So I finally got my cobb and made the following changes to the stock map:

Fan temp A at 200
Fan temp B at 210

P0420 CEL hidden

I drove around for a bit to set my fuel trims and today I made the following logs to calibrate my MAF

first 2 are cruises
last one is idle followed by a 1st gear pull

My LTFT is a bit over 6% across the board

so I multiplied my MAF by 1.03 across the board.

I am stock up front, with a midpipe and catback out back

Discuss, gimme suggestions etc?


I fucked up the #1 and #3 datalogs when saving them ....

reserved

reserved.

reserved..

Congrats, it's not that difficult to do.

Wait, you rescaled your MAF on a stock intake?

yeah .... something weird happened tho .... I got a crank position CEL when I flashed to the new map .... I spent half the day trying to figure it out until I flashed back to the last one ... anyone else experience this?

yes, if you skew your maf too far you'll get a crank sensor code.

3% is too far??? Does it go away after a drive cycle?

What the heck is the point of rescaling the MAF on a completely stock intake? If the trims aren't near zero, so what. It's well within the design parameters that Mazda established. Fuel trims change with the weather, that's ok if the underlying calibration is ok and there are no mechanical problems.

What the heck is the point of rescaling the MAF on a completely stock intake? If the trims aren't near zero, so what. It's well within the design parameters that Mazda established. Fuel trims change with the weather, that's ok if the underlying calibration is ok and there are no mechanical problems.

The idea is to minimize it some so you can run more aggressive in open loop. But the injectors also need to be scaled, so the whole thing can become a chase your tail experience really fast.

so is there ANY way to scale it without throwing that CEL?

Leave the first two cells alone (the far left), they stay stock, scale the rest and you'll be fine.

oh okay ... thanks ... that's idle anyhow I guess

something weird happened tho .... I got a crank position CEL when I flashed to the new map

Leave the bottom-most MAF scale cell alone (as we discussed in the seminar).
Moving it can cause an ESS cell on some models.

Wait, you rescaled your MAF on a stock intake?

The OE intake can be off by as much as 12%.

Congrats, it's not that difficult to do.

Like you have any clue.

Like you have any clue.


More than you think, apparently.

So anyway, I popped in to see how the tunaing project was going. Catch anything yet?


.

thanks for checking in .... my cobb has an overheating issue and I sent it out for maintenance ... It also will refuse to connect live to ATR ... so I will be back when I receive it

More than you think, apparently.

Think? You demonstrated this fundamental ignorance. I don't have to think anything about it for it to be apparent.

Think? You demonstrated this fundamental ignorance. I don't have to think anything about it for it to be apparent.


It's apparent that you're doing a pretty good job of this yourself. :)



.

It's apparent that you're doing a pretty good job of this yourself.

Well, yeah. Gutting other people's ill-founded remarks is my specialty.

Well, yeah. Gutting other people's ill-founded remarks is my specialty.

I could have sworn that gutting yourself was your specialty above all else :wink2:

guys ... both of you have demonstrated and contributed lots of knowledge on this forum ... and I have nothing but respect for both of you ... but seriously, why do you feel the need to shit on each other on my thread

but seriously, why do you feel the need to shit on each other on my thread

Because it's fun.

Leave the bottom-most MAF scale cell alone (as we discussed in the seminar).
Moving it can cause an ESS cell on some models.

.

Interesting - never seen that . But mine is an 03 so i gues it doesn't have that issue .

Interesting - never seen that . But mine is an 03 so i gues it doesn't have that issue .

The AUDM/JDM 2003 model is the 2004 export model.
There were no significant changes from the start of production until the switchover to the 2005 MY.

Since you have some significant tuning issues with your PCM, it isn't likely that your example would be relevant.

The AUDM/JDM 2003 model is the 2004 export model.
There were no significant changes from the start of production until the switchover to the 2005 MY.

Since you have some significant tuning issues with your PCM, it isn't likely that your example would be relevant.

Issues ? Only one I can think of is inability to tune for different gears . But I've seen that with all cars using protuner. Could be a PT thing .....

Brettus, I was meaning to ask you ... how exactly did you test to find out that your PCM is only using one set of tables for all of the gears? Did you just flatline your AFRs to something stupid rich in one of them and watch your guage?

Issues ? Only one I can think of is inability to tune for different gears . But I've seen that with all cars using protuner. Could be a PT thing .....

Aah. The lower cell thing might just be an AP/ECUEdit/Harrison thing, then.
I could see how that might be just how a particular package handles the bits.

Brettus, I was meaning to ask you ... how exactly did you test to find out that your PCM is only using one set of tables for all of the gears? Did you just flatline your AFRs to something stupid rich in one of them and watch your guage?

put in some stupid rich numbers low in rpm range for each chart till I found the one that actually did something .

Spent the first month or so floundering around till I realised what was going on ....

put in some stupid rich numbers low in rpm range for each chart till I found the one that actually did something .

Spent the first month or so floundering around till I realised what was going on ....

Did you disconnect your front O2 sensor first?

/\ no..... why ?

that is how I figured out which chart worked - from the o2 sensor readout ....

/\ no..... why ?

that is how I figured out which chart worked - from the o2 sensor readout ....

Because it is the only reliable way to force open-loop at all RPMs.

/\ i went WOT - pretty sure that will force OL at all rpm ......

/\ i went WOT - pretty sure that will force OL at all rpm ......

A) No it wont; and
b) You aren't really testing much of the fuel table that way.

Cant you just set the Exit close loop RPM and or load to force it?

Because it's fun.

And we both ride equally high egotistical horses .... :rofl:

We each have acquired some unique knowledge, but we've both posted equally fubar statements over the years. We live, we learn, and more importantly we grow from the experience and knowledge we gain as we go. :)


.

A) No it wont; and
b) You aren't really testing much of the fuel table that way.

don't really need to test much of the table - just enough to say- yep that did something in that table for all 6 gears but did nothing in any of the other tables .

Hey stink, did you take MM's web seminar? Or are you wingin' it?

as a matter of fact I did ... and I highly recommend it to anyone

before I sent my cobb out, i did drive around quite extensively just keeping an eye on my afrs ... I am pretty spot on at 13.3 - 13.7 ... so I am not sure how much improvement I will be able to get with fueling ...

I am a bit too wary to touch my ignition timing...... I will have to do a lot more reading/ research before I feel brave enough to go there ... but I wanna do it myself

Sooo... if you guys could offer me guidance, that would be great!

/\ i went WOT - pretty sure that will force OL at all rpm ......

Not necessarily ... I've seen times when I was at WOT and still in closed loop for a second or two ... I gotta dig up the datalogs ... was your STFT 0?

don't really need to test much of the table - just enough to say- yep that did something in that table for all 6 gears but did nothing in any of the other tables .

That won't cut it.
I'm just sayin'...

And we both ride equally high egotistical horses .... :rofl:

We each have acquired some unique knowledge, but we've both posted equally fubar statements over the years. We live, we learn, and more importantly we grow from the experience and knowledge we gain as we go. :)


.

That's what life is all about .... TeamRX8, I gotta admit ... at first I thought you were just 100% dick ... now I think you are only 20% dick, 50% decent/ informative, and like 30% good guy

Could any of you fine gents suggest some good resources I should read on ignition timing/ dwell etc? I need some airplane reading material for my 10 hour trip to the motherland this weekend ... and I have my Engineering University's library at my disposal (Lehigh University, if any of you are curious)

It's only that big in my dreams .... :cwm27:

lol

Not necessarily ... I've seen times when I was at WOT and still in closed loop for a second or two ... I gotta dig up the datalogs ... was your STFT 0?

maybe a second or two - I'm not trying to argue that point because I have not really studied it in enough detail . Thing is the tests I did proved to me that only one map worked and nothing that is done on the other two maps does anything .
Seen the same thing 4-5 times with other PT users - seems to be a fault with the software .

Seen the same thing 4-5 times with other PT users - seems to be a fault with the software .

Very strange.
I'd like to see that resolved.

Very strange.
I'd like to see that resolved.

Not as much as I would . PIA not being able to tune for the different aux. port opening rpms in each gear + 1st and 2nd always end up leaner than I would like.

However - Mark has gone AWOL so not going to see any updates in the forseeable future .

So it is time I provide an update .... The car does not appear to be running poorly ... but its pig rich in the upper RPM (see attached file ... 3rd gear WOT pull starting from cell 233). Note: I was stupid and did not include STFT ... so I am going to assume I am in open loop


Now, how do I go about about fixing this ... here are the options that I am looking at
1. I scale the top of my MAF back down ... but I don't think the MAF is wrong because there is not a severe jump in the reading to correspond with the severe jump in AFR....
2. I scale my third injectors since they should be turning on right around there correct?
3. I smooth out my entire higher rpm power curve to say 11.5 afr and scale my MAF and injectors from there ... but this is too time consuming as it will probably take an entire day that I do not have until this weekend
4. Go out and get another WOT pull with STFT included to make sure I am def in open loop.

What do you guys think I should do?

Also as an aside ... I will be turbo by the new year and I am going to do my best to have MAF+ injectors dialed in soon ... is there anything else you guys think I should do to be ready (tunningwise)?

The car is running good ... but its pig rich in the upper RPM{/quote]

These two statements are mutually exclusive.
What you meant to say is that the car doesn't feel like it is running poorly.
But it is.

[quote=stinksause;3710439]I was stupid and did not include STFT ... so I am going to assume I am in open loop

Bad assumption.


Now, how do I go about about fixing this ....
What do you guys think I should do?

What did we do in the seminar?

Also as an aside ... I will be turbo by the new year and I am going to do my best to have MAF+ injectors dialed in soon ... is there anything else you guys think I should do to be ready (tunningwise)?

You will be starting over completely from scratch, so it doesn't matter. None of your current scaling will still apply.

I agree that I would have to rescale the MAF ... but why would I need to rescale my injectors?

Also, my cobb gives me an injector % duty cycle ... does that just apply to the primaries or is it referring to all of the injectors in total that are on at that point in time?

So MM, your opinion would be that I go out and get another log to make sure I am in OL and then scale my P3's since I will be starting from scratch soon enough anyway?

So I finally got my cobb and made the following changes to the stock map:

Fan temp A at 200
Fan temp B at 210

P0420 CEL hidden



Still have your air pump installed? There are a lot of emissions related items to hid beyond just this single item.

^yes I do ... I will be taking it out soon tho ... won't the PCM still throw a CEL after I disconnect the plugs (doesn't matter if I hide them or not)?

So it is time I provide an update .... The car does not appear to be running poorly ... but its pig rich in the upper RPM (see attached file ... 3rd gear WOT pull starting from cell 233).



That log shows 12 AFRs in upper RPMS - what is wrong with that ?

what injectors do you have ?

^yes I do ... I will be taking it out soon tho ... won't the PCM still throw a CEL after I disconnect the plugs (doesn't matter if I hide them or not)?

Once you hid/cancel/remove, or whatever you want to call turning them off, it will not effect your tune or power. Here are the ones that relate to the air pump that I could find:

P0410 AIR system problem
P2257 AIR pump relay control circuit low
P2258 AIR pump relay control circuit high
P2259 AIR solenoid valve control circuit low
P2260 AIR solenoid valve control circuit high

^ I get the 2259 due to my air pump being gone.

That log shows 12 AFRs in upper RPMS - what is wrong with that ?

what injectors do you have ?

I am trying to get it to like just around 13 ... I am on stock injectors ... The only think I touched so far was my MAF ... so you suggest I bump my fuel tables up a bit?

Aren't my AFR's closer to 11?

I am trying to get it to like just around 13 ... I am on stock injectors ... The only think I touched so far was my MAF ... so you suggest I bump my fuel tables up a bit?

Aren't my AFR's closer to 11?

Looks like around 11.7 -11.8 to me ?

Suggest you do not touch injector scaling at all if you have stock injectors . Just get your maf scaled such that LTFT settles at +/_ 3% then work on your fueling tables to get the desired AFRs .

BTW there is a VERY easy way to scale your MAF . You don't need to get hung up on getting it perfect .

BTW there is a VERY easy way to scale your MAF . You don't need to get hung up on getting it perfect .

Kane's method?

Looks like around 11.7 -11.8 to me ?

Suggest you do not touch injector scaling at all if you have stock injectors . Just get your maf scaled such that LTFT settles at +/_ 3% then work on your fueling tables to get the desired AFRs .

BTW there is a VERY easy way to scale your MAF . You don't need to get hung up on getting it perfect .


My LTFT is at 5% at the moment ... I am afraid that if I scale my top further, I will dip even richer ... how do you feel about scaling the bottom mid section ... from say 140g/s to like 20 g/s

So I finally got my cobb and made the following changes to the stock map:

Fan temp A at 200
Fan temp B at 210

Did you change the Hysteresis also? Will you not cool down too much without changing this value also?

so i just re read kane's method and ... i failed ... i need to finish scaling my maf

Nemesis, I did not change the hysteresis .... My fans will turn off at 200 - 37 = 163

Although it is a good thing for me to do ... I am not worried because
1) My termostat should be fully closed by like 175 - 180, at this point my fans will be working redundantly as there is little if any coolant flow to the rad
2) I never sit with my engine on for more than 2 minutes (no traffic in PA) as I find the fumes pretty much unbearable (catless).

Once you get moving above 7 mph the fans are set to turn off anyway.

Thanks for pointing that out though ... This will be implemented in my next map however, as I plan on doing a bit more scaling

So this weekend I am going to do a couple more logs and install my BHR coils ... updates to come ;)

Kane's method?

No Brettus's method :)

Don't want to confuse the issue for you so best you carry on with what you are doing .
I will say this though again - with NA tuning you don't need to be anal about maf scaling .

With LTFTs there are 3 phases

i'll call them
Idle 0-8g/s approx
off idle 8-18g/s approx
cruise 18g/s -40 approx g/s
40g/sapprox + = open loop

It's the cruise stage that determines open loop fuel trims but you should aim to get them all within +/_ 3 % . any adjustments past 40g/s approx. will have zero effect on your fuel trims .

Update:
I just made a new map that I will flash to once I install my BHR coils

Dwell Adjusted to BHR specs (x1.43)
MAF x 1.05 [3.5 g - 20g]
MAF x 1.03 [20g +]

Fan Hysteresi all set to 28 (original is 37)

CELs hidden:
P0410 AIR system problem
P2257 AIR pump relay control circuit low
P2258 AIR pump relay control circuit high
P2259 AIR solenoid valve control circuit low
P2260 AIR solenoid valve control circuit high

next mods after BHR: Catch Can, battery relocation, air pump pull

... big thanks to MM, Nemesis, Brettus, and Kane

map is attached.... datalogs to come!

So ... I just went outside to do my BHR coils and realized that I better not attempt to do them since I need my car tonight ... this video illustrates my frustration with BHR Charles fairly accurately as I was reading the instructions...

http://www.youtube.com/v/YIViI2V8jEg&hl=en&fs=1&start=26

It is probably better this way anyway since I dont want to be changing too many variables at the same time anyway ... I will instead be flashing to the same map but without the BHR adjustments

Update:
I just made a new map that I will flash to once I install my BHR coils

Dwell Adjusted to BHR specs (x1.43)
MAF x 1.05 [3.5 g - 20g]
MAF x 1.03 [20g +]

Fan Hysteresi all set to 28 (original is 37)

CELs hidden:
P0410 AIR system problem
P2257 AIR pump relay control circuit low
P2258 AIR pump relay control circuit high
P2259 AIR solenoid valve control circuit low
P2260 AIR solenoid valve control circuit high

next mods after BHR: Catch Can, battery relocation, air pump pull

... big thanks to MM, Nemesis, Brettus, and Kane

map is attached.... datalogs to come!


Well, I was more "asking" the question about the fan hysteresis than telling you to change it. Someone with more knowledge than me needs to verify that one.

I think your point was very valid and that's why I decided to act on it ... I am not too worried for now cause the temps around here get to like 70 at the hottest ... I'll have dedicated gauges by next summer ... right now I just use my COBB

Did you change the Hysteresis also? Will you not cool down too much without changing this value also?

That is just the value that takes it out of fan mode....

IE Fan ON 200F
Hysterisis - 5 means the fan turns off after 195. It's a little more complicated than that - but that is the gist.

See what I'm saying?

Yep - that makes sense. I guess you can also run too cold and change things also in looking at the maps. What is the perfect operating temp? 185F?

I cannot open that PTM file. Is ATR model year specific? I can open another forum members '04 turbo map, but I cannot open yours.

Yes, they are year specific.

I like to keep my car at 190-200F... at 203 is when I go into high fan mode.

Yep - that makes sense. I guess you can also run too cold and change things also in looking at the maps. What is the perfect operating temp? 185F?

I cannot open that PTM file. Is ATR model year specific? I can open another forum members '04 turbo map, but I cannot open yours.

You can only open that map because it was made on your version of ATR ;)

ha - that expains it... LOL

FAN1 is a two speed fan, correct? I have mine set:

FAN1 A 189
FAN1 A Hysteresis 37
FAN1 B 189
FAN1 A Hysteresis 37
FAN2 ECT 194
FAN1 A Hysteresis 37

Should I change my hysteresis also? I don't want the car to be too cold.

That 37 hysteresis value isnt degrees F...might be .1 degrees each`or something

The value for Metric values is 3 degrees C...makes a lot more sense that it is about 4degrees F

The fans would never shut of if it was 37 degrees...because the thermostat wouldn`t let the temp get that low

From the ATR Help PDF

Fan 1 – A Hysteresis
Table description – The amount of coolant temperature reduction (from the Fan 1 – A value) the ECU must see before it turns off Fan 1 – A, after it has been turned on by the ECU.

Doesn`t say what the value is though.....think about it..there is no way the fans would stay on till the car gets to 170ish degrees.....what is the thermostat temp ;)

Plus it`s 3 deg in the Metric scale...that makes sense :)

When in doubt, leave it stock.....(my motto)

Just lower the temps to turn them on.

Thermostat temp is 180 I believe ... pretty sure its in the 178 - 182 range if not

Yes, they are year specific.

I like to keep my car at 190-200F... at 203 is when I go into high fan mode.

but you are TURBOOOOOO

I'll prolly lower them soon enough

SO here are my datalogs with the NA working map from today .... I don't think the Long Term fuel trims have settled yet ... I have completed like 3 drive cycles since flashing to the new map ... it was from a miata cruise ... it was kinda cool ... the crowd were nice, but a bit too slow for me ;)

Before you started your own tune, did you attempt the MAF calibration?

Edit: I meant to ask, what method did you use to scale the MAF...

^ I am kinda confused ... I am STILL calibrating my MAF

I am just using my LTFT for now .... once they are within +-3% (hopefully after this iteration) I am going to flatten my tables out, make sure I am in open loop and use Kane's method


Currently, I am also doing it in REALLY small increments

Otherwise, I am picking up my turbo kit this weekend (greddy turbo) and hopefully this will allow me to be confident enough to set-up a turbo base map on my own until I get get dyno tuned

For anyone reading this, I cannot emphasize how much I recommend this http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=173014&page=12 ... it gave me the confidence to attempt what I am doing now

I read the MAF calibration help file in ATR, and it looks easier than I first thought. Kane has a good handle on it also. It's awesome you are attempting this. I'm running my own PTM for awhile, because I needed to tweak the dwell for my BHR coils. Waiting for MM's first iteration calibration file to arrive. Yep, I restarted an e-tune with MM while I study ATR and wait for the next webinar class. Maybe I will join you one day soon!

:p:

Currently, I am also doing it in REALLY small increments

While this might be playing it safe it is probably preventing you from seeing the real world effects of the changes you make .


For anyone reading this, I cannot emphasize how much I recommend this http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=173014&page=12 ... it gave me the confidence to attempt what I am doing now

Does MM go over all the maps you need to rescale etc for FI in his seminar ?

Absolutely, MM goes over everything

.... Nemesis it will be a good day when you do. This forum seriously lacks people attempting their own tunning

If you take more than two or three broad swipes at tweaking the MAF, you are fiddling with it too much.
Remember, there are only 3 effective load cells, so once you establish the base curve, you need only move those three ranges en masse. If you are playing with individual values or small groups of values, you are doing it wrong (for several reasons).

If you take more than two or three broad swipes at tweaking the MAF, you are fiddling with it too much.
Remember, there are only 3 effective load cells, so once you establish the base curve, you need only move those three ranges en masse. If you are playing with individual values or small groups of values, you are doing it wrong (for several reasons).

interesting . Sounds like I'm doing the same thing you do . I think a few people on here have led others to believe it is a complicated thing to do when it really isn't .

It just takes a careful understanding of where the break-points are and what a given amount of correction means to the resultant CL. I almost always get the MAF right on the first calibration update. It should only take one good datalog.

Ganbatte, Stinky. Ganbatte!!

bow chicka bow wow ... this is gonna get interesting


I am gonna take a break from tunning while I get these three books, gauges, and all the parts needed to make this kit reliable ....

since as MM said ... I am having some misunderstandings

http://www.amazon.com/Street-TurbochargingHP1488-Installation-High-Performance-Turbocharger/dp/1557884889/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1286227403&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Engine-Management-Advanced-Greg-Banish/dp/1932494421/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c

http://www.amazon.com/Turbo-Real-World-High-Performance-Turbocharger-S/dp/1932494294/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b


my goal with the turbo is a reliable 240 - 250 whp @ like 5 psi .... for now

Don't bother with those (though the Warner book is nice, if for no other reason than I am mention in it by name).
Get these:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51C3ZMP5ZVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
(http://www.amazon.com/Modify-Management-Systems-Motorbooks-Workshop/dp/0760315825/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286229250&sr=8-1)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hI7shOzXL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Turbocharging-Performance-Handbook-Motorbooks-Workshop/dp/0760328056/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286229250&sr=8-2)

^ Thanks. Been looking for some good reading material.

my goal with the turbo is a reliable 240 - 250 whp @ like 5 psi .... for now

very modest goals - makes a lot of sense to do it this way ;)

Anyway ... I am back guys. I have realized that I am getting a bit over my head with the turbo build. Therefore, I am focusing on prepping the car for turbo 1st. This includes cleaning and flowtesting injectors, cleaning SSV, spark plugs, BHR (just installed), oil pan, catch can and gauges.

Turbo install will be mid Feb.

For now, while my car is NA, I am going to practice getting my MAF calibrated as that will be the first thing I will need to do that when I am FI, but I will not have any room for silly mistakes in FI...

So here be go .... I am starting with Cruise Calibration. MAF x 1.1 (10%) and .25 - .69 load in gears 3 - 6 are set to 13.5 afr. OL is set to kick in at 3k rpm

Attached is the map. Let me know if you need me to provide it in a form other than AccessTuner.


FOR the newbs ... I am talking about the flat area in the screenshot

very modest goals - makes a lot of sense to do it this way ;)

The question is how long can one stick to those self imposed limits, especially when a boost controller makes it so easy... :)

until one gets a DD

A wise path indeed

Why did you bump the MAF 1.1?

Also, if you are NA looking for tuning heads up, work on injector scales. Since your maf will be off again when you change housings. They both work together so it is a bit of a catch 22.

I am sending my injectors out to get cleaned and flow tested when I get my UIM off ... so I will know what they are flowing and not need to rescale them? Can I rely on that?

I forgot to mention that I completely restarted from stock MAF as I had made too many changes with one on top of another that I did not feel like digging through. My LTFT were 10 - 12% across the board on stock tune, so I scaled up 10% from stock

As for scaling my MAF and injectors at the same time, I am afraid of chasing my tail too much. Furthermore, over 66k miles, my injectors ALONE can account for 10% deviation as they can be 10% dirty right?

I feel that sending out injectors for cleaning and flow testing is the best way to get them scaled.... I am also toying with the idea of upgrading to blue A/T injectors for P2 and tossing the red ones (ie moving the yellow to the primary location)....

http://www.discountfuelsystems.com/shop/?PN=2506&VN=4294967178+4294966839+4294965489+4294960953+429 4966580&N=0&Nr=AND(category:Fuel%20Delivery,universal:0)

question: Can I rely on the refurbished injectors to flow what they should OR should I ideally get those flow tested AS WELL?

I want to go for refurbed cause I don't think the price of new vs refurbed justifies new ... or does it? What's your opinion?

Tell me if I am being perfectionist ... I know that you can never have an IDEAL tune, but I want to get as close to ideal as possible by minimizing the variables

I am definitely looking for heads up and I will be NA until mid Feb ... thanks for all the help! I really appreciate it. Kane if you are ever on the East Coast, I owe you a case of beer! Also, thanks for recently adding me on FB (Dre Z)

I feel that sending out injectors for cleaning and flow testing is the best way to get them scaled.... I am also toying with the idea of upgrading to blue A/T injectors for P2 and tossing the red ones (ie moving the yellow to the primary location)....

)

Have run this way for a year now - has worked very well despite advice to the contrary .

What is the advice to the contrary?

Also, what about the diaphragm set-up of the stock fueling system, at what power, or fuel flow level would a return system be required? I guess, the answer is above what has been achieved on the Renesis?

What would you say the comfortable power limit of the stock injectors is?

What about the yellow, yellow, blue set-up? When (power wise, not reliability wise) I run into fuel pump issues and need to upgrade?

BHR website: " fundamental issue that the OE pump is designed to just barely fulfill the fueling requirements for 250 – 300 HP and probably only does so for a short period of time. Additionally, the OE siphon system will only continue to work as long as the pump is surpassing the fuel demands of the motor. As soon as its output is below demand, the siphon will stop working again. If you are racing and in a high-G left hand turn while accelerating in a high-output RX-8, you will almost immediately starve the pump.<br />
The 09+ assembly addresses some of the siphon issues, but is still designed to provide about 115 lph. A 350 HP+ Renesis will need closer to 200 lph"

I know this has been covered, but it's late.....

What is the advice to the contrary?

.....

MM advised that it doesn't work due to incorrect ratio between P1 and Secs but for me it has worked fine :dunno:


Also, what about the diaphragm set-up of the stock fueling system, at what power, or fuel flow level would a return system be required? I guess, the answer is above what has been achieved on the Renesis?
.....

Don't know , but the stock setup has worked for me to 350whp .



What would you say the comfortable power limit of the stock injectors is?
.....

300whp is not really "comfortable" but certainly do-able .


What about the yellow, yellow, blue set-up? "
.....

I ran out of fuel at 350whp with that setup so comfortable will be around 300-310 .


When (power wise, not reliability wise) I run into fuel pump issues and need to upgrade?

BHR website: " fundamental issue that the OE pump is designed to just barely fulfill the fueling requirements for 250 – 300 HP and probably only does so for a short period of time. Additionally, the OE siphon system will only continue to work as long as the pump is surpassing the fuel demands of the motor. As soon as its output is below demand, the siphon will stop working again. If you are racing and in a high-G left hand turn while accelerating in a high-output RX-8, you will almost immediately starve the pump.<br />
The 09+ assembly addresses some of the siphon issues, but is still designed to provide about 115 lph. A 350 HP+ Renesis will need closer to 200 lph"
.....


It's not so much the capacity of the pump that is the issue it's the "spare capacity" . The stock pump is deficient in certain situations but fine for a DD street car . I changed mine mainly due to blowing an engine at the track on 1/8th tank on a long sweeper. Read MMs first post on the Fuel pump upgrade thread .

MM advised that it doesn't work due to incorrect ratio between P1 and Secs but for me it has worked fine :dunno:

It isn't that it "doesn't work". It just doesn't work correctly.
You can do all kinds of chicanery to get it to "work", but it is still mucking about.

MM, so what is the correct way to add injectors?

I currently have the setup that way (380/380/480) and its been fine, although maybe MM 'mucked' around with it to make it work.

From my understanding, you want to keep the Primaries and Secondaries at the same ratio and keep the Primaries low for idling purposes, which usually will mean keeping those two as they are. The Primary 2 slot can be as large as you want and come on only when needed, but if you switch from the yellow, things get complicated because the primary 2 and secondary share the latency table.

Easiest solution to meet all those: Stock Primary, Stock Secondary, Yellow Modified Primary 2

That is basically correct. The secondaries are best kept at 125%-ish of primaries, and the sec and p2 share a latency table....

So in a perfect world you up all three, keeping the ratio the same, along with latency. But it gets expensive. So most of us run big P2's and deal with the small latency issue.

^ This. :biggthump

It isn't that it "doesn't work". It just doesn't work correctly.
You can do all kinds of chicanery to get it to "work", but it is still mucking about.

Thing is - I have not had to do any "chicanery" . Could it be that the difference between 280 and 380 is not enough to upset the balance ?

Thing is - I have not had to do any "chicanery" . Could it be that the difference between 280 and 380 is not enough to upset the balance ?

When you transition into boost at a low RPM, do your fuel tables deviate more from your actual output lambda than they do after 4500 RPM?

you can tune around most anything. The issue arises when you change something significant enough and the amount of tuning required to dial it back in.

When you transition into boost at a low RPM, do your fuel tables deviate more from your actual output lambda than they do after 4500 RPM?

I have a 6% rich spike at 4000 relative to 3500 and 4500 so I guess the answer is yes .

I have a 6% rich spike at 4000 relative to 3500 and 4500 so I guess the answer is yes .

And there it is.

And there it is.

Ok . I guess there is a small amount of tuning around it then .
I kinda like the idea that the P1s (which inject direct into the port) are supplying a little bit more of the total fuel .

I kinda like the idea that the P1s (which inject direct into the port) are supplying a little bit more of the total fuel .

The fuel that gets there from the P2s is just the same.
I like the idea that fuel getting into the chamber somewhat equally from both sides of the rotor leads to a more even burn.

The fuel that gets there from the P2s is just the same.
.

The P1s are right on the port whereas the P2s are up stream somewhat .


I like the idea that fuel getting into the chamber somewhat equally from both sides of the rotor leads to a more even burn.

which you would only get if you made the secondaries larger - not the P2s .

The P1s are right on the port whereas the P2s are up stream somewhat .

Doesn't really matter. In fact, I'd posit that the mixture is more homogeneous with the added distance.
It isn't like the P1 position is really "direct injection".


which you would only get if you made the secondaries larger - not the P2s .

Not exactly. As a result of the OE staging strategy, the secondaries get leaned on pretty hard as the P1s get trailed off. Also, the air path is different.
You can see the result of fuel delivery if you dissect a very low-mile, undamaged turbo motor.

This is one of the areas that was giving me fits when trying to tune myself with my uncapped P2s. In the end I got it "close enough" but never really completely "got" it. It would be so much easier if the staging of the injectors was directly tunable.

Doesn't really matter. In fact, I'd posit that the mixture is more homogeneous with the added distance.
It isn't like the P1 position is really "direct injection".
.
True - I'ts as close as Mazda could get it without going the whole hog . I would have to believe there was a benefit to doing that though , as it would have been far easier for them to just mount all the injectors further upstream. What is the layout with the S2 engine ? The P1 is now 400ccs (same as what I now have;) ) but is the other injector a P2 or in the secondary air channel ?



You can see the result of fuel delivery if you dissect a very low-mile, undamaged turbo motor.

which is what ?

The fuel that gets there from the P2s is just the same.
I like the idea that fuel getting into the chamber somewhat equally from both sides of the rotor leads to a more even burn.

great in theory, but probably not valid due to the air flow not being equal from both sides, within a certain range is likely to be inconsequential regardless

The primary injector positions are placed for emissions/efficiency purposes.



.

great in theory, but probably not valid due to the air flow not being equal from both sides,

But they are equal under these relevant circumstances because of the location/shape of the ports.
This becomes apparent when you look at a low-mile motor as I suggested.

But they are equal under these relevant circumstances because of the location/shape of the ports.
This becomes apparent when you look at a low-mile motor as I suggested.

What's apparent is that you theorized your belief rather than actually tested it out in detail in a controlled environment with definitive feedback, such as a Superflow engine dyno. I can only surmise that you don't have any direct experience tuning with the 4 injector S2 intake manifold on a 6-port engine. Going back to you original statement, a more even burn is defined less by appearances and more by calibrated data.

You're pretty d@mn good at what you do, but don't confuse your Cobb AP talent with operating at the top of the world class rotary/Renesis knowledge base. There are people who have built, tuned, tested and torn down multiple hundreds of Renesis engines let alone decades of prior 13B experience.

You might have just opened a new orifice on your neck there with that one...

This is one of the areas that was giving me fits when trying to tune myself with my uncapped P2s. In the end I got it "close enough" but never really completely "got" it. It would be so much easier if the staging of the injectors was directly tunable.

Just going through this with the uncapped yellows ATM . From the results i'm getting It seems they don't flow as much as they should . What settings did you have when you were "close "

What's apparent is that you theorized your belief rather than actually tested it out in detail in a controlled environment with definitive feedback ...... don't confuse your Cobb AP talent with operating at the top of the world class rotary/Renesis knowledge base. There are people who have built, tuned, tested and torn down multiple hundreds of Renesis engines let alone decades of prior 13B experience.

You might have just opened a new orifice on your neck there with that one...

Oh .... not again .... :cuddle:


Did you guys uncap your P2's on your own?

I like what these guys do ... http://kgparts.com/index.php?page=rx8modinject

Apparently they flow test them afterwards and send you a matched pair!

I am leaning towards this....

Can AT injectors be uncapped in the same fashion?
In that case, could you do this set-up, with increasing all of them at the same time as Kane said:

primary: yellow
secondary: stock blue
P2: uncapped blue

Just going through this with the uncapped yellows ATM . From the results i'm getting It seems they don't flow as much as they should . What settings did you have when you were "close "

My injectors that KG flowed at 900cc had to be scaled more like 750cc to get things in line. I had initially offset them with the Maf scale which caused all kinds of wonkiness.

Oh .... not again .... :cuddle:


Did you guys uncap your P2's on your own?

I like what these guys do ... http://kgparts.com/index.php?page=rx8modinject

Apparently they flow test them afterwards and send you a matched pair!

I am leaning towards this....

Can AT injectors be uncapped in the same fashion?
In that case, could you do this set-up, with increasing all of them at the same time as Kane said:

primary: yellow
secondary: stock blue
P2: uncapped blue

Yes - I've uncapped my own . (after the shop i gave 1 to totally destroyed it trying to get the cap off - fucktards )

if you have 4 blues why not go
P1: yellow
sec : blue
P2 : blue

that gives you the scenario Kane spoke of . Not sure it's that much of an issue though .

I mean ... i dont have 4 blues, BUT I have spent $160 on worse things http://www.discountfuelsystems.com/shop/?PN=2506&VN=4294967178+4294966839+4294965489+4294960953+429 4966580&N=0&Nr=AND(category:Fuel%20Delivery,universal:0)

Esp with how much I have put into this turbo build already, combined with the fact that I want to go bigger in the future...

However, can someone explain why the following is?

That is basically correct. The secondaries are best kept at 125%-ish of primaries,






Also, what exactly does the latency table control? From what I understand it has something to do with the firing mechanism of the injector (hence the pressure vs battery volt. relationship) However, is this atmos pressure or fuel line pressure?

Finally, if I go for the yellow, blue, blue setup, can I just copy the table from my currently secondary/P2 injectors over into the primary table and get an A/T table for the sec/P2? Should be doable since the tables are NOT rpm based.....

Jeff, can you hook me up with that ^?

It has to do with transition.

The PCM normally knows when and how to bring the sec's online and drop the duration on the P1's - if you mess with this ratio, it won't work right. This is firmware, cannot be tuned out on the AP.

If you go Yellow, Blue, Blue, you should be able to copy "Yellow" Latency Map onto P1 along with the size, to get close. You will still need to scale. And also you could get the Auto settings if Jeff was willing to send them. Only a pro-tuner can tune auto's?

The latency is the amount of time to physically move the pintle open in injector. IE Injector ON time where no fuel is flowing.

My injectors that KG flowed at 900cc had to be scaled more like 750cc to get things in line. I had initially offset them with the Maf scale which caused all kinds of wonkiness.

Probably because the injector scaling value is not linear like it appears to be.

Guys--sorry to butt in here, but I am dialing back boost to around 7-8 lbs. I get around 310 grams per sec at 7.5K at that level in the weather here in Ga.
Before i was running the stock injector set up with it and really didnt have a problem, BUT I was feeling I was about on the edge. I have the 09 fuel pump in. No issues.
Would the reds, blues in P2 and the yellows in the secondary be a better choice?
Since I now have the Cobb-- i will be looking (with Steve Kan) at all this also, just want to get started right.
thanks
OD

Yellow, Blue, Blue is the best choice, all things being equal.

Does latency change or stay the same for uncapped vs stock injectors?

My injectors that KG flowed at 900cc had to be scaled more like 750cc to get things in line. I had initially offset them with the Maf scale which caused all kinds of wonkiness.

Was looking at the pdf doc for these injectors the other day.
Your injectors where flowed at 2.5 bar around (1 bar is 14.508 psi, I think) or 36.27 psi
I guess ideally they should have been tested at 60 psi ....

Understanding that the scaling is not linear (as mentioned already) I would not expect the scale to move down ...

Am I seeing this wrong?

Would the injectors not be flowing more fuel at 60 psi than 36 psi? Therefore the injectors should be at least scaled up .... to some magnitude?

I can attach the pdf if requested.

Was looking at the pdf doc for these injectors the other day.
Your injectors where flowed at 2.5 bar around (1 bar is 14.508 psi, I think) or 36.27 psi
I guess ideally they should have been tested at 60 psi ....

Understanding that the scaling is not linear (as mentioned already) I would not expect the scale to move down ...

Am I seeing this wrong?

Would the injectors not be flowing more fuel at 60 psi than 36 psi? Therefore the injectors should be at least scaled up .... to some magnitude?

I can attach the pdf if requested.

That is exactly the thinking that had me hung up for a while. I thought for sure having Flowtested injectors would mean one parameter i didnt have to guess at and if anything our fuel rails higher than tested pressure would mean MORE fuel. But it didnt work out that way. I tried to make them work as "900cc" but they just dont put out that much fuel. A 900cc injector calls for a setting in the AP software of ~1100. But they didnt hit target AFRs until I lowered the setting considerably. I just checked my last few versions of my tune. I was running them with a value of 850 in the Racetuner software(which is approximately the setting for a 700cc injector).

Thanks Kane--when are you going to be home?
So yellows--P1
blues on bottom rail?
Is that right?

Od out until he can contribute something--which may be a WHILE!

OD - yeah, yellow on one rail, blues (qty 4) on the other rail.

OD - if you are dialing back the power to well below 300 you would be better served by leaving well enough alone and sticking with stock injectors .

The man has a point.

Though I thought part of the allure was the better atomization of the blue injectors....

That is exactly the thinking that had me hung up for a while. I thought for sure having Flowtested injectors would mean one parameter i didnt have to guess at and if anything our fuel rails higher than tested pressure would mean MORE fuel. But it didnt work out that way. I tried to make them work as "900cc" but they just dont put out that much fuel. A 900cc injector calls for a setting in the AP software of ~1100. But they didnt hit target AFRs until I lowered the setting considerably. I just checked my last few versions of my tune. I was running them with a value of 850 in the Racetuner software(which is approximately the setting for a 700cc injector).

Thanks for the info .
The (NA now but later going FI) car i'm tuning at the moment has uncapped yellow P2s and to get the AFRs to be the same as when the stock injectors were in there I had to set them to 533 . Figure that one out ......

Nothing is linear..... makes the game fun I guess.

The problem is that pressure as a derivative is not particularly consistent. I mean one look at the MAF scale, IAT etc should clue you in on that.

Best thing to do would be flow test them at 60PSI, barring that, scale them the same way you scale the stock ones.

http://godwillbegod.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dog-dude-wait-what.jpg


So... uncapping injectors has unpredictable flow rates and consequences???



Nooo .... that means I will have to scale my injectors regardless .... exactly what I was trying to avoid :/


New plan:
1) Get injectors scaled while NA, keep them stock for my power goal of 250whp, screw trying to get under the UIM until I HAVE to...
2) Install Turbo

translation for ppl watching this thread: moar actual tuning rather than discussion to come...

dannobre, can you still send me the blue latency table? thanks!

No more so than stock (unless you mess them up physically).

What I am saying is that a 200cc/min injector at 10PSI will not be a 400cc/min injector at 20PSI...unfortunately.

poop ... if that was the case we could simply increase the fuel pressure to increase fueling, BUT from high school physics we know that liquids are not compressible .... therefore we cannot increase flow with pressure as we can with Air (a gas)

Am I right?

Also, would it be safe to assume that my injectors now flow LESS rather than MORE than my ECU thinks they do?

Increasing pressure does increase fueling to a point, (think old school turbo tuning) it is just not linear really.

I don't know what you scaled the injectors too, my net is too slow to go looking. But scaling them NA before going FI is always a good idea.

I thought I gave pretty good instructions on how to factor out the anomalous injector scaling values in the seminar.

That said, here is my FUELING CALCULATOR (http://www.mazdamaniac.com/dl/Fueling%20Calculator.xls)

^^^ Thanks for that Jeff

Started a new thread specific to an issue I'm having with P2 scaling - any help would be appreciated .

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=209721

well I just ordered 4 blues (reconditioned --but flow tested etc ) for $160 for all 4. Nice price.
I am dialing back, but I still feel I need a little more than what stock will give me and stay in the 80% duty cycle.
Stock is around total at aprox 2080 cc--right? If my calculations are right I need around 2000cc total flow. So with the oem set up that would be very close to 100% duty cycle.
The yellow and blue set would be 2680cc or which may be a bit much unless later I decide to use the power level?
Now if I went with reds in P1, blues in P2 and yellow in secondary then that would be 2280cc. That may be about right and still keep my idle and low in ok?
Blues to atomize more--heck the 09's do a better job than all of them.
I will probably start out with the reds/blues and yellows. Then see.
I think I will be over 300 gram/sec--prob between 310-320 is where I expect to be.
Wish I could put the 09 set up on.
OD

If my calculations are right I need around 2000cc total flow. ...
I think I will be over 300 gram/sec--prob between 310-320 is where I expect to be.

Yeah - that is right at the high point of the OE fuel injection system with no changes (2100cc).
That should equate to about 220 wheel horsepower on a 7 PSI supercharged car.

Wouldn't you be better to use the 4 blues.....the latency tables would be correct that way for all 4.......otherwise you have an error right off the bat for that :)

So yellow/Blue/blue??????

Well, I think that is what OD is doing now ... I am going to probably do that too ... I need to acquire the injectors first.

For now, I am going to practice with scaling for NA .... once I got my lazy ass out of my warm house and into the cold outside to do some logs....

but yellow/blue/blue is the idea for the future ... big thanks for the latency table btw

before I was getting around 275 rwp
I think i got my numbers wrong--recalculating for approx 325 crank HP(approx 275 at the wheels?) and max of 80% duty cycle and 55 psi fuel pressure I would need 2280 cc total flow.
The yellow/blue/ blue should be is right on?
Then no scaling issues like Dan mentioned?
I will see how that runs by next w/e--motor going in now but taking my time--lots of little stuff to do.

Less latency issues....scaling will still be off by whatever they could be off stock :)

before I was getting around 275 rwp
I think i got my numbers wrong--recalculating for approx 325 crank HP(approx 275 at the wheels?) and max of 80% duty cycle and 55 psi fuel pressure I would need 2280 cc total flow.

If you want 275 at the wheels on a Pettit-equipped, 6-port RX-8, you want to see about 2400cc of total flow at the injectors.
Remember, you need to support the 35 HP or so it takes to run the blower at 9 PSI. Airflow will be in the 380 g/sec range.

35hp loss for the blower??? thats a lot ... I like turbo even more now ....

35hp loss for the blower??? thats a lot ... I like turbo even more now ....

It is upward of 50 HP for the 12 - 14 PSI guys.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Ditto Dudes!!
OD