Intake manufacture looking for prototype RX-8 in the Washington D.C. area.
08-30-2004, 06:56 PM
#26
All that is going to happen in closed loop is the computer is tricked to add/remove fuel, but then the O2 sensors pick up it is no longer stoich, and adjust more/less fuel to compensate anyway. That is why it is called closed loop.
The closed loop operation in the RX-8 does a VERY good job at maintaining the ideal AFR's, so why would you mess with it? If you have had the opportunity to log the wideband O2 sensors as I have done, you would know what I mean.
Cheers,
Hymee.
The closed loop operation in the RX-8 does a VERY good job at maintaining the ideal AFR's, so why would you mess with it? If you have had the opportunity to log the wideband O2 sensors as I have done, you would know what I mean.
Cheers,
Hymee.
08-30-2004, 07:01 PM
#27
Administrator
i just edited my statement above hymee re-read it in case you missed my changes. and i know you're not flaming. but telling lies to the computer is all we have available to us right now with any of the piggybacks as far as a/f is concerned until someone starts selling something that allows us to write maps to the pcm like many companies (www.superchips.com/html/mainpage/index.htm# for one) make for ford and chevy products. you working on that yet?
08-30-2004, 07:07 PM
#28
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hymee
All that is going to happen in closed loop is the computer is tricked to add/remove fuel, but then the O2 sensors pick up it is no longer stoich, and adjust more/less fuel to compensate anyway. That is why it is called closed loop.
The closed loop operation in the RX-8 does a VERY good job at maintaining the ideal AFR's, so why would you mess with it? If you have had the opportunity to log the wideband O2 sensors as I have done, you would know what I mean.
Cheers,
Hymee.
The closed loop operation in the RX-8 does a VERY good job at maintaining the ideal AFR's, so why would you mess with it? If you have had the opportunity to log the wideband O2 sensors as I have done, you would know what I mean.
Cheers,
Hymee.
I perfectly understand that and I have made several logs myself... however, there is something to gain from this as the 8 like the 6 suffers from poor idle when equipped with an aftermarket intake (the 6 actually throwing codes) - whatever it is they are doing can help the MAF compensate for the new intake flow characteristics.
I think one key may be closed loop modes lets the ecu adjust after the O2 sensors find out whats going on and after the possible rough idle has occured - they can adjust BEFORE the O2 sensors have any clue
08-30-2004, 07:10 PM
#29
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MazdaManiac
What makes you think the E-Manage only works in open-loop?
The E-Manage works under ALL throttle positions and loads with a very wide adjustability range.
The price difference is about $50 or less (the E-Manage is under $300).
The E-Manage works under ALL throttle positions and loads with a very wide adjustability range.
The price difference is about $50 or less (the E-Manage is under $300).
I guess I am mistaken then - I've heard of several people with eManages not be able to adjust idle effectively though.
08-30-2004, 07:23 PM
#30
Originally Posted by MazdaManiac
Huh?
Very good, if you think 11:1 or richer is ideal.
Even better if you like the A/F to wander up and down at different RPMs regardless of its effect on the power output.
This seems like a very strange line of comment coming from you, Hymee.
I've done a lot of A/F logging with both the OEM WBO2S and the LM-1 and I can tell you the OEM calibrations (at least in North America) are quite poor.
Very good, if you think 11:1 or richer is ideal.
Even better if you like the A/F to wander up and down at different RPMs regardless of its effect on the power output.
This seems like a very strange line of comment coming from you, Hymee.
I've done a lot of A/F logging with both the OEM WBO2S and the LM-1 and I can tell you the OEM calibrations (at least in North America) are quite poor.
It looks like I unintentionally started a flame. It was not the case. I was trying to edumacate people. Appologies to all if offence was taken. But I know it must be hard to swallow if you are a believer in MAF trickery. And I know how much time and effort you have put into you tuning, Maniac. I never said it was not worthwhile, nor do I dispute that you have found gains.
Zoom44 - The TSI unit (aka RIC SHAW) is a piggy back that doesn't trick the computer. It lets the computer determine what fuel it wants to put in based on all it's "pure" inputs, and then alters the out-going duty-cycle signal to the injectors via it's own lookup tables.
Now I hope my statements dont seem so strange anymore, if you understand what I was saying.
Cheers,
Hymee.
Last edited by Hymee; 08-30-2004 at 07:26 PM.
08-30-2004, 08:03 PM
#31
Administrator
ah ok then i was mistaken and thanks for that about the tsi. that does clear up a few things. but you are still tricking the cars components to do what you want them to do. it intercepts a signal and then sends a different one.it's still not changing the maps in the pcm.
08-30-2004, 08:35 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here it goes.
The e-manage and MAF customizer can both tune the entire rev range- all throttle positions at all RPMs. That's what the big grid is for- on the eManage I believe it's 20x20 (?), and on the MAF Customizer it's 30x30. Either way, it's big
This is not the only lookup table the MAF customizer uses, however, and the details of the rest of the product are what I'm not sure CPE would like me to share. It probably comes as no surprise that the additional functionality is there especially for recalibrating MAF signals to different diameter pipes, since that's what CPE is famous for. This removes any restriction caused by the gigantic MAF sensor obstructing a narrow pipe by recalibrating the stock MAF safely for a larger, less restrictive pipe. For the RX-8, since there doesn't seem to be a demand for a large diameter intake design, that part of their product won't be needed. It's still a neat design.
Now, to dispell some myths- while either just about any piggyback system can recalibrate the ENTIRE fuel map, none that do so by modifying the MAF signal can do so properly! The MAF signal is an INPUT, and is therefore monitored and interpereted. More importantly, it is checked for accuracy. If you try to trick the MAF sensor at cruising speeds, the car will add/subtract fuel depending on what you ask of it- but then the O2 sensor will quickly discover the anomoly. It will then correct the MAF signal (negating your tuning) to what the factory preset is. In the case of the Mazda6, there is a MAP sensor too- a very redundant system.
The O2 sensor deactivates under several conditions. One is when you first start the car, as the O2 sensor takes 15 seconds or so to warm up. Another is over a certain RPM- on the Mazda6 this is 4500rpm, but on the RX-8 it is likely higher. The third and most important is at wide-open-throttle. No matter what RPM, if you are at wide-open-throttle, the PCM will stop monitoring the O2 sensor for corrections. Why? Because at full throttle, the engine is revving too fast to make corrections. The Mazda6 uses a narrowband O2 sensor, which means it can only detect very small differences above or below a 14.7:1 a/f ratio. Not surprisingly, it runs a perfect 14.7:1 a/f ratio until its 4500rpm cutoff point unless you mash the go pedal to the floor. This is not specific to the MAF customizer; it's true of ANY product that works by modifying the MAF signal input!
Long story short, if you make adjustments to the ENTIRE map the car will learn what you've done and things will get messy. So most piggyback units do not engage except when the throttle position sensor detects a wide-open throttle OR the car is above the closed-loop RPM point. This is not necessarily a bad thing for most cars, as it preserves the factory fuel-and-emissions-friendly settings the car strives to get while cruising on the highway.
Adjusting the MAF signal is safe at those times, as it is there to indicate how much fuel the PCM should inject. The more air, the more fuel. The car doesn't know any better than to add or subtract fuel. This is actually not unlike other modifications- an exhuast manifold might increase your volumetric efficiency at high RPMs; in other words the car is sucking in more air. The MAF recognizes this and adds more fuel, which is why you gain power! In the case of a piggyback unit, you're adding or subtracting fuel without changing the amount of air going to the engine.
There's a nice FAQ on the CPE's products over at Mazda6tech.com, found here:
http://forum.mazda6tech.com/viewtopic.php?t=1009
The Mazda6 uses helmholtz tuning in the intake manifold just like the RX-8, for what it's worth. It's a two-stage design whereas the higher-revving RX-8 uses a 3-stage design and the mechanics are different, but the concept is the same. The larger pipe comes before the intake manifold, so it won't mess that up.
The CPE guys know their stuff, and their kits are high quality. In a year or two, I wouldn't be surprised to see the MAF Customizer to have evolved into a full standalone OR piggyback unit. I know that they have lots of goals in mind for that product, and in the few months I've known them their progress has been pretty amazing. I'm very fond of the company.
Personally, I think CPE should hold off on this product until they have their wideband controller for sale. If they can manipulate the O2 sensor, they might be able to tune both open-loop AND closed-loop modes. They could fool the engine into thinking there is more or less oxygen in the exhaust than there actually is for moments when the O2 sensor is being monitored. Contrary to the Mazda6, I feel this will be important for the RX-8. The Mazda6's a/f ratio is mucked up only at high RPMs, where it was easy for CPE to tune out. The RX-8's a/f ratio is mucked up at ALL RPM's, not just high RPMs. While CPE could tune that out at wide-open-throttle pretty easily, wouldn't you guys rather have a system that improves highway cruising mileage as well? Is there any data of what the a/f ratio defaults to for cruising? I thought I recalled reading it was terrible- one reason owners who don't drive their car hard enough were getting carbon build-up.
As far as monitoring the output of the PCM, I don't see how this will help. The O2 sensor will still recognize an A/F ratio different from what it is programmed to acheive, and the PCM will still react to that in closed-loop modes. In open-loop modes, there's no reason not to modify the MAF signal- it's an easy, accurate way to change the a/f ratio. But whenever the engine is in closed-loop mode, it receives pure, unaltered inputs just as it expects. Ignition timing is a different story, but to quote CPE: "Ignition is a bitch."
The e-manage and MAF customizer can both tune the entire rev range- all throttle positions at all RPMs. That's what the big grid is for- on the eManage I believe it's 20x20 (?), and on the MAF Customizer it's 30x30. Either way, it's big
This is not the only lookup table the MAF customizer uses, however, and the details of the rest of the product are what I'm not sure CPE would like me to share. It probably comes as no surprise that the additional functionality is there especially for recalibrating MAF signals to different diameter pipes, since that's what CPE is famous for. This removes any restriction caused by the gigantic MAF sensor obstructing a narrow pipe by recalibrating the stock MAF safely for a larger, less restrictive pipe. For the RX-8, since there doesn't seem to be a demand for a large diameter intake design, that part of their product won't be needed. It's still a neat design.
Now, to dispell some myths- while either just about any piggyback system can recalibrate the ENTIRE fuel map, none that do so by modifying the MAF signal can do so properly! The MAF signal is an INPUT, and is therefore monitored and interpereted. More importantly, it is checked for accuracy. If you try to trick the MAF sensor at cruising speeds, the car will add/subtract fuel depending on what you ask of it- but then the O2 sensor will quickly discover the anomoly. It will then correct the MAF signal (negating your tuning) to what the factory preset is. In the case of the Mazda6, there is a MAP sensor too- a very redundant system.
The O2 sensor deactivates under several conditions. One is when you first start the car, as the O2 sensor takes 15 seconds or so to warm up. Another is over a certain RPM- on the Mazda6 this is 4500rpm, but on the RX-8 it is likely higher. The third and most important is at wide-open-throttle. No matter what RPM, if you are at wide-open-throttle, the PCM will stop monitoring the O2 sensor for corrections. Why? Because at full throttle, the engine is revving too fast to make corrections. The Mazda6 uses a narrowband O2 sensor, which means it can only detect very small differences above or below a 14.7:1 a/f ratio. Not surprisingly, it runs a perfect 14.7:1 a/f ratio until its 4500rpm cutoff point unless you mash the go pedal to the floor. This is not specific to the MAF customizer; it's true of ANY product that works by modifying the MAF signal input!
Long story short, if you make adjustments to the ENTIRE map the car will learn what you've done and things will get messy. So most piggyback units do not engage except when the throttle position sensor detects a wide-open throttle OR the car is above the closed-loop RPM point. This is not necessarily a bad thing for most cars, as it preserves the factory fuel-and-emissions-friendly settings the car strives to get while cruising on the highway.
Adjusting the MAF signal is safe at those times, as it is there to indicate how much fuel the PCM should inject. The more air, the more fuel. The car doesn't know any better than to add or subtract fuel. This is actually not unlike other modifications- an exhuast manifold might increase your volumetric efficiency at high RPMs; in other words the car is sucking in more air. The MAF recognizes this and adds more fuel, which is why you gain power! In the case of a piggyback unit, you're adding or subtracting fuel without changing the amount of air going to the engine.
There's a nice FAQ on the CPE's products over at Mazda6tech.com, found here:
http://forum.mazda6tech.com/viewtopic.php?t=1009
The Mazda6 uses helmholtz tuning in the intake manifold just like the RX-8, for what it's worth. It's a two-stage design whereas the higher-revving RX-8 uses a 3-stage design and the mechanics are different, but the concept is the same. The larger pipe comes before the intake manifold, so it won't mess that up.
The CPE guys know their stuff, and their kits are high quality. In a year or two, I wouldn't be surprised to see the MAF Customizer to have evolved into a full standalone OR piggyback unit. I know that they have lots of goals in mind for that product, and in the few months I've known them their progress has been pretty amazing. I'm very fond of the company.
Personally, I think CPE should hold off on this product until they have their wideband controller for sale. If they can manipulate the O2 sensor, they might be able to tune both open-loop AND closed-loop modes. They could fool the engine into thinking there is more or less oxygen in the exhaust than there actually is for moments when the O2 sensor is being monitored. Contrary to the Mazda6, I feel this will be important for the RX-8. The Mazda6's a/f ratio is mucked up only at high RPMs, where it was easy for CPE to tune out. The RX-8's a/f ratio is mucked up at ALL RPM's, not just high RPMs. While CPE could tune that out at wide-open-throttle pretty easily, wouldn't you guys rather have a system that improves highway cruising mileage as well? Is there any data of what the a/f ratio defaults to for cruising? I thought I recalled reading it was terrible- one reason owners who don't drive their car hard enough were getting carbon build-up.
As far as monitoring the output of the PCM, I don't see how this will help. The O2 sensor will still recognize an A/F ratio different from what it is programmed to acheive, and the PCM will still react to that in closed-loop modes. In open-loop modes, there's no reason not to modify the MAF signal- it's an easy, accurate way to change the a/f ratio. But whenever the engine is in closed-loop mode, it receives pure, unaltered inputs just as it expects. Ignition timing is a different story, but to quote CPE: "Ignition is a bitch."
08-30-2004, 09:06 PM
#33
Let me throw a cat amonst the pidgeons, and assume that the PCM varies other things based on MAF - say the oil injection? Would you want to mess with that if you did not know what the consequenses are? Purely conjecture - but that PCM basically controls everything. I suppose we need to look at history and see if anyone had bearing failures in the Renesis 
Piggy backs et. al. don't really know when the PCM is in closed loop, or open loop. There is no point altering the fuel table at positions where it is in closed loop for the reasons you suggest.
The PCM actaully has an ODBII parameter saying if it is open-loop or not, and I have logged that, along with the WBO2. You might be surprised to know that she comes out of closed loop a long way before "wide-open throttle". It is not mearly RPM based as well - you can go open loop down at crusing RPMs.
I cant understand why someone would want to mess with the O2 sensor signal. It is another precisely calibrated device. I don't know a real lot about the CARB laws, but I would think that messing with that would be a big no-no.
On highway cruise, the RX-8 maintains very close stoichiometry - yes - it is in closed loop, and maintains the AFR for precisely the reasons you cited above. Again - no need to mess with that if it is already running "ideal".
Monitoring the ouput of the PCM? That is exactly what we want to do. At certain RPM/TPS settings, when we know we are in open-loop, we want to add or subtract a certain amount of fuel to obtain our desired AFR. Surely that makes a lot more sense than adjusting the MAF signal up or down and feeding lies to the computer? When we tune on the chassis dyno, we can see when she comes out of closed loop, and start tuning there. For the reasons you stated, we dont bother tuning in the RPM/TPS settings where it is in closed loop, as it does not achieve anything.
Cheers,
Hymee.
Piggy backs et. al. don't really know when the PCM is in closed loop, or open loop. There is no point altering the fuel table at positions where it is in closed loop for the reasons you suggest.
The PCM actaully has an ODBII parameter saying if it is open-loop or not, and I have logged that, along with the WBO2. You might be surprised to know that she comes out of closed loop a long way before "wide-open throttle". It is not mearly RPM based as well - you can go open loop down at crusing RPMs.
I cant understand why someone would want to mess with the O2 sensor signal. It is another precisely calibrated device. I don't know a real lot about the CARB laws, but I would think that messing with that would be a big no-no.
On highway cruise, the RX-8 maintains very close stoichiometry - yes - it is in closed loop, and maintains the AFR for precisely the reasons you cited above. Again - no need to mess with that if it is already running "ideal".
Monitoring the ouput of the PCM? That is exactly what we want to do. At certain RPM/TPS settings, when we know we are in open-loop, we want to add or subtract a certain amount of fuel to obtain our desired AFR. Surely that makes a lot more sense than adjusting the MAF signal up or down and feeding lies to the computer? When we tune on the chassis dyno, we can see when she comes out of closed loop, and start tuning there. For the reasons you stated, we dont bother tuning in the RPM/TPS settings where it is in closed loop, as it does not achieve anything.
Cheers,
Hymee.
08-30-2004, 10:30 PM
#34
If it richens up to 11:1 it is NOT in closed loop anymore!!!!!
The reason it is so rich is that it is looking up its "crappy" calibration, and getting a fuel value and dumping it in. That is open loop. If it were closed loop, it would rectify it back up to 14.7:1
Cheers,
Hymee.
The reason it is so rich is that it is looking up its "crappy" calibration, and getting a fuel value and dumping it in. That is open loop. If it were closed loop, it would rectify it back up to 14.7:1
Cheers,
Hymee.
08-31-2004, 12:39 AM
#36
Jeff,
I'm not really worried about whether ODBII (not CAN!) says it is in open loop or not. The fact is that in closed loop, the PCM is chasing 14.7:1. And there is not point in trying to tune when it is in closed loop, due to that very fact.
Perhaps this has got a bit off topic. But it did stem from some on-topic discussion about the ability of the dial a MAF to tune both open and closed loop. I suggest it doesn't actually no when the car is in closed loop or not. And nor do any of the piggybacks. You just don't need to touch them in that "zone".
And I think that gets me back to where I started...
Cheers,
Hymee.
I'm not really worried about whether ODBII (not CAN!) says it is in open loop or not. The fact is that in closed loop, the PCM is chasing 14.7:1. And there is not point in trying to tune when it is in closed loop, due to that very fact.
Perhaps this has got a bit off topic. But it did stem from some on-topic discussion about the ability of the dial a MAF to tune both open and closed loop. I suggest it doesn't actually no when the car is in closed loop or not. And nor do any of the piggybacks. You just don't need to touch them in that "zone".
And I think that gets me back to where I started...
Cheers,
Hymee.
08-31-2004, 02:42 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belgique
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 3 basic fuel related operating points for a IC engine :
- best economy point : slightly lean AFR
- best efficiency of three way catalyst : stoichiometric AFR
- best power (LBT) : slightly rich / rich AFR
The best economy and LBT points varies, in term of AFR, on a same engine, with speed, load but also air temperature. The best economy point is unfortunatelly generally not used due to emission, unless te vehicle is equipped with a NOx trap or other emission device.
There are 2 different engine management related operating modes for fuelling :
- close loop : fuelling is corrected on the basis of a feedback signal from an exhaust gaz oxygen (EGO) sensor
- open loop : no feedback, no correction
Operating points and modes are independant and, depending on the type of EGO sensor (switching, linear) used in the vehicle, the system will or will not be capable of running in close loop outside the stoichiometric operating point.
The fact that the RX8 is fitted with a linear sensor does not mean however that the engine management operates in close loop at all times.
The best way to find out is to rely on the Open Loop Flag that should be accessible via the OBD. I'm confident Hymee will find it out for us as he did with the PCM measured Mass Air Flow.
And I will never say it often enough : don't mess up with the calibration if you don't comprehend the full extent of the strategy running in the PCM.
If the PCM asks for 11:1, it's most probably because it wants it. And it can be for many different reasons such as catalyst protection, EGO protection, exhaust valve seat protection (N/A for the RX8, but maybe well port insert protection)...
Anyway, to certify an engine for the USA, you must substentiate to the Authority that the engine runs no richer than LBT across the speed range with the base fuel tables and corrections. If overfuelling is needed for other reasons (such as catalyst protection) it must be activated by a separate strategy module. I had to do this for the Ford Escape 2.0 L.
Other point : I have very strong doubt on the dyno chart displayed early on this thread that shows a very accurately consistent, and massive improvement across the engine speed range... That just do not exist in my book!
- best economy point : slightly lean AFR
- best efficiency of three way catalyst : stoichiometric AFR
- best power (LBT) : slightly rich / rich AFR
The best economy and LBT points varies, in term of AFR, on a same engine, with speed, load but also air temperature. The best economy point is unfortunatelly generally not used due to emission, unless te vehicle is equipped with a NOx trap or other emission device.
There are 2 different engine management related operating modes for fuelling :
- close loop : fuelling is corrected on the basis of a feedback signal from an exhaust gaz oxygen (EGO) sensor
- open loop : no feedback, no correction
Operating points and modes are independant and, depending on the type of EGO sensor (switching, linear) used in the vehicle, the system will or will not be capable of running in close loop outside the stoichiometric operating point.
The fact that the RX8 is fitted with a linear sensor does not mean however that the engine management operates in close loop at all times.
The best way to find out is to rely on the Open Loop Flag that should be accessible via the OBD. I'm confident Hymee will find it out for us as he did with the PCM measured Mass Air Flow.
And I will never say it often enough : don't mess up with the calibration if you don't comprehend the full extent of the strategy running in the PCM.
If the PCM asks for 11:1, it's most probably because it wants it. And it can be for many different reasons such as catalyst protection, EGO protection, exhaust valve seat protection (N/A for the RX8, but maybe well port insert protection)...
Anyway, to certify an engine for the USA, you must substentiate to the Authority that the engine runs no richer than LBT across the speed range with the base fuel tables and corrections. If overfuelling is needed for other reasons (such as catalyst protection) it must be activated by a separate strategy module. I had to do this for the Ford Escape 2.0 L.
Other point : I have very strong doubt on the dyno chart displayed early on this thread that shows a very accurately consistent, and massive improvement across the engine speed range... That just do not exist in my book!
08-31-2004, 12:22 PM
#40
Administrator
if you doubt it then go to www.mazda6tech.com and read all the threads concerning intake mods and c-pe's product. that is not the only dyno they have and the build up and release of these products, problems and soultutions, is very well documented by the owners of the cars which were the mules for testing as well as subsequent customer cars. and of curse there are a good many - updates please!, results please- posts like we have here 
08-31-2004, 05:48 PM
#41
Yeah - The open loop flag is accesible on the RX-8. I just have not logged/graphed it yet. A simple graph showing RPM, AFR and OpenLoop flag would do the trick.
Ummm... Someone on here who actually developed a PCM strategy for a production vehicle. I might listen to what he has to say
Cheers,
Hymee.
BTW - I will respect the initial intention of this thread, and move any more comments on Closed Loop / Open Loop tuning to the tech forum. I already started a Open/Closed Loop thread there ages ago, but have learned some more since then.
Ummm... Someone on here who actually developed a PCM strategy for a production vehicle. I might listen to what he has to say
Cheers,
Hymee.
BTW - I will respect the initial intention of this thread, and move any more comments on Closed Loop / Open Loop tuning to the tech forum. I already started a Open/Closed Loop thread there ages ago, but have learned some more since then.
08-31-2004, 05:52 PM
#42
IKnowNot'ing,
How many dyno's will it take to convince you? 3? 4? 164,000? The dyno's were on a mazda 6 members car who is a member of 6tech and 6club. Just to verify the results, I'll be dyno'ing my own car with the mod, as it seems that people always seem skeptical when mods give good actual gains. Then of course, people will stand there and wave bs flags, while everyone passes them with comments, reviews, and more verification.
I should have my own dyno sometime during the week of the 20th. I'll also happily give anyone a ride in my car at any local SCCA event in MD/VA.
Of course what do people expect when you AF ratio goes from 9.7:1 to 12 or 13:1.
How many dyno's will it take to convince you? 3? 4? 164,000? The dyno's were on a mazda 6 members car who is a member of 6tech and 6club. Just to verify the results, I'll be dyno'ing my own car with the mod, as it seems that people always seem skeptical when mods give good actual gains. Then of course, people will stand there and wave bs flags, while everyone passes them with comments, reviews, and more verification.
I should have my own dyno sometime during the week of the 20th. I'll also happily give anyone a ride in my car at any local SCCA event in MD/VA.
Of course what do people expect when you AF ratio goes from 9.7:1 to 12 or 13:1
.
08-31-2004, 06:50 PM
#43
IME (in my experience) the '8 doesn't get that rich to get into the 9's !!! OMFG!!
When you get yours done, crossbow, and it has been worked on the dyno for a while, quickly swap it back to stock and repeat the test while it is all still hot. That is the only way to verify you mods.
We have done that during tuning, and we gained around 10HP just from keeping the car stock!!!
Cheers,
Hymee.
When you get yours done, crossbow, and it has been worked on the dyno for a while, quickly swap it back to stock and repeat the test while it is all still hot. That is the only way to verify you mods.
We have done that during tuning, and we gained around 10HP just from keeping the car stock!!!
Cheers,
Hymee.
08-31-2004, 09:38 PM
#44
Hymee,
The dyno posted.. (Here's the hp one) Was performed back to back. I honestly don't know how else you could get more reproducable results. All you can really ask for is other 6s MTX's to install the mod and dyno their cars...but as you know each individual car varies a set amount, yadda yadda yadda.
Back to back runs. If anything, the stock dyno would have an advantage, as the car would have cooled down as it takes about 10 minutes to convert the car back to stock.
I don't know if I'll be able to do what you request (even though its already been done) as most dyno shops on dyno days don't allow you to do any mod swapping...you get your three runs, then they shove you off for the next guy. The only way I'll be able to fullfill your request is if CP-E makes a dyno available again...which of course then everyone will say is biased cause its CP-E yadda yadda yadda.
See the problem? Best I can give ya is just a max whp #...if its anywhere near the 200 whp mark, then their gains are reproducable and realistic. Does this even apply to the rx8? No, not really. I was just using their latest intake as an example of their skills and expertise, and hopefully how it could be applied to other new mazda models, as piston or rotor, we do all similar problems and issues...like not enough power...or should I say "never" enough power.
The dyno posted.. (Here's the hp one) Was performed back to back. I honestly don't know how else you could get more reproducable results. All you can really ask for is other 6s MTX's to install the mod and dyno their cars...but as you know each individual car varies a set amount, yadda yadda yadda.
Back to back runs. If anything, the stock dyno would have an advantage, as the car would have cooled down as it takes about 10 minutes to convert the car back to stock.
I don't know if I'll be able to do what you request (even though its already been done) as most dyno shops on dyno days don't allow you to do any mod swapping...you get your three runs, then they shove you off for the next guy. The only way I'll be able to fullfill your request is if CP-E makes a dyno available again...which of course then everyone will say is biased cause its CP-E yadda yadda yadda.
See the problem? Best I can give ya is just a max whp #...if its anywhere near the 200 whp mark, then their gains are reproducable and realistic. Does this even apply to the rx8? No, not really. I was just using their latest intake as an example of their skills and expertise, and hopefully how it could be applied to other new mazda models, as piston or rotor, we do all similar problems and issues...like not enough power...or should I say "never" enough power
.
Last edited by crossbow; 08-31-2004 at 09:43 PM.
08-31-2004, 10:45 PM
#45
Crossbow,
I don't doubt you got gains. Especially if they are so pig rich to start with. And your back-to back testing is about as good as you can do. I was just asking something that needed to be asked, and you have answered it about as good as one can.
I also was not sure if your graph was the "suppliers" supplied one, or an independantly obtained one.
I'm not asking you to go to anymore trouble for me!
I have posted on here about what I found on another thread. Basically what happened is we started the session with and did a few "baseline" runs. We had the run of the Dyno cell, and were not in a hurry to let the next guy on.
We then enabled our piggyback, that had a basic tune in it. We spent about 1 hour tuning at all sorts of RPM and load points. Basically anywhere in open-loop (sorry Maniac). The car got that hot that the plastic bumper around the exhaust melted a little (no air flow ar the rear of the car). We were up something like 20 HP. Then we switched the piggyback off, and ran again. We were up about 10 HP over the base line. All the weather corrections were being done properly. And a lot more than 3 runs. More like 23. We dide more than 3 runs to check the baseline! LOL
So we got 10HP out of the tune, and 10HP out of the car getting very hot - all the oils and fluids, the cats burning off, the plugs buring all the **** off them etc.
Now, how easy would of it been to me to just post the baseline v's the final, and say our tune was worth 20HP?? I didn't, as that is not me.
It was easy to do, as to revert to the baseline is just a flick of a switch with a piggyback. It is obviously going to be a little harder with the S/C project!!!
Cheers,
Hymee.
PS - I might need to get one (some MAF trickery) for my Wifes Mazda 6
I don't doubt you got gains. Especially if they are so pig rich to start with. And your back-to back testing is about as good as you can do. I was just asking something that needed to be asked, and you have answered it about as good as one can.
I also was not sure if your graph was the "suppliers" supplied one, or an independantly obtained one.
I'm not asking you to go to anymore trouble for me!
I have posted on here about what I found on another thread. Basically what happened is we started the session with and did a few "baseline" runs. We had the run of the Dyno cell, and were not in a hurry to let the next guy on.
We then enabled our piggyback, that had a basic tune in it. We spent about 1 hour tuning at all sorts of RPM and load points. Basically anywhere in open-loop (sorry Maniac
). The car got that hot that the plastic bumper around the exhaust melted a little (no air flow ar the rear of the car). We were up something like 20 HP. Then we switched the piggyback off, and ran again. We were up about 10 HP over the base line. All the weather corrections were being done properly. And a lot more than 3 runs. More like 23. We dide more than 3 runs to check the baseline! LOLSo we got 10HP out of the tune, and 10HP out of the car getting very hot - all the oils and fluids, the cats burning off, the plugs buring all the **** off them etc.
Now, how easy would of it been to me to just post the baseline v's the final, and say our tune was worth 20HP?? I didn't, as that is not me.
It was easy to do, as to revert to the baseline is just a flick of a switch with a piggyback. It is obviously going to be a little harder with the S/C project!!!
Cheers,
Hymee.
PS - I might need to get one (some MAF trickery) for my Wifes Mazda 6
Last edited by Hymee; 08-31-2004 at 10:48 PM.
08-31-2004, 11:11 PM
#46
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn that graph looks good... If they can produce 60% of that, they will make a fortune.. Even 50%..
Those gains are insane for one product.. You would be lucky to get that with multiple.
Those gains are insane for one product.. You would be lucky to get that with multiple.
Last edited by davefzr; 08-31-2004 at 11:18 PM.
08-31-2004, 11:32 PM
#47
M0D Squad -charter member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hymee
I might need to get one (some MAF trickery) for my Wifes Mazda 6
I'm sure she trusts you big guy!
09-01-2004, 12:20 AM
#48
Originally Posted by davefzr
Damn that graph looks good... If they can produce 60% of that, they will make a fortune.. Even 50%..
Those gains are insane for one product.. You would be lucky to get that with multiple.
Those gains are insane for one product.. You would be lucky to get that with multiple.
Will you get gains? Yes. Will they amount to much? No.
This mod is only doing what has been tried before, just doing it a different way. Not a new way. MAF trickery is one of the original EFI street tuning concepts. I think the first was probably tricking the temp sensor. They used to put a potentiometer on the MAF wire to trick the PCM, simply by adjusting voltage/current. Nowadays, MAF senors are a little more complex, in that they output a waveform. And the "modern" trickery is to spoof that waveform.
Cheap? Yes. Effective? It can be. Safe? ??? New? No.
Just my opinions. I know plenty of people who have forked out big $$ for MAF tricks. Only for it to all be wasted money when the next best tuning "breakthrough" is made. (reference: LS1's and LS1Edit). Then they ditch their MAF and go MAF-less
And have big arguments about the merits of each!Cheers,
Hymee.
