TurboXS is seeking a local RX8 owner (MD/VA area)
11-30-2005, 10:44 PM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Japan8
Why piggybacking/standalone? I continually see this in the import market whereas in the domestic market (USDM) there has been a strong trend of ECU reflashing. For the majority of situations, today's stock ECU provides more than you need. It looks cleaner.. no extra box to mount, no wires to cut or whatever. It also will provide consistent results... no concerns about the ECu "fighting" your piggyback.
Anyone that says that it's because the Ford ECU isn't complex hasn't done their homework. The comments from the team at Kenne Bell plainly state the opposite. Knock control isn't just a sensor... it's a whole complex system with it's own processor on the 2005/6 Mustang GT. Not to mention traction control, electronic throttle body, variable valve timing, variable intake manifold...
Back to the point... so no one else is thinking of flshing the ECU other than Racing Beat and Hymee??? Jeez...
Anyone that says that it's because the Ford ECU isn't complex hasn't done their homework. The comments from the team at Kenne Bell plainly state the opposite. Knock control isn't just a sensor... it's a whole complex system with it's own processor on the 2005/6 Mustang GT. Not to mention traction control, electronic throttle body, variable valve timing, variable intake manifold...
Back to the point... so no one else is thinking of flshing the ECU other than Racing Beat and Hymee??? Jeez...
ECU flashing is good technology. The SCT stuff is one of the best programming tools I’ve ever seen, but we deal in several different platforms and sometimes adding hardware allows for some extra flexibility and some extra features. It’s nice to have extra inputs and outputs as well as the ability to completely change the car from a MAF based car to a MAP based car when it is needed. Most ECU re-flash technology doesn’t offer this type of flexibility. In the case of a NA car that is being converted to forced induction, it’s not uncommon to run out of MAF sensor headroom very quickly. At that point you can choose to change the MAF sensor calibration by placing it in a larger tube (not a great idea since you loose low end, daily driving, resolution) or you can choose to run the car overly rich in hopes that it will not lean out when conditions change and the MAF is so pegged that it can’t respond. Both choices are far from ideal.
In the case of the UTEC, there is not fighting between the stock ECU and the UTEC. The UTEC drives the car under all conditions but keeps the stock ECU in the car for things like OBD2, running the stock gauges, etc. If you choose, you can cede control of a specific load cell, or group of load cells, to the stock ECU, but when you program an injector on-time or a ignition timing value, you get exactly what you ask for no matter what the stock ECU would prefer.
For us, using a base hardware board gives us a great deal of portability between platforms that we would not get by trying to crack each and every platform’s ECU. There are a great many good things about ECU re-flashing, and for some people or some platforms it’s the right choice. We don’t expect our ECU to be right for everyone, but we believe that our approach provides some advantages that are worth considering.
Now, since the RX8 UTEC is not remotely ready to be released, I’ll leave the rest of this discussion for another time.
Tomorrow we intend to put our test car on the dyno first thing in the morning. We will dyno it with and without the canzoomer ECU enabled. We will then take it off the dyno and install the cat-back. We’ll then dyno this with and without the canzoomer enabled. We’ll then finally add the race pipe and of course dyno this with and without the canzoomer. I’ll attempt to get the plots into the hands of the car owner for him to post if he chooses. We’ll of course be using the dyno plots on our web page for the RX8 as we add it to the site. I also intend to take some video and sound clips of the exhaust for people to get an idea of the increase in volume and a general idea of tone of the exhaust. I’ll try to include a SPL reading in the video so you’ll also have a visual reference for the type of sound the exhaust creates.
We’ve got a busy day tomorrow, but with any luck you’ll hear from us soon.
-Nathan
11-30-2005, 10:48 PM
#27
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RotaryManiac
Wait a second. are you getting a midpipe and exhaust for free? or just the catback?
He is getting a 3 inch, 304 stainless mid-pipe (I call it a race pipe) with a resonator, and a 3 inch, 304 stainless cat back system.
11-30-2005, 11:27 PM
#28
Go Texas Longhorns!
good luck with your test, the more products the better. I can tell you we have a real need for the ECU, so I hope you get it going as quickly as possible.
12-01-2005, 12:07 AM
#29
Armaan
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nathan i sent you an email seeing if i can come by tommorow to check out the process. I'm definitley going to post all the dyno results that come off the car as many people have the same mods as me. I was planning on getting an sp2 and have been resaerching it for a while now from what I saw today the exhaust you putting on my car is just as good or better then the greddy. If your predictions are accurate then it would be great to get some decent gains off the exhaust and midpipe.
12-01-2005, 01:48 AM
#31
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turboxs_nathan
ECU flashing is good technology. The SCT stuff is one of the best programming tools I’ve ever seen, but we deal in several different platforms and sometimes adding hardware allows for some extra flexibility and some extra features. It’s nice to have extra inputs and outputs as well as the ability to completely change the car from a MAF based car to a MAP based car when it is needed. Most ECU re-flash technology doesn’t offer this type of flexibility. In the case of a NA car that is being converted to forced induction, it’s not uncommon to run out of MAF sensor headroom very quickly. At that point you can choose to change the MAF sensor calibration by placing it in a larger tube (not a great idea since you loose low end, daily driving, resolution) or you can choose to run the car overly rich in hopes that it will not lean out when conditions change and the MAF is so pegged that it can’t respond. Both choices are far from ideal.
In the case of the UTEC, there is not fighting between the stock ECU and the UTEC. The UTEC drives the car under all conditions but keeps the stock ECU in the car for things like OBD2, running the stock gauges, etc. If you choose, you can cede control of a specific load cell, or group of load cells, to the stock ECU, but when you program an injector on-time or a ignition timing value, you get exactly what you ask for no matter what the stock ECU would prefer.
For us, using a base hardware board gives us a great deal of portability between platforms that we would not get by trying to crack each and every platform’s ECU. There are a great many good things about ECU re-flashing, and for some people or some platforms it’s the right choice. We don’t expect our ECU to be right for everyone, but we believe that our approach provides some advantages that are worth considering.
For us, using a base hardware board gives us a great deal of portability between platforms that we would not get by trying to crack each and every platform’s ECU. There are a great many good things about ECU re-flashing, and for some people or some platforms it’s the right choice. We don’t expect our ECU to be right for everyone, but we believe that our approach provides some advantages that are worth considering.
Either way... it IS nice to see another solution come out. Just make sure it's solid.
Last edited by Japan8; 12-01-2005 at 09:23 AM.
12-01-2005, 11:12 AM
#32
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Japan8
I really wish I had that magazine with me. The ECu tuning guy at Kenne Bell gave a lot of indepth information about what the new Mustang's ECU system does. I don't remember if they change the MAF or throttle body with a larger one (Ford parts bin). I do remember that at least for the high ouput kit the injectors had to be changed. The Saleen kit only uses 3.5 psi of boost, good for 400hp and there is no need to change the injectors or MAF. They also use an ECU flash. I seem to also recall something like the system uses both a MAF and MAP, or has some way to also figure MAP based on MAF and other sensors. My point is that the system may be able to support more than you think...
One of my good friends has a turbocharged Cobra that makes north of 800hp. Cars at this level of tuning would completely peg the stock MAF meter and have to use a MAF extender that re-calibrates the stock MAF. This is true of the new GT as well. Essentially they have to add additional hardware to make their re-flash work correctly and in the process give up some of their low end resolution and drivability. This type of situation makes a great case for additional hardware to convert the car to a hybrid Speed-density/MAF metering system so that you could ignore the MAF once it’s past its stock flow rate. This way you are adding resolution to your tuning not subtracting it by recalibrating the meter.
With the 350z the stock MAF sensor is nearly maxed out from the factory. If you add turbochargers you’ll see overrun MAF voltages as early as 4700rpms with as little as 6-8psi of boost. Once that signal flat lines you are essentially SOL unless you have a way to add additional fuel to the system. The eManage guys, for instance, do this by adding duty cycle (effectively adding injector on-time) above and beyond the stock IDC based on a MAP load reference (assuming you purchase the optional MAP sensor). The re-flash and unichip guys essentially are stuck just adding a bunch of extra fuel (if they have large enough injectors) and hoping for the best, but they have almost no way to compensate for additional load on the motor, or changes in air density that would typically require injector on-time changes.
The zUTEC (and by extension the RX8 UTEC) handles this situation a little differently. It allows the end user to use the MAF to a given point or to ignore it completely. Since the load reference is boost pressure and temperature (using our add-in sensors) you don’t have to worry about pegging the stock airflow meter that was never designed for 2-3x the stock HP of these cars.
There is more then one way to skin a cat, but we have very clear reasons for doing things the way we are at this time.
Last edited by turboxs_nathan; 12-01-2005 at 11:15 AM.
12-01-2005, 01:09 PM
#34
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can definitely see your point on MAFs... for ridiculously high horsepower cars. Certainly there are people who want to build 600-800hp RX-8's, but I think that majority of your potential audience is only looking for 300whp IF they go FI... many just want to improve the tune on their NA modded car.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...8&page=6&pp=15
From "Ringing the Bell" 5.0 August 2005...
Kenne Bell Twin Screw Supercharger stats for the new Mustang...
kits include the 90mm mass air, and the cold-air kit inaddition to the blower/ blower & intercooler
430hp with the 6lb pulley, no IC and smaller blower
478 with 9lb pulley, IC and larger blower (short block limit)
503 with 11lb pulley
532 with 13lb pulley
My point... the stock MAF on the 8 will be good for what most people what performance wise. The stock internals probably can't handle the power levels at which the MAF becomes useless. If someone is going to do that work, then getting a bigger MAF is not even a question. To only make matters worse... the 8's ECU is complex... probably more than most people here realize. Are we SURE that piggybacking is workable in the long run considering the complexity and integration of the car's systems?
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...8&page=6&pp=15
From "Ringing the Bell" 5.0 August 2005...
Ken [Christley, Kenne Bell's in-house electronic tech] went on to explain how the all-seeing Spanish Oak computer is both a speed density unit and a mass air system. It employs both strategies, and uses one to check the other. In fact, with the electronics throttle, Spanish oak has more secret police than the SOviet Union dreamed of. Getting it to accept a supercharger has been a mean feat.
For example, while other we've spoken to said that they had no issues with moving the mas air meter from its perch in the air filter box lid, Ken says when he moved it, the engine threw a fit. It's one of the touchiest mass air meters he's seen, and Ken has hot rodded more than his share.
The '05 engine is super sensitive to iginition timing, too. With the blower, Ken says his timing tests have shown the THree-Valve engine picks up 8hp per degree of ignition timing advance- roughly double what other Ford V-8s yield. This sensitivity requires finesse when the computer decdes to pull timing due to rising temperatures, for example.
Of course there is good news. The new engine is fitted with knock sensors, and they are great. Ford has tuned the knock sensors so well to the stock engine that the Spanish Oak is actually programmed with Premium fuel ignition and fuel tables, but the car is sold as a regular-gasoline car. That means, with regular fuel, FOrd is relying on the knock sensors to constantly maintain timing because the computer is trying to run aggressive, premium-fuel spark tables all the time.
For example, while other we've spoken to said that they had no issues with moving the mas air meter from its perch in the air filter box lid, Ken says when he moved it, the engine threw a fit. It's one of the touchiest mass air meters he's seen, and Ken has hot rodded more than his share.
The '05 engine is super sensitive to iginition timing, too. With the blower, Ken says his timing tests have shown the THree-Valve engine picks up 8hp per degree of ignition timing advance- roughly double what other Ford V-8s yield. This sensitivity requires finesse when the computer decdes to pull timing due to rising temperatures, for example.
Of course there is good news. The new engine is fitted with knock sensors, and they are great. Ford has tuned the knock sensors so well to the stock engine that the Spanish Oak is actually programmed with Premium fuel ignition and fuel tables, but the car is sold as a regular-gasoline car. That means, with regular fuel, FOrd is relying on the knock sensors to constantly maintain timing because the computer is trying to run aggressive, premium-fuel spark tables all the time.
Ford is interested in producing a smooth, reasonably powerful car that will run a long time with few problems. That means no run-ins with the government over emissions and no warranty headaches. And above all, FOrd has no interest in spending time with liability lawyers, and so the e-throttle is many times redundant on closing and not all that egar to open. in fact, there is a separate chip with its own programming inside the Spanish Oak engine mangement dedicated to watching the throttle position. Called the e-Quizzer, it is a policeman with the sole intent of closing the throttle should any parameters get out of line. Kenne Bell has found Spanish Oak even throws a purposefully erroneous signal occasionally just to see if the e-Quizzer is on the job. Amazing.
There are switches in the software that turn things like e-Quizzer off. Designed to aid diagnostic work by dealer techs, these switches are sure to be used by less scrupulous tuners who don't have the skills to add hot rod hardware correctly. Kenne Bell has used these switches in its development work, but won't go near them on porduction kits for liability reasons. This definitely takes longer to develop, but is part of a well-engineered kit these days. Our advice is to beware of quicky and dirty electronics- and you'll find e-tuning will be reqired for everything from a cold-air kit on up with the new Mustang.
There are switches in the software that turn things like e-Quizzer off. Designed to aid diagnostic work by dealer techs, these switches are sure to be used by less scrupulous tuners who don't have the skills to add hot rod hardware correctly. Kenne Bell has used these switches in its development work, but won't go near them on porduction kits for liability reasons. This definitely takes longer to develop, but is part of a well-engineered kit these days. Our advice is to beware of quicky and dirty electronics- and you'll find e-tuning will be reqired for everything from a cold-air kit on up with the new Mustang.
kits include the 90mm mass air, and the cold-air kit inaddition to the blower/ blower & intercooler
430hp with the 6lb pulley, no IC and smaller blower
478 with 9lb pulley, IC and larger blower (short block limit)
503 with 11lb pulley
532 with 13lb pulley
My point... the stock MAF on the 8 will be good for what most people what performance wise. The stock internals probably can't handle the power levels at which the MAF becomes useless. If someone is going to do that work, then getting a bigger MAF is not even a question. To only make matters worse... the 8's ECU is complex... probably more than most people here realize. Are we SURE that piggybacking is workable in the long run considering the complexity and integration of the car's systems?
12-01-2005, 02:11 PM
#35
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Japan8
To only make matters worse... the 8's ECU is complex... probably more than most people here realize. Are we SURE that piggybacking is workable in the long run considering the complexity and integration of the car's systems?
We are not piggybacking anything, so in that sense I agree with you. The zUTEC drives the car 100% of the time with its own injector drivers and its own coil drivers.
Cat-back results = 186 to 190.3hp.
Cat-back + canzoomer = 184hp to 193.4hp
-Nathan
12-01-2005, 02:33 PM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by staticlag
so is this just the muffler or the muffler and the race pipe?
-Nathan
www.turboxs.com
12-01-2005, 03:00 PM
#38
Go Texas Longhorns!
So your baseline was 171 - 182whp and with just the muffler, you got 186-190whp? Wow, thats fairly impressive. looking forward to the results of your midpipe addition.
12-01-2005, 03:06 PM
#39
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We started the morning out by hooking the car up to the dyno and running it 6 times. The car has quite a bit of variability and produced results anywhere from 171 to around 182. We then installed the Catback (which is two pieces in our system) and ran the car 6 times. The results were between 186 and 190.4hp. We then flipped the switch on the canzoomer to "on." Again we ran the car 6 times on the dyno. The results for the canzoomer were 184 on the low side and 193 on the high. We now are turning the canzoomer back off and will run the racepipe with and without the canzoomer enabled.
-Nathan
www.turboxs.com
-Nathan
www.turboxs.com
12-01-2005, 03:11 PM
#40
Consiglieri
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
huh... I did only two dyno runs - but they were exact images of eachother. I was under the impression that this was a very consistent car. Your results make me wonder if you are seeing variability in the dyno or the car.
12-01-2005, 03:22 PM
#41
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dyno is highly repeatable. I have two customers with WRX's that both made 450whp on our dyno on different days. They are friends and ran at the track together. They ran basically the same ET and same trap speed.
A properly tuned WRX will be consistent to within 1-2hp on our dyno even if it’s making 450whp at the wheels. Given that we saw the same variability in our car in Australia and have ample evidence of the consistency of our dyno here in the states, I would tend to think it’s the car.
A properly tuned WRX will be consistent to within 1-2hp on our dyno even if it’s making 450whp at the wheels. Given that we saw the same variability in our car in Australia and have ample evidence of the consistency of our dyno here in the states, I would tend to think it’s the car.
12-01-2005, 03:58 PM
#43
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BIU
so is this catback fitting done?
Originally Posted by BIU
Fits good? ready to sell to public?
Originally Posted by BIU
how much? got pics?
Originally Posted by BIU
is it loud?
-Nathan
Last edited by PoLaK; 12-05-2005 at 11:22 PM.
12-01-2005, 04:49 PM
#45
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the race pipe the car made between 199 and 205hp with most of the runs sitting right around 203whp. The only possible downside is the car is shooting flames when you let off from high RPM. 
-Nathan
-Nathan
12-01-2005, 05:49 PM
#47
Purveyor of fine bass
could you please include exhaust w/ the silencers on in your sound clips and db measurements? (in addition to no silencers)
any performance effect of these silencers? (maybe dyno that?)
any performance effect of these silencers? (maybe dyno that?)
12-01-2005, 06:08 PM
#48
Go Texas Longhorns!
how much lighter is your exhaust than stock? how about with the mid pipe? Will you post the dyno? I'd like to see the power curve, I'm sure most of it as way up at the top, but still.
Last edited by brillo; 12-01-2005 at 06:13 PM.
12-01-2005, 06:16 PM
#49
My Goodness My Guinness
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The OC, Maryland
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah ok well all who say that exhaust is ony good for a few hp can now shut up and redesign their exhaust to make it lighter and more powerful thats amazing actually its quite unbelievable i'm damn impressed does the EDITED inclue race pipe or not
Last edited by PoLaK; 12-05-2005 at 11:22 PM.
12-01-2005, 06:33 PM
#50
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brillo
how much lighter is your exhaust than stock? how about with the mid pipe? Will you post the dyno? I'd like to see the power curve, I'm sure most of it as way up at the top, but still.
The power is increase everywhere in the rpm range. I'll post the plots or I’ll send them to the customer to post.
-Nathan