www.dodo-upgrades.nl

First post modified with a more comprehensive explanation of the dyno plot


mapping on ej9

So first before the engine mapping with the p28 we will compare the best setup for the stock ECU on EJ9. The file named stefano is the dyno plot from the D14z2 using 4-2-1 header, test pipe, EK4 stock catback and CAI intake

The file named john EJ9 is the car to tune. First let we see what's the result with the stock EJ9 ECU. The car run with D16z6 IM EK4 airbox with stock filter , 4-2-1 header, test pipe and also EK4 stock catback






We see that there is no great improvement by swapping the manifold.

The blip on the curve with stock EJ9 air intake is caused by the CAI. It's seems that the very long tube help this area thanks to harmonic tuning. If we use a short ram for example we will loose this bump on the curve.

For the following dyno plot it's a comparison between the John EJ9 running with EJ9 stock ecu and the engine tuned using a P28 ECU.

It's impossible to gain the numbers that we see on the swapping IM tech area if the dynamometer is a realist one ( without cheating )






In the following dyno sheet it's a comparison between stock EJ9 ( stefano ) with upgrade and the tuned john ej9 and we see a great improvement for the IM swapping but keep in mind that the numbers are lower than announced in the tech article






We can check the overall gain other a full stock setup D14z2 including cat converter and we see the total improvement from parts and engine mapping.






And the last we got a little more hp removing the ek4 airbox and replacing by a short ram with cold air feeding. Here again this is given by the lenght of the intake pipe ( harmonics )





So best result : 106 Hp and 123 Nm. We are far away from number announced because of the hearbreaker dyno but these numbers are realistic.

Tuning by HPfactory in belgium

Good dyno plots.
If I am correct the stock Ej9 Intake Manifold has always better mid range power at dynos than D16Z6 . Am I right?

I think yes, my I do not understand how some of ej9 dodoupgrade so 15 hp and 20 nm + me with the same setup

Great post! Wierd little blip in the middle of curve is the D14 IM?

You made good gains just from tuning

editing the first post

Thanks for the edit: clears up a lot of things. Interesting that you say CAI (long intake tubing) gives gains as DODO says the opposite. Must be a combination of tube length and diameter that affects harmonics.

ilovemyej9 wrote:I think yes, my I do not understand how some of ej9 dodoupgrade so 15 hp and 20 nm + me with the same setup

maybe the differece is given by the diferent dynos used tu measure the power ...
it would be possible that the power measured was whp(power at the wheels) ...and not bhp (power at the crankshaft or DIN power)

the eficiency ofthe gearbox is less than 85% so the power putto the ground is lower than the crankshaft...

Thats my ideea...

Acc3l3ratoR wrote:

ilovemyej9 wrote:I think yes, my I do not understand how some of ej9 dodoupgrade so 15 hp and 20 nm + me with the same setup

maybe the differece is given by the diferent dynos used tu measure the power ...
it would be possible that the power measured was whp(power at the wheels) ...and not bhp (power at the crankshaft or DIN power)

the eficiency ofthe gearbox is less than 85% so the power putto the ground is lower than the crankshaft...

Thats my ideea...

The car make 106 BHP and 92 whp. " Puissance moteur " in french means engine horsepower

The dyno used here is in the same philosophy that those used for european car manufacturer to give their standardised results so this is why we are so close to what the manufacturer claim.

Don't forget that honda engineering is at a high level so saying that the stock d14 engine producing 90 bhp stock will make 120 or 130 bhp with simple add on this is not very realistic but some dyno are built to sell horsepower and to promote some parts unfortunately...

Even if dyno numbers are different it should always be the test before and after and in this way a d14 that produce 120 bhp with my mods should make 104 bhp full stock and then we can see how much we gain.

So I see that you are skeptical by judging from one dyno in which you had some dynoruns which didn't give the expected results and thus claiming the numerous other dynoruns to be fake or optimistic or whatever. I will speak for my self. Personally I have used more than 6 different dynos which more or less were quite constistent 2/3% of a difference might be for several factors (oil temperature, atmos. pressure, external temperature, the effectiveness of the fan system and ventilation, the condition of the car, air pressure, the condition of the clutch, valve clearance and and and... So bear in mind that you could only have some general ideas about the performance. Still, all these may somehow go away if you keep getting similar measurements from different dynos.

Are you sure the dyno you are using is consistent? I have personally used maha, dynapck, dynomet, tat, which are very reliable worldwide and all shows something around 120hp more or less.

Moreover the intake manifold swap has been proven to be effective for years now, it's a common practice tested and tested again and again so it works, but works better with some more intake and exhaust mods (very reasonable right?)

Also, you mention general exhaust, intake and ecu mods. This is very vague as not all work the same. Not all 4-2-1 headers work well, ek4 exhaust can't be a match to an aftermarket one, also ek4 airbox (with resonators on? and stock filter?) However the thing i doubt more is the ecu tuning you mention. There is no way that a proper obd1 ecu tune can't give significant gains if combined with a different cam gear tuning (maybe the mods the cars had weren't effective at all?). I should mention that my apeci vafc tuning (only a/f improvements) gave 6 whp on the dynapack dyno which is very strict. Imagine that a/f tuning through a piggyback is ridiculous considering a real obd1 sophisticated ecu tuning.

The impressions we have made from our cars are repeating again and again as time goes by, so come on, it can't be that wrong

I am very sorry to read this topic only now since it is very interesting these type of discussions. I understand some skepticism.

First of all, I only work with one dyno in the Netherlands. It is often calibrated and actually the one used for forensic research in the Netherlands (i.e. police comes there to test cars), also for many cars it tends to be pretty negative sometimes, i.e. scoring below factory specs. Second of all, we always measure the wheel losses, and we post the number that we correct for. In your dyno's I cannot find the wheel losses. In my personal dyno's you'll often find the wheel losses being 0.12 bhp per kmh. Btw single drum, so wheel losses are small, as opposed to double roller dyno's where wheel losses can be very different from accelerating to breaking modus!!

Thirdly and most importantly... I have had my share of cars that also could not make more than 105 bhp. And when changing inlet components it would only drop to 102/103 bhp instead of improving. This was done on the same dyno on the same day as other setups that did get around the 120 bhp mark. Some cars I still don't understand, sometimes it was a very bad exhaust design.

There can always be something overlooked...

If you can afford it, may I invite you to come over to the Netherlands (Geldermalsen) at saturday 9 march and have one of the tested cars be tested at the dyno I go to? I have a dyno workshop that day where we will test and tune a lot of Honda's. If you can come over with one of those in exact the same condition as you tested, I'd like to offer you a free run (I'll cover for it) and see what the differences are, assuming your dyno is ok we will see around 105 bhp as well. The car then can also be tuned (but at a cost naturally, I'll offer you the initial run).

Still I am impressed by the massive amount of testing you have performed, it is impressive.

[edit:]
Re-reading everything I notice the start of your topic. It begins with basically a comparison between stock D14 intake manifold and using a D16Z6 IM. Right? There you hardly find any gains. That is... practically impossible. The reason is not resistance, but similar to the CAI, acoustic scavenging of the inlet pressure pulses. The D14 stock IM has very different lengths, not to mention asymmetric lengths (2 and 3 are shorter than 1 and 4). And I therefore, the powerband really shifts upwards when swapping to D16Z6 IM. Not having any significant gains there makes me really wonder what is going on. Look at the design of the D15B2 and D15B7 engines, there the difference in IM is practically the same, and it is the only difference, factory spec bhp change, +12 bhp. This was in the past the whole reason for me to start doing this.

I'll try to counter your dyno with a similar one from my side. My wife currently has a pretty stock D14A4 with only a stainless midpipe and muffler since the originals rusted away. It should produce around 95 bhp, still with cat converter. I'll have it tested on the same dyno workshop at 9 march and will fit an IM from either D16Z6 or D15B7. Doing the IM swap the same day might be a bit too much for me, but I'll try to get it done. Otherwise I'll have the swap tested on a later date.

But I must admit, I've never done a baseline of a stock D14 intake manifold. So strictly speaking, my prove is thin, I'll give you that.

[edit2:]
Are there any registrations on AFR ratio and fuel maps? If these were off (even with some P28 tuning) you'll be missing a lot as well. One of the things that often happens when changing to D16Z6 IM is the mixture getting richer than before, probably due to different spring loading? But without decent AFR plots it is hard to tell what the value of the dyno's is.