AccessPORT Alpha test started
03-01-2008, 10:28 PM
#379
Storm Trooper
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Freakmont, CA
Posts: 3,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-01-2008, 11:12 PM
#380
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still does not explain Huzer21's dyno which is more in line with what we have come to expect. When we get a members dyno (not Cobbs one) that shows the same gains under 5000rpm - then we will believe it. Remind you of a similar argument in the FI dyno thread MM ? 
By the way this is in no way a put down of the AP - I think it's great & I want one. Just that I don't believe the gains below 5k they are advertising.
By the way this is in no way a put down of the AP - I think it's great & I want one. Just that I don't believe the gains below 5k they are advertising.
Take care,
Christian.
Last edited by Christian.; 03-01-2008 at 11:15 PM.
03-01-2008, 11:31 PM
#381
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not saying that it's doctored at all, so please dont get me wrong. This product is the best thing that has come out for our car since the begining. I have said that all along. It's just that I didnt understand how such gains could be had under 5,000 with the afr's being similar. If there are other changes that were done, thats fine, just eduecate us. We are all here to learn and to grow. I worked with the Int-x myself so maybe I didnt learn as much as I could have with that experience.
The reason why I posted all that to begin with is because we always hear about claims of greatness with various products, and then when someone gets their hands on it, it doesnt turn out to be all that it said it would be. I think that RX8 owners have grown tired of that and it's about time that a great product has been released.
We'll just have to wait for other dyno graphs to be posted.
I have a feeling I'll be purchasing mine soon enough.
The reason why I posted all that to begin with is because we always hear about claims of greatness with various products, and then when someone gets their hands on it, it doesnt turn out to be all that it said it would be. I think that RX8 owners have grown tired of that and it's about time that a great product has been released.
We'll just have to wait for other dyno graphs to be posted.
I have a feeling I'll be purchasing mine soon enough.
03-01-2008, 11:46 PM
#382
Piston-free 07.11.2007
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me the ability to use the stock PCM versus a far less flexible/capable piggyback system in a FI car sells this for me. This summer when I go FI it will most likely be with the AccessPORT as my car loves the idea of remote sexy time with MM.
03-02-2008, 12:13 AM
#384
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be in over my head here, but I'm going to throw this in there anyway:
I had a Cobb AccessPORT for my WRX, and I absolutely loved it. It performed as advertised, and Cobb was always good with addressing the few concerns that I had. In my own first-hand experience, Cobb has shown itself to be a good company with good products, and they really stand by their stuff.
That said (and I know that a N/A RX-8 is a different animal than a WRX) when the AccessPORT was originally released, it didn't take long for the Subaru crowd to figure out that after reflashing the ECU with the AccessPORT, it would often take a few hundred miles for the Subie ECU to fully adjust, and settle in to the new programming. More often than not, people who reflash their Subaru with the AccessPORT report a better driving car right off the bat, but they usually say that the car didn't feel much faster. THEN, a week later, they come back grinning ear to ear.
Don't ask me for a technical explanation or justification for that, because I don't have one. I just know that it was a WELL KNOWN Subaru phenomenon replicated by TONS of AccessPORT users. Put a WRX on the dyno right after reflashing, and sure - you'll see gains over baseline, but go out and drive the car for a few hours or days (whatever), and dyno again, and you'll see better gains.
My point is, I don't know if the Mazda's ECU reacts like the Subie's when reflashed, but if it does, it could explain the differences in the dynos shown in this thread.
If I had a choice, I'd look at a baseline dyno of a stock car, and then a dyno taken a few days later, just to be sure that IF the Mazda ECU does in fact need time to adjust/learn (like the Subaru's) it has the time it needs.
I had a Cobb AccessPORT for my WRX, and I absolutely loved it. It performed as advertised, and Cobb was always good with addressing the few concerns that I had. In my own first-hand experience, Cobb has shown itself to be a good company with good products, and they really stand by their stuff.
That said (and I know that a N/A RX-8 is a different animal than a WRX) when the AccessPORT was originally released, it didn't take long for the Subaru crowd to figure out that after reflashing the ECU with the AccessPORT, it would often take a few hundred miles for the Subie ECU to fully adjust, and settle in to the new programming. More often than not, people who reflash their Subaru with the AccessPORT report a better driving car right off the bat, but they usually say that the car didn't feel much faster. THEN, a week later, they come back grinning ear to ear.
Don't ask me for a technical explanation or justification for that, because I don't have one. I just know that it was a WELL KNOWN Subaru phenomenon replicated by TONS of AccessPORT users. Put a WRX on the dyno right after reflashing, and sure - you'll see gains over baseline, but go out and drive the car for a few hours or days (whatever), and dyno again, and you'll see better gains.
My point is, I don't know if the Mazda's ECU reacts like the Subie's when reflashed, but if it does, it could explain the differences in the dynos shown in this thread.
If I had a choice, I'd look at a baseline dyno of a stock car, and then a dyno taken a few days later, just to be sure that IF the Mazda ECU does in fact need time to adjust/learn (like the Subaru's) it has the time it needs.
03-02-2008, 12:59 AM
#385
We have extensive experience with calibrating rotary engines, one of our calibrators worked at Rotary Performance for several years, I have been tuning rotaries for years as well; NA, FI, 13B, 20B, etc. We have no reason to doctor any dyno graphs and we do not practice tactics such as that. I am not trying to argue, I just want to make sure that the dyno graphs posted are understood as that...they are actual dyno graphs measured by a properly calibrated and maintained chassis dyno. I will do my best to respond as time allows.
Take care,
Christian.
I'm sure we will all want to know exactly how you are doing it as well because we are used to seeing gains above 5000 but not below .
03-02-2008, 04:36 AM
#387
well if you go back to earlier my 214 RWHP graph, which was following me leaving the car at Cobb over last winter, it started making more power from 2500 rpm over the previous tune that wasn't OE
when I revised the intake and removed all the front perforated grills several months later (the grills were blocking air flow and causing the intake to starve) the AFRs went from low-mid 13s to high 14s, the rwhp went up to 222, and the midrange was much fatter, that's when we retuned the AFRs down to the low-mid 13s again in August at Cobb's MMP facility. RWHP was about the same with the lower AFR, the TQ dropped several ft/lbs at the peak
when I revised the intake and removed all the front perforated grills several months later (the grills were blocking air flow and causing the intake to starve) the AFRs went from low-mid 13s to high 14s, the rwhp went up to 222, and the midrange was much fatter, that's when we retuned the AFRs down to the low-mid 13s again in August at Cobb's MMP facility. RWHP was about the same with the lower AFR, the TQ dropped several ft/lbs at the peak
Last edited by TeamRX8; 03-02-2008 at 04:39 AM.
03-02-2008, 09:28 AM
#388
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christian.
03-02-2008, 09:32 AM
#390
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Owings Mills, near Baltimore MD
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the hell are you intentionally costing mazda the cost of a new cat for no reason? Also the high flow cats have a remarkable failure rate, and this is on stock setups. Going with a hotter setup that stock will result with even higher chance of failure.
If you go this route, I suggest not doing any cat at all.
If you go this route, I suggest not doing any cat at all.
Really, I simply don't wnat the attention of flames, or the lack of attention when my car smells like rotten eggs. If I also now don'thave to change my cat in and out every other year even better, thoguh I did JUST get tested, so I wouildn't have to worry about it for nearly 2 years.
03-02-2008, 09:38 AM
#391
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be in over my head here, but I'm going to throw this in there anyway:
I had a Cobb AccessPORT for my WRX, and I absolutely loved it. It performed as advertised, and Cobb was always good with addressing the few concerns that I had. In my own first-hand experience, Cobb has shown itself to be a good company with good products, and they really stand by their stuff.
That said (and I know that a N/A RX-8 is a different animal than a WRX) when the AccessPORT was originally released, it didn't take long for the Subaru crowd to figure out that after reflashing the ECU with the AccessPORT, it would often take a few hundred miles for the Subie ECU to fully adjust, and settle in to the new programming. More often than not, people who reflash their Subaru with the AccessPORT report a better driving car right off the bat, but they usually say that the car didn't feel much faster. THEN, a week later, they come back grinning ear to ear.
Don't ask me for a technical explanation or justification for that, because I don't have one. I just know that it was a WELL KNOWN Subaru phenomenon replicated by TONS of AccessPORT users. Put a WRX on the dyno right after reflashing, and sure - you'll see gains over baseline, but go out and drive the car for a few hours or days (whatever), and dyno again, and you'll see better gains.
My point is, I don't know if the Mazda's ECU reacts like the Subie's when reflashed, but if it does, it could explain the differences in the dynos shown in this thread.
If I had a choice, I'd look at a baseline dyno of a stock car, and then a dyno taken a few days later, just to be sure that IF the Mazda ECU does in fact need time to adjust/learn (like the Subaru's) it has the time it needs.
I had a Cobb AccessPORT for my WRX, and I absolutely loved it. It performed as advertised, and Cobb was always good with addressing the few concerns that I had. In my own first-hand experience, Cobb has shown itself to be a good company with good products, and they really stand by their stuff.
That said (and I know that a N/A RX-8 is a different animal than a WRX) when the AccessPORT was originally released, it didn't take long for the Subaru crowd to figure out that after reflashing the ECU with the AccessPORT, it would often take a few hundred miles for the Subie ECU to fully adjust, and settle in to the new programming. More often than not, people who reflash their Subaru with the AccessPORT report a better driving car right off the bat, but they usually say that the car didn't feel much faster. THEN, a week later, they come back grinning ear to ear.
Don't ask me for a technical explanation or justification for that, because I don't have one. I just know that it was a WELL KNOWN Subaru phenomenon replicated by TONS of AccessPORT users. Put a WRX on the dyno right after reflashing, and sure - you'll see gains over baseline, but go out and drive the car for a few hours or days (whatever), and dyno again, and you'll see better gains.
My point is, I don't know if the Mazda's ECU reacts like the Subie's when reflashed, but if it does, it could explain the differences in the dynos shown in this thread.
If I had a choice, I'd look at a baseline dyno of a stock car, and then a dyno taken a few days later, just to be sure that IF the Mazda ECU does in fact need time to adjust/learn (like the Subaru's) it has the time it needs.
03-02-2008, 09:40 AM
#392
SO you would rather I intentionally skirted around emmissions laws then cost Mazda a couple hundred dollar cat? Hmm it seems to me the bigger crime to mankind is putting all those unfiltered hydrocarbons outhere.
Really, I simply don't wnat the attention of flames, or the lack of attention when my car smells like rotten eggs. If I also now don'thave to change my cat in and out every other year even better, thoguh I did JUST get tested, so I wouildn't have to worry about it for nearly 2 years.
Really, I simply don't wnat the attention of flames, or the lack of attention when my car smells like rotten eggs. If I also now don'thave to change my cat in and out every other year even better, thoguh I did JUST get tested, so I wouildn't have to worry about it for nearly 2 years.
Also, I have no reason to worry about running around without a cat. Race cars have none and they expel far more than my little car does. If my state ever considers emissions to be something that needs to be checked, then it'll enter my radar as something of concern.
03-02-2008, 12:02 PM
#394
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did do about 15 runs (not kidding!) on the dyno following the flash update, and power increased a little each time. In fact, the initial runs after the flash all produced lower power than stock before it steadily started to climb. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next time I tossed the car on the dyno, it ended up with more power yet again.
I would definitely get it on there again, if at all possible. I'd put money on seeing some gains over the last run, assuming the car has been driven since then.
03-03-2008, 07:32 AM
#396
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-03-2008, 07:34 AM
#397
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can just as easily remove the cat and install the high flow cat without intentionally damaging the old one and costing mazda money. The cat costs more than a few hundred dollars too.
Also, I have no reason to worry about running around without a cat. Race cars have none and they expel far more than my little car does. If my state ever considers emissions to be something that needs to be checked, then it'll enter my radar as something of concern.
Also, I have no reason to worry about running around without a cat. Race cars have none and they expel far more than my little car does. If my state ever considers emissions to be something that needs to be checked, then it'll enter my radar as something of concern.
Talking about reinstating the emissions testing!
03-03-2008, 02:13 PM
#398
Here's the long awaited TeamRX8 220 rwhp Mustang dyno graph from Cobb Tuning.
The numbers are just a tad different than I remember seeing (221.7/143.6) on the readout, so I may have recalled an earlier readout or this wasn't the final run. We made quite a few runs that day, so I'm not sure ...
The numbers are just a tad different than I remember seeing (221.7/143.6) on the readout, so I may have recalled an earlier readout or this wasn't the final run. We made quite a few runs that day, so I'm not sure ...
03-03-2008, 03:03 PM
#400
nice!
are the people without your custom parts and perhaps just a race pipe and exhaust going to see numbers even close to these with the accessPort? Or will it depend on which map they use?
-KONIG
are the people without your custom parts and perhaps just a race pipe and exhaust going to see numbers even close to these with the accessPort? Or will it depend on which map they use?
-KONIG
Here's the long awaited TeamRX8 220 rwhp Mustang dyno graph from Cobb Tuning.
The numbers are just a tad different than I remember seeing (221.7/143.6) on the readout, so I may have recalled an earlier readout or this wasn't the final run. We made quite a few runs that day, so I'm not sure ...
The numbers are just a tad different than I remember seeing (221.7/143.6) on the readout, so I may have recalled an earlier readout or this wasn't the final run. We made quite a few runs that day, so I'm not sure ...