i've seen this before, when a technician thinks he's an engineer just cause he works with the hardware and knows all the terminology.

 

Damn, this guy seriously owned us. I'm going to go buy some tissue so I can cry myself to sleep.

 

Falcon GSR:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't believe you, since your story doesn't add up. But, it doesnt matter really.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Right. Perfectly matches:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This is why Falcon GSR hasn't responded with the requested zener/RRR links yet, because they simply do not exist. I'm sure he'll completely ignore it ever happened though and respond with something off-topic.</TD></TR></TABLE>

J.Davis

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No, you won't listen.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, you're just speakin irrelevant B.S. that dosen't relate to the function of the device. Your arguements are all about me, not all about the device.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hey, Jerky, you do realize I have most of an EE? AS FALCONGSR STATED: go play with a nice PS, an o-scope, and a Zener, and watch how it enters into reverse breakdown. Note how it does not behave as you think it does. I am well aware that many people - like the mini mopar guys - have been fond of using a zener as a clamp over the years, but if you ever stick a wideband on one of those cars you'd know why it's not a good idea. There is nothing razor sharp or precise about it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Right. I'll consider all of this the next time my GLHS clicks off another high 11 QM. Precise, no. Works, yes. At least you see that it works on other cars. Now my question to you is: "What makes you think that it won't work on a honda??"

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There is a reason people are able to put out 500 whp on stock bottom end GSRs for short period - it is because they don't use FMUs, and because they don't advocate patchwork quilt style hacks that **** your ignition maps to the point you have no control over them and there is nothing you can do to get control over your ignition. Unless you wanted to throw away the setup you advocate.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't know where you inferred that a set-up like this would work on a 500hp GSR (nor would an SAFC for that matter or your suggested solution, but that's besides the point) but I certainly didn't say that. Try again. If you're making 500hp, you'd either be a fool, or incredibly fortunate to use a stock ECU's ignition tables. What a coincidence, the SAFC dosen't adress timing either. Hey look at that - neither does your accumulation of components on PGMFI.com. Like I once said, you're quick to point fingers 'like your **** don't stink' when your solution is just as limited.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A good illustration of your ignorance, to freshen the minds of those around us:</TD></TR></TABLE>

Wow. You did a good job on showing your hypocracy when you said:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The argument is only two pages or so back, for anyone with a brain in their head who cares to read it and see reality versus fucktarded fantasy.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I supposed it's not apporpriate for me to show the numerous times I **** in your mouth, but it's okay for you to bring up issues from the very same post.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Now, dumbass, let's break netsearch down real simple for you. You want complete and total razor sharp control of fuel and ignition curve for pennies? A better setup that controls both fuel and ignition for less than the price of your bullshit fuel no spark controlling rig job? I already linked your dumbass to pgmfi.org, but I suppose the big words you found there hurt your little pin head - like I said, arguing with you is pointless.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Okay..I'll play along. Show me how your device controls spark under different circumstances than mine would or any differently than the SAFC does. In all circumstances, the answer = Not at all. We're all dependant on the ECU's timing maps. The only difference is that both your solution and the SAFC scale the stock maps, where as mine does not. BTW, nice try on making this a pissing contest between "yours and mine".

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Quote »
Sure. I actually used the incorrect part described above. Instead of a pot, use a Zener Diode. Diode NTE5068A in particular. This with the accompanyment of a RRR = unimaginable tunability


Here's was the very first example of your revisionist view of history </TD></TR></TABLE>

Your reccolection dosen't match the events. I didn't bulldoze the events and act like it was that way all along. I stated that I used the incorrect part described (after I put pen to paper to decide what the best method would be) and then discussed the CORRECT part to be utilized. You are trying to illustrate it as if I started using the term Zener diode as if I had never discussed the potentiometer which anyone who is literate can see simply did not happen. Try again.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well, jerky, you must tell us how a Zener can be used in a voltage divider</TD></TR></TABLE>

Obvious solutions seem to elude you. I'll break it down so others like you with a mild case of downsyndrome can follow along: X MAP voltage = sets off Limp Mode. Unless this is a desirable situation for you, it's reccomended that you block the ECU from seeing this voltage. Hm... How could we do that?? Maybe....a zener! Brilliant!!! No, not brilliant. Obvious. The way that a zener and a voltage divider would work together is if the area that is cut out by the divider is a set of maps that suit your needs. Otherwise I'd just use the stock ECU to it's full range of 11psi (which is exactly what I did).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how an AFC is like a Zener,</TD></TR></TABLE>

Because it blocks the ECU from effectively seeing the voltage that would set it into limp mode. Use your head.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and how a Zener that undergoes reverse breakdown at 4.3 volts @ 58 mA is relevant to ANYTHING on a forced induction Honda running your ill-advised </TD></TR></TABLE>setup?

This question seems completely irrelevant to anything at all. It's as relevant as the SAFC is, or your solution, simply approached from a different angle. It's relevant because it stops the ECU from setting you into limp mode and still allows you to add fuel by an alternate means. For something like a 310cc injectors that the factory ECU's stock duty cycles can still land close on, you likely won't even need the RRR because it's still gonna send the injectors into nearly 100% DS anyway. Naturally, you'd still limit your self in maximum safe boost but for $52-$102 worth of components, you really can't complain. If it won't do what you want, then don't use it.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This one was making me laugh real hard. I infer he means 14.7 AFR, not psi,</TD></TR></TABLE>

Correct. My brain misfires at 2am with 17hrs of prior activity. Notice they typos as well.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The jackass states you can run 18 psi boost with a 14.7:1 AFR and you'd be exact but have no room for error... uh, 14.7:1 AFR under boost is a big fat error, Jerky.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Really?? Why don't you tell me what the error is, jackass. If you're retarded enough to run less fuel with the same timing you had at a much richer AFR, then YOU are the fucktard. BTW, since apparantly no one ever told you, cars make more power the closer to stoich they are. The car would make peak power at 14.7:1 guaranteed if the timing is set to suit or if the correct fuel were used. Cyl pressures are of the utmost importance the closer to stoich you are at higher boost presures. Running a lower AFR like 11:1 simply gives you more room for a lean condition but costs you power, so you try to make it up in advancing timing. LOL, that'll be the day that you can give me tuning advice, son.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">He also states that Intel 8061 (EEC-IV) and 8065 (EEC-V) are 32 bit MCUs. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Really?? I did?! Okay. Show me the line I said it in.

Exactly. Shhhhhh.....

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Damn, this guy seriously owned us. I'm going to go buy some tissue so I can cry myself to sleep.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Wow. Seems like it's just as insignifigant to you as it was to me. Why is J. Davis making it seem like it's the biggest travesty in the modern world?

 

All that typing and you said absolutely nothing. I'm impressed.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The car would make peak power at 14.7:1
</TD></TR></TABLE>

How about, no?

Sure, running 10.0:1 can lose power, but have you ever actually tried running a car on a dyno under full load at 14:7:1?

You really need to quit with your ill-educated "understanding" of fuel injection science and your radio shack electronics experience.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How about, no?

Sure, running 10.0:1 can lose power, but have you ever actually tried running a car on a dyno under full load at 14:7:1?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I like how you conveniently omitted the portion of the statement that discusses fuel. In either case it was not exactly 14.7 but quite close. I'll break it down for you as best as I recall the situation:

2001 Cobra with an D1-R blower at 16psi with an Eagle crank, Manly rods and Diamond pistons running on straight C10 with stock heads and cams on denso iridums with .36 gaps (stock is .33). On street gas the car dynoed at about 510-515 with 19° base timing with a final *DYNO AFR of ~10.8:1. With the C10 in the tank and 12° timing at 21psi, otherwise identical set-up and a final AFR of ~13.8:1 (started to knock on the C10 any higher with that timing) the car dynoed in the 580's. Turning the timing back up to 19° and the AFR back down in the 10's, the car made hp in the 560's. Granted it made the 560's more safely, it certainly made less than it did tuned leaner. Obviously I wouldn't send a car out on the street with a dyno AFR that high (*I'd like to see if any of you three bench racers can guess why*), but the point still stood; Cars run harder the closer they are to blowing up. It's a basic fact of racing. Same thing applies for timing. More timing usually = more power. The reason that both leaner mixtures and more timing will equate to more power is that both of which raise cylinder pressures, which push pistons down with more force, which rotates the crank with more force which will eventually translate to more force at the wheels.

Ideally, if you could harness knock, you'd be driving an unbelivably torquey monster that wouldn't even require spark plugs to combust fuel and still run considerably high boost, high compression and 2000°+ EGTs all day if you had the correct fuel. Hey...that's how diesel engines work!

Now that the three of you simpletons have made this an issue of "Him vs. Us" rather than "will it work or not?" you've completely derailed the entire topic. Congrats. Now, do you want to get back on topic, or still whine about misdirected reasons that it won't work?


Modified by Black FMIC at 9:15 AM 4/17/2004

 

 

Your "device" does not work as stated, and is a poor waste of money given the less expensive alternatives available that give you full control of fuel and ignition maps.

Also, you are an idiot.

There, I seperated my statements in re your "device" and it's real world functionality from my opinion of you. Into two seperate paragraphs, no less! Surely you can follow?


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Precise, no. Works, yes. At least you see that it works on other cars. Now my question to you is: "What makes you think that it won't work on a honda??"</TD></TR></TABLE>

Precise, no? Given the less expensive options available that render you full and complete control of your fuel and ignition mappings within the ECU, I reiterate: you are wasting time with your uneducated (and obviously uneducatable) bullshit.

As far as it not working for a Honda, I reiterate my earlier question; what does a NTE5068A Zener, which you specifically stated as your Zener of choice for a Honda application, with a reverse breakdown voltage of 4.3 volts, have to do with a forced induction Honda? How exactly do you think this would do *anything* worthwhile?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know where you inferred that a set-up like this would work on a 500hp GSR (nor would an SAFC for that matter or your suggested solution, but that's besides the point) but I certainly didn't say that. [quote]

The setup I advocate the most on this forum was used recently to generate 400 whp on a B16 with a perfectly flat AFR across the board, and correct ignition timing. Have I mentioned it costs less while simultaneously being superior to the less than precise fuel zero ignition controlling hack you advocate without any experience with Hondas whatsoever?

[quote]Try again. If you're making 500hp, you'd either be a fool, or incredibly fortunate to use a stock ECU's ignition tables. What a coincidence, the SAFC dosen't adress timing either. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Uh, I beg to differ. An AFC very much *does* address your ignition tables - just not in any way you would want it to. If you researched the subject - read this thread perhaps? - you would be aware of that.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hey look at that - neither does your accumulation of components on PGMFI.com. Like I once said, you're quick to point fingers 'like your **** don't stink' when your solution is just as limited.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You ******* imbecile. Your jaw is going to hit the floor when you actually visit pgmfi.org.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Okay..I'll play along. Show me how your device controls spark under different circumstances than mine would or any differently than the SAFC does. In all circumstances, the answer = Not at all. </TD></TR></TABLE>

http://www.pgmfi.org

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">We're all dependant on the ECU's timing maps.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes! Exactly my point! What are your ECU's timing maps?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The only difference is that both your solution and the SAFC scale the stock maps, where as mine does not.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nope, "mine" doesn't... whether you are talking about one of the solutions I've been advocating on this forum for over a year now, or the quaint trailerpark gimmick you think I mean because your dumb *** won't take a clue and check out pgmfi.org.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">BTW, nice try on making this a pissing contest between "yours and mine".</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's a pretty successful pissing match... you'd be more competitive, if still not in my league, if you took your diaper off first.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Your reccolection dosen't match the events. I didn't bulldoze the events and act like it was that way all along. I stated that I used the incorrect part described (after I put pen to paper to decide what the best method would be) and then discussed the CORRECT part to be utilized. </TD></TR></TABLE>

No, stunna, you still have not explained why in the world *anyone* would care to use a NTE5068A Zener diode in a forced induction Honda application. We are all curious, do explain this one away!


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Obvious solutions seem to elude you. I'll break it down so others like you with a mild case of downsyndrome can follow along: X MAP voltage = sets off Limp Mode. Unless this is a desirable situation for you, it's reccomended that you block the ECU from seeing this voltage. Hm... How could we do that?? Maybe....a zener! Brilliant!!! No, not brilliant. Obvious.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, the obvious solution is to fix the Honda ECU so it responds to voltages above X.

The hack is to use a Zener to act as a voltage clamp so that the ECU never sees above X voltage... so what does that have *anything* to do with a NTE5068A Zener, Jerky?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Otherwise I'd just use the stock ECU to it's full range of 11psi (which is exactly what I did).</TD></TR></TABLE>

Where are you getting that the Honda ECU - or any of it's sensors - have a full range of 11 psi? Abort, Retry, or Fail?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">LOL, that'll be the day that you can give me tuning advice, son</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hrm, I think I like you stupid. I'd really hate to tell you everything you don't know so your **** holds together for ten whole minutes and you make the mistake of confusing it for anything having to do with your intellect or abilities.

 

XDEep has a nice idea there... how you liking TurboEdit, btw?

Here's Ghettodyne, which Jason Parker superceded with his nicely done TurboEdit when Mike R decided to start playing with 300ZX's. I did a lot of the beta testing for Ghettodyne, I was pretty proud of it at the time.




Here's old school ERM, which became Uberdata, which I also did the early beta testing for. Blake Warner actually threw away ERM and started from scratch with Uberdata.



Now, Jerky, what's so funny is you hit at least two Uberdata/TurboEdit related threads per page of either the Forced Induction Forum or the Tech Forum, both of which I know you've visited over the past couple of days. How could anyone who knows SO MUCH about Hondas and their ECUs and the manner in which the ECUs behave not be aware of these tools.... or where they were derived from?

 

This is my summary.

Solution #1: Zener diode (+ voltage divider) + RRR. The zener diode prevents the ECU from seeing boost and the RRR takes care of the fuel when there is boost.
Solution #2: SAFC + larger injectors. The SAFC scales down the map reading to prevent the ECU from seeing boost and the larger injectors compensates the shorter injector pulses. Also gives the ability to adjust the fuel based on rpm.

Which solution is better? Depends on what you believe.
1. Under boost (or na), does RPM have an effect on the fuel solution?
2. How exact does the boost (or na) fuel solution need to be?

Look at the evidence:
1. Honda ECU has a 2d table for fuel based on MAP and RPM. So RPM must have some effect on the fuel solution. If this is true under NA, why would it not be true for boost.
2. Experience has shown many turbo hondas using nothing but a check valve and RRR run well. The zener diode is just an electronic check valve. Now, carbs provide fuel based on solely on air flow. Plenty of cars make good power with carbs.

Draw your own conclusion based on the evidence (and other evidence you may have).

In summary, I believe both solution will work. Real world evidence has shown that. Which is better, depends on what you believe needs solving. Argue about the problem, not the solution. Thanks for your time.

- wei

 

wc, old boy is arguing about using a Zener (one that doesn't act as a functioning MAP voltage clamp on a Honda) and an FMU/RRR and a set of large (over twice the size of stock) injectors and a voltage divider to attempt (unsuccessfully) to tune transitory fuel and provide "infinitely adjustable" fuel control.

He's not talking about a regular FMU/check valve setup where you get fancy and use a voltage clamp in place of the check valves.

 

Holy **** I think I just learned more in the last two pages than I have this entire semester.

 

TTT, I'd like Black FMIC to "**** in my mouth" some more.

I'm feeling all fat and sassy... if he's game I think I'll delve into why his theory of the relationship of AFR and power is stupid.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">TTT, I'd like Black FMIC to "**** in my mouth" some more.

I'm feeling all fat and sassy... if he's game I think I'll delve into why his theory of the relationship of AFR and power is stupid. </TD></TR></TABLE>


jdavis, take ur pee pee out of his bunghole, he's down for the count and bleeding somewhere


boy, i dont know if i should laugh or feel sorry for this guy....

 

please...delve away. im interested either way.

 

I had a hack idea, please let me know if u think it would work.

First of i have a B16a with obd0 pr3 in a crx. Turbo edit doesn't really have a turbo support for it just a stock pin that u can just mess with fuel/timing maps. Now using the vfac hack to cut down the voltage so the cel doesn't pop up, set the timing values at -40 so it off sets the advancing on timing along with a boost related retard. Is this feasible or just a waste of time?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mad Chemist &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I had a hack idea, please let me know if u think it would work.

First of i have a B16a with obd0 pr3 in a crx. Turbo edit doesn't really have a turbo support for it just a stock pin that u can just mess with fuel/timing maps. Now using the vfac hack to cut down the voltage so the cel doesn't pop up, set the timing values at -40 so it off sets the advancing on timing along with a boost related retard. Is this feasible or just a waste of time? </TD></TR></TABLE>

It's not a bad idea, and it works pretty well. I've run it on my CRX, a couple of cars around town, and JalopySiR's B20B turbo made 200 whp off of 6 psi running a .bin I made custom for him. Work at it a little bit and think about how the ignition maps shift due to the AFC hack... it would be easiest to check your work against one of my .bins to be found: http://pgmfi.org/phorum/read.php?f=35&i=1&t=1.

Make sure you read the thread *entirely* as some of the early .bins are flawed or have been superceded.

BTW, I'm not sure it's level of support yet, but Crome now supports PR3/PW0... I don;t think it has boost support yet, though.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

It's not a bad idea, and it works pretty well. I've run it on my CRX, a couple of cars around town, and JalopySiR's B20B turbo made 200 whp off of 6 psi running a .bin I made custom for him. Work at it a little bit and think about how the ignition maps shift due to the AFC hack... it would be easiest to check your work against one of my .bins to be found: http://pgmfi.org/phorum/read.php?f=35&i=1&t=1.

Make sure you read the thread *entirely* as some of the early .bins are flawed or have been superceded.

BTW, I'm not sure it's level of support yet, but Crome now supports PR3/PW0... I don;t think it has boost support yet, though.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I saw those last pr3 and pwo bins, did you test out that pr3 bin and how would you think it would work with my setup
Stock b16a
dsm 450s Vfac set to the proper hack values
cometic .043 hp gasket (about 9.8:1)
SC34 tial blah blah blah
(im not to sure how to tune a ignition curve but im trying like hell to learn)

 

Also, how can we modify the ecu/turbo edit so the ecu can see boost on the old school pr3 and take the vfac and toss it?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Where are you getting that the Honda ECU - or any of it's sensors - have a full range of 11 psi? Abort, Retry, or Fail?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Where did I get that from? Hondata. Wanna see where, or will you just bulldoze this ****-grenade that I put in your ****-polisher and pretend like I never **** in your mouth like you usually do. Can you at least explain in a logical way for once, why it is that you can't seem to answer any of my questions, or why it is that you had your monkey-*** moderators ban me? Lets see if you'll answer either of these or if you can do it without trying to dound like you were too cool or too smart to be bothered.

Now...I can see that your arguement has changed from "a zener diode won't work" to "that particular zener diode won't work" because you finally realize that it IS possible. If the described Zener is too high to leave someone in the safety range, then use a lower one. There are many zeners in the 3 volt range. The reason you try to derail this and in your own admittance "refuse to help" is because it will A: make you look like a complete jackass since you swore up and down that it wont work and B: make your "solution" look like an excessive piece of illconcieved **** like it is. Maybe you also realize that 310cc injectors with stock honda maps (which will send them to 100% DC at WOT w/high RPM anyway) will support up to 250hp, which means that 90% of these individuals with 310cc's and realistic performance goals (read: less than ~11psig) can spend $2 and have their fuel solution more than good enough to embarass DSM's. You tried to block this information from getting out because it dosen't serve YOUR ego. As a matter of fact, it does quite the opposite.

On another note:<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">TTT, I'd like Black FMIC to "**** in my mouth" some more.

I'm feeling all fat and sassy... if he's game I think I'll delve into why his theory of the relationship of AFR and power is stupid. </TD></TR></TABLE>

LOL, that's a good laugh. I doubt you even realize why AFR's go down as CFM goes up. Since history shows that neither you or the cockbreathed moderators can answer any of the questions I've asked any of you 3 monekys, I'll answer it for you. AFR's go down as CFM goes up because of the inefficiencys in an engine's fuel delivery. As the air is traveling at a higher speed at high engine RPM toward the combustion chamber, there is less time for the fuel to properly atomize and distribute evenly with the incoming charge. The solution thus far has been to throw MORE fuel in that same amount of time so that more fuel gets the chance to atomize with the air charge, which also results in a higher percentage of the fuel not being combusted which reflects in a lower AFR. Instead of bringin up efficiency, they just throw more mass (in this instance fuel) at it. Same way Chevy builds engines.

Like I already said, you ignorant baboon, that'll be the day that you teach me anything about tuning. Oh..before I forget; If you plan to attack me in the same middleschool ways that you have been, at least make sure I have the opportunity to **** in your hair like I have been doing. Don't try to make it look like I ran away from your egotistical retorts, like you've been doing when you know damn well that I was banned.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1316130057 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

LOL, that's a good laugh. I doubt you even realize why AFR's go down as CFM goes up. Since history shows that neither you or the cockbreathed moderators can answer any of the questions I've asked any of you 3 monekys, I'll answer it for you. AFR's go down as CFM goes up because of the inefficiencys in an engine's fuel delivery. As the air is traveling at a higher speed at high engine RPM toward the combustion chamber, there is less time for the fuel to properly atomize and distribute evenly with the incoming charge. The solution thus far has been to throw MORE fuel in that same amount of time so that more fuel gets the chance to atomize with the air charge, which also results in a higher percentage of the fuel not being combusted which reflects in a lower AFR. Instead of bringin up efficiency, they just throw more mass (in this instance fuel) at it. Same way Chevy builds engines.

Like I already said, you ignorant baboon, that'll be the day that you teach me anything about tuning. Oh..before I forget; If you plan to attack me in the same middleschool ways that you have been, at least make sure I have the opportunity to **** in your hair like I have been doing. Don't try to make it look like I ran away from your egotistical retorts, like you've been doing when you know damn well that I was banned.</TD></TR></TABLE>

So much anger. Get laid or something.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by boostincoupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

So much anger. Get laid or something. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Blah, it went both ways. At least he was bringing up alternative ideas...

 

One of my pet peeves for the last couple years is that Hondata is wrong. I've yet to see a single honda MAP sensor register "11.3 psi" as per their claim. Zdyne, conversely, reports the OBD0 Honda MAP sensor as reading 9.25 psi before it stops responding... I leave you to figure out the limits of the OBD1 sensor yourself.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Now...I can see that your arguement has changed from "a zener diode won't work" to "that particular zener diode won't work" because you finally realize that it IS possible. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I think I mentioned right off that the mini-Mopar guys use them, and that they work as a clamp but that I don't approve of their use in the day and age of cheap standalone engine management.

You, however, first say "potentiometer" then say "Zener" and state a completely inappropriate part number, and now try to edit history again so you don't have to offer explainations for your lack of understanding of speed density EFI.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Maybe you also realize that 310cc injectors with stock honda maps (which will send them to 100% DC at WOT w/high RPM anyway) will support up to 250hp, which means that 90% of these individuals with 310cc's and realistic performance goals (read: less than ~11psig) can spend $2 and have their fuel solution more than good enough to embarass DSM's. You tried to block this information from getting out because it dosen't serve YOUR ego. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Wow, 250 CRANK hp at OEM 41 psi fuel pressure w/ 100% duty means that you're running 0.42 BSFC. A turbo car should run more like 0.60-0.65 BSFC, yet you recommend 13.2:1 under boost? That's about as bright as you running over 12:1 AFR with race gas on that Mustang you mentioned, bucko

Anyone can verify my work at RC engineering's injector worksheet: http://www.rceng.com/technical.htm#WORKSHEET. However, be fairly warned, RC only provided that worksheet to appease my ego and it has *nothing* to do with reality.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Nope, you haven't asked any questions I'll answer it for you. AFR's go down as CFM goes up because of the inefficiencys in an engine's fuel delivery. As the air is traveling at a higher speed at high engine RPM toward the combustion chamber, there is less time for the fuel to properly atomize and distribute evenly with the incoming charge. The solution thus far has been to throw MORE fuel in that same amount of time so that more fuel gets the chance to atomize with the air charge, which also results in a higher percentage of the fuel not being combusted which reflects in a lower AFR. Instead of bringin up efficiency, they just throw more mass (in this instance fuel) at it. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Cute theory, where'd you get it? Vizard made a nice little study on detonation a few decades back and posited something a lot different, you might want to check it out. While you're at it, read up a little on Obert.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you know damn well that I was banned.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Truthfully, I had no idea. All the mods I was talking to left you alone because dustin seemed to be enjoying you... if you were banned, it was either for something you did on some other forum/thread, or dustin himself decided you needed weeding out. No clue about any of that, though, just a little idle speculation.

 

i had no idea he was banned. i was wondering why this thread had sank down.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One of my pet peeves for the last couple years is that Hondata is wrong. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Right. Another of your pet peeves is the concept of "2% milk". Now from my P.O.V., I say to my self: "Who do I have confidence in...a company that sells countless units a year that work quite well on high-powered cars and a reputation that's virtually impecible..or someone who's factual knowledge of race engine function I frequently call into question." That's a no-brainer. I'm going with Hondata by light years.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think I mentioned right off that the mini-Mopar guys use them, and that they work as a clamp but that I don't approve of their use in the day and age of cheap standalone engine management.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Here's two more humorous statements. 1: In the past, you stated that the zener works on the turbo-dodge crowd and that prompted me to ask "so you admit that it works on other cars, now what makes you think it won't work on a Honda??" and you had no answer, just like you still don't. You ignored it as usual because you know the response makes you look like a complete idiot. 2: "Cheap Standalone Engine Management" is tremendously relevant. $2000 is cheap to some. Then again, so is $8000. On the other hand, if one could spend $2 and have their fuel solved within enough range to make good power and not sacrifice engine reliability, I'd like to see one person that wouldn't. Sure you'd make more power with a stand-alone, but for $2, you really can't complain.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You, however, first say "potentiometer" then say "Zener" and state a completely inappropriate part number, and now try to edit history again so you don't have to offer explainations for your lack of understanding of speed density EFI.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Where did I try to edit history?? You speak as if I'm ignoring the chain of events to date. As usual, you are completely and tremendously wrong. For every revision I've acknowledged the changes, not bulldozed them. You act as though I once said "potentiometer" then said "zener" in its place like: Get X potentiometer to install in Y location. Now install the said Zener Diode in Y location". Anyone with an individual mind can see that this is not what happened. The shortcomings are adressed and improved upon. There is no "clean slate" here. That's far more evolution than it is edit. Try again hombre.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Wow, 250 CRANK hp at OEM 41 psi fuel pressure w/ 100% duty means that you're running 0.42 BSFC. A turbo car should run more like 0.60-0.65 BSFC, yet you recommend 13.2:1 under boost? That's about as bright as you running over 12:1 AFR with race gas on that Mustang you mentioned, bucko</TD></TR></TABLE>

lol. Another good piece of J.Davis brand Comic Relief. Uhh...just so we're on the same page..where exactly did I reccomend a 13.2:1 AFR? Also realize that BSFC dosen't have JACK **** to do with AFR. -sigh- I have to admit that I've finally come to a realization: That you are an internet engineer. You have little to no actual real world knowledge, just crap that you find online which is full of holes. Here are the numerous fronts that your calculations are grossly incorrect (as usual) on. For starters, your calculated PSIG is not a realworld pressure at peak power unless you make peak hp at your idle fuel pressure of 42psi which is rediculous. Lets say that the engine in question is utilizing 12psi of boost. Since the STOCK fuel pressure regulator at 42psig (as you state) is a 1:1, you'll be making 250hp at 12psi at WOT on this engine. Since you are introducing 12psi to the manifold, the STOCK Regulator will add 12 MORE psi to the base fuel pressure bringing it to 54psig (42psig + 12) at the measured hp of 250. Plug this accurate figure into the equasion and you will find a .53 BSFC, not the .41 that you state. The actual numbers go as follows:

250 hp

4 inj.

30 lbs/Hr (31.42 lb/Hr inj = 330cc's and 42lbs/hr = 440cc)

(leave blank)

54 PSIG

1.00 % - this is how 100% duty cycle is expressed with this worksheet.

The total is 0.53 BSFC with a 310cc injectors which is the ****-*** minimum to make 250hp. Real-world examples will use the 'lude 330's. Insert 330cc's (the more popular injectors) and you'll get a .57 BSFC - all of this with a bone stock FPR and/or pump. Feel retarded yet, Mr. Davis? Well you're about to. Using the innacurate numbers that you provided, with a pressure of 42psi (supposedly at peak HP at 12psig mani. pressure according to what you suggest) the BSFC is .49 (which anyone would round to .50). NOT .41 (which anyone would round to .40) like you suggested, which further proves to me that you either A: can not count, or B: are too uneducated to doublecheck your own work which is ALREADY wrong. In either instance, you are still an imbecile. BTW that makes 2 occasions that you provided me with a link that contradicts what you are saying it is supposed to prove. - As another tidbit of information, think of all the factory turbo cars in the U.S., all of which pass U.S emissions. Not one of them have .60X-.65X BSFC's because they simply wouldn't pass emissions testing. They're all in the .54-.58 range (go plug in the numbers your self if you don't believe me) and that's even with the "what if an idiot is driving this car on 86 octane in 5th uphill" factory tuning. Do they still run reliably? Absolutely. Once again J.Davis: That'll be the day that you can give me lessons in tuning.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Cute theory, where'd you get it? Vizard made a nice little study on detonation a few decades back and posited something a lot different, you might want to check it out. While you're at it, read up a little on Obert.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Where'd I get the theory? In a low DC, high fuel pressure F1 fuel sysyem. Not to mention the upcoming future of automotive fuel injection with super-high PSI line pressure and low DC's (again) and not to mention bike fuel injection which is also (can you guess??) low DC high pressure. Would you like to see this as well or will you just pretend like I never **** in your shampoo?? As far as Vizard and (insert fuel system engineer) goes, yet again you have proven that you are a complete and resolute imbecile. Vizard and everyone elses fuel theory adresses knock based on cyl temps that increase cyl pressure. They all coincide with the known fact that "fuel cools" reffering to the fact that gasoline drops cyl temps. The portion of it that YOU fail to comprehend is that cyl temp is not even in a cyl due to innadeqaute fuel delivery throughout the cyl. which raises temps in that lean portion of the cyl which will raise pressure and will eventually induce knock. Again and again J.Davis: That'll be the day that you can give me lessons in tuning. The main reason is that you are unable to 'think outside the box'. You can't form an image that someone dosen't spoonfeed you.


Modified by 1316130057 at 3:59 AM 4/29/2004

 

im not sure but i will try this setup soon