MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

Apparently, I didn't make the cut, now did I?

For all 6 injectors independently? CAN only supports gross injector duration (which the AP does report, but what use is that with staged injectors?).

Kane

iTrader: (1)

Can I get everything you have?

Then I can see what all I can do with it.

Rootski

iTrader: (1)

I LOL'ed.

And my Hymee SPT Arrived! At my house! In a box!

PhotoMunkey

I'm diving into this with an AP, and the help of MazdaManiac for a story for Mazda Sport Magazine. I'm not sure how crazy we'll go with the N/A tuning (might have to keep my cat here in CA) but I can tell you all from experience that the one who cracks the OEM software is always the winner in the tuning wars. That said, I don't think there's anything else like the Cobb AP on the market, and unlikely that anyone else will ever develop a competing product as good. Just my .02...

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

I didn't think you applied. I didn't consider "I'll sell whatever is best" as much of an application.

I never said 6 together, I said it at least can report it, when you indicated AP couldn't. If that is not what you said, I obviously can't read and I appologise.

Cheers,
Hymee.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

I didn't know I had to beg to help you. Sorry.


The AP shows the CAN injector output (and anything I might want to have it show), but that is just the OBD-II spec.
CAN doesn't report staged injectors.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

Now it doesn't.

Now it does. Please don't tell me now that you can have it show MAP?

Oh - You mentioned the OBDII specs. OBDII spec doesn't specify injector durations or pulse widths. Yes, the PIDS are there. But not because of any OBDII mandate.

Cheers,
Hymee.

PS - I PM'ed Jeff earlier stating that I was over all this tit-for-tat correcting him, and gave him a chance to correct himself and retract from the misleading statement that I had rejected his application to beta test sCANalyser Pro Tuner. He opted to decline either, and continue a public stoush. So now, I must let it be outed in public that Jeff never applied to me to join the sCANalyser Beta Program. Those that did apply where given certain conditions, and the opportunity to opt out, or stay on board. Some opted out. Some stayed on board. Either way, a world class product is coming.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

As I pointed out just a scant three posts later, I was referring to individual injector pulse width. I was clarifying for Kane, who's program provides individual pulse width. He would have a hard time working backwards from a value he didn't have.

I don't know much about any of the back-story on who calls for what. The data is there for me to utilize, that is all that matters to me.



Do I need to remind you how many times I've corrected you? How quickly you forget. I even removed my post about it after you made the correction.
Its not tit-for-tat. Its peer review.


I'm not sure that you want our PMs to be public. Is that really where you want this to go? I might remind you of a PM I sent to you the day you announced your intent to make a flash device. Go re-read that first.

I'm not interested in "beta-testing" your software. I just offered you the chance to have it compared to the one and only shipping flash solution on the market.
This is a "shoot-out", isn't it?
"Applied"? You're just some dude in his basement in Australia. A hobbyist, just like the rest of us.

Stop taking things so personally and spend less time obsessing over every thing I say. You would have more time to actually get a shipping product finished.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

That shows you just how little you actually know, compared to what you think you know.

Thanks for deleting the post where you corrected my obvious error.

I'm over it. Over and out.

PhotoMunkey

I did a tuning story with an E46 M3. We discovered that one certain company's mid-pipe would LOSE 94 ft/lbs of torque between 2500 and 4000 RPM at WOT consistently. This is a fact, and I've got the dyno numbers, repeated over and over to prove it. This certain exhaust company refused to believe us, and threatened legal action if the magazine and I published the results. We even had them cut the cross-over pipes out of their midpipe, and replace them with straight tubes, and SHOWED them that this fix gained back the 94 ft/lbs of torque, and they STILL wouldn't believe us. They quoted big name BMW tuners. They called us names. They insisted we dyno'd the car wrong (over 45 dyno pulls?) though we used one of their biggest retailers' own dyno in Los Angeles.

Anyhow, after 8 months of subterfuge and delay, I received a call from their PR Mgr asking me if I want to test their "revized mid-pipe"! I basically told them to go suck eggs. If you don't believe me the first 90 times I tell you it's bad, why should I do more of your R&D?

The point is, your statement about the MAF is DEAD WRONG simply because air does not always flow exactly the way you want it to through tubes. We proved that at WOT, having the crossover at the wrong place in the mid-pipe WOULD cause the air travelling over the MAF to flutter violently (between 2500 and 4000 RPM). When this happens in an M3, the computer simply sees an "out of range" MAF signal. Of course at WOT, fuel and timing are controlled by maps, but the control of the DUAL VANOS system was still tied to the MAF air flow and throttle position. When the MAF would show "out of range", the computer would close the valves down to limit valve over lap. It would take away 20 points or so, effectively clamping down on the intake valves in order to bring airflow back to a "normal" range on the sensor. We even proved this on a STOCK M3 with NO OTHER CHANGES except their mid-pipe and exhaust (the drop was only about 70 ft/lbs due to the more restrictive intake). They even dyno'd a STOCK M3 themselves, and labeled the problem a "ECM bobble".

We had a high-flow aFe intake on the car, Euro-sped CSL headers, and this company's mid-pipe and exhaust. Since they'd only dyno'd the development M3 from 4000 and up, all they saw was the big increase (15 hp) that their exhaust picked up over stock on the high end. They patted themselves on the back and called it a day. Unfortunately for them, they missed the big picture...

An M3 with their mid-pipe on it can't spin it's tires from a standing start... LOL

An MAF can only read smooth airflow. Both an intake AND exhaust can screw up that airflow quite easily. Lee Bender of C&L once told me that just an air filter change on a STOCK Mustang can lean out the AF ratios up to 7%. If you haven't researched just how critical air movement over the MAF can be then you don't need to be doing tuning work, IMHO.

Of course, in your view, if nothing can affect the MAF readings, why do you believe so feverently in "custom tunes" and not a general "stage 1-size-fits-all" tune?

This is not an attack on you. I just want you to understand exactly how erroneous your statement above truly is. Granted, my experience doesn't apply directly to the RX-8, but then again, it does speak to the nature of physics, and how air behaves, or rather misbehaves sometimes.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not at any time say that an exhaust would not affect power.

I also never said that nothing would affect the MAF calibration. I said screwing with the MAF will affect it.

I'll not back down from my statement. The MAF is measuring the air coming into the engine. Tell me how on earth an exhaust restriction could affect the correctness of a reading on the MAF?

Regards,
Hymee.

PhotoMunkey

"Nothing downstream affects its calibration, and nothing upstream ought to either."

That is exactly what you said.

An MAF is just a device to measure airflow in a given size tube over a given length of time, with given restrictions upstream and downstream. Hence the term "calibration" you keep using. An MAF is by nature, non-self-adjusting, with the exception of air density. Changing other components in the system changes the airflow, with the result not always matching what the reading from the MAF says it should be. In effect, the engine computer has a reading which doesn't jive with what it's actually receiving in the way of airflow.

In my case, at WOT, flow across the top of the engine, and out the exhaust, was so violent that the air would literally be puffing, or resonating at a frequency that the MAF was misunderstanding. It refused to give any reading in those situations, so the ECM would severely limit VANOS operation until the MAF reading would stabilize.

BMW spent two million dollars developing their "H" mid-pipe, down to the placement of slightly wider tubing on one side to slow the exhaust gasses slightly for the three cylinders closest to te "H". Clearly they were trying to maximize the scavenging effect that the exhaust can have on intake air. This exhaust company moved their more-efficient "X" crossover too close to the exhaust ports in the overall system. The result, the MAF COULD NOT READ the airflow. This was verified in real-world testing with a real-time scan tool reading the signals and logging them. Since we also tested this with a stock intake and stock ECM, the fault was that of the mid-pipe alone.

Your statement is completely contradictory with what we proved on that M3.

It's well-known on this forum that certain "cold air intakes" caused idle problems with the RX-8. That is a demonstration of something upstream of the MAF causing a problem.

As I said before, just an air filter change can cause a Mustang to go 7% too lean (like from a K&N high-flow element).

Air at velocity doesn't do what you always expect it to do. Increase the airflow and you can have eddies and whirls in the flow which may or may not cause the MAF to read as higher or lower air flow readings. This doesn't mean that the "calibration" of the MAF is wrong, it means that the air isn't doing what the engineers anticipated it would do when they built the MAF.

And no, you didn't say that altering the exhaust wouldn't change horsepower. I was just offering this as a proven example, which I can clearly demonstrate repeatedly on any dyno in the world with an E46 M3 and a simply mid-pipe swap. The car actually made the MOST peak horsepower with the faulty X-pipe design, but the loss of 94 ft/lbs of torque over such a broad range makes it unacceptable.

PhotoMunkey

Standing by your statement is all well and good, except that you're wrong...

Hillary Clinton stood by her statement that she "landed under sniper fire and had to run for shelter" in Bosnia during her visit there in 1996, right up to the point where she was proven wrong by photos and videos of her being greeted at the foot of the airplane ladder by a little girl and a group of dignitaries. No matter what she said, she was wrong.

Your "I stand by my statement" comment falls in the same category as Hillary's. No matter how many times you say it isn't so, a calibrated MAF reading can be made not accurate for airflow by changing the intake, the air filter, the intake plenum, the throttle bodies, the cam lift or duration, the cam overlap, the exhaust manifold, the mid-pipe, the catalytic converters, or the mufflers, not to mention exhaust diameter, port sizes, valve sizes, or any combination of the above.

C&L Performance proved that you can change the air filter, intake, and MAF housing, and with the help of a Diablosport Predator flash-tuner with specific maps installed, hand a new S197 Mustang owner 35 more horsepower at the rear tires instantly. No other changes to the vehicle.

Besides, Christian already told you about 8 pages ago that you were wrong. I just missed reading his comment before I typed up my response.

Also I believe that OBDII shows injectors as a percent of duty cycle. Other OBDII vehicle tuners I've seen show this data. I worked at a GM dealership. OBDII scan tools aplenty there. In order to know the percent of duty cycle, the computer would have to know that duration of the injector pulse, and it's rated flow at a given PSI. This makes it a calculated figure, right?

Grouch

That is a very interesting story! Does that mean because I have no cat and a 3" relatively free flowing exhaust, this could be contributing to my current MAF sensing problems? I intuitively thought that last week, wondering whether or not people with the same MAF housing as mine had different exhaust setups or more restrictive ones so that their MAF reading problems were not as pronounced as mine. And my crappy MAF housing doesn't help.

zoom44

exactly and thanks for making that point Ray.

With no overlap the Renesis has no way to transmit the pulse from the exhaust back thru to the intake and to the MAF.

if there is some restriction in the exhaust then perhaps you could have a "no air out= no air in" situ which could cause traffic jam style turbulence back at the maf. but this would be like the CAT is melting not just a chance in mid pipe.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

Thanks, gentlemen

Cheers,
Hymee.

PS - If there was no air out = no air in = no motor turning and the MAF reported no air flow, then what fault the MAF then?? Just telling the truth!

PhotoMunkey

Zoom44, Exactly indeed! I posted that story as just an example of how simple parts swap changes can affect an engine's output. It was not a rotary-related story in any way. I did find it very interesting that some of the big BMW tuners hadn't stumbled across this before, as the E46 M3 had been out on the market for a long time (this was in late 06 and early 07). Dinan, TC Kline, and one more I can't remember right now all reported not seeing anything like that. I spoke with Steve Dinan personally. He DID say that his exhaust does not replace the OEM Mid-pipe, because he found that there was no extra power to be had by changing it. We, of course, found that there WAS extra power there.

I also had an opportunity to test drive an M3 built by Bavarian Hyper Sports in Texas. It would run to 8500 RPM, and make power up there, and was turning a 4.10 rear differential. Naturally-aspirated, it breaks into the mid 12 second quarter mile bracket on street tires. The builder said something curious to me to the effect of "it just feels weaker on the bottom end because it's so powerful on the top". Indeed it did feel lacking in torque at the bottom, but sort of "came on the pipe" like the M3 I used in the exhaust tests a year later. Looking back now, I think that BHS had the same problem with the MAF-VANOS-kneejerk (that's what we started calling it) with the SuperSprint exhaust and header they were using. I just don't think THEY realized it.

PhotoMunkey

As Hymee points out, in a "no air in/out" situation the engine would not be running, so the MAF wouldn't reporta any air flow.

In a restricted air in/out situation though, the MAF would simply treat it as "low flowing" or "slow air" and would report it accordingly. Where a problem arises is when the intake ahead of the MAF housing has been altered. Air no longer flows predictably through the MAF housing at medium or higher speeds due to changes in the turbulence in the air stream. I think this is where some people are having lean condition problems with their tuning.

In other words, I believe our particular MAF likes a very long, straight, and even-flowing column of air rushing past it at any given time. Shorten the tubes extensively, as some cold air intakes do, and problems can/will arise.

BTW, C&L used to spoof Ford MAF sensors by making a HUGE MAF housing, for better flow, but also by adding an evenly-graded rise around the inside of the housing in order to "concentrate and direct the flow of air at the MAF". They did not simply bore out a larger tube and stick the MAF into it. By increasing the diameter of the piping, you effectively slow the air flow for a given length of tubing. Slower airflow equals a lower MAF reading even if the overall volume of air has increased substantially, as it did in C&L's case. Their slight neck-down approach would speed up the air right before the MAF, making it think everything was okay. Their MAF DID require specific tuning so it wasn't something you could just stick on your SN95 'stang and motor off happily into the sunset.

I believe that's why Mazda created a giant air box with a giant air filter element. Slower airflow over a great area creates less turbulence. This allowed them to put the filter/box directly in front of the MAF, using those two screens in the piping before the MAF to "straighten" the eddies which resulted from necking down into the intake tube.

BTW-the main reason I can see for using the AP is the control over the MOP. If you want your RENESIS to last as long as possible (from the tear-down reports I've read on here) then you've got to add more oil to those chambers, period. This issue could make the AP as NECESSARY for a RENESIS as pre-mixing was for the early RX-7s.

zoom44

obviously gentleman i was not saying "no air out whatsoever". just the sort of restriction that results in decreases of power etc. and yes Hymee that was what i was saying

Grouch

Is it possible for the MAF sensor to be super sensitive with temperature changes also? Sometimes I think my car drives a bit worse when it's warmed up, and I don't have a CAI, I have a 'hot-air' intake, lol.

lolachampcar

Bump to get back on topic.

Two shipping reflashers (maybe three, I've not seen the H R&D).

I've seen Hymee's. It works. The software looks nice as well. I'll let him speak to when it will ship.

I agree with Hymee on the misinformation.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

What is the other one? EFID is still not available (unless you consider data-logging the same thing as flash tuning).
Neither is the H R&D nor the Hymee.
There is an Italian outfit that is claiming a product is ready for market, but there is still no way to purchase one.

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

this thread looks more like d-ck swinging shootout

lolachampcar

Most things worth doing take a bit of time. I have many things on my plate and did not feel for letting a very small person get my blood pressure up. Mind you, it’s not the stupid taunts that get me going, it is continued telling everyone that only the all mighty tuning company can possibly enable their chosen tuners to tune. It is crap and it will always be crap.

Done with the Dan rant and should never have posted it. I've said as much in different posts. For those that want to hold onto that, feel free.

Got a taker on the Scan Tool. I've finished and published my PassThrough code for the EFIDude tools which provide a dll and sample VB6 source so anyone can talk to a CAN equipped vehicle. An existing Scan Tool application is now being ported to the hardware. The high speed USB2 to CAN EFIDude hardware should give it a good kick in the speed department.

Still doing it for fun; have not been paid a dime. Currently working on two open source tunes and, if there is sufficient interest from others to try them, one person has mentioned starting a sourceforge for the tunes along with their associated data.

No deadlines and, if you let Cobb and Jeff tell you that mere mortals can not tune without Trey's tools and Jeff's skills, then you will prove them correct. There I go again, lashing out....

As for my disappearing, I am not going to waste my time on Jeff. He is what he is and he has found a forum for his mouth. A lot of threads head off topic because Jeff says this or Jeff says that to pick a fight. Do you really want to read what I have to say about Jeff’s latest jab. I would not if I were you.

Hymee seems to be a pretty good guy and look where the two of them have gone. This thread is a prime example of off topic waste as I just spent a bunch of your and my time explaining something that had nothing to do with the fact that-

Cobb tools cost $695 and will not let you edit or log data.

EFIDude tools cost $300 and will let you edit and log data. The "let you edit" depends on me helping while they finish up their freeware editor or Hymee ships Hymeesoft (which should support other flashers than his own).

I really am not worth all the posting aimed at me. The real value of a forum is the exchange of information in an effort to make things happen. I’m trying to stay focused on that.

lolachampcar

EFIDude Reflash has been shipping for some time now.

Anyone interested can go to www.EFIDude.com and hit the buy button. One will arrive on their doorstep.

Not only are ProLogger, and ReFlasher shipping, but the PassThrough device that allows people to write their own applications to talk to a CAN vehicle is available for testing.

The EFIDude guys let me play with their stuff and I am busily adding another piece of fun functionality. I'll post more when a little more testing is done.

Jeff tunes with JeffBox. Anyone can tune with EFIDude.