Performance tuning kits
12-01-2003, 12:29 AM
#126
Forum Vendor
Thread Starter
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
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.
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.
What was said is that in N.America the combined index ratings are deetermined by a different formula than what is used in many locations overseas.
For example in Japan they use RON rating, while here they use the combimed index.
Since you are now quoting the method used, you apparently have been reading up a bit on this.
Higher octane levels will allow one to run a leaner micture with less chance of detonation/knock/pinging.
They do NOT guarantee higher power levels, as the octane anti-knock index rating may be achieved with additives that make less specific power than gasoline.
For example the addition of ethanol raises the anti-knock index, but reduces the power available in the fuel.
It IS a waste of time and money to buy a higher octane rated fuel than you need, however.
You need high enopugh to prevent knock. Anything higher does not gain you anything, other than higher cost.
IF you run a higher anti-knock index fule, and IF it is made that way by the use of additives that are the same or higher potential energy, then you CAN lean your mixture, and thereby make more power.
Simply using higher octane fuel than needed IS a waste of money.
2) I do not know what you refer to by "games"
The RX-8 uses a MAF, not a MAP, and an O2 ( 2 actually)
3) WE ARE NOT ADJUSTING IGNIOTION TIMING ON THE STAGE1 KIT!!!
There, is that CLEAR NOW?
On Stage2 we will be.
Yes, it is affected by the BAR sensor too.
4) Yes, some older cars did do that.
Perhaps some still do.
So??
I fail to get the point of your statement. Is it some form of question?
12-01-2003, 12:38 AM
#128
Gasoline engines of all types are driven by the same process - combustion.
Combustion is the rapid release of energy from a fuel - in this case gasoline.
A finite quantity of gasoline contains an equally finite amount of energy, which can be released by combining it with a specific quantity of oxygen at an absolute ratio.
1 kilogram of gasoline contains 43 megajoules of energy that can be released via oxygen at a ratio of 1:15.179 (a ratio referred to as "stoichiomentric"). That is about 41,700 BTUs. Plenty.
The trick with an internal combustion engine (ICE), whether it be rotary or other wise, is to control that combustion in space and time.
We do this by causing the combustion process to occur in the combustion chamber at a precise time and OVER a precise quantity of time to convert that heat into torque.
To effect this level of control, we must take a fixed quantity of space (about 650 ml in the case of the 13b-MSP), fill it with a quantity of gas and air as proscribed by the above ratio, compress it to a precise degree and ignite it at precisely the right time as to cause the maximum pressure increase resultant from that combustion to occur at the time of maximum delta for the combustion chamber's swept cyclic volume (that is to say at the precise moment that the combustion chamber is starting to get bigger again after it just got done getting smaller to compress the charge).
The beauty of this process is that it can occur completely independent of any change in factors in the outside world - temperature, pressure, altitude, pollution, humidity, whatever - as long as we can be
assured that these conditions inside the combustion chamber are constant.
The problem is, we can't.
Because the process of getting a fixed volume of O2 into the combustion chamber at a proscribed density (meaning temperature via Avagadro) is complicated by the fact that this air is supplied by the available atmosphere, we are straddled with the effects of varying density on the combustion charge.
What that means is we must compensate for the volatility of gasoline as it responds to the varying charge densities. At differing charge densities, the amount of energy necessary to start the combustion process and the time it takes to complete the combustion process changes in a not so linear fashion.
So, what we do is vary the amount of fuel we add and ignite the process on a adjustable schedule based on what information we can obtain about the conditions of the air going into our ICE.
What we measure in the case of the RX-8 to know these conditions are these:
Air Flow
Intake Air Temperature
Barometric Pressure
Coolant Temperature
Throttle Position
Eccentric Shaft Position
By computing all of these measurements together, the engine control unit (ECU - sometimes called PCM for powertrain control module) can determine APPROXIMATELY the density of the air charge in the combustion chamber at any given time. It is a shame, really, that there is no way to measure the density directly or we could forgo all of this.
Two factors that can't be measured by the above methods are important to the whole equation as well.
First is volumetric efficiency (VE) or the amount of air, as a percentage of maximum, that the engine actually ingests as a result of the physics of mass and inertia. This number is fixed to some degree and changes at different RPM.
The other is the latent temperature of the actual combustion chamber as a result of the combustion cycles that proceed the cycle under scrutiny at that moment. This changes as a result of RPM as well, but it is also tied to 'load' or the increase of RPM over time as a proportion to charge density.
What that leaves us with is a very crude measurement of the total charge density.
How do we compensate for that?
By conservative 'hedging' on the bet that is ignition timing through advancement and retardation of the onset of the spark and by introducing elements into the gasoline that seek to stabilize its volatility. That is what octane is for and how much it affects the combustion process is measured by various methods including, but not limited to, Research Octane (RON), Motor Octane (MON) and the Anti Knock Index (AKI - and average of the RON and MON numbers). Unfortunately for the average motorist, many other ingredients are added to the fuel we use to affect its environmental impact that are not directly computed into the AKI. Ingredients are added to lower the boiling point and vapor point, reduce the hydrophilic nature of gas and reduce the amount of oxides of nitrogen after the combustion process. Many, if not most, of these ingredients change the combustion process in ways that may not be consistent from sample to sample. They also alter the total energy content of the fuel itself by volume.
As it has been mentioned previously in this thread, having the ignition process starting at the wrong time (especially too soon) is a bad thing and can (especially in the case of the rotary ICE) quickly destroy a motor. So what is done, more often than not, is to err on the side of safety and bracket the combustion process with extra fuel and start the ignition with a slightly delayed spark (or, rather, a less advanced spark since the spark event will usually occur several degrees of eccentric shaft revolution before the point at which we want maximum combustion chamber pressure). What this does is lower the temperature of the intake charge and insure that the combustion process is slower and later than optimal and never faster or sooner. Raising the AKI of the fuel used will accomplish the same thing but since the manufacturer of the vehicle can't insure that the fuel used will always have the proper AKI to achieve this or won't contain additives that adversly affect the ignition onset, they don't depend on their octane recommendation alone.
What is done by "tuners" then, is to take into account this margin of error and dial some of it out for more power which can be achieved by charge composition that is closer to optimal. To achieve this, they depend on the operator to use fuel that takes up the slack in AKI and remove some of this extra fuel and spark retardation.
Really, that is all there is to it. How good a tuner can be is dependant on his or her ability and knowledge with respect to the events within the combustion chamber in question. Unfortunately, that knowledge usually comes at the price of some blown-up motors. However...
With regards to Canzoomer's box.
The EPA mandated that the catalytic converter on vehicles manufactured in 2004 on must conform to a standard that requires that said converter is still functioning at 120,000 miles. That is TWICE for which RX-8 was designed. It is speculated, and what seems to be borne out in testing is, that Mazda decided that the best way to achieve this is by keeping the catalytic converter at somewhat lower temperatures than what were experienced when the RX-8 was at maximum tune. They did this by ensuring that there was so much surplus fuel in the combustion process that a quantity of it was still available to act as a coolant for the catalytic converter after it was expelled from the combustion process. This is a lot of fuel and its net effect on the ratio of air to fuel in the charge is to place it closer to 11:1 at some points in the RPM band. This is actually very close to the point at which ignition can't actually occur. What this means to power output should be obvious. It is interesting to note that previous rotary engines from Mazda ran extremely rich for other reasons and were also able to operate a catalytic converter correctly over its rated lifetime - a fact that seems at odds with what most of us believe to be an unhealthy thing for catalytic converter. It is generally accepted that raw fuel poisons the catalytic. But I digress.
What Canzoomer is attempting to do is trade some of this converter longevity for power in much the same way the average tuner trades in on the AKI for the same. In the case of the "Stage II" kit, he is asking the end user to forgo the converter completely since it will not survive the exhaust gas temperatures that are produced at the resultant air/fuel ratios.
This isn't even venturing into the realm of real "tuning" since we are not trading any AKI for power yet and are operating at A/F ratios that are still below stoichiometric.
Whether the 13b-MSP requires more fuel than stoich to avoid premature ignition of the intake charge (auto-ignition) or not is not really going to be known until someone actually grenades an engine this way. So, to keep things safe, A/F ratios will probably be kept in the 13:1 range while under load to provide some of that protection that was afforded by Mazda.
With regards to exhaust gas temperature (EGT), the heat present after combustion must also be controlled for the longevity of the motor (specifically the ports and manifold) and is a good indicator of combustion efficiency along with a direct measurement of the A/F ratios via an oxygen sensor.
Interestingly enough, retarding the ignition timing usually increases EGT, so it is likely that ignition timing on the 13b-MSP is probably still close to optimal with all of this extra fuel.
If anyone would like to see any other details of this process laid out, let me know.
Combustion is the rapid release of energy from a fuel - in this case gasoline.
A finite quantity of gasoline contains an equally finite amount of energy, which can be released by combining it with a specific quantity of oxygen at an absolute ratio.
1 kilogram of gasoline contains 43 megajoules of energy that can be released via oxygen at a ratio of 1:15.179 (a ratio referred to as "stoichiomentric"). That is about 41,700 BTUs. Plenty.
The trick with an internal combustion engine (ICE), whether it be rotary or other wise, is to control that combustion in space and time.
We do this by causing the combustion process to occur in the combustion chamber at a precise time and OVER a precise quantity of time to convert that heat into torque.
To effect this level of control, we must take a fixed quantity of space (about 650 ml in the case of the 13b-MSP), fill it with a quantity of gas and air as proscribed by the above ratio, compress it to a precise degree and ignite it at precisely the right time as to cause the maximum pressure increase resultant from that combustion to occur at the time of maximum delta for the combustion chamber's swept cyclic volume (that is to say at the precise moment that the combustion chamber is starting to get bigger again after it just got done getting smaller to compress the charge).
The beauty of this process is that it can occur completely independent of any change in factors in the outside world - temperature, pressure, altitude, pollution, humidity, whatever - as long as we can be
assured that these conditions inside the combustion chamber are constant.
The problem is, we can't.
Because the process of getting a fixed volume of O2 into the combustion chamber at a proscribed density (meaning temperature via Avagadro) is complicated by the fact that this air is supplied by the available atmosphere, we are straddled with the effects of varying density on the combustion charge.
What that means is we must compensate for the volatility of gasoline as it responds to the varying charge densities. At differing charge densities, the amount of energy necessary to start the combustion process and the time it takes to complete the combustion process changes in a not so linear fashion.
So, what we do is vary the amount of fuel we add and ignite the process on a adjustable schedule based on what information we can obtain about the conditions of the air going into our ICE.
What we measure in the case of the RX-8 to know these conditions are these:
Air Flow
Intake Air Temperature
Barometric Pressure
Coolant Temperature
Throttle Position
Eccentric Shaft Position
By computing all of these measurements together, the engine control unit (ECU - sometimes called PCM for powertrain control module) can determine APPROXIMATELY the density of the air charge in the combustion chamber at any given time. It is a shame, really, that there is no way to measure the density directly or we could forgo all of this.
Two factors that can't be measured by the above methods are important to the whole equation as well.
First is volumetric efficiency (VE) or the amount of air, as a percentage of maximum, that the engine actually ingests as a result of the physics of mass and inertia. This number is fixed to some degree and changes at different RPM.
The other is the latent temperature of the actual combustion chamber as a result of the combustion cycles that proceed the cycle under scrutiny at that moment. This changes as a result of RPM as well, but it is also tied to 'load' or the increase of RPM over time as a proportion to charge density.
What that leaves us with is a very crude measurement of the total charge density.
How do we compensate for that?
By conservative 'hedging' on the bet that is ignition timing through advancement and retardation of the onset of the spark and by introducing elements into the gasoline that seek to stabilize its volatility. That is what octane is for and how much it affects the combustion process is measured by various methods including, but not limited to, Research Octane (RON), Motor Octane (MON) and the Anti Knock Index (AKI - and average of the RON and MON numbers). Unfortunately for the average motorist, many other ingredients are added to the fuel we use to affect its environmental impact that are not directly computed into the AKI. Ingredients are added to lower the boiling point and vapor point, reduce the hydrophilic nature of gas and reduce the amount of oxides of nitrogen after the combustion process. Many, if not most, of these ingredients change the combustion process in ways that may not be consistent from sample to sample. They also alter the total energy content of the fuel itself by volume.
As it has been mentioned previously in this thread, having the ignition process starting at the wrong time (especially too soon) is a bad thing and can (especially in the case of the rotary ICE) quickly destroy a motor. So what is done, more often than not, is to err on the side of safety and bracket the combustion process with extra fuel and start the ignition with a slightly delayed spark (or, rather, a less advanced spark since the spark event will usually occur several degrees of eccentric shaft revolution before the point at which we want maximum combustion chamber pressure). What this does is lower the temperature of the intake charge and insure that the combustion process is slower and later than optimal and never faster or sooner. Raising the AKI of the fuel used will accomplish the same thing but since the manufacturer of the vehicle can't insure that the fuel used will always have the proper AKI to achieve this or won't contain additives that adversly affect the ignition onset, they don't depend on their octane recommendation alone.
What is done by "tuners" then, is to take into account this margin of error and dial some of it out for more power which can be achieved by charge composition that is closer to optimal. To achieve this, they depend on the operator to use fuel that takes up the slack in AKI and remove some of this extra fuel and spark retardation.
Really, that is all there is to it. How good a tuner can be is dependant on his or her ability and knowledge with respect to the events within the combustion chamber in question. Unfortunately, that knowledge usually comes at the price of some blown-up motors. However...
With regards to Canzoomer's box.
The EPA mandated that the catalytic converter on vehicles manufactured in 2004 on must conform to a standard that requires that said converter is still functioning at 120,000 miles. That is TWICE for which RX-8 was designed. It is speculated, and what seems to be borne out in testing is, that Mazda decided that the best way to achieve this is by keeping the catalytic converter at somewhat lower temperatures than what were experienced when the RX-8 was at maximum tune. They did this by ensuring that there was so much surplus fuel in the combustion process that a quantity of it was still available to act as a coolant for the catalytic converter after it was expelled from the combustion process. This is a lot of fuel and its net effect on the ratio of air to fuel in the charge is to place it closer to 11:1 at some points in the RPM band. This is actually very close to the point at which ignition can't actually occur. What this means to power output should be obvious. It is interesting to note that previous rotary engines from Mazda ran extremely rich for other reasons and were also able to operate a catalytic converter correctly over its rated lifetime - a fact that seems at odds with what most of us believe to be an unhealthy thing for catalytic converter. It is generally accepted that raw fuel poisons the catalytic. But I digress.
What Canzoomer is attempting to do is trade some of this converter longevity for power in much the same way the average tuner trades in on the AKI for the same. In the case of the "Stage II" kit, he is asking the end user to forgo the converter completely since it will not survive the exhaust gas temperatures that are produced at the resultant air/fuel ratios.
This isn't even venturing into the realm of real "tuning" since we are not trading any AKI for power yet and are operating at A/F ratios that are still below stoichiometric.
Whether the 13b-MSP requires more fuel than stoich to avoid premature ignition of the intake charge (auto-ignition) or not is not really going to be known until someone actually grenades an engine this way. So, to keep things safe, A/F ratios will probably be kept in the 13:1 range while under load to provide some of that protection that was afforded by Mazda.
With regards to exhaust gas temperature (EGT), the heat present after combustion must also be controlled for the longevity of the motor (specifically the ports and manifold) and is a good indicator of combustion efficiency along with a direct measurement of the A/F ratios via an oxygen sensor.
Interestingly enough, retarding the ignition timing usually increases EGT, so it is likely that ignition timing on the 13b-MSP is probably still close to optimal with all of this extra fuel.
If anyone would like to see any other details of this process laid out, let me know.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 12-16-2003 at 05:32 PM.
12-01-2003, 12:40 AM
#129
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
se3pmaniac:
How about a big THANK YOU to Maurice for answering your questions?
Your not much into the whole "please" and "thank you" thing are you?
Just a thought.
Vince
How about a big THANK YOU to Maurice for answering your questions?
Your not much into the whole "please" and "thank you" thing are you?
Just a thought.
Vince
12-01-2003, 12:44 AM
#130
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More questions if you don't mind.
1. For knock reading. How is it compared to stock reading. Will you be able to share the before and after knock reading log.
2. I personally think your main selling point is the unit, not the map itself althought it's defintely a plus. By sharing the map, people can't really duplicate it if you are only laying it out as rpm vs air flow sensor vs a/f. You don't have to include the injector duty cycle so no one can copy it. I am not interested in the injetor duty cycle anyways. Or to make your life easier, you can just include a dyno sheet with rpm vs a/f under 1/4 throttle, 1/2 throttle, 3/4 throttle and full throttle.
3. I agree with you on lean + much advancing timing = blown motor. That's my number 1 concern. I think I read it somewhere that you said you advance the timing by a lot. How much is a lot over the stock ignition map. Did you change both the trailing and leading timing? I guess you don't want to give out the timing map but please give some kind of rough estimate.
4. I am not here to insult you. My first post is kind of harsh. I apologize. I just need the technical info and that's it. I already said good luck on the sales and we will see what happens in a couple of weeks from the last thread directing to you and I will say it again.
If you can share the a/f, knock, timing info, that's great. If not, that's ok too. I will give it a rest for now.
1. For knock reading. How is it compared to stock reading. Will you be able to share the before and after knock reading log.
2. I personally think your main selling point is the unit, not the map itself althought it's defintely a plus. By sharing the map, people can't really duplicate it if you are only laying it out as rpm vs air flow sensor vs a/f. You don't have to include the injector duty cycle so no one can copy it. I am not interested in the injetor duty cycle anyways. Or to make your life easier, you can just include a dyno sheet with rpm vs a/f under 1/4 throttle, 1/2 throttle, 3/4 throttle and full throttle.
3. I agree with you on lean + much advancing timing = blown motor. That's my number 1 concern. I think I read it somewhere that you said you advance the timing by a lot. How much is a lot over the stock ignition map. Did you change both the trailing and leading timing? I guess you don't want to give out the timing map but please give some kind of rough estimate.
4. I am not here to insult you. My first post is kind of harsh. I apologize. I just need the technical info and that's it. I already said good luck on the sales and we will see what happens in a couple of weeks from the last thread directing to you and I will say it again.
If you can share the a/f, knock, timing info, that's great. If not, that's ok too. I will give it a rest for now.
12-01-2003, 12:49 AM
#131
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of them are really related to your unit or directing them to you. Just having fun with Maniac.
I know all those you said. I never said high octane fuel will increase power. Higher octane fuel are more slow buring. Stock has one MAF, two o2. 2nd o2 is for checking if the cat is working.
I know all those you said. I never said high octane fuel will increase power. Higher octane fuel are more slow buring. Stock has one MAF, two o2. 2nd o2 is for checking if the cat is working.
Originally posted by canzoomer
1) No. You are distorting things a bit.
What was said is that in N.America the combined index ratings are deetermined by a different formula than what is used in many locations overseas.
For example in Japan they use RON rating, while here they use the combimed index.
Since you are now quoting the method used, you apparently have been reading up a bit on this.
Higher octane levels will allow one to run a leaner micture with less chance of detonation/knock/pinging.
They do NOT guarantee higher power levels, as the octane anti-knock index rating may be achieved with additives that make less specific power than gasoline.
For example the addition of ethanol raises the anti-knock index, but reduces the power available in the fuel.
It IS a waste of time and money to buy a higher octane rated fuel than you need, however.
You need high enopugh to prevent knock. Anything higher does not gain you anything, other than higher cost.
IF you run a higher anti-knock index fule, and IF it is made that way by the use of additives that are the same or higher potential energy, then you CAN lean your mixture, and thereby make more power.
Simply using higher octane fuel than needed IS a waste of money.
2) I do not know what you refer to by "games"
The RX-8 uses a MAF, not a MAP, and an O2 ( 2 actually)
3) WE ARE NOT ADJUSTING IGNIOTION TIMING ON THE STAGE1 KIT!!!
There, is that CLEAR NOW?
On Stage2 we will be.
Yes, it is affected by the BAR sensor too.
4) Yes, some older cars did do that.
Perhaps some still do.
So??
I fail to get the point of your statement. Is it some form of question?
1) No. You are distorting things a bit.
What was said is that in N.America the combined index ratings are deetermined by a different formula than what is used in many locations overseas.
For example in Japan they use RON rating, while here they use the combimed index.
Since you are now quoting the method used, you apparently have been reading up a bit on this.
Higher octane levels will allow one to run a leaner micture with less chance of detonation/knock/pinging.
They do NOT guarantee higher power levels, as the octane anti-knock index rating may be achieved with additives that make less specific power than gasoline.
For example the addition of ethanol raises the anti-knock index, but reduces the power available in the fuel.
It IS a waste of time and money to buy a higher octane rated fuel than you need, however.
You need high enopugh to prevent knock. Anything higher does not gain you anything, other than higher cost.
IF you run a higher anti-knock index fule, and IF it is made that way by the use of additives that are the same or higher potential energy, then you CAN lean your mixture, and thereby make more power.
Simply using higher octane fuel than needed IS a waste of money.
2) I do not know what you refer to by "games"
The RX-8 uses a MAF, not a MAP, and an O2 ( 2 actually)
3) WE ARE NOT ADJUSTING IGNIOTION TIMING ON THE STAGE1 KIT!!!
There, is that CLEAR NOW?
On Stage2 we will be.
Yes, it is affected by the BAR sensor too.
4) Yes, some older cars did do that.
Perhaps some still do.
So??
I fail to get the point of your statement. Is it some form of question?
12-01-2003, 12:55 AM
#132
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no, I am not trying to beat on your head. How can you improve by just agreeing with each other, right?? Don't tell me that you think no one is benefitting from all those info.
Originally posted by Maniac
I think he was trying to beat on my head, not yours Maurice.
I think he was trying to beat on my head, not yours Maurice.
12-01-2003, 12:58 AM
#133
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
Oh no, I am not trying to beat on your head. How can you improve by just agreeing with each other, right?? Don't tell me that you think no one is benefitting from all those info.
Oh no, I am not trying to beat on your head. How can you improve by just agreeing with each other, right?? Don't tell me that you think no one is benefitting from all those info.
12-01-2003, 01:01 AM
#134
factory phil
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: alaska
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im just a innocent bystander with 17 years as a professional technician and im not about to get into to this argument but as i sit back and read all these posts it reads like se3pmanic still has not took the time to read up on this.im sitting here thinking wtf hes worying about advancing ignition timing when we all new 2 months ago that this stage 1 kit did no such thing.also from these posts it also sounds like he knew nothing about the us port reflash for the cat to meet the 120000 mile life that has also been well documented months ago entill gordon pointed this out a few posts back.
im not here to offened you in anyway but just from reading these this is how it reads and im sure this is how it looks to most every one else thats not posting here.im sure you know alot about tuning rotarys and im also sure that zoomer,yaw and others also no alot and will argue till the end of time that there way is better,safer,faster.im bettig you have a fast highly tuned rotary but to that there is someone else with even a faster better tuned car and this is what its all about.
im not here to offened you in anyway but just from reading these this is how it reads and im sure this is how it looks to most every one else thats not posting here.im sure you know alot about tuning rotarys and im also sure that zoomer,yaw and others also no alot and will argue till the end of time that there way is better,safer,faster.im bettig you have a fast highly tuned rotary but to that there is someone else with even a faster better tuned car and this is what its all about.
Last edited by akrx8; 12-01-2003 at 01:14 AM.
12-01-2003, 01:43 AM
#135
Forum Vendor
Thread Starter
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
More questions if you don't mind.
2. I personally think your main selling point is the unit, not the map itself althought it's defintely a plus.
More questions if you don't mind.
2. I personally think your main selling point is the unit, not the map itself althought it's defintely a plus.
Havbing said that, we are ALSO working on Stage2.
This is for those who want to go "a bit further".
In the case of the Stage2 kit, some of your questions are more relevant, as we start to implement ignition timing and leaner mixtures.
We also are producing exhasut gas temperatures that preclude the use of the stock catalaytic converter.
It is also pretty well a given that a decent performance exhaust system will be used.
This IS a "tuner kit" and we will be doing customizations, and version for people who want specific tuning for specific equipment configurations. Obviously we could not cover EVERY variant, but simpler choices like exhaust system, intake type, and so on.
We did SOME TESTS with ignition advance. The highest we tried was around 2.5 degrees, along with leaner fuel/air.
We had no detonation, but we DID melt some coil packs.
More testing is underway.
Thanks for the civil words. Please feel free to email me off list if you would like more specifics ..
maurice@harddata.com
12-01-2003, 02:47 AM
#136
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 3,535
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
MAURICE
Pheeewww .
After reading all your 28 pages once again and then re examining your answers with se3pmaniac , i know feel once again relieved that i am doing the right thing with my stage1 kit , i will be totally stoked if we here in australia manage a 205- 210 at the rear wheels horse power , upon reading that the ignition timing has not been altered on the stage 1 kit , i am anxiously awaiting my kit .
So please stop wasting your precious time on forum baiting (equivelent to intellectual masturbating ) and please i want my stage 1 asap .
ps : i have one f$%#ken huge headeache , but i have become a (PARROTT )rotary would be expert .with a sore head .
michael
Pheeewww .
After reading all your 28 pages once again and then re examining your answers with se3pmaniac , i know feel once again relieved that i am doing the right thing with my stage1 kit , i will be totally stoked if we here in australia manage a 205- 210 at the rear wheels horse power , upon reading that the ignition timing has not been altered on the stage 1 kit , i am anxiously awaiting my kit .
So please stop wasting your precious time on forum baiting (equivelent to intellectual masturbating ) and please i want my stage 1 asap .
ps : i have one f$%#ken huge headeache , but i have become a (PARROTT )rotary would be expert .with a sore head .
michael
12-01-2003, 05:24 AM
#137
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read about that reflashed rom thing for the cat. I can't comment on it. My personal dynoing with the rx8 with a/f datalogging does not show the same result as canzoomer's but there might be many factors behind that so I am not going to discuss here. I can only say the result is different but I don't know why.
If you think I am here to brag about how fast my car is, that's not the case. There are many people that have faster rotaries.
If you think I am here to brag about how fast my car is, that's not the case. There are many people that have faster rotaries.
Originally posted by akrx8
im just a innocent bystander with 17 years as a professional technician and im not about to get into to this argument but as i sit back and read all these posts it reads like se3pmanic still has not took the time to read up on this.im sitting here thinking wtf hes worying about advancing ignition timing when we all new 2 months ago that this stage 1 kit did no such thing.also from these posts it also sounds like he knew nothing about the us port reflash for the cat to meet the 120000 mile life that has also been well documented months ago entill gordon pointed this out a few posts back.
im not here to offened you in anyway but just from reading these this is how it reads and im sure this is how it looks to most every one else thats not posting here.im sure you know alot about tuning rotarys and im also sure that zoomer,yaw and others also no alot and will argue till the end of time that there way is better,safer,faster.im bettig you have a fast highly tuned rotary but to that there is someone else with even a faster better tuned car and this is what its all about.
im just a innocent bystander with 17 years as a professional technician and im not about to get into to this argument but as i sit back and read all these posts it reads like se3pmanic still has not took the time to read up on this.im sitting here thinking wtf hes worying about advancing ignition timing when we all new 2 months ago that this stage 1 kit did no such thing.also from these posts it also sounds like he knew nothing about the us port reflash for the cat to meet the 120000 mile life that has also been well documented months ago entill gordon pointed this out a few posts back.
im not here to offened you in anyway but just from reading these this is how it reads and im sure this is how it looks to most every one else thats not posting here.im sure you know alot about tuning rotarys and im also sure that zoomer,yaw and others also no alot and will argue till the end of time that there way is better,safer,faster.im bettig you have a fast highly tuned rotary but to that there is someone else with even a faster better tuned car and this is what its all about.
12-01-2003, 05:32 AM
#138
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I know it's a plug in unit and that's why I said you are not going to run into more risk of losing profit posting your target a/f table but the decision is yours.
I seriously saw some post that said you are advancing the timing by a lot and that was causing my worries. 2 degree more isn't too bad. Your issue with coil is extremely strange. I have heard of coil melting due to strong igntion amplifiers but by simply advancing the timing, that's unheard of so far.
I seriously saw some post that said you are advancing the timing by a lot and that was causing my worries. 2 degree more isn't too bad. Your issue with coil is extremely strange. I have heard of coil melting due to strong igntion amplifiers but by simply advancing the timing, that's unheard of so far.
Originally posted by canzoomer
The unit, as a PLUG IN device, with no requirement for people to DO tuning. Stage1 was not designed as some kind of "ultimate weapon". It was designed to be a simple, easy to install, safe andinexpensive device to allow us RX-8 owners to get what we originally thought we were buying. To wit, 247HP or better, or about 205-210 rear wheel horsepower.
Havbing said that, we are ALSO working on Stage2.
This is for those who want to go "a bit further".
In the case of the Stage2 kit, some of your questions are more relevant, as we start to implement ignition timing and leaner mixtures.
We also are producing exhasut gas temperatures that preclude the use of the stock catalaytic converter.
It is also pretty well a given that a decent performance exhaust system will be used.
This IS a "tuner kit" and we will be doing customizations, and version for people who want specific tuning for specific equipment configurations. Obviously we could not cover EVERY variant, but simpler choices like exhaust system, intake type, and so on.
We did SOME TESTS with ignition advance. The highest we tried was around 2.5 degrees, along with leaner fuel/air.
We had no detonation, but we DID melt some coil packs.
More testing is underway.
Thanks for the civil words. Please feel free to email me off list if you would like more specifics ..
maurice@harddata.com
The unit, as a PLUG IN device, with no requirement for people to DO tuning. Stage1 was not designed as some kind of "ultimate weapon". It was designed to be a simple, easy to install, safe andinexpensive device to allow us RX-8 owners to get what we originally thought we were buying. To wit, 247HP or better, or about 205-210 rear wheel horsepower.
Havbing said that, we are ALSO working on Stage2.
This is for those who want to go "a bit further".
In the case of the Stage2 kit, some of your questions are more relevant, as we start to implement ignition timing and leaner mixtures.
We also are producing exhasut gas temperatures that preclude the use of the stock catalaytic converter.
It is also pretty well a given that a decent performance exhaust system will be used.
This IS a "tuner kit" and we will be doing customizations, and version for people who want specific tuning for specific equipment configurations. Obviously we could not cover EVERY variant, but simpler choices like exhaust system, intake type, and so on.
We did SOME TESTS with ignition advance. The highest we tried was around 2.5 degrees, along with leaner fuel/air.
We had no detonation, but we DID melt some coil packs.
More testing is underway.
Thanks for the civil words. Please feel free to email me off list if you would like more specifics ..
maurice@harddata.com
12-01-2003, 07:26 AM
#139
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is for Jeff on his length explanation on combustion.
My previous question toward you was regarding the technical aspect of how a ECU will determine the correct ignition timing based on all those sensors. The ECU will have 3 sets of maps
air flow sensor voltage vs rpm to determine injection duty cycle
air flow sensor voltage vs rpm to determine leading ignition
air flow sensor voltage vs rpm to determine traing ignition timing
On top of that, you will also have Barametric pressure, intake temp, and coolant temp. The injection map can be compensated easily by air temp, barometric pressure, and air flow sensor since P (V/t)= (n/t) RT where t equals time, P = ATM pressure, (V/t) = air volume flowing rate, T = temperature, and (n/t) is the mass flowing rate. The a/f ratio can be compensated correctly because n/t and injection duty cycle have a correlation.
On the contray, n/t does not have a direct correlation with ignition timing. So I don't think you can correctly compensate ignition timing just based on feed back from barometric sensor and intake sensor unless you have another set of 3D map that has the barometric pressure vs rpm vs ignition timing correction. I don't know if the stock ECU has this set of map. I know they do have a map for intake temp ignition timing compensation and coolant temp ignition compensation.
This is not a flame. Just a healthy discussion.
My previous question toward you was regarding the technical aspect of how a ECU will determine the correct ignition timing based on all those sensors. The ECU will have 3 sets of maps
air flow sensor voltage vs rpm to determine injection duty cycle
air flow sensor voltage vs rpm to determine leading ignition
air flow sensor voltage vs rpm to determine traing ignition timing
On top of that, you will also have Barametric pressure, intake temp, and coolant temp. The injection map can be compensated easily by air temp, barometric pressure, and air flow sensor since P (V/t)= (n/t) RT where t equals time, P = ATM pressure, (V/t) = air volume flowing rate, T = temperature, and (n/t) is the mass flowing rate. The a/f ratio can be compensated correctly because n/t and injection duty cycle have a correlation.
On the contray, n/t does not have a direct correlation with ignition timing. So I don't think you can correctly compensate ignition timing just based on feed back from barometric sensor and intake sensor unless you have another set of 3D map that has the barometric pressure vs rpm vs ignition timing correction. I don't know if the stock ECU has this set of map. I know they do have a map for intake temp ignition timing compensation and coolant temp ignition compensation.
This is not a flame. Just a healthy discussion.
12-01-2003, 07:45 AM
#140
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maurice:
I have read the complete thread and saw that some more general info such as future ECU upgrade, tunable ECU, etc were mentioned but the more advance technical issues that I asked were not mentioned in that thread. I also found a some other things that you might be able to clarify and answer.
1. On one post, you mentioned that if a ECU is reflashed, your Unit will still work the same because it does not use the stock signal. I am not clear on that. That post was in the beginning of the thread. So is your Unit not a piggy back that intercepts the stock signal?
2. Another member has the same concern on the o2 feed back. I hope you can explain further how you can make the ecu to run a closed loop at full throttle that ECU will try to achieve the target a/f. This is a very powerful feature. I don't think the stock o2 sensor is wideband so it will not give you the correct a/f reading. If you can incorporate a wideband that makes the car to run closed loop at high load condition and makes the unit programmable, it will be a very powerful ecu to be used in the force induction department.
3. Why are you going to incorporate APEX Super AFC II for the switchable map application when Super AFC II can be used by itself to modify the air flow sensor signal?
Looking forward to your answers.
I have read the complete thread and saw that some more general info such as future ECU upgrade, tunable ECU, etc were mentioned but the more advance technical issues that I asked were not mentioned in that thread. I also found a some other things that you might be able to clarify and answer.
1. On one post, you mentioned that if a ECU is reflashed, your Unit will still work the same because it does not use the stock signal. I am not clear on that. That post was in the beginning of the thread. So is your Unit not a piggy back that intercepts the stock signal?
2. Another member has the same concern on the o2 feed back. I hope you can explain further how you can make the ecu to run a closed loop at full throttle that ECU will try to achieve the target a/f. This is a very powerful feature. I don't think the stock o2 sensor is wideband so it will not give you the correct a/f reading. If you can incorporate a wideband that makes the car to run closed loop at high load condition and makes the unit programmable, it will be a very powerful ecu to be used in the force induction department.
3. Why are you going to incorporate APEX Super AFC II for the switchable map application when Super AFC II can be used by itself to modify the air flow sensor signal?
Looking forward to your answers.
12-01-2003, 07:46 AM
#141
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
I have read about that reflashed rom thing for the cat. I can't comment on it. My personal dynoing with the rx8 with a/f datalogging does not show the same result as canzoomer's but there might be many factors behind that so I am not going to discuss here. I can only say the result is different but I don't know why.
If you think I am here to brag about how fast my car is, that's not the case. There are many people that have faster rotaries.
I have read about that reflashed rom thing for the cat. I can't comment on it. My personal dynoing with the rx8 with a/f datalogging does not show the same result as canzoomer's but there might be many factors behind that so I am not going to discuss here. I can only say the result is different but I don't know why.
If you think I am here to brag about how fast my car is, that's not the case. There are many people that have faster rotaries.
Se3pmaniac, I don't think you're here to brag. I don't have any technical background in engines but, being trained in science, I do have background in extracting patterns. I think all that semantics derived from taking things DELIBERATELY out of context might be...uh... a deliberate tool to DISTRACT from your true motive. I think your motive may be to extract information from Canzoomer- in essence to piggyback off him- so you don't have to start from scratch or so at least you have a goal to beat with your own ECU product.
I think you may not simply be the overzealous Cal Poly San Luis Obispo engineering grad. I think you may very well be the manipulative, overzealous Cal Poly SLO grad trying to piggyback off the Caltech grad. You should be an MBA who hires Canzoomer and others.
12-01-2003, 08:02 AM
#142
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry that you feel that way but it's not that simple. Just by knowing how his piggy back works does not make it easier to make another piggy back and that's not my motive. If I really want to copy his product without starting from scratch, I can simply just buy one and try to reverse engineer it. But reverse engineering is not as simple as you think. The info I asked will not help the reverse engineering process.
There are many fuel computers out on the market. You can clearly know how it works and how it modifies the signal just by looking at the wiring. So if I really want to copy his product, I can just buy one, compare with the stock ecu wiring and determine from there. Knowing the schametic is just part of it. There are many things involved and be honest with you, I am not capable of doing it.
My motive is just simple, I have a science background so if I am buying something, I want to know how it modifies the signal and how it processes the signal so I can determine if I feel safe using it.
All the info I asked can be obtained if I buy the unit so I am not asking some trade secret that the end users are not supposed to know. But to sve myself trouble, I asked about the info I need before I purchase to see if it's suitable for my need.
He always has the option of releasing the info before sale or not. I can't force him and I am not forcing him. I NEVER said if Canzoomer doesn't do xxx, that means he is full of crap. I already said if he doesn't want to release the info, he doesn't have to.
If he is a caltec grad, he should know a lot more on how to protect his own product. You don't have to worry about it.
There are many fuel computers out on the market. You can clearly know how it works and how it modifies the signal just by looking at the wiring. So if I really want to copy his product, I can just buy one, compare with the stock ecu wiring and determine from there. Knowing the schametic is just part of it. There are many things involved and be honest with you, I am not capable of doing it.
My motive is just simple, I have a science background so if I am buying something, I want to know how it modifies the signal and how it processes the signal so I can determine if I feel safe using it.
All the info I asked can be obtained if I buy the unit so I am not asking some trade secret that the end users are not supposed to know. But to sve myself trouble, I asked about the info I need before I purchase to see if it's suitable for my need.
He always has the option of releasing the info before sale or not. I can't force him and I am not forcing him. I NEVER said if Canzoomer doesn't do xxx, that means he is full of crap. I already said if he doesn't want to release the info, he doesn't have to.
If he is a caltec grad, he should know a lot more on how to protect his own product. You don't have to worry about it.
Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Se3pmaniac, I don't think you're here to brag. I don't have any technical background in engines but, being trained in science, I do have background in extracting patterns. I think all that semantics derived from taking things DELIBERATELY out of context might be...uh... a deliberate tool to DISTRACT from your true motive. I think your motive may be to extract information from Canzoomer- in essence to piggyback off him- so you don't have to start from scratch or so at least you have a goal to beat with your own ECU product.
I think you may not simply be the overzealous Cal Poly San Luis Obispo engineering grad. I think you may very well be the manipulative, overzealous Cal Poly SLO grad trying to piggyback off the Caltech grad. You should be an MBA who hires Canzoomer and others.
Se3pmaniac, I don't think you're here to brag. I don't have any technical background in engines but, being trained in science, I do have background in extracting patterns. I think all that semantics derived from taking things DELIBERATELY out of context might be...uh... a deliberate tool to DISTRACT from your true motive. I think your motive may be to extract information from Canzoomer- in essence to piggyback off him- so you don't have to start from scratch or so at least you have a goal to beat with your own ECU product.
I think you may not simply be the overzealous Cal Poly San Luis Obispo engineering grad. I think you may very well be the manipulative, overzealous Cal Poly SLO grad trying to piggyback off the Caltech grad. You should be an MBA who hires Canzoomer and others.
Last edited by se3pmaniac; 12-01-2003 at 08:12 AM.
12-01-2003, 08:19 AM
#144
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not from Cal Poly and where I graduated does not concern you.
I don't agree I have a personality problem and you don't have to attack me like that.
At least all my posts have technical info, your personal attack serves no purpose here.
I am more than happy to argue with you on technical stuff. If you want to play personal attack game, I guess I will just let you win since I am not interested. Calling me names does not make you superior. It just shows that you have nothing to offer and obviously you don't.
On top of that, even (((IF))) I am really making a piggyback for the rx8, it's not going to be better if the Carzoomer's does what he says. You have to understand that a piggyback system mainly modifes the signal and then send it back to the stock ecu. Stock ecu is still doing all the stuff to make the engine run. As long as his ecu mod can translate the signal accurately and then send it back to the ecu, you just can't make a better one unless you add more feature to it such as making it programmable by hand held controller or laptop, data logging, incoporate with a wideband o2 sensor, etc. But what he is doing does not fall into those catagories. His main concern is to extract HP from the complete stock or mildly modifed car. All the other features I mention will be necessary if you plan to force induce the engine.
There is limitation on a piggyback sytem and the limitation comes from the stock ecu. That's why I personally prefer a stand alone and I have said that already. (((IF))) I am going to make a piggyback, I am going to tune it more conservatively and that will not yield as much power as the Canzoomer one. I will tune the a/f to around 12.7 at most. Please note that Canzoomer is able to tune the a/f to any level as well if you ask him to.
That should answer your concern.
I don't agree I have a personality problem and you don't have to attack me like that.
At least all my posts have technical info, your personal attack serves no purpose here.
I am more than happy to argue with you on technical stuff. If you want to play personal attack game, I guess I will just let you win since I am not interested. Calling me names does not make you superior. It just shows that you have nothing to offer and obviously you don't.
On top of that, even (((IF))) I am really making a piggyback for the rx8, it's not going to be better if the Carzoomer's does what he says. You have to understand that a piggyback system mainly modifes the signal and then send it back to the stock ecu. Stock ecu is still doing all the stuff to make the engine run. As long as his ecu mod can translate the signal accurately and then send it back to the ecu, you just can't make a better one unless you add more feature to it such as making it programmable by hand held controller or laptop, data logging, incoporate with a wideband o2 sensor, etc. But what he is doing does not fall into those catagories. His main concern is to extract HP from the complete stock or mildly modifed car. All the other features I mention will be necessary if you plan to force induce the engine.
There is limitation on a piggyback sytem and the limitation comes from the stock ecu. That's why I personally prefer a stand alone and I have said that already. (((IF))) I am going to make a piggyback, I am going to tune it more conservatively and that will not yield as much power as the Canzoomer one. I will tune the a/f to around 12.7 at most. Please note that Canzoomer is able to tune the a/f to any level as well if you ask him to.
That should answer your concern.
Originally posted by shift_zoom8
I hope that's true. So you really are the Cal Poly SLO student!!!
Ok, so you're no piggyback. But you must agree you have a personality problem?
I hope that's true. So you really are the Cal Poly SLO student!!!
Ok, so you're no piggyback. But you must agree you have a personality problem?
Last edited by se3pmaniac; 12-01-2003 at 08:52 AM.
12-01-2003, 01:31 PM
#145
Forum Vendor
Thread Starter
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
Yeah, I know it's a plug in unit and that's why I said you are not going to run into more risk of losing profit posting your target a/f table but the decision is yours.
I seriously saw some post that said you are advancing the timing by a lot and that was causing my worries. 2 degree more isn't too bad. Your issue with coil is extremely strange. I have heard of coil melting due to strong igntion amplifiers but by simply advancing the timing, that's unheard of so far.
Yeah, I know it's a plug in unit and that's why I said you are not going to run into more risk of losing profit posting your target a/f table but the decision is yours.
I seriously saw some post that said you are advancing the timing by a lot and that was causing my worries. 2 degree more isn't too bad. Your issue with coil is extremely strange. I have heard of coil melting due to strong igntion amplifiers but by simply advancing the timing, that's unheard of so far.
One of the things we are checking is that the dwell and charge time on the coilpacks may require different settings for higher advance settings..
I will post more on that as I find out more conclusive data.
12-01-2003, 02:19 PM
#146
Forum Vendor
Thread Starter
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
Maurice:
1. On one post, you mentioned that if a ECU is reflashed, your Unit will still work the same because it does not use the stock signal. I am not clear on that. That post was in the beginning of the thread. So is your Unit not a piggy back that intercepts the stock signal?
Maurice:
1. On one post, you mentioned that if a ECU is reflashed, your Unit will still work the same because it does not use the stock signal. I am not clear on that. That post was in the beginning of the thread. So is your Unit not a piggy back that intercepts the stock signal?
We since have the RX-8's MAF and O2 sync worked out, so we are using both. We intercept the MAF and adjust in the conventional fashion, thereby adjusting the fuel duty cycle timing and interval.
2. Another member has the same concern on the o2 feed back. I hope you can explain further how you can make the ecu to run a closed loop at full throttle that ECU will try to achieve the target a/f. This is a very powerful feature. I don't think the stock o2 sensor is wideband so it will not give you the correct a/f reading. If you can incorporate a wideband that makes the car to run closed loop at high load condition and makes the unit programmable, it will be a very powerful ecu to be used in the force induction department.
The stock O2 is not a broadband, but as we are keeping the ratio within it's bandwidth, it is still valid.
The rather ironic part is that the stock ECU settings frequently take the mixture out of the bandwidth region of the O2, thereby rendering it incapable of providing useful data to the ECU. I feel that this is because Mazda originally designed the whole system to work within the bandwidth, but then re-tuned for emissions and fell out of band.
We could have used a wideband, but how many people would entertaain the cost of adding a bung to their exhaust, adding a $300 broadband sensor, etc..
If you look at a dyno curve for the stock ECU tuned settings you can see that over 6,000rpm the curve "jitters" very badly. I think that this is due to the fact that it is in a feedback loop with the O2 sensor falling out of band. The ecu is re-adjusting the fuel to compensate, then falling out of band, then re-adjusting, over and over and over.. The frequency of the jitters is constant, so this is effectively measuring the feedback cycle time of the sensor and ECU as a subsystem. The one good thing we get out of this is knowing the stock ECU's response time, which is about 4-6 times per second.
Our control unit has frequency resolution of better than 10 times per second, so we know that we are using a device that responds at least as fast as the systems it controls. I am happy about that as we are not going to be in a position where we are not able to respond fast enough.
3. Why are you going to incorporate APEX Super AFC II for the switchable map application when Super AFC II can be used by itself to modify the air flow sensor signal?
The short answer is we hope not to have to do this.
We designed our mapping parameters to be compatible with the A'PEXi, so when they can control the MAF and the ignition, we should be able to just port our maps over.
At present the main problem with using existing A/F and ignition tools is that none of them have yet been updated to be capable of recognizing the MAF in the RX-8 OR the ignition parameters.
For proper ignition control when adding advance it is prefereable to change the intrval between the trailing and leading plugs on demand. Neither Greddy, Apexi, or others yet support this.
This is why we had to do some customization.
However, by the spring we are hopeful that this software functionality will appear on the A'PEXi units.
12-01-2003, 02:35 PM
#147
Int-X 293WHP 242TQ :)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canzoomer -- thanks for your prompt response to all of the "technical" questions!
My questions are not quite so technical:
1. Will you be posting Stage 1 dyno results soon?
2. Will you update us on your findings of the Stage 1 with the aftermarket exhast?
Thanks!
My questions are not quite so technical:
1. Will you be posting Stage 1 dyno results soon?
2. Will you update us on your findings of the Stage 1 with the aftermarket exhast?
Thanks!
12-01-2003, 02:40 PM
#148
Forum Vendor
Thread Starter
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
I don't agree I have a personality problem and you don't have to attack me like that.
I don't agree I have a personality problem and you don't have to attack me like that.
However that slo does not make it "open season" on you either.
People need to remember tht a pair of wrongs is no better than one!
On top of that, even (((IF))) I am really making a piggyback for the rx8, it's not going to be better if the Carzoomer's does what he says. You have to understand that a piggyback system mainly modifes the signal and then send it back to the stock ecu. Stock ecu is still doing all the stuff to make the engine run. As long as his ecu mod can translate the signal accurately and then send it back to the ecu, you just can't make a better one unless you add more feature to it such as making it programmable by hand held controller or laptop, data logging, incoporate with a wideband o2 sensor, etc. But what he is doing does not fall into those catagories. His main concern is to extract HP from the complete stock or mildly modifed car. All the other features I mention will be necessary if you plan to force induce the engine.
If you want to add ignition control, you also run into unique issues.
Frankly, we could publish every single technical detail and sourcing for every part on our units today, and it would still be impossible to provide the same thing at a better price.
You could possibly hack up some existing controller to do it, but without the MAF control program it would be weak at best.
Add to that the fact that we are shipping in a true "plug in" device, wich does not require one to hack the wiring, and we feel that we are safe, at least for a while!
There is limitation on a piggyback sytem and the limitation comes from the stock ecu. That's why I personally prefer a stand alone and I have said that already. (((IF))) I am going to make a piggyback, I am going to tune it more conservatively and that will not yield as much power as the Canzoomer one. I will tune the a/f to around 12.7 at most. Please note that Canzoomer is able to tune the a/f to any level as well if you ask him to.
Unfortunately the stock ECU is a complicated bitch, which would be a rather large job to reverse engineer.
Last I heard the guys over in Japan working on it had so far figured out how to re-program the rpm limit code.
What makes the whole works even more of a rough ride is that the ECU not only controls the engine, it runs the steering, brakes, traction control, headlights, and darned near everything on the car.
To build a replacement would be a vast project, and to hack the original entails the risk of accidentally altering the response or functionality of some other part of the controls that could be potentially lethal.
Imagine that whole "drive by wire" steering variable assist power failing at highway speeds?
No thanks, I want to stay the hell away from that kettle of fish!
12-01-2003, 02:41 PM
#149
Forum Vendor
Thread Starter
Originally posted by RXhusker
Canzoomer -- thanks for your prompt response to all of the "technical" questions!
My questions are not quite so technical:
1. Will you be posting Stage 1 dyno results soon?
2. Will you update us on your findings of the Stage 1 with the aftermarket exhast?
Thanks!
Canzoomer -- thanks for your prompt response to all of the "technical" questions!
My questions are not quite so technical:
1. Will you be posting Stage 1 dyno results soon?
2. Will you update us on your findings of the Stage 1 with the aftermarket exhast?
Thanks!
Yes.
Final results, based on what we are shipping, will be posted as soon as we are finished and satisfied.
This will be in the next week I beleive.
12-01-2003, 02:46 PM
#150
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by se3pmaniac
I am not from Cal Poly and where I graduated does not concern you.
I don't agree I have a personality problem and you don't have to attack me like that.
At least all my posts have technical info, your personal attack serves no purpose here.
I am more than happy to argue with you on technical stuff. If you want to play personal attack game, I guess I will just let you win since I am not interested. Calling me names does not make you superior. It just shows that you have nothing to offer and obviously you don't.
I am not from Cal Poly and where I graduated does not concern you.
I don't agree I have a personality problem and you don't have to attack me like that.
At least all my posts have technical info, your personal attack serves no purpose here.
I am more than happy to argue with you on technical stuff. If you want to play personal attack game, I guess I will just let you win since I am not interested. Calling me names does not make you superior. It just shows that you have nothing to offer and obviously you don't.
Did you know the human brain is designed to be egocentric?
Allow me to amend one of your statements above. You meant to say: "At least all my [personal attack] posts have technical information." So let me get this straight, if I can provide technical information like you do, then personal attacks would be ok? Again, your logic doesn't fly.
I'll be straightforward. If you and I went to the same college at the same time and took the same courses, you COULD NOT beat me in one single course, whether it's literature, history, economics, math, genetics, or engineering. Your ego gets the better of you. It's a male ego thing, like guys have with sports. You did it to Canzoomer. This time I do it to you. Only can you analyze what's behind this, behave accordingly, and pass MY test by turning the egocentric lens outward?