It's official: MTH Rocks

The results are in, I took the DogMobile for a little trip to the Dyno today. Please note that I have done nothing to my car other than install this s.w and beat it up on the track since the first dyno runs last month. This is a very pure test. The only variable is that it was cooler today (80.91F against 88.36 in Sept).

So, is the MTH s/w worth $75? Unequivocably yes, my $75 bought me an average of a 9.7HP gain between my strongest and weakest runs (heat soak). Also, the difference FEELS much stronger than that because of the smoothness of the power delivery.

Here are the numbers, graphs to follow (graphs use wheel #s, I've converted to crank #s here):

Sept best run - SAE 185.8 = STD 189.6
Oct best run - SAE 194.5 = STD 199.0

The difference of SAE 8.7 = STD 9.4 is pretty good.

Sept worst run - SAE 176.3 = STD 180.0
Oct worst run - SAE 187.0 = STD 191.3

This difference of SAE 10.7 = STD 11.3 is even better.

One good thing to note about this is that the performance difference under normal (i.e. hot intercooler) conditions does not degrade as much.

As you'll see in the graphs below, the a/f ratio is better, but still not good (I'll be emailing Franz on this to see if he can do anything to improve this further). Also bear in mind that the only performance mods I have are a 15% pulley and the one-ball exhaust mod. I think an intake will make a nice difference to the ability of the car to suck in more air and therefore run leaner (maybe).

Anyway, this confirms what those of us who have done this mod already knew, it's WAY worth the money, far and away the lowest $/pony of any mod that I know of.

Dog

Here are the graphs

Best run comparison graph:



Worst run comparison graph:

 

Wait a minute! You're comparing runs from a month ago? You couldn't go back to stock and do some runs then reload the MTH? Comparing runs one month apart on a software upgrade is pretty worthless, IMO. Converting to crank with SAE makes it even less accurate.

 

Well, with the MTH software.....it creates a sort of cache effect in the ECU. Thats why it takes 500 miles or so for the ECU to relearn the new map and refresh the cache inside. So basically all he did was dyno with stock ECU map. Flash in the MTH software and drive for 300 to 500 miles or so, go back and dyno with the new cache information.

Check out our club website: www.metroplexmini.org/ and click in the forums section, look for the thread "Oct. 9th ATS Racing Dyno Results" (or something to that extent) we just had a dyno session at ATS Racing on a Dynojet 248c with about 8 or 9 cars dynoing 3 MCs and the rest MCSs.........most with MTH, one with Powerchip.

What we did was do two runs with the MTH software, then one run with the stock ECU map. What happened was that the Stock map actually performed the same numbers overall, in one case more! This should not happen. The stock ECU is still pulling information from the cache info provided by MTH.

What needs to be done, like the first post above, is dyno with stock software first, then load up MTH, drive 500 miles to refresh the cache and redyno........

 

The SAE adjusted number is the most commonly quoted power measurement, and is directly produced by the DynoJet s/w. Converting from wheel HP to crank HP is a simple matter of applying a gear ratio based multiplier (in the case of a 3rd gear dyno in an MCS with stock 17" wheels, the multiplier is 112/100) so there is absolutely no effect on accuracy.

I visited the same dyno shop on both occasions and worked very hard to keep all other conditions the same. As McCullster correctly points out, the ECU does a lot of caching, so the elapsed time is required. I would have preferred to have done the second run one week after the first, but unfortunately I have a life, and other things got in the way.

Clearly, any dyno is subject to interpretation and, it seems, opinion. I have yet to see any other direct comparison attempts, and this one at least backs up what I, and several others who have driven my car before and after the MTH upgrade have felt.

Dog

 

One thing I forgot to mention is that the dip in the middle of the curve on the best run today was when the tester accidentally lifted off in the middle of the run.

 

Converting it to SAE isn't converting it to crank. SAE just converts the STD numbers to a number that reflects the "perfect" conditions so everyone can compare their numbers to others in different locations and conditions. STD numbers will be higher or lower depending on location.

 

I understand. But the more corrections you add the less accurate the results actually become. Especially when SAE corrections aren't specified for forced-induction cars! :smile: