The cooling pump never runs higher than 50%. There’s a ton of cooling shipping in the car.
The question isn’t how much peak hp
It’s how often is the car running at those higher load levels for extended periods of time.
Lotus Emira V6 ECU Tune - Bench Flash
- Thread starter VF Tuner
- Start date
The question isn’t how much peak hp
It’s how often is the car running at those higher load levels for extended periods of time.
Ah, but isn’t this cause for joy?! Turn that frown upside down!!
My friend who owns this car is very odd. He seems to insist that 600hp is the minimum viable output for daily driver.
Who's saying that the 2GR fails at 460bHP?
Are you close to releasing the updated throttle tunes?
Jubu
Jubu don't say it fails at 460. Actually they don't talk in HP terms about failure at all, they talk in Torque terms.
They say, that without a change of internals, they won't tune a 2GR beyond 500nm (370lbs-ft), because beyond that, the stock, cast alloy pistons have too many question marks over them, and cannot be relied upon.
Apparently, the failure point of the cast piston, is the 'land' between the two compression rings, it can fracture due to the force on the upper ring.
For that reason, their 460hp kit (Syvecs custom ecu, tubular headers, 200 cell sport cat) gets a seemingly counter-intuitive 'larger' SC pulley, to REDUCE the peak boost, as they see that as the piston killer.
To be fair, they're building/supplying these, with the intention of track use, which is obviously hugely demanding, so the average revvin kevin / road warrior who briefly squirts it about on the streets could most likely get away with more.
So 460hp is achieved with reduced boost, on stock internals, but the 500hp (the next option up they do) gets Forged pistons & steel rods. They say, with those internals, the base motor can handle 700+.
They offer 7200 redline, but their tunes are also offered at sub 7k redlines, so they appear to be reluctant to rev these things too high.
I don't have any personal knowledge of this motor, but have to bow to a firm that does, and has done shed loads of them, offer up to 600hp, and seem to focus on track use, which frankly, is night & day vs street use in terms of finding where the (very expensive) edge of the cliff is.
They say, that without a change of internals, they won't tune a 2GR beyond 500nm (370lbs-ft), because beyond that, the stock, cast alloy pistons have too many question marks over them, and cannot be relied upon.
Apparently, the failure point of the cast piston, is the 'land' between the two compression rings, it can fracture due to the force on the upper ring.
For that reason, their 460hp kit (Syvecs custom ecu, tubular headers, 200 cell sport cat) gets a seemingly counter-intuitive 'larger' SC pulley, to REDUCE the peak boost, as they see that as the piston killer.
To be fair, they're building/supplying these, with the intention of track use, which is obviously hugely demanding, so the average revvin kevin / road warrior who briefly squirts it about on the streets could most likely get away with more.
So 460hp is achieved with reduced boost, on stock internals, but the 500hp (the next option up they do) gets Forged pistons & steel rods. They say, with those internals, the base motor can handle 700+.
They offer 7200 redline, but their tunes are also offered at sub 7k redlines, so they appear to be reluctant to rev these things too high.
I don't have any personal knowledge of this motor, but have to bow to a firm that does, and has done shed loads of them, offer up to 600hp, and seem to focus on track use, which frankly, is night & day vs street use in terms of finding where the (very expensive) edge of the cliff is.
Last edited:
Spot on. When I had my 460 kit installed shop was confused with the bigger SC pulley until I told them why as you stated.
JUBU team does lots of real track racing and are part of development for Redford type 62-2 pikes peak climb race which I believe they won.
We all know that strengthening internals is never a bad idea while adding power just depends on abuse/use of driver and what stock canvas you’re working with. I think people question the integrity of people bc they sell parts to support these areas of weak points which I don’t think is fair especially working with that team hands on. Everyone is trying to get more mods per dollar and upgrading internals is far from cheap and usually effects money for other mods you had planned financially.
This is a VF tune page there is plenty of info in other areas of the forum on this topic so we can reel this back in for VF tuner and the dyno results today! I only asked the question on hp/tq max figures earlier bc it’s been a widely polarizing discussion. Hoping we continue to get more unbiased data from users over different platforms so we can all make educated decisions on paths to take.
Txclotusemira
Member
Hello guys I made on my Exige over 600hp on stock engine for over a year with hundread 1/4 mile passes before my pistons or rod fail
7300rpms
7300rpms
Txclotusemira
Member
10.3 sec @ 220km
- Thread starter
- #531
Okay folks we have some results to share, and info (full bolt on version vehicle)
bone stock emira dyno is still on the way.
I'll give a complete breakdown of the data, what we are doing, and some nice updates coming from this.
I really appreciate you guys being so patient! Post coming soon.
bone stock emira dyno is still on the way.
I'll give a complete breakdown of the data, what we are doing, and some nice updates coming from this.
I really appreciate you guys being so patient! Post coming soon.
- Thread starter
- #532
Okay so some useful info for you guys!
Our bone stock emira Dyno day is scheduled (May 9th)
The other test vehicle we have been working with us fully bolted (practically every bolt on and the smallest pulley available).
the *current* dyno results for that vehicle is posted below.
ending with 450+whp and nearly 400ft lbs of torque.
Now, immediately I'm going to expect "why the results are low" or direct comparisons to JB4. Lets sort that out and explain what we discovered (and are fixing through custom code). First, this vehicle did test with a JB4 and could not produce anywhere close to JB4s advertised gains. So we did verify vs a competing tool.
Secondly, A new discovery was found after we retuned and unlocked throttle. The car is now making so much boost it looks to be maxing out the MAP sensor and the ECU is limiting power as a result. This is new territory, as we have never seen this on evoras (they can't get the throttle open as much). This was confirmed by the car posting DTCs for the MAP sensor.
before: you can see throttle limiting overall (pretty standard)
then, with our changes, you can see throttle CUTS back and limits once we hit overboost
How we will fix this:
We are rewriting the entire Throttle control code. not trying to patch around it, or mess with lotuses stock code, we are designing our own complete throttle control code from scratch. This new code will come with some neat protection features
- Temperature based throttle limiting (protection)
- Knock based Throttle reduction (protection)
- Leanout reduction (protection)
- Trust controls (to ensure that throttle can't do anything dangerous)
- Possible Rev-matching
and more.
now, as for the tune, our OTS map is clean, AFR is well controlled, ignition is also excellent. (see below)
with AFR between 12.5 ~ 12.2, (this is temperature controlled, so as temps rise it will enrich further)
Car before throttle control updates on dyno and further tuning:
vehicle after cleaning the tune up, and hitting boost/throttle limiting due to hitting max on the pressure/map sensor
as a reference, this vehicle is hitting over 400/gsec on the MAF. (equivalent to over 520bhp roughly). that is with throttle cutting down above 5000 rpm. We are easily missing 50-60 more whp up top due to this.
Note, this is NOT an issue on stock vehicles / bolt ons but stock pulley. Only on much smaller pulleys where boost can hit the limit of the sensor.
Important details about this vehicle:
This vehicle was tested with a JB4 on 91 octane, 93 octane, and a custom map from JB4. None of the available maps were able to produce the numbers they advertise. (not even close, but I will let the owner decide if they want to provide that exact info)
So, we have some real data here, and it is excellent data due to the car being fully bolted (which is the inevitable path for most folks looking to maximize power). We are happy to have this info very early in the game so we can refine our product to maximize power out of these modifications.
Our bone stock emira Dyno day is scheduled (May 9th)
The other test vehicle we have been working with us fully bolted (practically every bolt on and the smallest pulley available).
the *current* dyno results for that vehicle is posted below.
ending with 450+whp and nearly 400ft lbs of torque.
Now, immediately I'm going to expect "why the results are low" or direct comparisons to JB4. Lets sort that out and explain what we discovered (and are fixing through custom code). First, this vehicle did test with a JB4 and could not produce anywhere close to JB4s advertised gains. So we did verify vs a competing tool.
Secondly, A new discovery was found after we retuned and unlocked throttle. The car is now making so much boost it looks to be maxing out the MAP sensor and the ECU is limiting power as a result. This is new territory, as we have never seen this on evoras (they can't get the throttle open as much). This was confirmed by the car posting DTCs for the MAP sensor.
before: you can see throttle limiting overall (pretty standard)
then, with our changes, you can see throttle CUTS back and limits once we hit overboost
How we will fix this:
We are rewriting the entire Throttle control code. not trying to patch around it, or mess with lotuses stock code, we are designing our own complete throttle control code from scratch. This new code will come with some neat protection features
- Temperature based throttle limiting (protection)
- Knock based Throttle reduction (protection)
- Leanout reduction (protection)
- Trust controls (to ensure that throttle can't do anything dangerous)
- Possible Rev-matching
and more.
now, as for the tune, our OTS map is clean, AFR is well controlled, ignition is also excellent. (see below)
with AFR between 12.5 ~ 12.2, (this is temperature controlled, so as temps rise it will enrich further)
Car before throttle control updates on dyno and further tuning:
vehicle after cleaning the tune up, and hitting boost/throttle limiting due to hitting max on the pressure/map sensor
as a reference, this vehicle is hitting over 400/gsec on the MAF. (equivalent to over 520bhp roughly). that is with throttle cutting down above 5000 rpm. We are easily missing 50-60 more whp up top due to this.
Note, this is NOT an issue on stock vehicles / bolt ons but stock pulley. Only on much smaller pulleys where boost can hit the limit of the sensor.
Important details about this vehicle:
This vehicle was tested with a JB4 on 91 octane, 93 octane, and a custom map from JB4. None of the available maps were able to produce the numbers they advertise. (not even close, but I will let the owner decide if they want to provide that exact info)
So, we have some real data here, and it is excellent data due to the car being fully bolted (which is the inevitable path for most folks looking to maximize power). We are happy to have this info very early in the game so we can refine our product to maximize power out of these modifications.
sbproducer
2025 V6 Manual
Great post. Honest and informative.
I’m confused so Please educate me.
Are these the dyno results after your tune?
What horsepower and torque numbers did you get with the JB4 on 91 and 93 octane before your tune?
And what were the false claimed horse power and torque numbers you are referring to that they made?
And could they be different as a result of them using a different dyno?
Which type of dyno did you and which type of dyno did they use to compare apples to apples?
- Thread starter
- #536
Yes these are the results after stock ECU tuning, and running into throttle reduction due to maxxing out the MAP sensor.
The owner of the vehicle can produce the JB4 results if they wish. I am only saying it was tested. The results did not produce what they advertise. I never said anything is false claimed.
meesterover
Emira Fan
Did you look into using an upgraded MAF pipe?
Curious if this would also help.
frankensteinmotorworks.squarespace.com
Curious if this would also help.
3.5" MAF pipe — Frankenstein Motorworks
This part simplifies the 2GR-FE and 2AR-FE engine swap by solving the common problem of building a MAF pipe that matches the OEM calibration. This is an updated oversize version of the previous 3” MAF pipe. The recommended filter is an AEM 21-209EDK that is relatively compact and works well but an
frankensteinmotorworks.squarespace.com
Is the issue with the MAP or the MAF? Or both?
MAF is easier because you can increase the housing diameter (as mentioned above) and then rescale the sensor in the tables.
MAP is harder if the sensor truly doesn't have the range, but more commonly it's a map scaling problem. Hitting the end of the existing table is a classic reflash challenge to work around.
MAF is easier because you can increase the housing diameter (as mentioned above) and then rescale the sensor in the tables.
MAP is harder if the sensor truly doesn't have the range, but more commonly it's a map scaling problem. Hitting the end of the existing table is a classic reflash challenge to work around.
Create an account or login to comment
Join now to leave a comment enjoy browsing the site ad-free!
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
Supporting Vendors
View all →
