Like I said you do ask a few good questions and again why is it Maurice's job to correct you when you take a cursory tone and your wrong on top of it?

As far as Maurice's giving out his fuel tables (and timing curves on stage 2 & 3) .. That really is what he is selling and the piggyback is just the means.

You need the password, do a search as I forgot it.

Vince

 

I seriously don't know what I said wrong. Why can't you just do me a favor and point it out?

I have to disagree with you on the fuel map. His main selling point is the ecu mod, not the map. People can't duplicate his map without his device. You can't even program the device yourself. It's not like that a company is selling a fuel map to you for your standalone unit so their main selling point is the map. Even if people have his map, what can they do with it? But if people really want to copy his stuff, a eletrical engineer with proper equipment shouldn't have a hard time doing it. So either way, he is not at more risk of losing profit by showing the maps to more **** customers.

That link doesn't work. My web browser says "can't find server".
There is no password menu popping out and I don't know how to search for that particular password either.

 

I am very interested in the stage 2 kit as well. I do appreciate both parties arguements. I also appreciate the passionate nature of the responses.

That said I strongly feel that by providing a good critical anaylisis of the product without assuming that the person doesnt know what they are talking about would be the most productive approach. That is what you want right?

The product is comming out no matter what. Why not preform the forums function to its fullest and initiate a productive cooperative Q & A instead of a adversarial stand off.

I love this thread so far and im learning a whole hell of a lot from both of you.

Oh by the way on the stage 2 im sure this has been covered in the past but something that was said here kind of confused me. Will the stage 2 need higher than 91 octane? I thought the answer was no but there has been so much talk about this product and words like race fuel now im kinda confused.

Thanks again so much for both of your great arguements and great information.

 

I made no such assumption. You stated a case for which you didn't have the correct information and I do.

Yes.

When you answer each post to the thread ad seriatim, you are post-whoring. Try puting all of your ideas and replies into one concise, non-agitated post and you will receive far les flame.

But that conclusion wasn't the point of my statment.

 

se3pmaniac

Even though i am nota tecknical or rotary expert i feel se3pmaniac , has made some wothwhile and valid points , and deserves answer to all his questions , lets not let EGOS get in front off finding out what suits our rx8s first and foremost .
I realize that there no 100% gaurantees but playing it safe is a high pryority in my mind the last thing i want is unnecessary problems with mine or anyones cars .

He deserves to be heard and as we say in oz ( GIVE HIM A FAIR GO MATE).

MICHAEL

 

se3pmaniac -

Before you continue to pelt everyone with questions, please take the time to read the complete thread on Canzoomer's development of the ECU piggybacks:
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...threadid=11614 . Many of your questions will be answered.

As for completely replacing the ECU, it's a bad idea, as if controls far more than just the engine... everything from that to the stereo, gauge cluster, lighting, TPMS, DSC, etc. It's an INCREDIBLY complicated device, and trying to replace it all would be beyond just about anyone but Mazda. If you want to learn more about the ECU and/or PCM, check this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...threadid=10988

 

se3pmaniac:

Go to the link and then go to "File" then "Login as" in IE. Have you searched for the PW yet?

Vince

 

So you are saying I have to retune the ecu because I switch different brands of gas with the same octane rating? Please explain further. I am very intrested in hearing this. If your point stands correct, that means any ecu mod will need to be retuned because of switch of gas even at the same octane rating. So does that mean this will apply to the Canzoomer ecu mod as well?

On your knock statement, even though that's not your point but the fact is that your statement concludes a car that's tuned at 3000 ft altitude will be more likely to knock when you bring it down to sea level.

It does not seem to me that you are helping canzoomer. You are doing the opposite by bringing more issues that I have not yet said even though I do not agree with you on the gas issue.

Don't forget you have to consider safety margin into tuning. Why? The maps on the ecu are just points and the final data is based on extrapolation based on those data points. So even with the same gas, you are not going to hit the target a/f every run.

For me, if an engine will make the most power at 12.5 a/f at that particular rpm and manifold pressure, I will enrich it by at least 0.2-0.5 a/f just to be safe depending on the load of the engine. Why do you think the factory makes the car run a little richer than what makes the max HP? Tuning at the edge leaves you no margin for error. That's for race car, not street car.

 

I will take time to read that thread. Thank you for the link.

As far as standalone ECU, the rx8 one is for sure a lot more complicated than a 3rd gen one. If there is a market for it, APEX will make a standalone by reverse engineering the stock ECU. Their Power FC is always based on the stock ECU. You can even find the spare components from your stock ecu. You don't really need a standalone if you are just doing basic mods. I prefer standalone on the 3rd gen rx7 because there is no piggy back system or rom tuning that can do the job of supporting 450+ rwhp and I can datalog all the data and hook up a wideband o2 sensor with it. I run wideband o2 on the car permanently. That's how important I think tuning is.

 

Sorry dude. I never used ftp with browser so I don't know how to access it. When I clicked on the link, my browser just said "can't find server" I don't know where to search for the password and type what to search for the password either.

 

You bet.

My point exactly.

 

Every brand has a different additive package.
However, what is more important is the level of oxygenates mandated by the state in which that the gasoline is sold and that of the state in which it is refined as their main purpose is to reduce emissions.
Oxygenates increase the AKI, but reduce the total energy content in the fuel. How much both sides of this formula are affected depends on which oxygenates are used. Methanol (the most common) only has an energy content of 19.95 MJ/kg but is composed of 49.9% oxygen. At the other end of the spectrum is TAME with a 36.28 MJ/kg, but only has a 15.7% O2 content. Each manufacturer and each refiner will blend to conform to each state and its laws. Add to that the fact that many gasoline vendors buy gas from consolidators and store gas for long periods (against their agreements with the labels) of time means that gasoline composition will vary wildly from station to station.


But the car isn't "tuned" for 3000 ft. The ECU will tune itself to whatever altitude at which it finds itself. Canzoomer's box is there to remove a large quantity of the margin that Mazda built into the system to extend the life of the catalytic converter. Mazda added a huge amount of fuel to preserve the catalytic converter because of "Draconian" emissions laws in the US.
The fact that he lives or works at 3000 ft is irrelevant.
You need to read the rest of the thread.

I have no vested interest in Canzoomers ECU box. However, I do have a vested interest in ending ignorant statements like many that you have made here.

(italics are mine)

Hmm... I wonder why? Are you just playing ignorant here for the sake of the whole "Devil's Advocate" role, or do you just not listen to yourself.

Excellent. That is good work and good technique. So this is the whole point - you need to tune to a point that is consistent with the the type of enviroment in which the vehicle will be used and the fuel available.
Since most of us need to run everyday on street swill, you need to tune short of the ragged edge.
Fortunately for us, the RX-8 is a LONG way from the ragged edge because of the cat issue.

 

Good job for calling me ignorant. It seems like you have both short term memory and really have no experience on tuning high HP cars.

1. You brought the whole knock issue upon yourself. I said Japanese gas has more knock resistance and you said no. And later on you said the knock resistance will vary even with the same octane rating of gas from different manufacturers. So surprisingly your two statements don't agree.

Japanese gas = US gas = yes
91 octane shell gas = 91 octane 76 gas = no


2. Even if the ECU self tunes, it's going to self tune it to the target a/f. Let's say the ECU at high altitude is tuned for 13.2 a/f and there was no knock. At sea level, the ECU will give it more fuel to compensate the higher air density and still try to run at 13.2 a/f. But based on your statement, the car is less likely to knock at high altitude so when you bring it down to sea level, it's more likely to knock. Not becuase of the a/f being different but simply because the knock resistant requirement is different.

3. Have you ever put your car on the dyno and datalog the a/f? If you have, you will realize every runs a/f curve will not overlap exactly. There is going to be up and down because there isn't unlimited data points in the ecu map to tell the injector to fire at every point. It's based on extrapolation. If you have used a standalone ecu, you will understand this concept.

Now who is ignorant?

You clearly don't even know where you stand. Opposite arguments come from your same mouth and you call other people ignorant? Good job, you are more of a man now on top of your education background that you pretend not to brag about.

It's pretty common that when a person has nothing to offer, he tends to call people names or put them down to make himself seem more right. You can prove me wrong without calling me names. Did I call you names?

Oh yeah, you should stop quoting numbers from your text book or whatever you are using. You need to know the concept, not just quoting a bunch of numbers so you don't accidentally slap your own face.

 

Ok folks, the technical portions of this discussion have merit, but the name calling and insults will not fly. Please stick to the technical.

Clear enough? Thanks...

 

OK, you need to take a step back and stop merely spouting what you believe true and using bits and pieces of unrelated info from elsewhere to support your statements..


Then, you need to look up and really understand these logical fallacies:

False Dilemma
Ad Hominem
False Analogy
Fallacy of Exclusion
Post Hoc
Begging the Question
Affirming the Consequent

At some point, you have fallen into all of these and it would do you good to understand them and avoid them.
False Analogy is a big one - you have taken points proven on different grounds and attempted to equate them in proof because they have similar terms instead of similar grounds. That is illogical.

That is a good example. Both of those statements are true, yet you attempt to negate them using their own truths as periphrasis.
These are not equitable statements and they were not stated as such.
Please revisit the thread.

Your statement #2 just doesn't make sense because I don't think you fully understand the concept of an A/F target.
If you tune for an A/F target, it will remain the same regardless of the BARO reading. Timing will compensate because of the BARO and IAT and you will be just as knock free at any altitude.
The problem arises if you don not know how to hold an A/F against the other variables. If Canzoomer's box can do that (there is no real reason why it shouldn't), then it will not knock anywhere.

#3 is just loose tuning. The A/F plots on all of my dyno charts were near duplicates once we were satisfied with the tuning. They should only vary if you change inputs or if your installation is undisciplined or improper.

Of course, if you actually read what I stated, I never called you ignorant as you did me. I asked a question, for which you supplied a somewhat less than succinct answer.

Please, don't attempt to get into a semantics debate here. We should move to the lounge for that if you would like.
Check my site and you will find all of my data and information on how combustion works, octane, AKI, EFI management and other really interesting things.

 

It's pretty obvious that you still haven't read that thread. I also don't know why you're still beating the knock issue - that horse was dead a loooonng time ago. Canzoomer did reply to you about that: Since you're too busy trying to make yourself sound important to actually read the threads you've been directed to with details, or to even read the responses given to your questions, let me paraphrase: Canzoomer's tuning is not running anywhere near the knock limit. He obviously understands the implications of knock, and the limitations of knock sensors, and says so in his reply.

You also imply that Mazda has tuned for max power then included a safety margin on a/f, yet all the rest of us know that that's not true at all. IF you had bothered to read the threads we keep referring you to, then you'd know that the RX-8 runs waaaay too rich because of the 2004 catalytic converter durability requirements. They actually richened up the mixture enough to lose about 25 peak hp from their original (safe, with safety margin) tuning. ALL canzoomer is doing is re-tuning to get back the power Mazda originally tuned it to have.

Will you PLEASE go read those threads BEFORE you write anything else, and make yourself look yet more silly??? You still don't have any understanding of the RX-8 issues - it's nice that you have rotary experience, but the RX-8 is different. Why not try to understand the differences before you start (continue) preaching to us anymore?

Regards,
Gordon

 

1. Both statements can't be true at the same time. While you said the the knock ratings of the 91 octane gas vary among different manufacturers, how can you generalize the Japanese gas has the same knock resistance as the US gas while the US gas vary among themselves already. Tell me where the logic is.

2. I clearly stated that the a/f will be the same regarless of altitude on assumptions that the ECU will compensate for altitude correctly. My response was based on your statement that the engine is less likely to knock at high altitude. You said that youself, not me. I fully understand the igntion timing vs manifold pressure issue. You left that out in your very first statement. Not me. Maybe before you make any statement, you should include all the other background info and assumptions. Besides that, you forgot that the the rx8 does use a MAP sensor that monitors manifold pressure. The fuel and ignition maps are not pressure vs rpm but air flow meter voltage vs rpm. It's unlikely that the ECU will self-correct for ignition timing if it does not monitor the manifold pressure. You can say that the ECU will compensate for igntion timing by absolute ATM pressure sensor but very unlikely. I can tell you why if you don't agree.

3. Like you said, "near duplicate" but not exactly. That's my point. That's why you need a 0.2 to 0.5 a/f safety margin depending on the map resolution (size of the map table). Why don't you do me a favor and show me your dyno plot with a/f logging that shows the a/f does not have more than 0.2 a/f variation between two curves.

4. Wow, maybe I am hallucinating. You clearly stated that I made "ignorant statements". What does that imply? On the contrary, I didn't say you are ignorant. I asked "Now who is ignorant."

I am not here to debate you although it's interesting. I am here to get my answers from carzoomer.

About your site, it's cool that you find time to post info by Bruce Hamilton so people don't have to search for it.

 

Gordan. Thank you for your concern but obviously you really don't know what I was referring to. Let me make it simple for you one more time.

1. About knock issue, I AM NOT asking carzoomer how he is going to take care of the knock issue if there is any. The stock ECU does that automatically. I am asking him how he deterimes there was no knock when he tuned the car. Those are totally different issues. Yeah? HKS knock sensor is not used to retard the ignition timing. It's merely a device for you to listen for knock. It does not even do anything to your stock timing. If he says he is not tuning it to close to knock limit, I would like to know how he determines that and by what device. Just like if I tell you I tune this ECU to a very safe a/f, would you like to know how I determines the a/f? A wideband o2? stock o2? exhaust temp? I am merely asking what the device he is using. Please don't misquote me.

About the argument with Maniac, he brought it upon himself. I didn't even started that "engine at high altitude will knock less" at the first place.

2. Mazda does tune the a/f to a safe margin and most car manufacturers too. Remember warranty? They simply do that to reduce chance of warranty claim. If you simply think it's just for the cat, you are too naive.

3. I have rotary experience and I also have a rx8. What makes you think I have no idea about a rx8? Rotary is a rotary. When you say this renesis motor is a complete different animal, that's very naive of you. My finidng on the a/f is different than carzoomer's but let's not bring that in right now.

4. I am not here to preach. I read that thread before but 28 pages is a lot of info. It's hard to filter out all the unuseful info and that's why I came to this thread to ask the maker directly. Cool?

If you think the questions I asked are all junk, you can simply just ignore me. Yeah? If you assume all the people with prior rotary experience don't know anything about rx8 and renesis, that will be a very sad thing to say.

 

Never said any such thing. I said:


That is OCTANE not KNOCK RESISTANCE. Try again.


So, you assumed that the ECU will will compensate for BARO, but it was too far of a reach for you to realize that you aren't the only one to understand that ignition timing is controled by the ECU as a response to the same subset of sensors? Incomprehensible.

Uh, yeah. See above.

No, it doesn't. It uses a MAF sensor. A MAP sensor measures pressure. A MAF sensor measures flow.

That is correct. So why did you say MAP instead of MAF above?
Because:

...you don't understand the difference.

Because it also has BARO and IAT to compare to RPM and MAF? I don't know. Maybe a guess? (that was sarcasm - I know it doesn't translate)

Absolute flow and manifold pressure are not the same thing. The ECU will compute the density of the intake charge (density is what it really needs to know) based on the measurement from the airflow meter as referenced to the IAT, TPS and BARO sensor.
Manifold pressure isn't of any particular use in a sub-atmospheric engine, especially if the BARO sensor is present.

 

Man, sometimes its good to be just plain ignorant about all this stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Indeed!
Were se3pmaniac only able to feel similarly! :p

 

Canzoomer has written about his wideband tuning, I told you that canzoomer used a wideband sensor in his exhaust system for tuning, yet you still ignore that and talk about you using a wideband O2 sensor like it's something mysterious. Get over it! You're not the only one, it's being done by canzoomer already. We've told you this, it's documented in multiple threads.

Quote:

2. Mazda does tune the a/f to a safe margin and most car manufacturers too. Remember warranty? They simply do that to reduce chance of warranty claim. If you simply think it's just for the cat, you are too naive.

Right here, you're displaying a complete lack of knowledge about the RX-8. Do you have any idea or knowledge of the rated horsepower issue? Do you know that the engine was originally rated by Mazda for North America at 247 hp? THAT was their warranty safe, a/f to a safe margin, tuning. Do you know that the engine was de-tuned at port by an ECU flash to an announced rating of 238 hp (but strongly suspected by many to be more like 225 hp or so)? It would seem that you are completely ignorant (and the word means unaware, without knowledge of) of the reasons for Mazda de-tuning the engine. I guess you didn't know that they've officially acknowledged that the de-tuning was specifically for catalytic converter longevity, and canzoomers own testing has confirmed the likelyhood of that.

Quote:

3. I have rotary experience and I also have a rx8. What makes you think I have no idea about a rx8? Rotary is a rotary. When you say this renesis motor is a complete different animal, that's very naive of you. My finidng on the a/f is different than carzoomer's but let's not bring that in right now.

Since you're obviously unaware of the horsepower rating issues and the reasons for the de-tuning (and probably unaware of the dyno testing controversies too, right?), then it's pretty safe to say that you don't even know what canzoomer is trying to achieve, that you don't know WHY the RX-8 a/f ratios are waaaaay too rich, and so on. THAT is what makes me say that you have no idea about how the RX-8 is tuned from the factory (or should we say, from the port)!!!! Because you have exhibited over and over in this thread that you don't. I'm not guessing, just stating what you have made obvious.

But, instead of actually reading and trying to understand what is going on and why the canzoomer ecu mod exists, you're too busy trying to show us how much you know. It's not working, what you're showing us is that you can't be bothered to learn what this RX-8 community already knows, you just want to show off and be a big shot favouring us with your knowledge from the RX-7 world. A rotary ISN'T just a rotary - the RX-8 has different control systems, different factory ECU, different and new emissions control requirements (including cat converter life). YOU should not presume that what applied to RX-7s automatically applies to RX-8s.

Regards,
Gordon

 

By monitoring the knock sensor and logging.
We are providing the pre-programmed A/F on the Stage1 kit, and this plus ignition on Stage2. We are not about to hand over our tuning maps for free. Other tunre do not either, so this is not unusual. It is these maps that comprise a major part of the work we have done.

You are reading a bit too much into that. It is simply a fact of our geography that we are at 3,000 foot altitude.
We are also in a location where we see radical temperature changes and extremes.
The main context where I mention the altitude in at least a couple of cases is where I was asked what our raw baseline dyno horsepower readings were, and I pointed out that the altitude costs us about 10HP compared to sea level.
It also makes the mixture different than sea level.
The dyno we use (Mustang) is equipped with a baromtric sensor, so that it can provide both raw data and adjusted for the current air pressure.
When i have stated that the improvement for power output is around 20-25HP, we take into account the air pressure, temperature, and so on.
Another example of this is testing outdoors with a GTech Pro Comp.
We see a 6-7HP improvement in power out put when testing at 35F as compared to similar tests at 75F.

It can and does.
Perhaps, later, for a fee.
Yes. Also later. For now we are not trying to bite off toomuch at one time. We are focusing on the Stage1, getting it out in volume, and supporting it. In another week or so we will be putting a lot more time into Stage2, which is our more radical tune setup. In this we will be paying more attention to more responsive knock sensing, as we will be approaching that threshold. With Stage1 we are well away from the settings that could produce that.
Bear in mind that the stock RX-8 can run on 87 octane knock free.
With our Stage1 we recommend using at least 89 octane, preferably 91.
With Stage2, it will REQUIRE 91 or higher.
We wil gurantee that the unit has been tested on several otherwise stock RX-8's plus on two with exhaust upgrades.
That is one of the last steps we are no working on , just to make sure there are no surprises.
We can not guarantee that the user will not do something else to blow up their car, nor can we guarantee engines, as there have been enough stock ones that have broken to make that approach foolhardy. For example if somebody buys a tank of 87 or lower octane and runs the hell out of their car, we can not guarantee that something bad might happen.
OTOH, the Renesis can survive some knock or ping, so anyone with a bit of common sense who hears that should back off immediately and find the source of the problem.
We do say that used and installed as recommended it will not cause an engine failure, and we will guarantee that.
In other words our warranty is limited to the application of our product.
Sorry, but that is getting a bit past the point of this discussion.
If you want to call me and talk about this I would be more than happy. 780-456-1510 9-5 Mountain Time zone.
I would very much appreciate if you woul do this, as a lot can be discussed and explained a lot better than in this fashion.
We are not running a 14:1 mix in WOT conditions on Stage1.
We are running around 13.2 to 13:4 at 6,000rpm and higher.
14:1 WOULD necessitate running 91 octane or higher ALL the time, and that is not the goal.
When you say "safe" I mean that it ha been done successfully.
It is also highly dependant on ignition timing. A comobination of too lean and too much advance will increase temperatures. That can cause detonation to occur more readily.
I do not mind ****.
I DO mind bluntly insulting comments.
We are certainly not claiming to be perfect, but we have put and will continue to put a LOT of work into this, and I will not accept somebody coming along and slamming us with no good reason.
I do not feel that I have said or done anything to give you cause to insult me.

 

1. So octane rating is not corrleated to knock resistance in any ways? So higher octane rating does not necessary mean higher knock resistance? octane = (RON+MON)/2. MON is clearly part of the equation. I guess we are just wasting money buying racing gas which has higher octane rating. It does not necessary offers any knock resistance.

2. I mean the rx8 does NOT use the MAP sensor. A simple typo which you can tell from the rest of my statement. Don't play games.

3. MAF along with BAR or ATM, and intake temp sensor can dertermine how much mass/time is going into the motor but that does not mean it can also dertermine the right igntion timing from there. You are still ignoring the fact that a thiner desity air will require less knock resistance. So you are saying the absolute mass/time and rpm is enough to dertermine the right ignition timing? Please tell me how ECU is construction a ignition map based on RPM, Bar, Intake Temp, and air flow.

4. A lot of older cars use manifold pressure (MAP) and Bar/ATM sensor together. I heard some cars do have all 3.

 

Gordan:

You are misunderstanding me big time. I am not questioning how he got his a/f ratio. I am questioning how he determines there was no knock. I use that example merely for why I need to know what he uses to determine there is no knock and by what device to see if the dertermination is valid. Got it?

As far as the HP issue, I am fully aware of that. My car got 187 rwhp and I datalog the a/f.

A rotary is a rotary. That statement stands true. All the other factors are peripheral. It's like I use a different ECU to tune the same car but the final goal is the same.

I am not showing off how much I know. I am just sharing. If you want to take it the wrong way, it's your call.