I was over in the reviews section, and there are four reviews for MTH, one for UniChip, none for GIAC, None for EvoTech, None for Shark etc.

Come on folks! I look at how driven some of the owners are. Go post a review and share with others! The review section COULD be very usefull. Right now, it's not because most people just start a thread. GO AND POST REVIEWS OF THE PRODUCTS YOU"VE ADDED! BOTH GOOD AND BAD NEWS!!!!!

Matt

 

Never saw a reply to this:

I am thinking I need to upgrade my ECU but still not sure if it will be beneficial or not.
The upgrade, for me should be reversible, capable of bringing the car back to stock with minimum work. I am basically seeking additional power with minimal alterations, and I want to keep the car as stock looking as possible.
Running a 15%, with a CAI, and I want to keep the stock injectors and most likely will not change the exhaust, or cam.

My first question is: What is the best ECU upgrade that is reversible and beneficial? <b> <br>

Reversible = easy to bring back to stock
Beneficial = drivability, liner power, and hopefully not effecting MPG.

The units I have been considering are:

GIAC, MTH, UniChip, AMD (not sure what that is), Shark

Interesting enough I have seen where the stock ECU is just fine.

Second question: Is it necessary for an ECU upgrade?<b> <br>

Many of you have great insight to the benefits and faults of these units, please help

 

most people only have access to butt dyno's and it's calibration is very inaccurate.

preceived power increases with bias with the hundreds of dollars one
spent... hummmm...

 

Although I have neither, your post has inspired me to post reviews about the handfull of products I do have on my car

 

I had this done a few months ago - the following mods exist on my car today:
- 15 percent reduction pulley
- JCW CAI
- GIAC software

My inital impression is that it is extremely smooth - some of the backpressure farting, belching and barking that my 05 had is now less pronounced although it seems to have come back (I actually like a flatulent MINI).

The revs to redline are extremely quick, and smooth, much like an '03 JCW MCS I compared my car to. With the lower gearing of an 05 MCS, my butt dyno indicates that the '05 MCS is comparable to the '03 JCW with slighty more torque evident.

My G-tech on casual launch (i.e., no engine revving and clutch dumping) indicated a 0-60 time of 6.22 secs and a 1/4 mile time of 14.2 sec.

The installation is tied to your VIN, so if a MINI Dealer inadvertently reflashes your ECU it can be restored by any of the GIAC dealers around the country.

I've had the pleasure of owning GIAC software in my previous VW Audi products - '97 GTi VR6, 2001 VW GTi 1.8t, 2000 Audi S4 and 2001 Audi S4 Avant. In all cases the software is thoughtfully engineered and generally very well executed. The dealers that are selectively chosen to install the GIAC software are very knowledgeable about performance tuning (i.e., Currys Automotive in Virginia, Helix13 in PA etc..)

For the money it's a good buy and I'd recommend it as your second or third mod, right after your CAI and your pulley.

Comments?

 

Krut;

I am curious were you able to run your 05 MCS with just the pulley, or did you do the pulley, CAI, and ECU modifications at the same time. What was I curious of is the difference between running with the GIAC, and without the ECU mod.

Cost wise I thought the GIAC was attractive.

Sorta surprised to hear you have the poor liner acceleration as I used to have on my 04.
Are you aware of the VGS, a very simple modification that helps tremendously.
I think this link will take you there: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...&highlight=vgs
Otherwise search VGS

 

What makes you think that's poor? It hasn't been dyno'd yet - if you know what a G-Tech is - it's a cheap way to get a baseline result - unfortunately I did not have a G-Tech before the mods.

Official BMW spec says 0-60 is 6.8 secs 1/4 mile is 15.4 for a 2005 MCS.

Feel free to do the VGS mod - just make sure you don't take your car in for any sort of warranty service (rerouting of vacuum hoses - denial of any engine warranty claim).

 

Ha!

 

:-)

I'm sure your mod works great Andy - and out of all the people that do stuff to their cars - I have complete faith that you're doing stuff to your car that you're backing up with good data. That said, I'm not sure what will happen if someone inadvertently brings in a car with the VGS mod.

 

Oops sort of a miss understanding. When I said poor acceleration it was reference to the non liner acceleration, not your 0 – 60 time. Not sure if 6.22 seconds is good or bad. Here at one mile high, 6.22 would be a good 0 – 60 time for a lightly modified MCS with stock tires, but I am not sure if it would be good other locations.

Anyway sorry.

 

GIAC in 5 of my last cars.

A+ software, A+ customer support.

Love it in my 05, and soon to be in my wife's 05.

All I can say is I would never trust anyone else to chip my car but Garrett.

You will not regret the purchase..

 

Okay, I may be able to give an impression or 2.

1) I got the 19% pulley installed first (I had the 15%). Decent inprovement in power, still yo-yo'd.

2) Next got the VGS and JCW injectors (it was a Saturday and the GIAC server was down, so no ECU mod that day). Yo-yo 95% gone, maybe a slight improvement in power.

3) Got the GIAC upgrade. As noted about 1k times on this board, smoother at higher rpms, better mpg, better highway acceleration at lower rpm's in a higher gear. Overall felt stronger.

Overall, I think 19% + VGS + JCW injectors + GIAC is a good package that I'd do again, given the choice.

 

"19% + VGS + JCW injectors + GIAC is a good package"


I run this with the RDR intake and the Borla Race Cat Back. It is smooth and problem free. The GIAC and the VGS made it more civilized.

I think my mileage is down a bit. But my last road trip was hot. I think you have to calculate it manually since the onboard system uses injector-on times to calculate consumption and the larger injectors are not factored into the calculations.

Does anyone know whether the 'remaining fuel' lights on the display are driven by a computer calculation or by a sensor in the tank? I would be more comfortable with a sensor in the tank.

 

The remaining fuel lights are controlled by the Nav system, from the level in the tank. If you hold down the MENU button for 10 seconds while you are on "Settings" you can see the hidden menu. I believe actual fuel remaining in the tank, in liters, is shown there.

 

Thanks Andy, I love hidden Menu's!!!!

 

Andy,

Thanks. That matches my observations. The fuel remaining seemed in the ballpark. The estimates for miles in the tank will be off when the injectors are changed because the motor is using more fuel than it thinks it is. I am saying this based on what I learned from Eric at Helix.

Vince

And thanks for the VGS.

 

None for GIAC? I posted this 7 months before your post. https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...highlight=GIAC

 

Shark dyno results:


http://www.mini2.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45699

 

Not burried in the threads....

Look here if you haven't seen it!

Matt

 

19% -alta cai- miltek header&cat-back, 380"s &after waiting 2 years for a flash that has been proven not to be snake-oil, GAIC.
doug

 

Here's a Mustang dyno of my stock ECU versus GIAC for my 19% & 400cc car (+other typical mods). Same testing conditions for both tests. Others may have great butt dyno results, my results are more like snake oil. Oh yes, I did get an increased rev limit for my $325, which is the only reason the HP showed much of an increase . I'm most dissapointed that the AFR's are no better than the stock ECU, just a little different. Which I suppose is why the TQ/HP numbers didn't change significantly.

I'm posting this not to refute anyone else's results. I'm glad it worked and you liked it if you are in that group of purchasers. This is just to "be counted" and to let folks see that even "dyno proven" results in development may not apply to their application. Although, I was assured that my application was "within the parameters used to develop the reflash", it just wasn't so.

Sorry I'm not savvy enough to include it in my post here. I placed a better resolution file in my gallery. Appologize for the inconvenience.

 

Looks like you gained 15hp at 6750rpm (below the stock redline, BTW)...I think that's pretty decent, right?

 

I think your main problem is they pulled off the gas way before redline. Stock redline is 6750, they pulled off at 6k the first time.

 

READ the graph a little more closely. The 15hp increase goes WITH the 750rpm higher the GIAC was run to. At the same rpm level, the hp difference was 0-5. IF the stock was run the extra 750rpm, that's what the delta would read in the little box...0-5. Both the TQ and the HP for the GIAC nearly overlay the stock, with the exception that the GIAC was run 750rpm higher.

The actual TQ delta listed is correct at +1.7
The actual max HP delta is at 6000rpm at +5.25

The afr's that I did not post are unreasonably high below 2500rpm with the GIAC (greater that 13.5-14).

 

No. The main problem isn't that the tests were run to different final rpm's. I understand that quite well. The main problem is the GIAC curve overlies the STOCK curve at every rpm along the way. Yes, ofcourse the GIAC was run 750rpm's higher. Guess what...IF the stock were run that extra distance, the curves would nearlly overlie there as well. In my application, the money was wasted for the GIAC.