NA filter relocated below fender behind airdam!!!
05-02-2005, 12:38 AM
#166
Race Director
"What is wrong with the stock injector fire and how would sequetial make it better. Id like to know because i have no clue what the pros or cons of either are."
"Sequential injection provides better mixture control."
Sequential really only makes a difference at low-flow and idle conditions. That's because over 50-60% duty-cycle, it doesn't matter any more because the injectors will be firing during 100% of the time that the intake-valves are open. This is the same as batch fire. The only difference at this point is when to have the "off" non-spray period during the time that the intake-valves are closed. Either turn them off in one big chunk or in two smaller periods, but both schemes are when the valves are closed anyway. I've got diagrams that explains this on my 951 RacerX website.
This is borne out through emperical testing which shows miminal if any power improvements due to sequential. The biggest gain in sequential is idle in emissions control with large injectors. You're able to squirt when the valves start to open to make sure the ingested mixture in each cylinder has just the right air-fuel ratio for best emissions. With batch-fire, some cylinders will end up lean and others rich, even though the overall average of all the cylinders is correct. However the lean cylinder will spit out too much NOx and the rich one will put out too much HC.
Along this idea of atomization and mixing fuel & incoming air, the location of the fuel-injectors aimed at the intake-valve is also an emissions concession. Testing has shown that better atomization of fuel can be realized by placing the injectors further away, like 6-10" away from the intake-valves to give a larger volume of air to mix with the gas during the intake-valve's closed periods. Also some race-cars spray their injectors upstream back up the intake-tracts to promote even better atomization.
Campeck, let me know when you're doing your dyno-testing, I'll send you a chip so you can do a three-way comparision. It'll have three unique maps so you can make adjustments. This will give you 12 fuel adjustments and 6 ignition settings to dial in just the perfect configuration for your car.
"I understand your circumstances under IT rules. Still wouldn't mind your input on this if we could actually get something going with a budget MAF setup. I don't know if MegaSquirt would be the best bet, but if somebody like Dan could figure a way to set it up, maybe using the stock speed/position sensors to avoid having to come up with a trigger wheel then we would be on the way to doing this on the cheap. That would (1) eliminate all the folks saying the AFM is the issue and (2) eliminate all the people who say it isn't a good dollar to power investment."
I've already got a Link-1 EFI system configured for ITS with laptop-programmable software:
It uses all stock sensors: speed/ref., engine-temp, I provide a variable-pot TPS and air-temp sensor. Has MAP sensing to eliminate all intake-restrictions and I suspect good power can be had with a large velocity-stack attached directly to the throttle-body with a round filter at the end. This comes from some testing I've done with the 951 when running the MAP kits. Re-installing the AFM inline with the intake, but not using it electronically (still on MAP sensing) results in the same -30-50hp lower HP as with using the original stock configuration. This actually eliminates any measurement differences between the MAP sensor vs. AFM, the only thing that's been swapped is the mechanical restriction of the AFM. Even better power can be had with individual throttle-bodies & velocity-stacks per cylinder. We'll have to use a balancing-tube between the velocity-stacks and use a blending function of MAP & TPS-position to arrive at a load value. Something like 75%-TPS/25%-MAP under low-load and 25%-TPS/75%-MAP under high-load.
As for dollar-value for HP gained, I don't think any aftermarket EFI system is gonna make that much more power, if any, than a properly programmed set of chips... After all, if you're the piston sitting in the combustion chamber, you have no idea what is turning on & off the injector and setting the spark. It could be the stock system, it could be an aftermarket EFI, or it could be well-trained TrunkMonkey flipping toggle switches. As long as all three of those are doing it with the same mappings, power output will be identical.
"Sequential injection provides better mixture control."
Sequential really only makes a difference at low-flow and idle conditions. That's because over 50-60% duty-cycle, it doesn't matter any more because the injectors will be firing during 100% of the time that the intake-valves are open. This is the same as batch fire. The only difference at this point is when to have the "off" non-spray period during the time that the intake-valves are closed. Either turn them off in one big chunk or in two smaller periods, but both schemes are when the valves are closed anyway. I've got diagrams that explains this on my 951 RacerX website.
This is borne out through emperical testing which shows miminal if any power improvements due to sequential. The biggest gain in sequential is idle in emissions control with large injectors. You're able to squirt when the valves start to open to make sure the ingested mixture in each cylinder has just the right air-fuel ratio for best emissions. With batch-fire, some cylinders will end up lean and others rich, even though the overall average of all the cylinders is correct. However the lean cylinder will spit out too much NOx and the rich one will put out too much HC.
Along this idea of atomization and mixing fuel & incoming air, the location of the fuel-injectors aimed at the intake-valve is also an emissions concession. Testing has shown that better atomization of fuel can be realized by placing the injectors further away, like 6-10" away from the intake-valves to give a larger volume of air to mix with the gas during the intake-valve's closed periods. Also some race-cars spray their injectors upstream back up the intake-tracts to promote even better atomization.
Campeck, let me know when you're doing your dyno-testing, I'll send you a chip so you can do a three-way comparision. It'll have three unique maps so you can make adjustments. This will give you 12 fuel adjustments and 6 ignition settings to dial in just the perfect configuration for your car.
"I understand your circumstances under IT rules. Still wouldn't mind your input on this if we could actually get something going with a budget MAF setup. I don't know if MegaSquirt would be the best bet, but if somebody like Dan could figure a way to set it up, maybe using the stock speed/position sensors to avoid having to come up with a trigger wheel then we would be on the way to doing this on the cheap. That would (1) eliminate all the folks saying the AFM is the issue and (2) eliminate all the people who say it isn't a good dollar to power investment."
I've already got a Link-1 EFI system configured for ITS with laptop-programmable software:
It uses all stock sensors: speed/ref., engine-temp, I provide a variable-pot TPS and air-temp sensor. Has MAP sensing to eliminate all intake-restrictions and I suspect good power can be had with a large velocity-stack attached directly to the throttle-body with a round filter at the end. This comes from some testing I've done with the 951 when running the MAP kits. Re-installing the AFM inline with the intake, but not using it electronically (still on MAP sensing) results in the same -30-50hp lower HP as with using the original stock configuration. This actually eliminates any measurement differences between the MAP sensor vs. AFM, the only thing that's been swapped is the mechanical restriction of the AFM. Even better power can be had with individual throttle-bodies & velocity-stacks per cylinder. We'll have to use a balancing-tube between the velocity-stacks and use a blending function of MAP & TPS-position to arrive at a load value. Something like 75%-TPS/25%-MAP under low-load and 25%-TPS/75%-MAP under high-load.
As for dollar-value for HP gained, I don't think any aftermarket EFI system is gonna make that much more power, if any, than a properly programmed set of chips... After all, if you're the piston sitting in the combustion chamber, you have no idea what is turning on & off the injector and setting the spark. It could be the stock system, it could be an aftermarket EFI, or it could be well-trained TrunkMonkey flipping toggle switches. As long as all three of those are doing it with the same mappings, power output will be identical.
05-02-2005, 01:39 AM
#168
Race Director
Yah, sorry about that, I forgot MAP wasn't legal...
I was also targetting people doing personal R&D like Campeck's mods... FWIW, while velocity-stacks with individual throttle-bodies may yield the highest power-output on an NA motor (my software shows a +40-50hp increase with appropriate headers, cam & higher-compression), it won't last more than 1-month without air-filters...
I was also targetting people doing personal R&D like Campeck's mods... FWIW, while velocity-stacks with individual throttle-bodies may yield the highest power-output on an NA motor (my software shows a +40-50hp increase with appropriate headers, cam & higher-compression), it won't last more than 1-month without air-filters...
05-02-2005, 01:53 AM
#169
Race Director
Originally Posted by Danno
Yah, sorry about that, I forgot MAP wasn't legal...
I was also targetting people doing personal R&D like Campeck's mods...
I was also targetting people doing personal R&D like Campeck's mods...
Originally Posted by Danno
FWIW, while velocity-stacks with individual throttle-bodies may yield the highest power-output on an NA motor (my software shows a +40-50hp increase with appropriate headers, cam & higher-compression), it won't last more than 1-month without air-filters...
05-02-2005, 02:36 AM
#170
Campeck Rulez
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
http://www.motec.com/products/ecu/control.htm#M400
this puppy looks badass
I read up on the advantages and now have a better understanding of some of the things.
danno. I will definatly try to hurry up with the cars repairs.
all the suspention besides the torsion bars are basically being replaced, along with a deep journey inside the ingine to replace internals. and a redo of some leaking gaskets. the car may be down for a couple of months. hopefully no more than 2. tell me more about this chip!
(more info on filter. im almost positive ive gained in the mid range. ive noticed that in the dry coming out of a turns like a neighborhood onto main roads the tires will start spinning around 3500 with no clutch dumps or revving. pretty damn cool!)
this puppy looks badass
I read up on the advantages and now have a better understanding of some of the things.
danno. I will definatly try to hurry up with the cars repairs.
all the suspention besides the torsion bars are basically being replaced, along with a deep journey inside the ingine to replace internals. and a redo of some leaking gaskets. the car may be down for a couple of months. hopefully no more than 2. tell me more about this chip!
(more info on filter. im almost positive ive gained in the mid range. ive noticed that in the dry coming out of a turns like a neighborhood onto main roads the tires will start spinning around 3500 with no clutch dumps or revving. pretty damn cool!)
05-02-2005, 05:33 AM
#171
Race Director
"this puppy looks badass"
Yeah, just the terminated harness for the MoTeC costs more than an entire 944NA!!! Count on between $5500-6000 to have a completed installation with all the accessories needed like trigger wheel, sensors, coil-packs, etc. That's why I was going for an EFI upgrade that'll plug directly into the stock harness and use all the stock components.
Send me an email and I'll fill you in on the chip I'm working up for your car. I need some dimensions on that pipe to plug into my software to see if I can't come up with an accurate model. Then I program to match that.
"Do the individual TBs add hp? I was under the impression they simply added throttle response (much faster and crisper) and that the short runners added the power increase."
Yeah, ITB does give crisper response if you have the proper acceleration-enrichment programmed in. They may not give that much of an increase on an NA, but the 55mm TB on the 951 does become a limitation above 300rwhp and replacing it with a 65mm unit can free up about 10hp. I've got a design in the works with a perfeclty flat butterfly, no hump in the middle from an axle.
That frees up an additional 5% in cross-sectional flow-area. Carrying that over to ITBs would be an added bonus as you can keep the stack small enough to maintain high velocity. The same benefits of flat-slides without the Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde behavior!!! 
heh, heh...
Yeah, just the terminated harness for the MoTeC costs more than an entire 944NA!!! Count on between $5500-6000 to have a completed installation with all the accessories needed like trigger wheel, sensors, coil-packs, etc. That's why I was going for an EFI upgrade that'll plug directly into the stock harness and use all the stock components.
Send me an email and I'll fill you in on the chip I'm working up for your car. I need some dimensions on that pipe to plug into my software to see if I can't come up with an accurate model. Then I program to match that."Do the individual TBs add hp? I was under the impression they simply added throttle response (much faster and crisper) and that the short runners added the power increase."
Yeah, ITB does give crisper response if you have the proper acceleration-enrichment programmed in. They may not give that much of an increase on an NA, but the 55mm TB on the 951 does become a limitation above 300rwhp and replacing it with a 65mm unit can free up about 10hp. I've got a design in the works with a perfeclty flat butterfly, no hump in the middle from an axle.
That frees up an additional 5% in cross-sectional flow-area. Carrying that over to ITBs would be an added bonus as you can keep the stack small enough to maintain high velocity. The same benefits of flat-slides without the Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde behavior!!! heh, heh...
05-02-2005, 08:27 AM
#172
Race Director
Originally Posted by Danno
"this puppy looks badass"
Yeah, just the terminated harness for the MoTeC costs more than an entire 944NA!!! Count on between $5500-6000 to have a completed installation with all the accessories needed like trigger wheel, sensors, coil-packs, etc. That's why I was going for an EFI upgrade that'll plug directly into the stock harness and use all the stock components.
Yeah, just the terminated harness for the MoTeC costs more than an entire 944NA!!! Count on between $5500-6000 to have a completed installation with all the accessories needed like trigger wheel, sensors, coil-packs, etc. That's why I was going for an EFI upgrade that'll plug directly into the stock harness and use all the stock components.
Another programmable option for the 944 would be great.
05-02-2005, 07:19 PM
#173
TRB0 GUY
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Daphne, AL
Posts: 3,769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll stick with the OT section of this thread now... I think the wind blew my urine back onto my leg
FSAE guys... I'll put some threads in here soon about the competition. I'm honestly thinking about gathering a couple of us for some post-competition drinks, or at least getting together between events to chat.
See ya boys soon! You can catch me anytime at the competition with the ODU car.
Ashton... we're all curious to see what gains you got from this. Get 'er on the dyno... get 'er done.
FSAE guys... I'll put some threads in here soon about the competition. I'm honestly thinking about gathering a couple of us for some post-competition drinks, or at least getting together between events to chat.
See ya boys soon! You can catch me anytime at the competition with the ODU car.
Ashton... we're all curious to see what gains you got from this. Get 'er on the dyno... get 'er done.
05-02-2005, 08:20 PM
#174
Trunk Monkey huh? How would we plug it into the stock harness
I really wasn't too sure batch versus sequential would do for us here. What I am really interested in is ditching the AFM for a MAF or I guess MAP if that would be more beneficial. Since everybody seems to think the AFM is what buggers airflow, let's stick a MAF in its place and see what happens. My assumption was/is that the interface to the stock computer would be a bit of a problem hence my comment of a stand alone rather than some piggyback.
Thoughts?
I really wasn't too sure batch versus sequential would do for us here. What I am really interested in is ditching the AFM for a MAF or I guess MAP if that would be more beneficial. Since everybody seems to think the AFM is what buggers airflow, let's stick a MAF in its place and see what happens. My assumption was/is that the interface to the stock computer would be a bit of a problem hence my comment of a stand alone rather than some piggyback.
Thoughts?
Originally Posted by Danno
"What is wrong with the stock injector fire and how would sequetial make it better. Id like to know because i have no clue what the pros or cons of either are."
"Sequential injection provides better mixture control."
Sequential really only makes a difference at low-flow and idle conditions. That's because over 50-60% duty-cycle, it doesn't matter any more because the injectors will be firing during 100% of the time that the intake-valves are open. This is the same as batch fire. The only difference at this point is when to have the "off" non-spray period during the time that the intake-valves are closed. Either turn them off in one big chunk or in two smaller periods, but both schemes are when the valves are closed anyway. I've got diagrams that explains this on my 951 RacerX website.
This is borne out through emperical testing which shows miminal if any power improvements due to sequential. The biggest gain in sequential is idle in emissions control with large injectors. You're able to squirt when the valves start to open to make sure the ingested mixture in each cylinder has just the right air-fuel ratio for best emissions. With batch-fire, some cylinders will end up lean and others rich, even though the overall average of all the cylinders is correct. However the lean cylinder will spit out too much NOx and the rich one will put out too much HC.
Along this idea of atomization and mixing fuel & incoming air, the location of the fuel-injectors aimed at the intake-valve is also an emissions concession. Testing has shown that better atomization of fuel can be realized by placing the injectors further away, like 6-10" away from the intake-valves to give a larger volume of air to mix with the gas during the intake-valve's closed periods. Also some race-cars spray their injectors upstream back up the intake-tracts to promote even better atomization.
Campeck, let me know when you're doing your dyno-testing, I'll send you a chip so you can do a three-way comparision. It'll have three unique maps so you can make adjustments. This will give you 12 fuel adjustments and 6 ignition settings to dial in just the perfect configuration for your car.
"I understand your circumstances under IT rules. Still wouldn't mind your input on this if we could actually get something going with a budget MAF setup. I don't know if MegaSquirt would be the best bet, but if somebody like Dan could figure a way to set it up, maybe using the stock speed/position sensors to avoid having to come up with a trigger wheel then we would be on the way to doing this on the cheap. That would (1) eliminate all the folks saying the AFM is the issue and (2) eliminate all the people who say it isn't a good dollar to power investment."
I've already got a Link-1 EFI system configured for ITS with laptop-programmable software:
It uses all stock sensors: speed/ref., engine-temp, I provide a variable-pot TPS and air-temp sensor. Has MAP sensing to eliminate all intake-restrictions and I suspect good power can be had with a large velocity-stack attached directly to the throttle-body with a round filter at the end. This comes from some testing I've done with the 951 when running the MAP kits. Re-installing the AFM inline with the intake, but not using it electronically (still on MAP sensing) results in the same -30-50hp lower HP as with using the original stock configuration. This actually eliminates any measurement differences between the MAP sensor vs. AFM, the only thing that's been swapped is the mechanical restriction of the AFM. Even better power can be had with individual throttle-bodies & velocity-stacks per cylinder. We'll have to use a balancing-tube between the velocity-stacks and use a blending function of MAP & TPS-position to arrive at a load value. Something like 75%-TPS/25%-MAP under low-load and 25%-TPS/75%-MAP under high-load.
As for dollar-value for HP gained, I don't think any aftermarket EFI system is gonna make that much more power, if any, than a properly programmed set of chips... After all, if you're the piston sitting in the combustion chamber, you have no idea what is turning on & off the injector and setting the spark. It could be the stock system, it could be an aftermarket EFI, or it could be well-trained TrunkMonkey flipping toggle switches. As long as all three of those are doing it with the same mappings, power output will be identical.
"Sequential injection provides better mixture control."
Sequential really only makes a difference at low-flow and idle conditions. That's because over 50-60% duty-cycle, it doesn't matter any more because the injectors will be firing during 100% of the time that the intake-valves are open. This is the same as batch fire. The only difference at this point is when to have the "off" non-spray period during the time that the intake-valves are closed. Either turn them off in one big chunk or in two smaller periods, but both schemes are when the valves are closed anyway. I've got diagrams that explains this on my 951 RacerX website.
This is borne out through emperical testing which shows miminal if any power improvements due to sequential. The biggest gain in sequential is idle in emissions control with large injectors. You're able to squirt when the valves start to open to make sure the ingested mixture in each cylinder has just the right air-fuel ratio for best emissions. With batch-fire, some cylinders will end up lean and others rich, even though the overall average of all the cylinders is correct. However the lean cylinder will spit out too much NOx and the rich one will put out too much HC.
Along this idea of atomization and mixing fuel & incoming air, the location of the fuel-injectors aimed at the intake-valve is also an emissions concession. Testing has shown that better atomization of fuel can be realized by placing the injectors further away, like 6-10" away from the intake-valves to give a larger volume of air to mix with the gas during the intake-valve's closed periods. Also some race-cars spray their injectors upstream back up the intake-tracts to promote even better atomization.
Campeck, let me know when you're doing your dyno-testing, I'll send you a chip so you can do a three-way comparision. It'll have three unique maps so you can make adjustments. This will give you 12 fuel adjustments and 6 ignition settings to dial in just the perfect configuration for your car.
"I understand your circumstances under IT rules. Still wouldn't mind your input on this if we could actually get something going with a budget MAF setup. I don't know if MegaSquirt would be the best bet, but if somebody like Dan could figure a way to set it up, maybe using the stock speed/position sensors to avoid having to come up with a trigger wheel then we would be on the way to doing this on the cheap. That would (1) eliminate all the folks saying the AFM is the issue and (2) eliminate all the people who say it isn't a good dollar to power investment."
I've already got a Link-1 EFI system configured for ITS with laptop-programmable software:
It uses all stock sensors: speed/ref., engine-temp, I provide a variable-pot TPS and air-temp sensor. Has MAP sensing to eliminate all intake-restrictions and I suspect good power can be had with a large velocity-stack attached directly to the throttle-body with a round filter at the end. This comes from some testing I've done with the 951 when running the MAP kits. Re-installing the AFM inline with the intake, but not using it electronically (still on MAP sensing) results in the same -30-50hp lower HP as with using the original stock configuration. This actually eliminates any measurement differences between the MAP sensor vs. AFM, the only thing that's been swapped is the mechanical restriction of the AFM. Even better power can be had with individual throttle-bodies & velocity-stacks per cylinder. We'll have to use a balancing-tube between the velocity-stacks and use a blending function of MAP & TPS-position to arrive at a load value. Something like 75%-TPS/25%-MAP under low-load and 25%-TPS/75%-MAP under high-load.
As for dollar-value for HP gained, I don't think any aftermarket EFI system is gonna make that much more power, if any, than a properly programmed set of chips... After all, if you're the piston sitting in the combustion chamber, you have no idea what is turning on & off the injector and setting the spark. It could be the stock system, it could be an aftermarket EFI, or it could be well-trained TrunkMonkey flipping toggle switches. As long as all three of those are doing it with the same mappings, power output will be identical.
05-02-2005, 08:39 PM
#175
Campeck Rulez
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
ok.
I GOT 2-3/4 PIPING!
WOOOO!!!!!
found a shop that mandrel bends and was 10$ a bend. got in total 5 bends. (i made sure to get the longest piping though!)
now i have a question. should i make the two bends right at the afm? in the middle? or at the hole in the fender?
I GOT 2-3/4 PIPING!
WOOOO!!!!!
found a shop that mandrel bends and was 10$ a bend. got in total 5 bends. (i made sure to get the longest piping though!)
now i have a question. should i make the two bends right at the afm? in the middle? or at the hole in the fender?
05-02-2005, 09:00 PM
#176
Campeck Rulez
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
im about to cut. need response!
eh..I think ill just put the bends as far away from the AFM as possible. to get a good fast flow through there.
eh..I think ill just put the bends as far away from the AFM as possible. to get a good fast flow through there.
05-02-2005, 09:42 PM
#177
Campeck Rulez
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
pink = clamps and connections.
red= upper portion
blue= lower portion which to make sure i have enough pipe for the smaller filter will be deep in the current filter.
red= upper portion
blue= lower portion which to make sure i have enough pipe for the smaller filter will be deep in the current filter.
05-02-2005, 09:55 PM
#178
Race Director
Campeck, you're on the right tack. Keeping the bends away from the AFM will likely give you the best results. But you never know.
Manning, the MAF would be the top of the line way to go because it is largely insensitive to changes in VE where a MAP requires reprogramming with changes in VE to be most effective.
Manning, the MAF would be the top of the line way to go because it is largely insensitive to changes in VE where a MAP requires reprogramming with changes in VE to be most effective.
05-02-2005, 10:31 PM
#179
Yeah, I remember that. I also think it could be done on the cheap either via junkyard parts, or for more easily repeatable configuration by using one of Granatelli's MAFs. You looking at around $250 on up new for a Granatelli MAF from Summit.