Below Nav Bar Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NT Pajero 3 inch turbo-back exhaust and ECU remap

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NT Pajero 3 inch turbo-back exhaust and ECU remap

    Hi All - sorry about the crappy photo but thought this might be of some interest to the group.

    I took my '09 NT GLX manual with a little over 160K km on the clock (a pup, I know!) to Ultimate Diesel Tuning to get a chemical engine clean, 3 inch turbo-back exhaust and ECU remap done. The GLX manual of the NT is of note because they didn't come with a DPF and so a turbo back exhaust is possible without breaking the law. Also of note for torque specs is that I'm running 265/70R17's (or 31.6") tyres, a little over an inch diameter larger than factory. This is the first time I've had it on the dyno, and so was interested to see the baseline power and torque numbers. When comparing these to factory power and torque figures I used the rough rule of thumb of 15% drive-train losses from output shaft through to the wheels, which might be conservative (although when the tyre size is taken into account might be about right).

    So, reducing the stated specs at the output shaft (147kW / 441 Nm) to the wheels (x0.85) = 125kW and 375Nm at the wheels from factory, there was a 26kW reduction in baseline power (99.7kW) and a 40Nm reduction in baseline torque (334.4Nm) (some of which is attributable to tyre size). Post work and tune I got 129.2kW peak power and 434Nm peak torque, representing a 4.2kW increase from factory and 30kW increase from baseline in peak power, and a 59Nm increase in peak torque from factory and almost exactly 100Nm from baseline.

    Interesting to note that peak power and peak torque have barely moved in the rev range from the baseline. I guess this might be expected. Driving it, the increased peak torque is highly noticeable after I get through the ever-present turbo lag, which hasn't really changed at all (probably also as expected). I've only driven it home so far, so not sure I've heat the revs for peak power in Brisbane traffic yet. Will take for an open up on the weekend.

    Cheers.

  • #2
    get a throttle controller they are unbeliveable

    Comment


    • #3
      I suspect that a lot of the increase may be due to the manifold cleaning. You would certainly notice a difference with figures as you show. Do you notice any difference in noise levels?

      Comment


      • #4
        2 things -

        1st on a rear wheel drive and especially something like a 4x4 with huge diffs and a transfer case - drive train loss is closer to 25-30% which would put your starting figures at somewhere in teh ballpark of expected results considering tire size and potential carbon build up....

        2nd this is the gen 2 section so while interesting totally out of place here
        1994 NJ 3.0 now with a 2000NL 3.5 engine and driveline, 2.5 catback, 32" MT Deegan 38's, 1" body lift, front diff drop with front tension rods indexed and cranked an 3", 3" on the rear coils
        *** retired to the big wrecking yard in the sky***
        1998 NL 3.5 blisterside, 305.70.16's on -44 rims 3.5" suspension lift, Custom Bull bar, winch install, custom front control arms, NJ GLS flares and some camping gear in the back AND 8 PSI of BOOOOOST

        .... and 1990 Nissan Z32 300zx for on road shenanigans
        .

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by erad View Post
          I suspect that a lot of the increase may be due to the manifold cleaning. You would certainly notice a difference with figures as you show. Do you notice any difference in noise levels?
          I'd really hope that it's a combination of all three - the diesel should respond well to the reduced back pressure from the 3" pipe and the factory tune is probably overly conservative (not that this is an aggressive tune - set up for touring so I didn't ask for a rock crawler tune). It's got a much nicer, throatier note out of the exhaust now that I can hear from the drivers seat with the windows down, but to be honest when I get it up to cruising speeds, tyre noise from the AT's and wind noise drown it out pretty quickly, so not invasive.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by stumagoo View Post
            2 things -

            1st on a rear wheel drive and especially something like a 4x4 with huge diffs and a transfer case - drive train loss is closer to 25-30% which would put your starting figures at somewhere in teh ballpark of expected results considering tire size and potential carbon build up....

            2nd this is the gen 2 section so while interesting totally out of place here
            Sorry about dropping it in the Gen 2 section - new to the forum so I didn't mean to post it here and no idea how to move it to the Gen 3 topic. Help appreciated.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KieranH View Post

              Sorry about dropping it in the Gen 2 section - new to the forum so I didn't mean to post it here and no idea how to move it to the Gen 3 topic. Help appreciated.
              dont stress --- only mentioned it because thats where you wouyld likely get better responses.... and NT is gen4

              I would add we ran a stock NL 3.5 petrol up on the dyno and he got very similar results to your first ones --- 133hp at the wheels and around 300nm of torque - these have very similar stock power levels to your diesel engine so again I think your starting numbers are actually not bad and your tuned numbers I also think are a good fair result
              1994 NJ 3.0 now with a 2000NL 3.5 engine and driveline, 2.5 catback, 32" MT Deegan 38's, 1" body lift, front diff drop with front tension rods indexed and cranked an 3", 3" on the rear coils
              *** retired to the big wrecking yard in the sky***
              1998 NL 3.5 blisterside, 305.70.16's on -44 rims 3.5" suspension lift, Custom Bull bar, winch install, custom front control arms, NJ GLS flares and some camping gear in the back AND 8 PSI of BOOOOOST

              .... and 1990 Nissan Z32 300zx for on road shenanigans
              .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mike1960 View Post
                get a throttle controller they are unbeliveable
                Hey Mike, I have one... and it is turned off. While a throttle controller initially makes the Paj feel like it has more power it really is still a 2.2ton lard with an oil burner.
                No matter how quickly or how long I push the accelerator it still takes several breaths to overcome the turbo lag, and accelerates slightly quicker than a glacier

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by erad View Post
                  I suspect that a lot of the increase may be due to the manifold cleaning. You would certainly notice a difference with figures as you show. Do you notice any difference in noise levels?
                  Hey Erad, is this from personal experience? If you did clean yours how blocked was yours and what was the power difference?
                  Mine is booked in for the manifold clean and from what I have read by those that have done the clean, and the advice from the mechanic is that there will be very little noticeable difference on power. Disappointing really as you know the manifold clean is essential maintenance, but a lot of money for no "seat of the pants" improvement.. I was hoping this will help with the turbo lag?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KieranH View Post
                    Hi All - sorry about the crappy photo but thought this might be of some interest to the group.

                    I took my '09 NT GLX manual with a little over 160K km on the clock (a pup, I know!) to Ultimate Diesel Tuning to get a chemical engine clean, 3 inch turbo-back exhaust and ECU remap done. The GLX manual of the NT is of note because they didn't come with a DPF and so a turbo back exhaust is possible without breaking the law. Also of note for torque specs is that I'm running 265/70R17's (or 31.6") tyres, a little over an inch diameter larger than factory. This is the first time I've had it on the dyno, and so was interested to see the baseline power and torque numbers. When comparing these to factory power and torque figures I used the rough rule of thumb of 15% drive-train losses from output shaft through to the wheels, which might be conservative (although when the tyre size is taken into account might be about right).

                    So, reducing the stated specs at the output shaft (147kW / 441 Nm) to the wheels (x0.85) = 125kW and 375Nm at the wheels from factory, there was a 26kW reduction in baseline power (99.7kW) and a 40Nm reduction in baseline torque (334.4Nm) (some of which is attributable to tyre size). Post work and tune I got 129.2kW peak power and 434Nm peak torque, representing a 4.2kW increase from factory and 30kW increase from baseline in peak power, and a 59Nm increase in peak torque from factory and almost exactly 100Nm from baseline.

                    Interesting to note that peak power and peak torque have barely moved in the rev range from the baseline. I guess this might be expected. Driving it, the increased peak torque is highly noticeable after I get through the ever-present turbo lag, which hasn't really changed at all (probably also as expected). I've only driven it home so far, so not sure I've heat the revs for peak power in Brisbane traffic yet. Will take for an open up on the weekend.

                    Cheers.
                    Awesome info, Thanks Kieran!!!!! Appreciate you taking the time to post this especially for us NT owners!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      MarkRSA: I don't have any personal experience with my NW Pajero as yet regarding upgrading performance etc, but I reckon that it is dropping off a bit now. It has 121000 km n the clock and I am going to do the tappets soon, so it will be time for an inspection of the intake manifold then. A long time ago, I did have experience of dyno testing etc and to get gains such as you quote directly from tuning would be unlikely unless driveability was compromised. This is why I suggested that maybe cleaning the intake manifold may have contributed to the performance boost. Manufacturers always tend to be conservative regarding reliability etc so they end to under-rate the engine a little. However, if they do that too much, the competition will flatten them, so there is a compromise in their settings. Interesting to note your comments re the turbo lag not changing much if at all. I would expect that the larger exhaust would help in spooling up the turbo. If it hasn't changed the lag much, that dampens my enthusiasm for going bigger in my car.

                      Comment

                      Matched content

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X