After looking at some more tables, I have to assume it's because of the Throttle fueling table, I am above the load threshhold at those rpm, so that shouldn't be it, and the throttle map, looks just like my results, going lean from 3.5k to 5.5k. At this point I think that is right, after some testing, if I find otherwise, I'll post it. Bringing me back to the prior thought of Throttle based VE below 5500, and MAF based load above 5500. Alot of other vehicles do this to solve for low airspeed revursion against the maf. Any way just some thoughts.

 

You can determine when the car is in open loop by logging STFT, which will always be 0 in open loop. There may be other (better) ways, but that's what I look for.

Also, there is another closed loop exit table that deals with RPM. Do some data logging in 1st gear and pay attention to when you come out of closed loop... you might be surprised

 

Just a quick question on this. As far as you know is 210-220 normal for NA cars with a midpipe or stock? I went back over graphs from my last track session in January and with stock tune I was able to hit 205 but never went over. I've managed to hit 200 on highway conditions without breaking too many laws. I know Jon316G is able to get up closer to 220 but he has the DR mazsport midpipe and the RB intake. I've just got the RB and the stock cat.

Idle is fine at 5-6 g/s so I'm assuming the MP gives an additional 10-15.

I've got another track session next weekend that I'll log with the Cobb Stage 1 to see if I am seeing a higher peak but I wouldn't expect the airflow to be any different than stock tune.

 

I hit 230 consistantly @9k. That's with out a mid pipe.

Nygo hits 210 to 215 @9k and he has a mid pipe.

 

your using MM's tune though and therefore have no clue as to what he did with your maf cal vs injectors vs fuel tables

 

230 sounds pretty damn good for NA. Stock intakes?

 

RB, plus duct with RB exhaust, mazsport coils

 

230g/s is roughly equal to 95% eninge VE at 9,000 rpms... its not happening with an unported engine

220g/s is roughly 87% VE and much more realilstic at 9000 rpms. If you notice, a stock engine hits its peak airflow around 8500 rpms because its VE is closer to 95% there.

hymee did this years ago and I verified it on my own car last year (stock intake + high flow cat + catback)
https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...93&postcount=1

 

Might be possible if he's at or below sea level and your measurements are in the appalachian foothills, no? Does Death Valley have a race track?

 

Could his RB duct help at high speed ? I mean, it's a ram air and could possibly start to increase the pressure in the intake at high speed.

 

Does this help?

 

Not really, no. Since you have no way of knowing if the MAF reading from either vehicle is correct, it's pretty meaningless.

 

I have the ram duct and so does Jon316g and I'm getting 205 with stock tune and cat and he's getting ~220 with a MM tune and midpipe. I shouldn't but I always assume when people say they have the RB intake they're talking about the duct and intake.

I'm going with sea level adjustment. Razz what part of Cali were you at when you did the dyno? My 205 was in Sebring, FL which is close to sea level. Measurements here between 500 and 1000 ft above sea level peak at 200. No idea where r0tor is but Philly is close to sea level while Pittspuke is close to 1000 ft above.

Still thinking now that my upper limit is a little lower than it should be.

And from what I understand you lose about 5% efficiency per 1000ft above sea level.

 

My four port AT sucks up 224 gm/s at 1200 ft above sea level. With out the N2o.
Figure that one out.

 

Thats Easy 1....................... no carbon in your motor so it sucks harder. ha ha........

 

Maybe replacing your manifold every few months helps keep the air flowing?

You're using a MM tune as well, right? Seems people doing so are getting better flow. Not really sure why that would be but I don't pretend to understand his tuning method. Just know the tunes work great.

 

a) Everyone with a MM cal needs not mention what their top flow is as you have no idea how your maf is calibrated and why its calibrated like that.

b) Racing Beat says they make 3.5 at 8300 rpms and 5.8hp at 8900 rpms. Which would mean a 2% increase in flow at that area bring you closer to 215-225 g/s from my orignial recommendations given a healthy engine at standard temp and pressure.

 

Trying to compare g/s MAF readings between cars isn't an exact science. Replacing the intake with aftermarket or changing the MAF scaling is going to alter the amount of mass being reported.

As Easy shows, he's running a 140ish WHP platform without nitrous and reporting 224 g/s of airflow. I dyno'd @ 192whp and I max out around 210 g/s of airflow.

The end goal is to ensure that the air/fuel ratio that's being called for by the PCM is being reported by the o2 sensor. Otherwise, I wouldn't get hung up on how much air your MAF is reporting.

 

After some contemplation on the way home from work, I believe the throttle maps may be used in transitions during rapid accelerator position changes. My thinking is because when doing the 4200 rpm pulls for tuning, the afr seem to start out around lambda and then after a few seconds settles out to whats indicated on the normal openloop afr table.

 

Okay, I had a few thoughts, again...
b) Racing Beat says they make 3.5 at 8300 rpms and 5.8hp at 8900 rpms. Which would mean a 2% increase in flow at that area bring you closer to 215-225 g/s from my orignial recommendations given a healthy engine at standard temp and pressure.
that power was not from more air, just better harnessing of useable power, ie, afr & timing. Tuning doesn't really alter airflow, just power harnessed from it.
and
After some contemplation on the way home from work, I believe the throttle maps may be used in transitions during rapid accelerator position changes. My thinking is because when doing the 4200 rpm pulls for tuning, the afr seem to start out around lambda and then after a few seconds settles out to whats indicated on the normal openloop afr table.
I am still sold on my previous thought, I did some more testing today to confirm this, changed the TBfueling in my lean area in TBFuel, and presto chango, the afr's I'm looking for down low. I don't think rapid throttle change does it, I think it's purely RPM based. Alot of logging and testing tells me this., like you said 4200, 14.7 , would actually try to stay there till around 5500, probably a few seconds, like you said. First trying to HUNT stoich, then jumping to you Load based map, which at WOT should be much richer than Stoich. Alot of times, I've started runs around 2200,2500 which would run about 13.5, then it tries to hit 14.7 but with the little time it has, it usually only hunts to low 14, then back out at 5500.
This has been a real learning curve with Mazda's strategies compared to my STI., that and the lack of accurate 8 tuning help. With that being said, I wanted to say thanks for all the good stuff I've found in this post.
Oh back to the g/sec, I too am NA, and I have logged into the 230's. I have a modified "stock airbox,header,catless,flowmaster. At about 8k it runs out of breath, hopefully a new air filter will allow a little more. Oh and I saw the arguements, it's an unmodified MAF scale, for whatever that's worth.
Yes,RE I was going to mention the fueltrims too, that's what I have used in the past.
Also, what kind of advance are you guys running? I've moved it all around looking for power, dropping the split made a big difference to 3 - 7 degrees, increased max timing 9k, and increased timing below 5k, and that boosted power too, in the midrange where it was already strong didn't seem to change much, but below and above improved.

 

I dug this up from a few days ago, I was still tuning my high speed timing when I made this run.

 

All motor?

If so - that is the greatest intake tuning of all time!!!

Can I see your VE stock vs tuned? MAF and load may be off - but I would love to see improvements over stock.

 

I am new to this and sort of understanding this slowly... I have a question on step #5 which is the A/F gear tuning. Are the AFR in gears 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 suppose to be identical to each other? Thanks!

 

I think it would be safe to drop that whole scale 20% and probably be alot more accurate.
My guess is, it's IAT compensationf factor mal adjustment. Or just the air was really that dense, it was a cool morning around 55f. I posted that for reference sake, I don't really belive the intake works that well, even with the alphabet soup sdais. The VE calculated figure can change dramaticly depending on conditions. Main thing, is getting a vehicle specific baseline, and using that as reference for changes, good or bad.
On a side note, I read that RG was going to look into an adjustable intake system,(to improve VE) did he ever finish it, or have any final conclusions?

 

1-2 and 3-4 maps ended up being a bit different on my car when targeting the same AFR. I never bothered with the 5-6 gear maps as i only use them for cruising.