canzoomer

A while back, we had some enquiries from people in Australia about out Stage 1 kit for their use.

As we did not have access to a car as delivered there we did not know what the tuning maps would be like.

We recently shipped two units to two differnt individuals there for testing, with the following agreement:

1) We would provide the units, assist in resolving any issues arising, and adjust our maps to suit, as needed.

2) The recipients would provide us with feedback, testing results, and work with us on the development.

3) We, in return would provide these at a 50% discount, refunded after the process was completed.

The work has started, and what we have found so far is that above about 5K rpm the results are not bad but below that we have some work to do.

One of the individuals posted on the Australia forum about it, which was not per the agreement, so after he chatted with the others down there who are working on this it produced some puzzlement and consternation when the postings were removed by the poster.

I include here the results, so it may be seen publically.

It appears we need to provide some with some instrumentation to get the data we need to adjust to suit their needs. We will be shipping a wide band sensor and logging unit to them this week so they may install it on one or two of their cars and provide us with the results.

After that we will provide adjusted maps so they may re-test.

From testing it was determined that the unit was producing lower power in the 4,000 to 5,500 rpm range, and same or slightly better than stock in the 5,500 and up.


I will not beat this to death here, but I believe Hymee and others participating will chime in with comments, info as requested, and so on.

Thanks!

timbo

Are you posting them here, or somewhere else?

Lock & Load

Maurice firstly a big thankyou for spending over 40 minutes on the phone with me this morning, answereing all my questions with precision as usual.

Both Emack, Hymee and myself will be conducting all the further releavant testing required to re-adjust the stage 1 kit to suit the Australian RX8s.

I am 110% convinced that with the re-adjustment of the stage 1 we will have even faster cars than our US counterparts. As our state of tune seems to be higher/better than the RX8s in US.

It took Hymee and myself approx. 1 hour to install the stage 1 kit, although we took pictures and joked around while we were installling it.

The installation instructions are excellent and are easy to follow. Once the unit was installed, switched to the ON position, we took off. DSC light came on however we managed to get it to switch off.

There is a smooth and evident boost in the 5000 rpm and up range, especially in the lower gears. Lots of fun and rapid acceleration.

Below 5000 rpm, we noticed an intermittent power phase lag. However at times it was hard to notice this lag, but it is evident intermittently.

As I stated earlier we are working together with Maurice to re-adjust our maps to suit the Australian RX8s specifically. My advice is since there is no other ECU unit that comes near the quality and workmanship of Maurice's stage 1, I'd be sitting tight, saving my money and looking forward to Maurice re-adjusting the stage 1 kit.

So don't worry, be happy and shortly get ready for the revised stage 1 Australian RX8 review.

Cheers

Michael

davefzr

Are you saying that the Stage 1 mappings will change for Austrailia only or possibly for everyone?

Thankx.

Oh.. Just for Austrailia... Sorry about that.

canzoomer

Right, for now we are setting to produce a new map for Aus.
As we get requests for variouslocations we are sampling and gathering feedback so we may adjust as needed.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

All,

Contained below is the text of the report supplied to Canzoomer, as the first stage of developing the Stage 1 mappings to suit Aussy cars.

Slight edits done to suite the forum layout. No data has been altered. Note that this is on the CZ Stage 1 Fuel Controller as it stands. Canzoomer will be doing further work to adapt the unit for Australian mappings.

Results of Testing of the
Canzoomer “Stage 1” RX-8 Fuel Controller
in Australian conditions

Tests conducted by “Lock & Load” and “Hymee”, 21st Jan 2004.
Report written by Hymee, 24th Jan 2004.

Provided for inofrmation to members of the worldwide RX-8 forum at www.rx8club.com

Scope
The testing was carried out to obtain 3 objectives.[list=1][*]Determine if the air-fuel ratios (AFR’s) obtained with the Stage 1 kit where not too lean to damage the engine.[*]Obtain a “seat of the pants” driving impression.[*]Obtain reliable, repeatable, measured results of an in-gear acceleration run covering a wide band of the engines operating range.[/list=1]

The measured tests were conducted on public roads. One stretch of road was chosen as it was level, straight, and in good condition. Multiple runs were done in both directions.

Test vehicles

Vehicle A: 2003 Mazda RX-8
Trans: 6 Speed Manual
Model: “Leather Pack”
Mods: Canzoomer Stage 1
Fuel: Shell Optimax 98 RON
Weight: 1540 kg estimated
Total km: approx 12,000 km

Vehicle B: 2003 Mazda RX-8
Trans: 6 Speed Manual
Model: Cloth trim
Mods: None
Fuel: Shell Optimax 98 RON
Weight: 1530 kg estimated
Total km: 12,600

Testing methodology

Air Fuel Ratio
AFR’s were monitored by utilising the wideband O2 sensor on the vehicle, and reading it’s reported Lambda values during successive WOT runs. The Lambda values were obtained via an OBDII scan tool connected to the vehicles OBDII compliant connection and the CAN protocol. A fairly slow update rate of this data limited the software to only log approximately 3 per second.
Results were compared to values read during similar runs on Vehicle A and Vehicle B.
Driver Impressions
I am not a big believer in my ability to detect a few kW difference from just driving a car. Nonetheless, we were able to feel different characteristics in driving with the unit turned off, and turned on. We also felt differences in the performance of the 2 cars.

Acceleration Test
Our objective was to compare the power curves over a wide RPM range. We also wanted to take as many variable factors out of the equation as possible. By doing an in gear (2nd gear) test from 40 km/h to 100 km/h we achieved this in a real world, on road scenario.
The RPM band for these speeds equates to a little over 3000RPM right up to nearly the redline. An interesting point to note was “Vehicle B” can perform this run to 110 km/h and just hit the rev limiter, but “Vehicle A’s” rev-limiter cut in before the 110 was achieved. It was decided to perform all tests to 100km/h.
Performing an in-gear test with a rolling start allowed us to eliminate the variable factors encountered during launch and gear changes.
Testing was performed with a MR Dyno in high resolution mode (16 bit, 0.00025G’s), at a sampling rate of 100 samples per second.
A number of trial runs where done prior to the recorded results, primarily to allow Michael to get used to the testing procedure, and also to ensure the test road was suitable, and repeatable results were obtainable.

Note: All tests were performed with a driver and passenger. Sometimes the two people swapped roles, but it was always the same two people.

Driving Impressions
The most notable impression from driving the car with the CZ Stage 1 mod “On” is a VERY NOTICABLE power reduction the low to mid-range RPM. This eventually was followed by a “kick” after about 5000 RPM. After the kick, it was difficult to tell if any more power was being made. To me, it felt like it was eventually making similar power, but I had already “lost the race” and I was not going to catch up.
I must emphasise the mid-range “flat spot” is my most disliked aspect of the Australian RX-8 fitted with CZ Stage 1.
“Car B” was noticeably crisper, and felt stronger than “Car A” (with Stage 1 “Off”).

Measured Air/Fuel Ratios
No graphs have been made of this data, although I have it available for further analysis.
The results provided in this section are visual observations made while monitoring a digital readout on the scan tool.
With the Stage 1 unit “Off”, Car A recorded AFR’s in the high 11:1 to low to mid 12:1 range. This was at WOT, and mainly observed in the higher half of the RPM range.
With the Stage 1 unit “On”, Car A recorded AFR’s in the high 12:1 to low to low 13:1 range. This was at WOT, and mainly observed in the higher half of the RPM range.
Note these AFR’s are derived from the measured lambda values and using a factor of 14.64 for gasoline.
Measured Performance Results

40-100 km/h, 2nd gear, Wide Open Throttle

Car A – Stage 1 “Off”
Run ID Elapsed Time (seconds) Comment
1 5.79
2 5.83
3 6.32
4 6.13
5 6.66
6 6.71

Car A – Stage 1 “On”
Run ID Elapsed Time (seconds) Comment
7 6.74
8 6.30
9 6.61
10 6.79
11 6.57
12 7.35 High figure excluded from averages.
13 6.07
14 6.19 } 3 best runs for CZ
15 6.07

Car B – No modifications
Run ID Elapsed Time (seconds) Comment
16 5.18
17 5.25
18 5.14 Consistent results obtained.

Graphs from data logged with MR Dyno



The power measured by the device is derived from the weight of the vehicle, along with the measured rates of acceleration and time. Descrepencies in weight would introduce errors here, albiet small. Also note that tilt or squat compensataion factors were not used in any of the tests. This was not deemed necessary as the car was not subjected to a lot of this due to the in-gear testing (launches and gear changes contribute a lot to chassis squat).
The “G-Force” readings are probably the best indication of the accelerative forces applied to the car. They are actual readings, therefore not subject to computational variances that involve such physical variables as weight, and environmental variables such as temperature, humidity, pressure etc, like the power readings can be.
All tests where all done on the same day within approximately 2 or 3 hours. The weather characteristics on the day did not change noticeably during that time, so the relativity of the measurements to each other should be reliable.

Summary
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the results of these tests.[list=1][*]The Stage 1 unit does not improve the overall performance of the Australian RX-8.[*]The peak acceleration occurred at the same point in the RPM range, with effectively the same value. (Comparing Stage 1 On and Stage 1 Off).[*]The peak power produced was effectively the same. (Comparing Stage 1 On and Stage 1 Off).[*]There is a noticeable decrease in torque produced between approximately 4000 RPM and 5500 RPM. (Comparing Stage 1 On and Stage 1 Off). At all other points of the RPM range the acceleration (aka torque) and power were, for all intents and purposes, identical.[*]There is a noticeable difference in performance between 2 cars that are mechanically identical besides weight. The only difference being in trim/accessories. The standard difference in kerb mass between the 2 cars is only about 30kg.[*]The characteristics of the torque/power curves are very similar between the 2 cars (Stage 1 OFF on Car A). This would tend to indicate the tune is pretty much the same in both cars. Factors affecting the different levels or performance are at this time put down to weight, and fuel. Also noted is the 2 cars might be driven differently on a day-to-day basis, and the computer has learned different adjustments to both the long-term and short-term fuel trims. From my experience a modern vehicle only needs to do 2 or 3 power runs for the computer to re-learn and adjust to any changes to the volumetric efficiency (i.e. different intake and exhaust).[/list=1]

Due to the significant performance difference between the 2 test vehicles, it would be an interesting exercise to re-test with the CZ unit on Vehicle B.

timbo

Great report, objective, with excellent data… which is exactly what people wanted to see

Kev

Excellent Hymee.

Thanks for your efforts - a true gentleman!

RobDickinson

Any idea how this may affect Euro spec 231ps cars?

Z88M

CZ

An idea (not sure how good it is) - given we are all running 98 RON fuel down here anyway why not try/test the J spec map (if you have it) - that should give us an increase from 177KW (231bhp) to 184 KW (247 bhp). Worth trying?

canzoomer

98 RON is about the same as 91 Octane determined by Pump Octane value. Formula is (R+M/2) where R=RON,M=MON.

Same fuel values as we use here. Just expressed differently.

Read this for more detailed explanation:

http://www.btinternet.com/~madmole/R...RONMONPON.html

Euro and UK cars seem to have the same map as N. America, as the results and AFR #'s we are getting are identical.

Aus seems to be the only anomaly case we have found ( so far) and the results I am starting to get back from the testers are bizarre, to say the least.

One fellow sent me dyno run graphs from a Dynopack dyno today.

I am seeing stock RX-8 running 157.43 KW. That is under 160HP.
Stock N.American cars make 165 to 178 depending on the dyno you use (Dynojets make bigger numbers, Mustangs make much smaller #'s and Dynopacks tend to fall in between).

Further the AFR readings before and after are wild!
I am still trying to weed out possibilies of testing or calibration issues, but so far what I am seeing is VERY strange!

More to follow as we get it and analyze.

canzoomer

Another very clear fuel rating explanation. Realworld stuff.

http://www.asmartin.com/b_octane.htm

ChrisW

I believe 98 RON translates to about 93 PON. It seems to be a generally accepted rule of thumb that you add 4-5 to the PON numbers to get the RON. See following site for specific information on Optimax RON amd MON numbers:

http://www.millersoils.net/pdf_downl...ers_octane.pdf

In the UK we are told in the handbook to use 95 RON or better, which implies it is similar to US 91 octane, assuming we have the same maps. Were the results and AFR's you refer to for the Euro cars obtained with 95 RON or 91 PON? If so then maybe the Australian cars also have the same map but what you are seeing is the effect of the higher octane fuel?