M Danger

Well Ok, lets say the drive train losses were even more, that would only mean that if a dyno said that a car was making a certain amount of hp at the wheels, that would mean it was making more at the crank right?
I dont see why 360 at the wheels is so hard to believe? I mean if crank hp is optomistic then the 360 RWHP sounds even better

Danno

"I dont see why 360 at the wheels is so hard to believe?"

It's not. Just that no one using a MAF kit has ever posted that kind of power yet. All of those who have, are using aftermarket EFI systems.

M Danger

Just went through all those links, and what i got from it was that 15% is that average could be down to 10 or up to 17, but either way that makes 360RWHP look good, i mean if it was a 10% loss great hes not losing that much and if its a 17% loss that would mean hes making even more crank hp.
Now obviously we cant know how accurate the RWHP #'s are but I wouldnt think theyd be that far off.
Ofcourse now i cant really remeber what i was originally talking about anymore.

So back to how the SDS or any other stand alone is better as far as getting 400-450Crank(or340-383RWHP) versus me just getting a pro-flow and an apexi ARC(whatever)for $450

aka 951

Didn't Graham Gillies have over 400rwhp on his 2.8L with MAF? How about Chris Cervelli with over 400rwhp with his MAF set-up (Autothority based). How about all the Vision guys (a lot of whom use stock barn doors), and the Andial 951s of late?

I'm not sure where this is headed because there are plenty of cars with high hp that use the stock DME.

The real issue here is the code in the ECU. Both TT and I have accesed the code and can modify the fuel and ignition tables. Its not really rocket science as far as i am concerned its just a matter of manipulating data.

To date most aftermarket companies merely massage the incoming signal from the VAF to the ECU and this is where the problem lies. This strategy ends up screwing with the proper fuel and ignition values for the engine. Without a massager and with proper programming the stock ECU will work fine for %95 of the 951s that I'm aware of.

Russ Murphy

Erick,
You undoubteably are right about lots of 400 plus rwhp cars using the stock DME and some custom software. I would just like to actually see evidence as opposed to anecdotes. I don't believe I've seen anyone on this board post a dynochart with a 400+ rwhp 951 using the DME. Again, I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'd just like know where that "line in the sand" that no (or virtually none) DME car has crossed.

aka 951

Graham's car was featured in Excellence a long time ago. I'm guessing 5 years ago. The dyno charts are on his home page.

Vision's cars were also in excellence although I don't know where the dyno charts are.

I'm not sure if Cervelli has a dyno chart but he's probably not lying...lol.

As mentioned above it comes down to the full throttle mapping for making the most power -there's really no secret to it.

ken louie

Hey russ what about John Anderson's ex 2.82 motor? I believe that had about 415wrhp/450 wrt with sfr/huntly maf. Dynos sheet are at sfr site

Russ Murphy

Thanks,
I'll check it out.

Russ Murphy

In my own little mind I was thinking in terms of 2.5 liter motors since increasing displacement increases the "base" hp of the motor berfore mods so to speak.

superjet.1

ALAN C. you talked to someone at link about the 944 turbo set up i would love to talk to them and get base programs for a head start.please if you can give me a phone number and name thanks

Alan C.

Here is the info from the Link web:

1643 Monrovia Ave, Costa Mesa, Los Angeles, CA 92627
Tel +1+949-646 7461, Fax +1+949-646 7471

http:/www.performancedevelopments.com

I spoke with Neal in CA.

Hope this helps.

Alan

toddk911

pro-flow and an apexi ARC(whatever)for $450

I was told the pro fow was 550.00 alone. How much , more does the ARC add?

And just to clarify, none of these systems make more hp/tq, they just control A/F to allow the ability to make more hp or run more booost? Please correct me if I am wrong <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

danny951

I'd think that by perfecting a fuel curve, you are gonna see more HP.. that's the point of this.. more efficient boost.

I also would think that if you've got a custom set of chips burned for all the bolt on's youve got, then there would be no problem getting just as much HP that anyone with similar bolt-ons would be getting if they had a standalone.. all the standalone will do is allow you to configure future upgrades. if you get a set of chips that have maps set for your specific mods, then you'll get a darn near perfect fuel curve... as long as you don't drive to a different elevation.

Does that sound right to you guys? Cause I got an email from a guy a while back that'll burn me custom chips for $100 each time I need it done.. each time I add something.. this means I'd have to stay at the same Boost level as when I got the chips burned, but also means I don't need to spend $500 on an EBC also! So when I get my new turbo/injectors/exhaust/wastegate... i'll get some chips burned and be set.

Danno

Yes, that's right. When it comes down to it, there are only two variables that is important with each four-strokes of any cylinder. That's the fuel-injectors' duty-cycle and the ignition-timing. The injectors or coil doesn't care one bit what's driving them, be it the stock DME, or DME w/signal-massagers or a complete standalone aftermarket EFI system.

That said, the primary factors in which upgrade path you take in managing fuel is ease of use, price, and handy additional features (datalogging, built-in O2-sensor, etc..).

For example, when I did a rough tune of my car with the ARC2 following the supplied instructions, the car ran OK and got 220rwhp @ 12psi with an overly-rich 10:1 air-fuel mixture. After the initial dyno-run, we turned down the fuel-pressure and fiddled with the ARC2 to get a more optimal 12.5:1 air-fuel mixture. This increased the power a whole 70hp to 290rwhp !!!.

Now the convenience factor is definitely at play here since the ARC2 adjustment requires three clicks of two ***** which would've taken 30-minutes or so with chip-burning. Since you gotta pull out your chips, do a binary-dump and sift through the data. Then modify the ranges you want and burn a new chip. Go back to the car and plug in those new chips and do another run. Meanwhile, the dyno-clock is still charging you $100/hr...

danny951

But How will I gain anything really using an ARC or other massager since when I really need the power, the computer is in closed loop and pulling info from my DME? I'd rather have a custom DME than a massager since from what I read on here so often is that the system is in closed loop at anything over 3500RPM or WOT..