Here’s the teaser:
The way GReddy configured it, only about 16% of the total fuel delivered under WOT is under your complete control. The rest is under direct control of the PCM. This means that you might see swings of about +/-15% of the total fuel delivered due to LTFT. MazdaManiac and I have developed a way, using the emanage, to give total control of about 78% of the total fuel delivered under WOT. This means that you could expect to see swings of only +/-4% due to LTFT adjustment. You can buy the emanage for $289. Interested? Read on.

Disclaimer: Please be aware that all of the values and figures that I quote here are based on MY tuned maps!! Yours will be different than this! But, you should be able to follow this same process to put your fuel under almost complete control. So far, this technique has only been tested on my car. MazdaManiac has done some initial testing with promising results, but he’s in the midst of moving and can’t play as much as I have been able to. I don’t want anyone to think that this is an easy/reliable/safe thing to do! I spent many hours data logging and analyzing to make sure I wasn’t running into trouble. If you want to run your emanage this way, you should take the same precautions. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A WB02 SENSOR, DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS CONVERSION! INSTEAD, PROMPTLY REMOVE YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ASS AND INSTALL ONE.

While some of us GReddy owners have had success with the eManage, others have not. I believe the primary reason for lack of good performance is simply a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness to learn about and tune your car. That being said, I also feel that GReddy could have done a better job of configuring the fuel management while still using the eManage.

While it is a piggyback unit, the emanage has the capability to drive one set of injectors all by itself, independent of the PCM. This is accomplished by using the SubInjector map. The emanage will fire these injectors totally independently, while the Additional Injection map simply increases the dwell that the PCM specifies. For example, if a particular cell value in the SubInjector map is 20%, the injector will fire at a duty cycle of 20% regardless. If a cell in the Additional Injection map reads 20%, the duty cycle specified by the PCM is increased by 20%. So, if the PCM wanted 50% duty cycle, the net result would be 50%+(20%*50%)=60%.

The high-power 8 has 3 sets of injectors: P1 (280cc), P2 (390cc) and S(390cc). The way GReddy wired the turbo setup, the P1 and S injectors are driven by the Additional Injection map. The P2 injectors are driven using the SubInjector map *and* the Additional Injection map. When I was tuning my original maps, I found that I had a lot more success tuning using the Sub map. So, MazdaManiac and I had the idea to try to migrate 100% of the fuel needed by a boosted Renesis over to the SubInjector map. We decided that using the P2 injectors under control of the Sub map would make the most sense because the PCM uses the P2’s very sparingly (you’ll see how in a few minutes). This move, along with severing the P2 injectors from the PCM, would give you nearly complete control of all the fuel that is needed for the turbo. And, the best part is, the PCM doesn’t have shit to say about it!! Tunability is greatly increased, AFR’s are flat as a board, and the LTFT becomes almost a non-issue!

As an aside, I also swapped my P2 injectors for some of the P2’s from the standard power (auto transmission) Renesis. I got them from Paul and MazMart (*forum vendor plug*) for $250. I highly recommend dealing with MazMart. They are really top-notch guys. These are drop-in replacements and bring the P2 capacity from 390cc to about 490cc. You can do this migration without upgrading your injectors as long as you are careful! I wouldn’t do it running more than about 6.5psi, and I would also !strongly! recommend logging your P2 duty cycles to make sure you aren’t above 85%-90% duty cycle after conversion.

The first step towards making this work was to spend a lot of time logging the injector duty cycles. I simply tapped into the harness and ran the signal into the pulse input of my profec e-01. Since I knew what the emanage was doing, I could simply subtract the contribution of the duty cycle that was coming from the emanage to find out what the PCM was doing. The figure below shows a smoothed version of what I found.
http://home.comcast.net/~tms04rx8/InjectorDutyCycles.jpg
Be aware that this is under WOT and that the P2 duty cycle changes a lot according to the gear that you are in, but what is pictured above turned out to be a useful approximation.

Knowing this, it is possible to compute the total fuel delivered due to the addition of the emanage. Before cutting the P2’s loose, the equation looks like:

[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)]

The first term is the contribution of the P1’s since they are at 100% all the time. The second term is the contribution of the S injectors (‘S’ is the linear function from my duty cycle logs). The third term is the contribution of the P2’s due to the AddInj map. The fourth term is the contribution of the P2’s due to the SubInj map.
This results in a fuel surface that looks like this BEFORE cutting the P2’s loose from the PCM:

http://home.comcast.net/~tms04rx8/NotSevered.jpg


The next step is to simply convert all this fuel to the P2 injectors. Do this by 1) defining a new SubInj map that goes from 1500RPPM to 9000RPM and 2) dividing the above 3D surface by 390cc (if you are still running the 390cc P2’s. I used 490cc.) and interpolating to find the new P2 duty cycle. This results in a SubINj map that looks like:
http://home.comcast.net/~tms04rx8/un_severed2.jpg
The AddInj map is ALL ZEROS.

I ran this map for a week or so with no problems. In reality, I developed a couple of intermediate maps. I started by switching over 50% of the fuel, then 75% and 90%. Since things went so well, I went ahead and did 100% of the fuel to the P2’s.

The next step was to literally cut the line from the PCM to the P2’s (*gulp*). You can find the wiring diagram in the service manual. Since I am controlling the P2’s all by myself now, I also have to account for the fuel delivered by the PCM through the P2’s. The total fuel required by the severed P2’s under your complete control is found through the following formula:

[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)+P2]

The fifth term is required since I am driving the P2’s without the PCM. Notice how the fuel surface now increases linearly, even in the non-boosted range. This is because the PCM used to control the P2 injectors this way. I am accounting for the non-boosted fuel that I am now responsible for, having severed the P2’s from the PCM.
http://home.comcast.net/~tms04rx8/severed.jpg


The SubInj map for MY 490cc P2’s looks like this:

http://home.comcast.net/~tms04rx8/severed2.jpg

Again, the AddInj map is all zeros. The duty cycle does get pretty high in the lower right corner, but, I can’t hold that kind of boost up there anyway. NOTE THAT THIS MAP IS FOR MY 490cc INJECTORS. If you were to use this map with the standard P2’s, you would be running lean.

OKAY! So, I have been running the P2’s under my COMPLETE control for a few days now. The PCM doesn’t seem to know the difference. No CEL’s so far. My AFR is flat as board around 11 - which is a little richer than the maps that I started with under the GReddy way. This is probably due to variation in the P2's that I installed. They are likely a little higher than 490cc just due to manufacturing variation. The Mazda specs let the injector capacities vary by as much as 15% - which is one more reason that NO ONE MAP WILL EVER WORK FOR EVERY CAR, REGARDLESS OF THE MANAGEMENT YOU USE! If it doesn't adapt like the PCM does, it can't work for every 8.

While I haven’t done much tuning yet, initial results are that the tuning is much easier and more reliable using this configuration. As I mentioned before, I took the total fuel under my direct control from 16% to 78% using this technique. The variation that I could see from LTFT adjustment went from +/- 15% to +/-4%. Not too shabby. Also, I retained all the nice PCM functionality (like the knock sensor), I have a $289 solution, and its operating in semi-standalone mode, one step closer to taking full control, without the cost or complexity.

I don’t really want to post the maps here yet. I’d like to have some discussion first. If you are interested in trying this, I’d suggest contacting MM or me for some coaching first. I’m just afraid that someone will F it up and end-up hosing their motor.

Lastly, many thanks goes to MazdaManiac. While my car was the testbed, this was a collaborative effort.

You are hearby elevated to Mazda Maniac Status - please step forward and receive your Flying M Badge of Honor :)

Nice work guys

Tim really did all the work. It is very generous of him to include me in the credit - I just took the rebounds.
I want to reiterate - THIS MODIFICATION IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO WILL GIVE DUE DILLIGENCE TO THE PROCESS !!

If you don't have the tools/wits/sensitivity, don't try this.

I expect this will become the way the Greddy kit is shipped sometime in the near future without any compensation from them to Tim. :cussing:

Nice to see that the emanage still can do some more serious type of tuning... This is more than what I have thought of. Still waiting for the snow to disappear over here so I can take out my car again...
Great work guys!!!

Good news to those who like to tinker with their own systems. It's nice to hear that MazdaManiac still hasn't given up on Greddy Emanage yet. I'll be following the progress of this experiment. Good work!

That is some great stuff. We need more people willing to experiment like this. I wonder why Greddy didn't do this to begin with. It seems like a much better way for controlling fuel.

I think Greddy just went with what they thought was the best solution based on their previous experience.

Hey, thanks for the props, Jeff.

I think the next step is going to be to smooth the transition from vacuum to boost. Now that the LTFT is pretty much a non-issue, I don't care about adding fuel before the temp dongle kicks-in. The tranistion can be a little hairy sometimes - but this was also true under the old GReddy system.

Can you please resize the pics, 800 x 600 is more than adequate sizing

I'm working it! I'm working it! Doesn't everyone have a dual 20 inch flat panel display set at 1600x1200? SHEESH! ;)

^^ Hah! Such a geek.
Unfortunately, I'm limited to only one 1600x1200.
Your changes look grainy. I'll send you some clearer ones to put up.

okay, display-pansies! DONE!

Now, back to the good stuff:

I didn't want to start turning-up the boost until I had this kind of control of the fuel. Now that I do, the AFR is so nice and consistent! And pretty flat, too! I'm sitting at about 7.5 psi right now, heading towards 9psi. I may put still bigger injectors in. The maximum duty cycle I've seen so far is about 69% just because the lower left corner of the map is not really used because of the boost droop that occurs at higher RPM. I may not need injectors bigger than the 490cc ones I have now. Just have to wait and see.

Paul is out of the 490's, so I want yours if you go to 550's!

deal. what did you say the cost was for those from the dealer?

Like $600 or something each. I'll call Jay or Allen over at Gaithersburg Mazda on Wednesday.

looks good now :)

BTW: I have guessed that the reason the N flash doesn't work well with the GReddy is that the N flash puts different emphasis on some injectors versus what the M flash did. This new strategy may also improve the ability of those with the N flash to run the emanage, since you are now in total control of the fuel you want to add.

I just wanted to give an update.

So far, I've been running this strategy for about 2 weeks now with no issues. I have plenty of fuel running 8.5psi on the street. The max duty cycle I have seen is about 75%. This seems to suggest that there might be enough capacity in the stock 390cc P2 injectors to run a little more boost than I previously thought.

Interestingly, my LTFT has gone from about -8% to -4% since I started running the fuel this way. My AFR is about the same as it was before I severed the P2's from the PCM. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the fact that I am trying to approximate the non-boosted operation of the P2's that the PCM would normally have control of. Its not exactly the fuel that the PCM thinks it should be, its just my approximation. So, the LTFT is changing - but not by too much. I guess I did a pretty good job of acting like the PCM! :ylsuper:

I'm starting to tune the map a little bit - target AFR=12.0. The tuning definitely seems easier using this strategy. Having a lot more control of the fuel is, of course, a real plus. Under the GReddy way, its was kind of a guessing game which map to tweak and how big the AFR response would be. Seems much simpler now.

I'd still highly recommend this strategy for fuel management. It seems to be a great compromise between piggyback and full EMS. Stay tuned. I'll post more impressions and maps as I tune.

so would this still work well with those who still have the M flash?

That's what I am running on - M flash. MazdaManiac is as well.

But, because you have moer complete control of the fuel using this strategy, it should be more insensitive to the flash revision than the GReddy way - barring some kind of bizzare changes in the flash revs.

If you get a chance, can you throw some CanScan logs my way? Something with RPM, throttle, ignition timing, O2S2 or lambda, coolant temp, etc.

I like the new avatar, Tim. You should put a slash through it, though since you don't have a CEL.

Maddog and MM could you take a gander at this thread please? could use some input http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=81408 thanks,appreciate it!

and good work on the modified fueling- really excellent results

Nice results guys. I'm glad you found a solution to the fuel side with the equipment you have on hand.

RG and I got my car driving on the Megasquirt with fuel only control (ignition was still PCM controlled, and we got it working with now CEL either)

How are you guys dealing with the ignition side? This is what really worries me, as far as boost on the Renesis goes. If you going for low boost, maybe its a non issue, but I would still want to back the ignition off a bit to be safe.

I'm not an emanage expert, but what ignition options do you have that the PCM can't fight back on?

The ignition is not a closed loop system. On most cars, the only method the PCM has to learn timing is through the knock sensor. When it experience knock it backs ignition timing at that point by a few degrees. As long as there is no knock though, the ecu should not adapt. I believe this holds true for the Renesis.

what it takes away it can also give back- if the knock control gives back to much timing it could leave you with too much advance and send into dangerous situations during boost

My understanding of the timing operation is this:
The PCM operates with set tables for ignition timing. If a knock is detected, it retards the timing. It only does so for that instant in time. It does not learn or adjust the ignition tables based on the detected knock. Its also not searching for the most advance it can get away without knock. There is no ignition equivalent to LTFT.
I'm still letting the PCM do all the ignition. MM has rigged-up the ignition harness for the emanage with the necessary diodes and has adjusted the ignition using the emanage ignition maps.

if it takes away i would think it adds back a lttle at a time aslong as it doesnt detect more knock, up to the total timing its mapped for.

interestingly enough i just yesterday re-read this article that i found some time ago on tuning a turbo on a 2005 mustang http://www.modulardepot.com/?show=articlesdet&aid=58

where they mention locking down the knock timing. good article

I know what you're thinking Zoom44. It COULD be possible, but the RX-8's ECU is older than the "Spanish Oak" ECU used in the V8 2005/6 Mustang. The one in the Mustang is really advanced. Remember what I posted from Kenne Bell in either the INterceptor-X or ECu flasher thread... the Mustang's ECU is tuned for Premium Unleaded gas, but the car is sold as regular unleaded gas. The ECU system is advanced enough to compensate for whatever fuel you put in it. The knock control system runs on its own processor and regularly checks to ensure the system is working properly. So the engine is always trying to run the most aggessive timing the fuel will allow it to.

In the case of the RX-8... who knows. Maybe that's why Mazda specifies it's best to run premium unleaded...

The RX-8 has two timing MAPs - one for normal operation and one for the misfire/CEL situation.
It also has a timing curve that is dependant on temperature.
In all of my data logs, the timing remined static, regardless of knock events. It just backed it off for a sec and then put it back.
The PCM has no way of knowing that timing is being affected by the E-Manage, so it doesn't react to it.
BTW, the advance can be as much a 40° BTDC in some spots!

the mustangs PCm i salso running 2 knock sensors!

40 jeff? i think i heard someone else, or you even, say that before but it still sounds crazy!

I've only seen about 30 under WOT. But, I've gotten some erratic readings near 40 after lifting off the throttle.

Do you have any fuel pressure readings? or maybe Jeff does? I dont remember if the scanalyser can pull fuel pressure or not- i dont think it does. I havent used it in awhile.

I don't think that's available on the CAN bus - at least the CANScan doesn't read it.

with all the advances that you guys have done with the emanage, would it be worth it for a n/a application?

And on the seventh day the LORD made the WEBER DCOE and a distributor!!!
I am to damn old for this other shit. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cussing: :cussing: :rant: :puke:

Oh come on man get with the program,I'm 61 years and its great(I'm so old I used to ride a Vincent Black Shadow as daily transportation.)

with all the advances that you guys have done with the emanage, would it be worth it for a n/a application?

Very interesting question!

Given that the P2's are coming on where the system goes open-loop and very rich, I'd say that driving the P2's independently of the PCM would give you the oportunity to lean things out. It would be similar in performance to the CZ, but with a little more control of things. The LTFT would be less of an issue than it was with a CZ.

And on the seventh day the LORD made the WEBER DCOE and a distributor!!!
I am to damn old for this other shit. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cussing: :cussing: :rant: :puke:
That's the exact setup we're removing from my best friend's RX-7 and replacing with a Megasquirt. You are an old bastard!

i gues teh Fuel Pressure is not available from the CAN:(

there is no mention of usign the wds to read it. in fact here is a pic pic from fuel pressure testing in the manual


http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=68579&stc=1

It's called tounge in cheek guys.
Just think about this though. Anybody can build an electronic FI. Think of the real intelect it takes to design a carbarettor. (British spelling?)
They have to bend a fuel curve with tiny amounts of airflow deltas in tiny tubes and passages. You guys can change things with a key, can you design an emulsion tube? Do you know what one is?

I know, my skills make me as employable as an enciclapedia salesman. Or a Fuller brush man. Or a covered wagon wheel builder. Or a bodyman who works only with lead. A vacuum tube designer, Mechanical slot machine designer, ............ :mices_bla :mices_bla :mices_bla

I know, my skills make me as employable as an enciclapedia salesman. Or a Fuller brush man. Or a covered wagon wheel builder. Or a bodyman who works only with lead. A vacuum tube designer, Mechanical slot machine designer, ............ :mices_bla :mices_bla :mices_bla


My choice for you would be a proofreader in charge of spelling! :D: :crazy:

Very interesting question!

Given that the P2's are coming on where the system goes open-loop and very rich, I'd say that driving the P2's independently of the PCM would give you the oportunity to lean things out. It would be similar in performance to the CZ, but with a little more control of things. The LTFT would be less of an issue than it was with a CZ.

which begs the question if a cz could be easily wired up to do this...

My choice for you would be a proofreader in charge of spelling! :D: :crazy:


Everyone on the board knows I can't spell but they let me slide on it because I have long hair down to the small of my back a tiny waist and big tits. :rollingla

It's OK, we all know that Zoom can't type the word "teh" if his life depended on it :)

the mustangs PCm i salso running 2 knock sensors!

40 jeff? i think i heard someone else, or you even, say that before but it still sounds crazy!

Crazy isn't it? And people want to bash Ford for lack of innovation/use of high tech! Mustang's intake manifold is variable like the RX-8's and the engine has variable valve timing as well.

And people wonder why I "preach" that the best solution is an ECU flasher (which is what everyone uses on the Mustangs).

More on topic... these new results with the emanage looks good. Definitely a better cost/performance solution than the Interceptor-X until/if an ECu flash tool ever becomes available.

BTW... any news about the emanage ultimate, Jeff?

It's OK, we all know that Zoom can't type the word "teh" if his life depended on it :)

hey hey HEY!!! :( its teh friggin keyboard i swear there is something wrong with it...

BTW... any news about the emanage ultimate, Jeff?Still no update from Greddy. Right now mine is a paperweight.

I wish:

1) Jeff would hurry up and get back to Phoenix to play with his 8.

2) someone else would work up the cahones to do this mod.

So just to be clear Jeff, your able to adjust the ignition timing through the emanage without the car fighting your changes either buy altering the timing over the emanage or trying to adjust the A/F?

Yes. The PCM has no idea that the timing has changed.
It is likely that moving the timing changes the effective A/F such that the PCM compensates, but that would be minimal and probably optimal anyway.

hows the idle quality for you guys? can you richen up the idle with the P2's on the sub injector map?

looks like you guys have a good solution for those with some good knowledge of tuning. wonder why Greddy didn't think of this (rhetorical question)

Probably can't do much for idle since it is closed-loop.
I tend to address idle with ignition advance, though I won't mess with it until I have separate leading/trailing maps on with the Ultimate.

My idle is perfectly smooth. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if the car is still on. But, this was the case before the fuel mod, too. My Idle AFR is about 14.0-14.2 most of the time.

My idle tends to sit around 15:1, which will occasionally make it grumble a bit.
I suppose that after I get the P2 severed I should reset the PCM to fix the LTFT which will fix the idle mixture.

Okay,
Here is the lated map -*SCALED FOR THE STOCK 390cc P2 INJECTORS, SEVERED FROM THE PCM*- that I have tuned a little leaner in a few locations. Tuning is easy and predictable. When doing the conversion from my 490cc map, I tended to round up, just to be safe. You can see that the flow rates required in the high-boost, high-RPM region exceeds the capacity of the 390cc injectors. But, I doubt that anyone with the GReddy turbo can hit this area of the MAP anyway. I don't think I ever have. Also, please remember that the injectors can vary +/-7% from nominal flow rates and still be within specification, which emphasizes the need to monitor AFR when changing your MAP or going to this fuel setup.

Enjoy.


Oh yeah, I don't care that the jpeg sucks.... :bootyshak

^ So does that mean your really only safe upto about 5.5psi with stock injectors, before you start running the chance of going lean?

Well, you certainly run that risk if you can hold that pressure in that RPM range. The bottom corner of the MAP for the 390cc injectors looks like:

89.5 96.5 100 109.5
91.5 97.5 102.5 110.5
102 109 113 117
105.5 112.5 117 121.5

But the support tool won't display anything over 100% duty cycle. My AFR at the achieveable limits of boost and RPM is about 11-11.5. So, there is a tiny bit of wiggle room, if you can indeed cover this region of the map.

Another option is to add a little fuel using the additional injection map in the lower right corner. That's a good option if you're still running the 390cc P2's. Again, you have to be able to monitor AFR and do map tracing if you want to do this right

Moderators: Any way to merge this with the sticky on the same subject? At least the first post would be nice....

We should probably re-write the whole thing, anyway. There is so much discussion mixed in that the threads are becoming unruly.

I just had a thought when taking a break a few minutes ago. This may be of minimal value (or it may be plainly obvious, but I hadn't really thought about it until now).

The additional injector map for the E-Manage, in our application, effectively worked upon only the secondary injectors until the P2s came on line.
Problem - the secondaries are mounted in the secondary intake ducts, which are shuttered by the SSV until at least 3250 RPM. This means any fuel added before this point wasn't going anywhere.
Furthermore, the opening point is dependant on what the PCM saw as load which may or may not have been realistic since it couldn't see boost, only air flow.
This would explain the hairy transitions that would happen at mid RPMs.

I know that might be a "duh", but it just crossed my mind and better out than in I always say....

Yes but the secondary injectors are not fired by the PCM until the SSV solenoid gets the signal to open.(At least that is the way I understand it).So the e-manage does nothing until the PCM fires the secodaries.

Yes but the secondary injectors are not fired by the PCM until the SSV solenoid gets the signal to open.(At least that is the way I understand it).So the e-manage does nothing until the PCM fires the secodaries.Exactly. Then, when they start firing, the PCM catches the E-Manage out and hits with whatever it is trying to do at that load point, which could be just about anything. That is, IMHO, the cause of a lot of the weirdness in the 3500 to 4700 RPM range with everyone's setup (except mine and MadDog's, of course :hahano:).

I wish:

1) Jeff would hurry up and get back to Phoenix to play with his 8.

2) someone else would work up the cahones to do this mod.


After watching people tune their RX-8s for so long and seeing all that has been done I have decided I want to get in on it. I've seen lots of tuning done with CZ but nobody that has used MM's and MadDog's work with the e-manage on an N/A application. I recall an earlier post in this thread asking if the e-manage would be viable for N/A and if it would be better than or at least more cost effective than the CZ unit. I'm sure there are lots of readers wondering the same thing. We've all seen the gains that were possible on the CZ unit. Let's see what happens when we have more control of the fuel!

I've decided that if MM and MadDog and anybody else knowledgable on the topic think it would be a good idea to try out e-manage tuning on an N/A RX-8 then I will be the guinnea (sp?) pig. I already intended on going Greddy kit and using the "definitive greddy kit fixes." BUT I have to save up enough cash for that first :P. For now I'd love to help on an e-manage + N/A project.

I'll just need some close guidance on this. I'm not an idiot or anything (I swear!). I managed to get a 4 year degree in Computer Science. But of course I haven't much experience tuning cars, other than watching a friend tune his eclipse with an e-manage.

So let me know guys if this would be a good project. From what I've been following I think it would be a great idea, but stop me from ordering if you can think of any problems! I'll also be getting a wideband O2 of course, most likely the LC-1 since it comes recommended (any opinions on a decent guage to hook up to it?). What else should I get? Scanalyser? Let me know!

Nope. The E-Manage as we have configured and improved it, is only beneficial in this manner for a forced-induction vehicle.
None of the improvements are aimed at reducing the amount of fuel, which is what is what is needed when tuning a N/A RX-8.

From what i have seen it looks like all the 4port(manual or auto) owners have to do is do this change to the e-manage and we can use the greddy turbo kit.Some finetuning will be needed but that's about it or am i missing something?

The 4-port doesn't have a set of P2 injectors, so it won't work.

Can't we just elliminate those in the e-manage and compensate with the S1 injectors, should'nt be that difficult. Isn't this what REMS did?

Not that I know much about the std power engine, but it seems like you could use a similar strategy as we did. Log what your injectors are doing under the PCM, mimic that using the eManage, plus, add the fuel needed to under boost. This is provided that the injectors you currently use have enough capacity. Otherwise, swap them out and compensate for the increased capacity be reducing that part of the duty cycle that the PCM would have been specifiying.

Thanx MadDog, I think this will work, my 4port has the 390cc P1 and 490S1 injectors, as it only revs to 8k rpm, it looks like it will work with the current injectors.
Maby a dumb question but how is the torque? When you drive on the highway in 5 or 6 gear, when you put your foot down does it immedeatly pull or does it has some lag.
Just wondering?

You'd better spend a lot of time looking at the duty cycles before you come to any conlcusion abuot spare capacity....

Torque immediate in the highway gears.

which device do you use to tune your car?A canscan ?

What would I use that for?


I'm using the eManage support tool to tune the values in my MAP.
I use the LC-1 WB02 to guide my tuning.
I log boost, AFR, duty cycle, and RPM using the e-01.

Sorry about that, didn't know you could see so much info with the profec.

After watching people tune their RX-8s for so long and seeing all that has been done I have decided I want to get in on it. I've seen lots of tuning done with CZ but nobody that has used MM's and MadDog's work with the e-manage on an N/A application. I recall an earlier post in this thread asking if the e-manage would be viable for N/A and if it would be better than or at least more cost effective than the CZ unit. I'm sure there are lots of readers wondering the same thing. We've all seen the gains that were possible on the CZ unit. Let's see what happens when we have more control of the fuel!

I've decided that if MM and MadDog and anybody else knowledgable on the topic think it would be a good idea to try out e-manage tuning on an N/A RX-8 then I will be the guinnea (sp?) pig. I already intended on going Greddy kit and using the "definitive greddy kit fixes." BUT I have to save up enough cash for that first :P. For now I'd love to help on an e-manage + N/A project.


I don't want to get this topic off its point, but i'll say this...

after the last round of flashes, there is almost no need to even tune below 7,000 rpms anymore. This means you should not have any fuel trim problems as you have no real reason to get close to the 5500-6000 rpm transition point. While more control is always good, it seems uneeded anymore.

Hey Jeff... take a look at this... http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?p=1244481#post1244481

I think Jeff is stuck someplace between NY and AZ in a rental truck :D:

Good Luck on your move.............Can't get worse than this snow :D:

Doh! That's right... what a shame. I found out that there have been several firmware updates for the e-manage ultimate. Two of them included specific updates/fixes for 13B-REW and 13B-MSP. I noticed that the US/English site does not include any of this information... it's on the JDM site which I linked to in my thread on this. I'd be nice if the damn thing actually worked correctly now for the RX-8...

@MadDog

Hi, I'm from germany and I want to have a T-ReX :), no longer only an ReX! So my question, am I able to use your formulas

1.[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)]
2.[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)+P2]

on my german 8? Perhaps you and MM can help me with your knowledge to realize my project by having the first turbocharched 8 in germany!

Excuse my english, I know it's not perfect ;)!

Stay tuned...

I found out that there have been several firmware updates for the e-manage ultimate. Two of them included specific updates/fixes for 13B-REW and 13B-MSP.
I've got the newest firmware installed, but I haven't had a chance to test it out.
I'll probably play with it next week.


1.[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)]
2.[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)+P2]

I'm gonna have to chew on that one for a minute...

OK. Done chewing.

I am going to have to question some of Tim's math on this.
Those those formulas work in theory, but the reality is that the OEM PCM does not run the P1 and secondary injectors anywhere near 100%, even under full load.
In fact, my recent datalogs show it to be around 65% max.
I've started to invoke the add-injector map again in my tuning. It allows for some finess in the high end and at the torque peak. It will also smooth the transition into low-load, high RPM.

I've got the newest firmware installed, but I haven't had a chance to test it out.
I'll probably play with it next week.


Again... it'd be nice if it worked this time. But then it looks like Cobb is working on a ECU flasher for the 8... which is even better. :)

a cobb thingy would be great