Hi all,

Here is the latest scoop from the House of Hymee.

This evening we fitted a "Ric Shaw" piggy-back ECU. The special thing about this one is that we fitted it without cutting or splicing any of the wiring loom. We did this with the latest Hymee special - a custom made wiring harness that plugs directly into the factory connectors. The harness is a product of at least 25-30 man hours work by myself and a silent partner.

Don't ask me for any coightometer reports. The dyno will reveal all when we get it on there. (Remember - mine doesn't have "Safe Mode")

Note - the unit was installed with Ric's "base tune". We have the cable and software to be able to tune the unit ourselves. A very experienced rotary engine tuner will be doing a full tune on the unit in the very near future.

Here is what I do have to report:


Unit looks very good, and professional. Nice black case, much smaller in all dimensions than the factory ECU.
Comes with a "blank off" plug to allow the unit to be switched on/off without un-installation/re-installation.
Car started first go with "blank-off" installed.
Car started first go with unit operational.
Car drove just fine.
Real time ODBII data logging (via my scan tool and software) showed the Air/Fuel ratios in a much more desirable range. This shows the fuel control is performing its intended function.
We fiddled with the Ignition timing in real time (while the engine was running) and noticed the difference. We held it at about 2000 RPM and pulled a bunch of timing out, and the revs dropped off correspondingly. This shows the Ignition control is performing its intended function.


More details to come when we do some proper tests in a controlled environemnt, and do a full tune.

Cheers,
Hymee.

PS - I just awarded myself the Post of the Day! Actually - a tie with EASTMOON. All your base are belong to us, grasshopper!

And the plan is to add these harness's to the Hymee cattledog if a market is shown to exist???

Gomez.

Or maybe sell them to Ric only!!

Hymee,

Great stuff. I wait with much interest to hear the results of your testing. Are you going to look at
1) Stock Car
2) With Rics tune
3) After the unit has been professionally tuned?

Your Hymee wiring harness that plugs the unit directly into the car sounds awesome.

Congratulations on a great job.

Hymee

Any idea of COST , AVAILIBILITY of the Rick shaw , HYMEE and secret agent partner , and rotary tuning mystery guru ??????.

CHEERS

MICHAEL

Hymee

Whats with the House of Hymee label , i sincerely hope you dont end up like the house of the clothing designer (P@#$F).
"Richard De CHAZZAL"

CHEERS
MICHAEL

Sound promising... I think I found the ECU I am dreaming for...

If this works... you will see my hard earn cash coming your way RIC!

I would be interested in seeing the dyno results.

BTW what are the benefits of upgrading the ECU...I am a novice when it comes to upgrades.

Great work -- I reckon you can have post of the week (but, being Tuesday, it's potentially premature) ;)

Originally posted by skc
I would be interested in seeing the dyno results.

As I have done in the past, I will post reliable results when we get a chance to measure them. Patience, grasshopper! :)

Originally posted by skc
BTW what are the benefits of upgrading the ECU...I am a novice when it comes to upgrades.

Are you talking about having the (Powertrain Control Module) PCM flashed with the latest calibration from Mazda, and the effect this would have on the piggy-back?

Or are you talking about the benefits of the unit itself? It is not a replacement for the PCM. It plugs into the PCM and "takes control" of ignition and fuel (in simple terms). All other operations/functions of the car are still in-tact. In fact, after we had been plugging and un-plugging a couple of times, my radio still had all it's station presets, remembered what station is was on, and the A/C still held it's settings. Even the Trip computer rembered I had done about 450km

The cruise control worked flawlessly (well, I didn't check for the random "surge" I usually get on "resume", but that is random anyway, and is a behaviour of the car, not the piggy-back).

Cheers,
Hymee.

How long have you been working with Ric on this Hymee?

How long? Oh - about 1/4 mile. Or 15 Seconds. Hehehe. Only joking. I first spoke to Ric on the... Hang on a bit...

The unit has been purchased outright at (full price) from Ric so we could do our own totally independant evaluation.

The "Hymee Special" Harness was done independantly from Ric, by myself and SP (the Silent Partner).

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee,
I am interested in the benefit of the unit that you installed....I guess more power and better fuel efficency would be some of the benefits.

The purpose of the unit is to tune the car to an "optimum level" of efficiency.

Traditionally, factory tunes very in degress between rich and pig rich. The RX-8 is rich. The idea is to lean out the mixture as well as optimise the ignition timing.

Most people would do this mod for more power and better "driveability". But it can also be beneficial to fuel economy. Surely if the mixture is not so rich, then it is better for the environment as well. So potentially winners all round.

Cheers,
Hymee.

I guess it is also dependent on the fuel you use (ie, 98 RON v 95) -- is that right?

When I saw the other (US) thread on Ric's unit, I was somewhat daunted by the amount of calibration one could do. So it will be interesting to see what you achieve.

Do you know whether Ric has any dyno results?

Do you know whether Ric has any dyno results?

Timbo,

I have spoken to Ric about this issue. He is quite guarded in his response. I suspect that he does not want to make claims that are later shown to be wrong. He was openly sceptical of some of the claims that have been made here about what simply changing the fuel & ignition maps can do for this non forced injection motor. When I pressed him on the type of gains that this modification would get I got the impression that he was talking in the range of 10 to 15kw. That is just the feeling I got from Ric. I am extremely curious to see what results Hymee gets!

He struck me as an honest and open guy that could be trusted.

I think Ric also was bitten pretty bad by the "Safe Mode" bug which I seem to be imune from.

I'm curious as well :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Two great innovators working on the same project - and in harmony. Hard to beat.

I have knelt at Ric's shrine on Parramatta Rd; now looking forward to meeting my other guru, Hymee la Croix, at Wakefield - and in the mean time reminding him about those boring old catbacks.
I'm anticipating with the same enthusiasm the hardware as well as the software..

Rock On!
jack

Hymee,

After being the first to get one of your grills and as your Hymee cat-back test pilot, please place me at the front of the que for your latest project!

Hats off to Ric Shaw also for producing what sounds like a top-notch TUNE-ABLE mod for the '8.

well done again. your true champs, both of u ric and hymee!

Originally posted by Hymee
The purpose of the unit is to tune the car to an "optimum level" of efficiency.

Traditionally, factory tunes very in degress between rich and pig rich. The RX-8 is rich. The idea is to lean out the mixture as well as optimise the ignition timing.

Most people would do this mod for more power and better "driveability". But it can also be beneficial to fuel economy. Surely if the mixture is not so rich, then it is better for the environment as well. So potentially winners all round.

Cheers,
Hymee.

I may be missing something here, and I don't want to knock this device.... BUT:

Why would Mazda or any other respected manufacturer deliberately map settings that are SIMULTANEOUSLY too rich, burn excess fuel, pollute more, develop less power AND compromise driveability? Doesn't make much sense to me, unless they are either totally incompetent, or the ONLY justification they had for the current settings was engine longevity.......

Surely when you chip or reprogram a car you are likely to achieve pluses in some areas and minuses in others, otherwise if it can be done so easily with a "win" on EVERY front why didn't Mazda do it in the first place?

No disrepect to Ric Shaw or you Hymee - but I'm really curious to know how this is supposed to be achieved.

rotary engines blow if they are too lean. They need to run rich in order to keep the seals lubricated. given the market of buyers out there for the cars, i assume that they want to make sure that engine life is retained.

Lean makes them detonate. drop an apex seal etc.. you dont want that.

I can't believe at this advanced stage, I'm still reading posts like the two above this one.:(

NickG and Kas - please read these threads:

Greddy/Trust E-Manage Fuel Computer Install (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17055)
Combustion and the 13B-MSP (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15645&highlight=combustion)

Rotary engines do not blow if they are too lean. You are confusing your issues.
The Mazda tuning situation has been beaten to death.

Thanks Jeff.

Fella's - We are not trying to run the engine "lean". We are trying to run the engine "less rich" than it is (which is too rich).

Nick, no offense taken, and a valid question. There is a safety factor build into all factory tunes. It covers many things including crap fuel and manufacturing tolerances. The idea with what we are doing is to get an optimal tune for each individual car.

If the car makers build things so "good", why is it, for example, that a std 225kW LS1 can be easily and cheaply "tuned up" to 300kW, without compromising longevity? (A 300kW GTS has basically identical internal components in it as a std LS1, except for a different cam and different sized valves, and a bit of head work.).

I'm not saying the Renesis has the same potential % gains as the LS1, but the reasons why are applicable.

The are many, many things on every production car that the engineers might have liked to be better, but have their hand forced (designed compromised) by others where $$ is more important than performance. Fortunatley, the RX-8 does not seem to exhibit many of these compromises, compared with say a Commodore.

All we are trying to do is find where those compromises have been made, and in some sense get our cars performing like the designer intended.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Originally posted by MazdaManiac
I can't believe at this advanced stage, I'm still reading posts like the two above this one.:(

NickG and Kas - please read these threads:

Greddy/Trust E-Manage Fuel Computer Install (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17055)
Combustion and the 13B-MSP (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15645&highlight=combustion)

Rotary engines do not blow if they are too lean. You are confusing your issues.
The Mazda tuning situation has been beaten to death.

Fair enough Mazda Maniac however your argument appears to be at least partly predicated on the assumption that Australian RX-8's run the same mixture settings as those mandated by your EPA. Considering our substantially different design rules here that may or may not be the case. And please don't always assume that overseas forum participants necessarily search and review the entire forum database before posting replies to other participants in their local forum....

Originally posted by NickG
And please don't always assume that overseas forum participants necessarily search and review the entire forum database before posting replies to other participants in their local forum....

Hmm. I look at all areas of the forum, not just those that affect me regionally.
I didn't realize that users "overseas" were so lazy...:(

I would like to make a couple of points about the prior posts:

1) Mazda Maniac - Jeff has made some immensly interesting contributions to this forum which are worth everyone here reading your knowledge of the RX8 will be increased by doing this.

2) Nick - G There are many people here that wish to improve their car. Mazda have different aims that we as enthusiasts have.

They want to sell cars.
We want our cars to be the best they can be.

These are different motivations.

I understand your feeling that if it can be made better why didn't Mazda do it. Read the above. We have different aims for the car.
BTW I agree that if we modify the motor to make it work harder we are probably taking some life from it. Life is full of compromises. We all make choices. Hopefully reading this Forum makes us all better informed when we make those choices.

Well said, rx8 - smooth!

Thanks Hymee for your comments. I am but a babe in the woods when it comes to engine tuning, and yes I can see the logic in your argument.....

For most owners’ everyday driving needs our Aussie cars are well balanced and tuned, perform extremely well in daily driving conditions, and don’t urgently need improving on. But what we’re dealing with here is the endless quest for MORE that drives the dedicated Owner/Tuner car nut. We are the types who drive the car home and then immediately get out the tool-kit and start unscrewing things to see how they work and how we might change them around… just that little bit….. and then just that little bit more…. and then…

Claims that we can get better performance, better economy, better environmental outcomes etc all at the same time may sound a little over-optimistic. But, as others have said, any mass production engine can be improved with a certain amount of polishing, tweaking, tuning and general alteration etc. If the goal was to improve everything across the board with no compromises then it can still be done, although it would generally need some additional mechanical work on the engine to complement the tuning, and the gains would often be relatively modest.

But let’s be honest. The number of RX8 owners who are going to buy performance modifying equipment specifically so that they can improve their emissions (for instance) can be counted on the fingers of one ear…

Most people will be looking for more power and will be prepared to make some sacrifices in other areas, on the assumption that in stock form there are reasonably conservative margins for error that can be sliced a little thinner without causing any great problems.

But these are early days. Much of what you read on forums like this is often hot air. In amongst the good stuff is a mixture of educated guesswork and half-truths spiced up with a good sprinkling of enthusiastic bullshitting from most of us. :) But the good information does slowly emerge, and it’s an enjoyable process (for the enthusiasts anyway). For most of us it’s the journey that’s fun, not arriving at any particular point of gain (which we’d immediately change when we got there anyway). :p

So don’t expect too many huge increases, major breakthroughs or 100% accurate information, especially in the first few months after release of a new engine. But do expect that the keen and knowledgeable few, such as Ric Shaw, will discover ways to make the car perform better in all sorts of ways and that gradually the useful information will filter through. Also expect that Mazda engineers are also working on improving the engine and that what they are doing and what the enthusiast are doing will have some areas of overlap.

Nicely put BVD:cool:

Originally posted by NickG
Nicely put BVD:cool:

Totally agreed. A very well balanced post.

Post of the day, BVD!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Yep, good stuff.

Even us dim Yanks can appeciate it! ;)

Originally posted by Hymee
Post of the day, BVD!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Thanks Hymee – I’m honoured. :)

It was nearly my last post too…. I set out for a mountain bike ride today through some dramatically rough and hilly bushland and promptly got lost. Doh!

What was supposed to be a 12k ride turned into a 35k slog. Amazing countryside, and worth the effort though. A combination of some poor trail markers, followed later by a stupendously dumb directional decision on my part. Fortunately, two very kind young ladies (the only other riders I saw on the trip) re-directed me and led me back to a recognisable road. Good riders too.

Obviously I need a Global Positioning navigation aid on the bike, never mind the RX….

Actually, a reconditioned brain might do the trick - must check the Yellow Pages.....
;)

To get this thread back on track, I was wondering if there is an optimum air/fuel mixture of the Renesis and, given the discussion above concerning perhaps a richer mix for a rotary, how this might compare with, say, an LS1?

Wait a minute Timbo...

BVD... what do you mean GPS??

You had two ladies lead you out on their bikes... sounds like a good day to me!

;)

Originally posted by timbo
To get this thread back on track, I was wondering if there is an optimum air/fuel mixture of the Renesis and, given the discussion above concerning perhaps a richer mix for a rotary, how this might compare with, say, an LS1?

14.7:1 is optimum for consuming all of the fuel present.
13.2:1 generates maximum power.
9:1 is about the richest ratio that will still support combustion.

These are general guidelines.

The Renesis can be run as lean as 17:1 in parts of the RPM range and at some loads.
It will start to loose power almost across the board below 12.5:1 and very obviously so below 11.9:1 which is where the original PCM calibrations were.

Thanks Jeff, that's really helpful.

Do you have any comparable data on other engine types?

Tim

The first half of my last post pretty much applies to all internal combustion engines.

Timbo,

I sort of have this funny feeling inside me that says the air/fuel mixture doesn't really care what sort of mechanical cycle it has gone through, as the ignition is basically a chemical reaction.

Like Jeff said, maxiumum power is generally slightly richer than ideal, pretty much for all internal combustion engines.

What I mean is the "ideal" or Stoichometric AFR is something that is dependant on the fuel. Around 14:1 for gasoline, but varies with each "type" of fuel. The O2 sensor in the car actual measure what is called "lambda" which is a number that represents if all the oxygen has been consumed in the combustion process. A Lambda of 1.0 means "stoich", and if the value is > 1.0 then this means lean (extra oxygen still available), conversely values < 1.0 are rich.

It is a neat measurement, as it is not dependant on the fuel used. The actual AFR can be computed by multiplying the lambda value by the stoich value for the fuel. So if we used 14, and we had a Lambda reading of .889, then our AFR would be 12.446:1 (12.446 parts air and 1 part fuel, which is richer than 14:1)

There are all sorts of reasons why the computer changes the mixture at different load points / RPM's.

http://www.hymee.com/smilies/sm_teach.gif

Cheers,
Hymeehttp://www.hymee.com/smilies/sm_karate.gif

That's very informative

I propose MazdaManiac and Hymee be jointly awarded 'Post of the Day'

Motion seconded - it’s great information isn’t it. :)

Here's some more general waffle from me that might help explain some of the issues to some readers.

As most of you probably know, there’s a lot more to modern tuning than just adjusting a mixture figure and seeing if the car goes faster.

It’s a bit like the old days of rock and roll when you all you had was just a volume knob on your amp, compared with a modern sound mixing board that can shape and balance every aspect of a performance as it’s happening. You can do a lot more, and a good mixer can improve a performance, but a bad one can screw it up. :eek:

I bought my first car 45 years ago (at age 12) and it had a lever on the steering column that allowed you to manually advance and retard the ignition timing to suit conditions. On the fuel/air front you had a choke knob that pulled a cable that closed a ‘butterfly’ in the carburettor, reducing the airflow and richening up the mixture to start the car. Apart from the accelerator, that was about the extent of the variables. On later cars both functions were automated, but still in a pretty basic and linear sort of fashion.

I’m a bit rusty on the modern theory (it’s 35 years since I qualified as a Motor Engineer and I worked directly in the industry for less than 10 years). So please jump in and correct me where I’m wrong, but, if I understand it correctly these are some of the factors affecting tune and performance. Some you can change as the car is going along, others you can only change in the workshop.

Ignition timing:

This changes the point at which you fire the spark and start the mixture burning. The process is a burn and not an instantaneous explosion, so the point at which you fire the spark is important if you are to get the most power and the cleanest and most complete burn. The amount of time that you have to complete the entire process of intake, compression, burn and exhaust will obvious vary hugely between an idling engine and one revving at 9,000 rpm, so varying when you begin the process is an issue. The amount and composition quality of the mixture will also vary depending on factors such as the speed and pressure of the airflow at the time, etc.

Old engines advanced and retarded the spark using a system of springs and weights that moved a plate using the principle of centrifugal force to change the timing for different engine speeds. Modern electronic ignition (which I know nothing about) can presumably vary the choices it makes in a less linear and mechanical fashion, and also more precisely.

Fuel/air mixture

Trying to overcome the difficulties inherent in trying to keep a constant mix ratio between two different elements (a gas and a liquid – air and fuel) supplied through two separate and dissimilar delivery systems, under a wide variety of conditions has never been easy. Depending on such things as engine load, throttle setting, available air-flow, temperature, etc the mix can vary in ways you don’t want.

Many things affect the equation, including length and design of the air intake (what is optimum for one engine condition will not be for another, so it’s always a compromise), the amount of back-pressure from the exhaust system, the temperature and quality of the fuel and the air, the points at which the intake and exhaust valves or ports open and close, etc etc. Many things can only be changed in the workshop, so air/fuel mixes and ignition timing would seem to be the main interest of engine management systems.

Roughly speaking, they are trying to a) keep the mix ratios in the desired range – between too lean and too rich – and b) to balance differing requirements such as providing the best power when and where it’s needed, delivering the best economy both overall and particularly at those times that maximum power is not the main game, and to do all of this as cleanly as possible, etc. Tuning such a system is a complex and subtle art, and it involves more than just a richening or leaning across the board.

If I understand it correctly, what Canzoomer, Ric Shaw, Hymee and the other more knowledgeable guys are trying to do is:

A: Firstly figure out where Mazda have set all these variables as stock (particularly fuel/air mixes and ignition timings in all their range of combinations), and then try and get a feel for what their objectives were in setting the values they did. Presumably there’s also a bunch of stuff to figure out regarding the operation of the sensors that can contribute to or over-ride the settings.

B: Decide how and where to apply the variations in tune, depending on what the clients want – i.e what aspect of the car’s performance do you want to try and change, by how much, under what circumstances (i..e in what part of the rev range, or for what kind of driving) and at what amount of cost and risk to other elements of the car. I.e. different fuel maps for different parts of the rev range and varying engine conditions, altered timing, etc.

These are not simple issues and will be debated, experimented with and tested for a long time. The full effects of the changes you make are not always immediately apparent or easily measured. This could be a very long-lived discussion…

Good luck guys.
:)

BVD

You have become very tecknically informative of late , are you going to challenge the various rotary gurus for number 1 rotary posts???? .

Great work well written , Hymee is being mentally challenged .ha ha ha .

cheers
michael

BVD thats a piece of art mate.

Before you know it, the RX-9 will ultimately be deisigned by you.

Good Stuff;)

So Hymee,

Any more news?....................................

(Hears sounds of fingers impatiently drumming on desk in the background!)

So Hymee,

Any more news......................on your cat-back?

(hear sound of pins being methodically inserted into bananas.)

Rics Controller has been running fine on my car for a week know. It feels crisper to drive. Have not been on a proper dyno yet. When we do, it will be re-tuned.

I did some tests with the MR Dyno the other night, and found it was consistantly a little bit quicker in my 40-105km/h test. I would rather wait till we put it on the dyno and tune it up before I sprout off any figures.

Exhaust. We are having a "session" tomorrow night, and I should (hopefully) be able to start shipping the first couple on Friday, and the rest early next week. I have had the custom shipping boxes made. I have to get them from the factory 2 at a time.

Thanks for your patience, and my apologies for the delays.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Originally posted by Lock & Load
BVD

You have become very tecknically informative of late , are you going to challenge the various rotary gurus for number 1 rotary posts???? .



No chance mate. :D

I'm way behind the gurus, as it's years since I rebuilt an engine or did anything other than superficial tuning.

Just supporting Hymee's cries of "Patience Grasshopper" by trying to explain why these things take as long as they do to fully explore and sort out. (Oh, and I guess we all like to show off what little knowledge we have... or think we have... :p )

However, I'm as impatient as the next guy to hear what they're finding about Mazda's settings, and where they think they can be best tweaked.

I guess we're all a bit like kids in the back seat calling "Are we there yet Uncle Hymee, are we there yet???" :)

Does Ric Shaw have a web site with details about his controller, cost, specs, etc?

BVD, I did a search on Ric last week and only found a bunch of racing results.....no website......

Gomez.

Yes, me too Gomez. :confused:

Maybe it's only avaliable by phone or in person. Geez, one gets to rely on the net all too easily.

Perhaps Thing could do some web-crawling and unearth some price and spec info for us ....

Give the man a ring - he is very friendly and approachable, but not very internetty. (more comfortable with a spanner in his hand, or bucketsfull of oppisite lock.)
When I visited he was quite happy to give me a price, fitted and tuned.
jack

BVD

I would suspect if Ricks unit was up and running correctly surely it would be offered for sale on the forum , it obviously still at the testing stage similar to Canzoomers , VERSION for the Australian market .

Had my car RE;flashed on wednesday , it seems to be running smoother and also seems louder .

My ECU is same as HYMEES ending with the letter.... E

When i finally get maurices stage 1 unit back with the new " L "program i will test it once again on the Austalian mapped ECU , however this time i will be a lot more cautious and have the proper tools and the help of a rotary expert to specifically test the A/F RATIOS and make sure the car is running safe , AND GET IT TUNED TO THE AUSTRALIAN RX8 MAP.

Hopefully this time we can get it right , if not i will have to stay content with the stock standard ECU unit .

i maybe adding one of the stainless steel HYMEE exhausts , with different tips at a later stage

CHEERS
MICHAEL

L&L, what flash???

Was it done by Mazda, I'm sure the labrat would be interested to hear!!!

Gomez.

Originally posted by Gomez
L&L, what flash???

Was it done by Mazda, I'm sure the labrat would be interested to hear!!!

Gomez.

Yes Mazda did the re:flash

As he could not tell me what my earlier ECU had programmed in it he told me that the latest disk download he had from MAZDA was the E coded one .

Paid $ 66.00 for the re:flash which i felt was a rip off but my car does seem to run smoother and the exhaust note is definetely louder.

Service told me that they finally had the rotary mazda oil in stock , cheerfully i wondered over to spare parts only to be told that they had never heard of the rotary oil .

After insisting that yes they did have the oil , the chap from spare parts finally got his act together after 15 minutes and found the plentifull supply all 4 liters of the oil , I PROCEDED AND BOUGHT 2 LITERS at $ 24.00.

He proceeded to apologise and was quite honest as he stated that Mazda was a hopeless company to deal with never telling their own staff what goes on with their own products .

I cannot believe that they only had 4 liters in stock ????

The head mechanick that installed the re:flash also said that MAZDA kept most information closely guarded and even he had problems accessing it .

MAZDA you are a F%^^&ing joke as far as a company is concerned your products are good but your service and customer relations suck .

Even people that work for mazda have twice stated this to me .

I asked for a costing to change oil in differential , transmission and gear box its been 10 days and no one has got back to me with a price for the job .

CHEERS
Michael

L&L,

Did I hear you correctly? They charged you $66 to "reprogram" your car, but they didn't check what was "in" it first?

FFS - That is not the sort of service I would be happy with.

Your car, since it was newer than mine, might have had a older tune in it, but you said the sticker was the same as mine.

This is such a confusing issue hey? And to think when we deliver software we make sure that the customer can tell fairly easily exactly what version/build number they have as it is helps a lot from a support point of view.

I emailed mazda the otherday about what the "CalID" my car should have had in it from the factory, and what newer versions where available. No reply so far.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Originally posted by Gomez
L&L, what flash???

Was it done by Mazda, I'm sure the labrat would be interested to hear!!!

Gomez.

Gomez I think we should talk to the City Mazda people and ask them if they knew about the re:flash :eek:

Originally posted by Lock & Load
... however this time i will be a lot more cautious and have the proper tools and the help of a rotary expert to specifically test the A/F RATIOS and make sure the car is running safe, AND GET IT TUNED TO THE AUSTRALIAN RX8 MAP.


Michael,

I am not pretending to be a "Rotary Expert", but you were cautious last time. Remember?? We went for a gentle drive and checked the AFR via the wideband O2 sensor and the on board diagnostics. Then we went a bit harder, and made sure it wasn't running too lean, before we did some measured acceleration runs.

This is exactly how the Rotary Guru did initial AFR tests on the Ric Shaw unit. When we get on the Dyno we will use an additonal WBO2 sensor.

The AFR's that emack had measured and provided to Maurice were the catylist for him to say "danger - stop using it", yet he himself said that there was an obvious error in the figures.

It is very wise that you are getting the new unit tuned to the Aussie map. But you need to know exactly what map is in your car, otherwise the tune put into your CZ unit will be of no benefit to other Aussie RX-8 owners.

BTW - I am pretty certain, after driving around for 1+ weeks with the Ric Shaw unit fitted, that there are noticably less black deposits in the exhaust tips.

Cheers,
Hymee

Originally posted by Lock & Load
BVD

I would suspect if Ricks unit was up and running correctly surely it would be offered for sale on the forum , it obviously still at the testing stage similar to Canzoomers , VERSION for the Australian market .



I suspect that you're pretty close to the mark there Michael. It seems that there are all manner of goodies currently still being fully developed, tweaked and perfected (I've seen rumours of superchargers/turbos and the like too).

Maybe this Christmas will be a time to look forward too. :)

Cheers, Chris.

I thought it was offered for sale... as much as he could without paying advertising.

I had not heard anything about it being withdrawn from sale?

A month on... what has happened to it, Hymee?

I am interested in a piggyback you know... does it need to be retuned?

RIC where are you???

I am looking for an ECU for so long that I am running out of patience. Hymee, I have step on the grasshopper and kill it :(

Takahashi

I have driven Hymees car with the rickshaw piggyback unit i will tell you what i think when i see you on thursday .

cheers
michael

I have not had the time to scratch since my car was re-tuned. It happened last Tuesday, and the car was serviced Wednesday and I went on The Big Drive on Thursday - Sunday.

I submit my report on the Ric Shaw piggy back controller:

The RIC SHAW controller has a mild tune in it, and it only was programmed to take effect at mostly heavy throttle settings.

Firstly, we ran a base dyno run with the controller off to check against the previous baseline. (Note, the car has the HymeeEnhanced Catback fitted). The results were very comparable - which is what we wanted,

Second, we did a run with the RIC SHAW unit turned on. This showed some gains (See "COLD / WARM" dyno chart).

Thirdly, GTP (Guru Tuner Partner / Guru Tuner Phil) spent about an hour or more adjusting the mixtures at practically every RPM and load point (aka throttle setting) above about 25% throttle. The "Standard" RIC SHAW tune only effected about 70% throttle and above. The changes made at each of these load points was done to get the mixture to the ideal power making ratio of around 12.8 - 13.2 range. This was checked at each RPM/Load point using a wideband O2 sensor in conjunction with the dyno holding the RPM's at each desired setting, and applying full load - The operator (GTP) stepped through the throttle positions.

This is very time consuming, and really puts some heat into the drivetrain.

The result --- Wait for it --- An improvement of around 18HP at the tyres.

DON'T STOP READING - IMPORTANT INFO FOLLOWS

To check a measurement like this, it is normal, if possible, to change back to the "baseline" configuration and re-measure. Fortuneately this is easy with the controller being tested. So we turned it off, and - wow a ~9HP improvement over stock. Wait a minute - it is stock! WTF??? WTF??? WTF???

So the car had heated up more than normal, the oil in the tranny and the oil in the diff would have been runnier than normal. The crap in the cat probably got a good burn-off, and the plugs probably cleaned up a bit as well. Letting the car get really hot let us make more measured power.

So the car probably gained ~10HP at the wheels comparing apples to apples. Something to think about...

Also - my car did go into "safe mode". Not that it made it any worse. The ABS and TC lights came on. But we still made good repeatable power. We "reset" the ABS/TC lights, and tried again. Without "safe mode" the car makes LESS POWER. With "Safe Mode" triggered the car makes MORE POWER! It goes against everything we have painstakingly learnt up to that point. Go figure.

But the car does drive much better with the Hymee Enhanced Tune. It is crisper, and pulls stronger. This is noticable on full throttle, and even on part throttle. I feel it even "feels" crisper with cruise control activated. That is a real weird thing to say in public, but I believe this is due to the extra spark advance dialled in, as a feature of the RIC SHAW unit.

The Hymee Enhanced tune-up was to suit my PCM, which is currentlt the "E" flash. I have spent some time experimenting with the unit on a car with a "D" flash. There were issues (as expected) but Wildcard did say he felt the car was more responsive.

Attached is about the most honest dyno chart comparisons I can give. I could also give you the "cold / stock" run v's the "hot / tuned" run for you to see the amazing power gains. But I won't - I am trying to give an honest and accurate results as possible. Like GTP said, "There are too many variables on a chassis dyno. The engine dyno reduces those variables considerably." Thank goodness GTP has access to a engine dyno facility. I have seen him tuning a 1000HP triple-turbo 20B on it.

For best comparisons, I will give two charts. A "Cold" chart comparing the Standard Tune with the RIC SHAW piggy back "as is", and a "Hot" chart comparing the Standard Tune to the RIC SHAW piggy back with the [i]Hymee Enhanced[/b] Tune.

"COLD"
http://rx8.hymee.com/images/ColdRICSHAW.jpg


"HOT"
http://rx8.hymee.com/images/HotRICSHAW.jpg

Notice the useable power increase right through the rev range, except for the very bottom. What the graph doesn't show is part throttle. As stated above we have improved things noticable on part throttle as well.

The only other info I have is that we ran out of time, and GTP thinks there is more refinement to be done.

All the best,
Hymee http://www.hymee.com/smilies/sm_karate.gif

Hymee, my eyes are playing tricks on me. Where is the over 200Hp chart and the +30Hp chart?

You must have got some typo's that I quickly edited out. Try a browser refresh. Remember it makes more power with the ABS thingy. There was definately a log in the machine that recorded 200+, but I didn't plot that one out. Tried to get something representative.

censorship ?


Hymee, in your tuning travels with the 8 has there been much talk about forced induction?

Censorship??? Anyone can edit their posts here. I fixed my mistake before anyone replied.

FI: Not a real lot yet. One step at a time I suppose. I recall with the LS1's the early guys who went straight to "cracking" their motors and putting cams in and making good power, but eventually the same or more power was being found in an un-opened motor with a good intake/exhaust/tune. Like I said, One step at a time...

I have thought alot about how I would like a supercharger though :D

Cheers,
Hymee.

I'll be putting my hand up for the hymee supercharging kit. Will it come with the Hymee guarantee though, LOL!

Originally posted by Lock & Load
Takahashi

I have driven Hymees car with the rickshaw piggyback unit i will tell you what i think when i see you on thursday .

cheers
michael

I don't think this is the real L&L! Whoever thought the day would come where Michael didn't post his opinion!!!!! http://www.hymee.com/smilies/sm_poke.gif

LOR!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Oh well he just have some secret to tell me... maybe he REALLY did some wankeling with a mother and daugther :D

Hymee, I think you have the BEST post by far. I think I am so much an Australian now I don't understand a word that the American are saying. You make it sound so simple.

So like in medicine, people like pathologist (like me) will talk about the lump in your arm is a seborrheic keratosis, displaying features of hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, acanthosis and papilliomatosis with inclusion horn cysts but without displasia. You have a stupid surgeon who take it out and told you that it is a benign skin lesion, don't worry about it :)

Oh well.. I wish I live in Brisbane now. So I can actually get some similar tuning done. Go Hymee.

I think the Hymee' s explanation is believable.... at least I understand what he has done... I wonder I can do the same here...

Taka,

There is no reason why this "tune-up" wouldn't work on any other RX-8 with the same PCM flash.

Some people might prefer to just to have a plug and play solution. Others might prefer to spend the extra time / equipment in verifying / tweaking it for their individual car.

For cars with such low levels of mods (as most RX-8's are at the moment), then the "mail order tune" option will probably get pretty close to optimum. The factory tune / reflashes are basically a plug and play, or "mail order" style of thing.

What we need to do is to try the same tune on a few different vehicles with the same PCM flash and see how they compare.

Cheers,
Hymee.

(EDIT: I have tried the tune on an "D" flash car that was re-flashed. We did not know for sure the actual re-flashed calibration, but assumed it was E. It showed some gains with an in-car dyno, but not the same level as I experienced in my car. Refer to http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26089)

Taka its all Greek to me :)

Im going to give Ric a call after easter see how its going :)

Regards
Phillip

Hymee,
With a lean AFR on a normal engine one runs the risk of burning valves. What is the high risk component on the Renesis?
Chris

Chris,

When I say lean, I should say "less rich". When you are cruising along, the computer is chasing 14.7:1 AFR (this is closed loop). I have proved this with my OBDII monitoring of the wideband O2 sensor. 14.7:1 is the ideal, or stoichometric AFR for petrol/gasoline. The RX-8 does a very, very good job of this when in closed loop mode.

When aiming for power and the computer has come out of closed loop into open loop, we try to get a richer AFR than "stoich". A number lower then 14.7 is richer. Around 13.1:1 is what is typically aimed for. The factory "E" tune gives AFR's in the 12's and even dips into the 11's at times. This is what some term "pig rich". So even though we are getting a leaner mixture, it is still richer than ideal - just less rich than factory.

Does that make sense?? If not I can try to explain some more.

Cheers,
Hymee.

It makes sense. What I don't understand is, if the computer is so good controlling the AFR within tight limits, how come Mazda (factory "E") are so conservative? Why do they want to cool things down? What's the risk they are not willing to take? With all the bucketing they have got on fuel consumption, there must be a compelling reason.
Chris

The computer is good at controlling the AFR in tight limits when in "closed loop". This is basically at light throttle / cruise. When it is out of closed loop, it does not have a feedback "loop" where it is adjusting the mixture based on the the O2 sensor. Instead, it is looking up a fuel delivery table.

As an argument to your question...

Well, I guess if the "fuel delivery table" in the factory "D" flash was so "perfect", why did they release a "E" flash??

We know the fuel delivery is different in the E compared to the D. And now there is the "F" flash. But we don't know what has changed with that. It might be something other than fuel... Who knows.

It is all about continual improvement. Lots of software ships without being "perfect".

Cheers,
Hymee.

Originally posted by wallerc
What I don't understand is, if the computer is so good controlling the AFR within tight limits, how come Mazda (factory "E") are so conservative? Why do they want to cool things down? What's the risk they are not willing to take? With all the bucketing they have got on fuel consumption, there must be a compelling reason.
Chris

It may have to do with the fact that Mazda have programmed all current model passenger car ECU's (with the exception of the MX5) to run rich for the run in period......20000k in the case of the RX-8.....That's what I'm told by my contact in the city....I assume the MX5 slipped through the net on the grandfather clause.

Gomez.

Hymee,
Congratulations on your hymee tuned piggyback unit, seems very promising indeed.
Will you be offering this hymee tuned piggyback for sale to fellow Rx8 owners complete with the modified plug in wiring loom that you have developed?
If so ,when? and how much?
My rx8 was built in october 03 deliverd november 03.
I have not as yet checked to see whether I have "E" or "F" flashed ecu. Does this matter ?

regards
George "rexi" Thomas

I think the only way to find out is to puck it to a WDS

I will do that in 2 weeks

Originally posted by rexi
Hymee,
Congratulations on your hymee tuned piggyback unit, seems very promising indeed.
Will you be offering this hymee tuned piggyback for sale to fellow Rx8 owners complete with the modified plug in wiring loom that you have developed?
If so ,when? and how much?
My rx8 was built in october 03 deliverd november 03.
I have not as yet checked to see whether I have "E" or "F" flashed ecu. Does this matter ?

regards
George "rexi" Thomas

George,

There are no fixed plans at this stage, although a number of members have contacted me expressing their interest.

If you check the sticker on the PCM, make sure you update that thread where I am trying to keep tabs on Calibrations v's VINs.

It it not known whether the F calibration alters any of the tune, or addresses other things. There is certainly a difference between the state of tune between the D and the E cal. The only real way for us to tell is when we get a F cal car all plugged in and we do some comparisons to determine the difference. Unless of course Mazda release "version info" like software comanies do!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Originally posted by Lock & Load

Paid $ 66.00 for the re:flash which i felt was a rip off but my car does seem that MAZDA kept most information closely guarded and even he had problems accessing it .

MAZDA you are a F%^^&ing joke as far as a company is concerned your products are good but your service and customer relations suck .

Even people that work for mazda have twice stated this to me .


CHEERS
Michael

*yawns* Yet another that is learning what crap the dealers have to put up with & how anal Mazda Australia really are. Its a culture mate & aint going to go away any time soon.

Great product, r_tt_n company

Hymee-

have you done anything with the ric shaw concerning lead/trailing plug timing split? i understand the unit can control this.

No we haven't. The unit we have does not allow for that to be controlled as far as we know. There is no reference to that in the tuning software we received with the unit. But yes, it is something that we would like to be able to control.

And perhaps there has been an update. I will endeavour to find out more.

Cheers,
Hymee.

I have not had the time to scratch since my car was re-tuned. It happened last Tuesday, and the car was serviced Wednesday and I went on The Big Drive on Thursday - Sunday.

I submit my report on the Ric Shaw piggy back controller:

The RIC SHAW controller has a mild tune in it, and it only was programmed to take effect at mostly heavy throttle settings.

Firstly, we ran a base dyno run with the controller off to check against the previous baseline. (Note, the car has the HymeeEnhanced Catback fitted). The results were very comparable - which is what we wanted,

Second, we did a run with the RIC SHAW unit turned on. This showed some gains (See "COLD / WARM" dyno chart).

Thirdly, GTP (Guru Tuner Partner / Guru Tuner Phil) spent about an hour or more adjusting the mixtures at practically every RPM and load point (aka throttle setting) above about 25% throttle. The "Standard" RIC SHAW tune only effected about 70% throttle and above. The changes made at each of these load points was done to get the mixture to the ideal power making ratio of around 12.8 - 13.2 range. This was checked at each RPM/Load point using a wideband O2 sensor in conjunction with the dyno holding the RPM's at each desired setting, and applying full load - The operator (GTP) stepped through the throttle positions.

This is very time consuming, and really puts some heat into the drivetrain.

The result --- Wait for it --- An improvement of around 18HP at the tyres.

DON'T STOP READING - IMPORTANT INFO FOLLOWS

To check a measurement like this, it is normal, if possible, to change back to the "baseline" configuration and re-measure. Fortuneately this is easy with the controller being tested. So we turned it off, and - wow a ~9HP improvement over stock. Wait a minute - it is stock! WTF??? WTF??? WTF???

So the car had heated up more than normal, the oil in the tranny and the oil in the diff would have been runnier than normal. The crap in the cat probably got a good burn-off, and the plugs probably cleaned up a bit as well. Letting the car get really hot let us make more measured power.

So the car probably gained ~10HP at the wheels comparing apples to apples. Something to think about...

Also - my car did go into "safe mode". Not that it made it any worse. The ABS and TC lights came on. But we still made good repeatable power. We "reset" the ABS/TC lights, and tried again. Without "safe mode" the car makes LESS POWER. With "Safe Mode" triggered the car makes MORE POWER! It goes against everything we have painstakingly learnt up to that point. Go figure.

But the car does drive much better with the Hymee Enhanced Tune. It is crisper, and pulls stronger. This is noticable on full throttle, and even on part throttle. I feel it even "feels" crisper with cruise control activated. That is a real weird thing to say in public, but I believe this is due to the extra spark advance dialled in, as a feature of the RIC SHAW unit.

The Hymee Enhanced tune-up was to suit my PCM, which is currentlt the "E" flash. I have spent some time experimenting with the unit on a car with a "D" flash. There were issues (as expected) but Wildcard did say he felt the car was more responsive.

Attached is about the most honest dyno chart comparisons I can give. I could also give you the "cold / stock" run v's the "hot / tuned" run for you to see the amazing power gains. But I won't - I am trying to give an honest and accurate results as possible. Like GTP said, "There are too many variables on a chassis dyno. The engine dyno reduces those variables considerably." Thank goodness GTP has access to a engine dyno facility. I have seen him tuning a 1000HP triple-turbo 20B on it.

For best comparisons, I will give two charts. A "Cold" chart comparing the Standard Tune with the RIC SHAW piggy back "as is", and a "Hot" chart comparing the Standard Tune to the RIC SHAW piggy back with the [i]Hymee Enhanced[/b] Tune.

"COLD"
http://rx8.hymee.com/images/ColdRICSHAW.jpg


"HOT"
http://rx8.hymee.com/images/HotRICSHAW.jpg

Notice the useable power increase right through the rev range, except for the very bottom. What the graph doesn't show is part throttle. As stated above we have improved things noticable on part throttle as well.

The only other info I have is that we ran out of time, and GTP thinks there is more refinement to be done.

All the best,
Hymee http://www.hymee.com/smilies/sm_karate.gif


HEY sorry to dig up this old thread.

Is that what I am dreaming about. As how I understand it, this is exactly how Unichip tune it. Tell me if I am wrong. Or I need APS to say something??

Sound like I was after Ric Shaw unit but no one is going to tune that for me :rolleyes:

I guess this is a bump, any updates?

Also, I am somewhat curious. so 14.7:1 is stoich and the ECU stock does a good job of keeping near this at idle. However, 14.7:1 is an ideal stoich ratio, correct? How complete is combustion at this ratio in reality? If complete combustion at idle is the goal, should this be retuned for more lean?




Chris,

When I say lean, I should say "less rich". When you are cruising along, the computer is chasing 14.7:1 AFR (this is closed loop). I have proved this with my OBDII monitoring of the wideband O2 sensor. 14.7:1 is the ideal, or stoichometric AFR for petrol/gasoline. The RX-8 does a very, very good job of this when in closed loop mode.

When aiming for power and the computer has come out of closed loop into open loop, we try to get a richer AFR than "stoich". A number lower then 14.7 is richer. Around 13.1:1 is what is typically aimed for. The factory "E" tune gives AFR's in the 12's and even dips into the 11's at times. This is what some term "pig rich". So even though we are getting a leaner mixture, it is still richer than ideal - just less rich than factory.

Does that make sense?? If not I can try to explain some more.

Cheers,
Hymee.

I too would like an update on this, so bump

I guess this is a bump, any updates?

Also, I am somewhat curious. so 14.7:1 is stoich and the ECU stock does a good job of keeping near this at idle. However, 14.7:1 is an ideal stoich ratio, correct? How complete is combustion at this ratio in reality? If complete combustion at idle is the goal, should this be retuned for more lean?

14.7:1 is complete combustion. The ECU maintains very close to that most of the time, when running in "closed loop". And you can't change that. In open loop, which is basically anything more than a modest throttle opening, you actually need a richer mixture than 14.7:1. But not as rich as the factory computer dumps in. And in open loop, the continous feedback / adjustment does not take place (hence the feedback loop is "open"). So that is where the tuning comes into play - basically when you want power.

AFR for best power is around 13.something:1. My RX-8's stock fuelling in open loop has gone as rich as 11:1.

Cheers,
Hymee.

I too would like an update on this, so bump

Well I suppose I should start the update with the fact that I now call this unit the "TSI" piggy back, as I was told by the manufacturer that Ric didn't actually contribute anything to the development of it.

We will be using it on my twin-screw supercharger project, so that is probably the fist time we will really be using it in anger. We have not done any more tuning with this unit since I last reported results here. And I have not been running the unit for 2 reasons - he first being that my car was re-flashed with the "G" calibration, and the second reason being we decided to wait for our FI project.

Cheers,
Hymee.

AFR for best power is around 13.something:1.
Theoretically it's 12.6:1

Theoretically it's 12.6:1
I'd like to see a cogent argument for this, please.

It has been demonstrated and bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to see and thermodynamic science for it.
14:1 is the ratio at which maximum energy is released from gasoline under any condition.

Why is it that vehicles produce more power at a point where some of the fuel is actually wasted? (I do realize that it is often the case, I just don't think it is anything more than a way to compensate for bad tuning.)

Is it a charge cooling thing? In that case, the numbers should lie in the equation for efficiency since we are just counteracting waste latent heat.
Is it fire-front suppression? In that case it is a spark timing issue.
Is it just for "safety"?

Please elaborate.

Theoretically it's 12.6:1

I'd like to see a cogent argument for this, please.

It has been demonstrated and bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to see and thermodynamic science for it.
14:1 is the ratio at which maximum energy is released from gasoline under any condition.

Why is it that vehicles produce more power at a point where some of the fuel is actually wasted? (I do realize that it is often the case, I just don't think it is anything more than a way to compensate for bad tuning.)

Is it a charge cooling thing? In that case, the numbers should lie in the equation for efficiency since we are just counteracting waste latent heat.
Is it fire-front suppression? In that case it is a spark timing issue.
Is it just for "safety"?

Please elaborate.

I just trust a guy with the practical experience, who:


Tuned the first 200+ MPH pass for a Rotary in the world.
Just designed a new intake manifold for 13B / 20B. This change alone took a 20B drag racer from a 175MPH pass to a 196MPH pass. ref: http://ausrotary.dntinternet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52936


Respectfully, in this regard, theory means nothing. I thought any fair-dinkum tuner knew that slightly rich of stoich was for maximum power. And I know that in practice it is not 12.6:1

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hence the use of the word "theoretically".

Hence the use of the word "theoretically".

Yeah - it is cool.

Perhaps that is how they got the original power figures :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. :rolleyes:

I realize that more power is often made at rich A/F ratios.

I just wanted an explanation.

That said, I found maximum power on my Miata at 13.9:1. This was at 12 PSI.
That combination made more power than 14 PSI and the 12.5:1 or so that was needed to keep it from pinging.

I have seen the 12.6 number a couple of times but did some searching on the net. Check this site out. Look at the first definition. It seems to support the mid 13's as best power. I wonder if 12.6 is what it is when not under pressure as it would be in a combustion chamber? I'm not that great at Chemistry so I have no clue.

^ Link? ^

Pressure makes no difference to the formula.

A given number of gasoline molecules requires an exact number of air molecules to burn completely into CO2 and H2O.
Obviously, the ICE is not completely efficient to begin with because things other than carbon dioxide and water come out of the tailpipe.
I want an explanation for that and why the efficiency apparently goes down when we add boost.

I would guess incomplete combustion and competing reactions at stoichiometric or *ideal* mixtures leave some oxygen unaccounted for. Rich mixtures then would mean that more fuel is available to combust this leftover oxygen.

Incomplete combustion presumably would be the result of non-ideal conditions- the mixture is not as homogenous as we would like due to turbulence and incomplete carburation after fuel injection. I would also guess that these elements do vary with pressure, although I don't know how.

Gasoline itself isnt a pure substance, it is a hydrocarbon mixture with a particular octane number. Also, oxygen isn't the only gas consumed in an engine either... air is, which includes significant quantity of nitrogen. Hence competing reactions take place. Gas additives apparently complicate this even more.

I'm not a chemist so consider this "hypothetical articulation"

^ Very good.

We are getting closer.

Damn it where'd my link go? I know I posted one. Now I can't find it again. Oh well. It stated that somewhere between 13.25:1 and 13.75:1 was optimum for power.

as far as why efficiency decreases under boost, I think that there is probably some fundamental thermodynamics argument. I dont know it, though :)

this site seems informative
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php

Richer mixtures slow combustion flame front (why?)
>> later peak pressure in comparison to TDC >> less probability of knock and more torque as the result of peak pressure being later and so having more leverage on crankshaft.

This situation might be required under boost, since boost increases flame front speed


This might be a tangent but how does one calculate e-shaft torque for a given pressure and crank angle?