georgec

The issue you describe Jade could very well be a lazy O2 sensor. One that will not throw an error code, but certainly affect the idle and low throttle opening performance (when in closed loop operation). Pippy on the other hand is unlikely suffering from an O2 sensor problem because on cold start and cold running, the O2 sensor signal is ignored until the engine reaches a certain operating temperature. Pippy's problem may in fact be a suspect vehicle speed sensor signal. When the engine is cold, the engine idle speed is constantly being adjusted by the ECU to ensure proper operation however when on deceleration, the ECU sees a high engine speed without a corresponding vehicle speed - deducing that the engine idle speed is high - and driving the idle stepper motor to close the throttle. When you do finally come to a stop and depress the clutch, the idle speed drops and the ECU drives the idle stepper motor up quickly causing the high engine speed. It overshoots and drives the stepper motor back down quickly – and then up again etc causing the idle speed to hunt. When the engine is at normal operating temperature, the ECU essentially reverts back to a set idle position and does not drive the idle stepper motor - hence Pippy's normal idle when the engine is warm. Hope this helps. gc

Shootout mode has all operational variables set (ramp rates, inertia values etc tamper proof) and the environmental conditions from the weather station are printed on the bottom of the graph. A classic attempt at fudging is when you see the value of IT (intake temperature) being far greater than RT (room temperature). In other words they place the temp probe in the engine bay and the dyno will compensate (standardise) to a higher value. As for clamping the vehicle down, it must be held securely. Your mate's car didn't lose 25 kW, it was a false reading because the dyno operator allowed it to climb up onto the front rollers. So, in a nutshell, if you see shootout mode at the bottom of the graph and the weather station data looks reasonable there is no room for tampering (the issue of lifting up onto the front rollers is being addressed by DD with separate speed sensors on the front and rear rollers - but this is only to stop those who wish to obtain an unreasonably high figure from doing so). - and in our case, you'd just about have to give the car a push to have it climb the rollers. Do you know make what it is? I take it that it has no electric retarders and cannot hold load. When tied down securely, it's not until you get well over the 1,000 hp at the treads that tyre slip becomes an issue. That's one problem I don't think we will ever have ;) Cheers gc

Yes, you're quite correct with what you say, even if a little blunt We all however want to put a tag on what we measure (and regardless of the stated intent, it is always for comparison) and in order to do that, we must measure to a standard, wether defacto or true. To that end, the defacto standard is DD Shootout. This allows one to dyno their vehicle and measure the power and torque at the treads (we do drive on the treads after all, not the brake hubs) using a set series of parameters that the dyno operator cannot alter. In addition, one can take that same vehicle to any other DD dyno on the planet and run in Shootout mode to receive consistent, accurate and comparable figures. That's the whole idea of Shootout mode and why DD has been accepted within the industry and dyno competitions as the standard measurement tool. That's not to say that the final figure is correct, it is none the less accurate and consistent. Perhaps we should state our figures as DDWkW (Dyno Dynamics Wheel kW). Cheers gc

Hi Gravityfreak, Nice number however it's not a Dyno Dynamics run in shootout mode so the actual figure is essentially meaningless in comparison. Cheers gc

Internet legend has people being charged through video evidence of their antics posted on forums. That said, Many years ago when radar guns were first introduced in Australia, I was stopped for doing 888 kph in a 60 kph zone. The police officer and I agreed that as delightful a speed that would be from a Lotus Cortina, it was a bit of a stretch to prove if I decided to contest the offence in the Magistrate's Court. We mutually agreed that the radar unit was at fault and he sent me on my merry way. The funny thing was that as I was leaving he asked me to "take it easy in future lad". Which to this day I still believe that he thought I was speeding (which I probably was). Cheers gc

You'd be fine if you had said "220 on the way home from Sydney via the Stuart Highway in the Nothern territory where there are no speed limits" In know that's what you meant. Cheers gc

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Aus spec Sportivo speed limited to 215 kph? I'm sure that I had read that somewhere. If that's the case, (and the speed is sensed at the ECU - not the speedo which may be a tad optimistic) then you should feel it go flat at that speed and cycle slightly as the engine soft cuts. Cheers gc

It's at no cost to the consumer however it covers only certain cars (from memory up to jan 2004 build ???? for the gearshift cables and not sure on the ECU change). And yes, it is a different car to drive afterwards (with the clutch adjusted to spec from news bulletin 30/11/04). In fact they were my wife's words after returning back from picking up the car. She also added that she wasn't sure how she is going to keep here licence (because it now feels good to fang it). I chose to ignore that comment. Cheers gc

Actually, after getting a private moment to view the video, it was quite funny. Cheers gc

Yes please do, just put NWS in the title (Not Work Safe) Cheers ← Or in my case, N18YODS (not 18 year old daughter safe). You can only imagine how embarrasing it is to walk in on the old man viewing a screen full of porn. Cheers gc

Spot on Qkslvr. The Sportivo is sensational value. Though I must say that the sportivo engine and drivetrain in a 950 kg kerb weight car such as the echo certainly stirs the blood. Cheers gc

Hi Silvabullit, I get the feeling from the tone of your response that you may have thought I was not supportive of the approach taken by CES - which is not the case, but given the context of the title of this thread, seeking a low cost solution, I may seem a little abrupt in the following response. There are many ways to skin a cat (as in a puss puss). It is the norm for the exhaust industry to produce a cat-back system that improves flow (reduces exhaust back pressure) and as CES have done, reduced the back pressure through the exhaust piping and muffler. Again, this is not unusual in the exhaust industry and a perfectly acceptable solution - that results in an improvement in engine power output. As you stated, CES went to a good deal of effort to improve the flow (reduce back pressure) through the exhaust tubing only to have to run a restrictive muffler. It seems a waste to have to undo all that fine ducting work by adding more restriction somewhere else (muffler). There's nothing magical or mystical about exhaust gas flow so far down stream of the headers and cat. It's all momentum based. However, given the context of this thread, a less restrictive muffler on the standard exhaust can be matched to result in the exact same back pressure profile as a cat back system that employs a restrictive muffler. It's a matter of attacking the restrictive elements first. Now this may result in excessive noise - or perhaps not. I don't know, haven't tried it and probably never will on this car. In a nutshell, you're after a target back pressure profile and you can free the flow up in a number of areas. At the end of the day, it's just a back pressure profile. Regardless there are a couple of issues that require clarification. 1. The standard exhaust tubing (size, bends and total length) should be well capable of a couple of hundred kW - not that you'll ever see that from 1.8L naturally aspirated - unless you can make the power through even more outrageous revs (power is a function of RPM x torque). For example, if you could maintain the torque output at 10,000 RPM as is currently produced at 7800RPM, the engine would be making 180 kW. We actually do have a very good base exhaust system in our Sportivos. 2. Cat sizing is a function of the mass flow rate of gas, not engine capacity (though sized by capacity to make it easier for the exhaust industry). The cat size used on our Sportivos is appropriate for the application, though not that huge for the exhaust gas mass flow rate. The fact that the cat looks like a 3L cat is no doubt correct. There's 141 kW worth of exhaust gas that needs to pass through the cat substrate, not some fraction of that flow as found in other (lesser) 1.8 L engines. In fact, one could go further and say that the entire exhaust system looks like one for a 3L engine - only shorter :) Also, I bet that if you probe the pressure drop across the cat, you'll find it substantial, particularly at high engine RPM. To say that the standard cat is not a restriction point is not correct, regardless of how CES's description was interpreted (because I doubt that they actually said that the cat was not a source of restriction on this engine). I'm with you here. I have no respect for loud exhausts on the roads and as a driver, can't stand exhaust drone. A pox on drone. Cheers gc

After having a good look at the exhaust system on an Australian Spec Sportivo, I tend to agree with your exhaust shop. The exhaust tube diameter and bend radiuses are good for sustaining probably another 60 kW over standard power levels. The cat is similar in external construction to those found on AMG Mercs etc - and perhaps even with a high quality stainless steel monolith. That means that it should flow reasonably well and be quite durable (if the cat exit is smooth internally as an AMG cat). However, it is a source of significant restriction compared to the standard straight tube due to the internal mesh. Regardless, it is illegal to operate a vehicle here in Australia without a cat and the penalties are significant. The only other place then is the muffler - and it looks fairly restrictive. I would be tempted to give that a go in order to improve performance. In fact I suspect that you would be better off leaving the standard tube diameter (and take advantage of the noise suppression qualities of standard diameter tube) rather than going larger - for little if any benefit in flow and working with a less restrictive muffler - where you will have better results and have a chance of obtaining good sound quality. In other words, work on the areas that are restrictive and leave the free flowing parts alone. Silvabullit touched on the issue of back pressure and its affect on engine performance. I doubt that this applies in this case because we are talking about exhaust enhancements well down stream of the individual exhaust headers and well after the cat. Primary header sizes have a great affect on engine performance because they have a great affect on the gas velocity and more importantly the timing from one exhaust pulse to the next as they merge in the exhaust. Traditionally (and this should certainly apply to Yamaha designed heads as used in the Sportivo), zero back pressure exhaust after the cat will result in the greatest improvement in engine power. However, one can't achieve that if we wish to pass ADR28/01 stationary noise test which is based upon "SAE J1169 Measurement of Light Vehicle Exhaust Sound Level under Stationary Conditions". Engine RPM must be held steady at 75% of rated peak horsepower RPM (which is 5850 RPM for our Sportivos) and be under 90 dB when measured 0.5 m from the exhaust tip at an angle of 45 deg. In my opinion, it is vital that we abide by ADR28/01 and I applaud Silvabullit for doing so. Here in Melbourne, if you run an exhaust that sounds anything but standard, it's only a matter of time before you will receive a letter in the mail from the EPA. If they feel like being a pain, they can demand that you present the vehicle for further investigation and then they go over it with a fine tooth comb. Enough raving.... Cheers gc

JDM RunX, that's a different rear to our Sportivo. Is yours a sedan? The area where your muffler is situated is where our spare wheel sits. Cheers gc

Well, I can't take the credit. TMC came up with the fix, I was just the bearer of good tidings. And Nunawading Toyota were on the ball to put 2 and 2 together when I reported the problem. See, isn't life grand? Cheers gc