pushing this car damn fast as is.
Of course.. that doesn't mean that in the future I wont go and do that, but my goals are simply a fast, unbreakable summer cruiser. I have never ran a car on a track so I dont have any desire to. My wife pushes me in that direction though because I tend to enjoy speed, so if I ever do.. then the plans will probably change.
From all the info so far, my safest running is with the AFM and accepting 10:1 AFR (or playing with it to get the 11:1 AFR). The standalone may be a bit more than needed at this point and introduce potential for damaging my engine even though it will make it run "faster" and safer at a higher boost.
I am only running the 57Trim CT26 at present and dont want to really put it up past 15 psi anyway. At 12 psi, my present tires (which are brand new) wont hold traction in second under boost (I get a really cool little tail wag).
So, thats the reality. The dream is to go standalone later and really fine tune the puppy, but I think larger injectors and larger turbo would be more appropriate for that setup.
I think I am starting to get my tiny brain wrapped around all this.
SC61 MK3;1915102 said:
I agree, and then two cases:
- it is used as a race fuel and there are lots of other mods
- it is on a street car running piggy rich or with a damn short duty cycle.
Going e85 with a stock engine needs 550cc injectors and some degrees of timing advance. that's all and enough. (until the fuel pump is healthy)
Grandavi;1915118 said:
OK good, we are getting somewhere lol. My personal opinion is that for your setup and goals a standalone is totally unnecessary. Properly modding a car should be done in steps or "stages" You basically want to get the most restrictive or inefficient things out of the way first, which is pretty universal steps on all turbo cars. Intake and full exhaust first, than intercooler/piping, than fuel system/fuel controller, than upgrade turbo.
Now with you setup you skipped some important steps which is why you are low on power. You setup is only as strong as your weakest point and in your case its the stock intake/filter, stock intercooler/piping/bov NOT the Ecu that needs to be addressed. I would not be surprised if you gained 50-75whp by changing those parts and not touching anything else on your car. Than even more with the piggyback of your choice to fine tune and get you in the acceptable safe zone (IMO) of between 10.0-11.0 under full boost. Don't you think there is a reason why the aem wideband only reads to 10.0? IMO its because that not an acceptable afr to be running
Rollus;1915121 said:
I'm no e85 expert but as i understand e85 needs about twice the volume as gasoline to make the same power
I dont think its 2x for E85, but it does have less power than gasoline. The only benefit is the high octane (106?) so you can tune agressively from what I understand.
As for the comment regarding the stock intake/filter... I am running just a paper filter (used to have the K&N, but with my current setup, the AFM wouldn't take the old K&N so I went OEM paper (safest until I think of something different). I dont think the performance gains are that much from running a different filter although I was looking at going with the Apexi one. However, I do not want to draw air solely from the engine compartment.
However, the intake for what I am setup as currently is probably perfectly fine. I doubt I am losing more than 2-5 HP from how its setup (if that). Therefore, its not really a concern.
I do want the bigger intercooler, though, not only for performance, but also cause they look bitchin'... lol. My car is about looks as well as ride.
As for the comment regarding the stock intake/filter... I am running just a paper filter (used to have the K&N, but with my current setup, the AFM wouldn't take the old K&N so I went OEM paper (safest until I think of something different). I dont think the performance gains are that much from running a different filter although I was looking at going with the Apexi one. However, I do not want to draw air solely from the engine compartment.
However, the intake for what I am setup as currently is probably perfectly fine. I doubt I am losing more than 2-5 HP from how its setup (if that). Therefore, its not really a concern.
I do want the bigger intercooler, though, not only for performance, but also cause they look bitchin'... lol. My car is about looks as well as ride.
Grandavi;1915154 said:
I do believe somewhere it was dyno tested, as a comparison to the filtering and flow properties of the filters.
The paper filter was among the best filtering, but the worst flow. The apexi offered the best filtering and the best flow, also showed a 15 hp increase(dyno proven) over the other filters.
Honestly, if you changed the filter setup and intercooler with hardpipes, you'd be much closer to 350 rwhp. The stock filter box is SO restrictive, pinch a straw and try to breathe restrictive. The intercooler it self isn't that bad but the plastic hard pipe is pretty bad..
You could always fab up something to block the air from the engine compartment, and draw air from down near the intercooler. Simply put some aluminum hardpipe on the end of your lex afm, route it towards the bumper and put a filter on the end.
Grandavi;1915154 said:
How many mkiii's have you seen over 400hp with the stock airbox? How many over 300hp? Shit I don't think I've ever even seen one in person with the stock airbox. Its one of the first things that usually get changed but I guess you know something that every other modded supra owner in the world doesn't know?
I've seen cars with over 1000whp that use a simple intake and cone filter drawing air from the engine compartment. It is absolutely unnecessary to worry about that because once the air is compressed and turned into boost its going to be heated up anyways. As pressure raises so does temperature, there's no way around it that is why turbo cars have an intercooler.
You are here asking simple ass questions and than when people tell you the answer you disagree and all of a sudden you know better than them
I'm holding off on any intercooler upgades until fall. I will be adding a hks ssqv4 bov at the same time. Currently I have the 2.5" hks 3000 pipe and a 2.5" pipe running to the fender from that (then it is back to stock 2.25" intercooler piping)
Time and money... Ran short
Time and money... Ran short