Hey all,

I've been experimenting with different options for replacing the poxy flexible pipe between the MAF and throttle body with respect to diameter, wall smoothness and heat insulation.

Does anyone know where I can source a good silicon pipe that will fit this distance and diameter (I've had no luck at all, - everything from the auto shops is the wrong diameter)?

My most recent effort produce an interesting result , when I built a 90-100mm section from two straight alloy sections connected with a 100mm flexible exhaust fan alloy duct. Wrapped the whole lot in rubber heat proof insulation, then wrapped this with Ducted heating tape (looks like S**t, but done in the name of science).

Also A bit of OBD2 logging is showing a consistant temperature difference of between 5-10 degrees C between ambient vs. IAT measurements. They start off the same then diverge slowly after about 15 minutes of driving. I find 10 degrees an unnacceptable performance limitation so:

Then I cut a thick plastic custom heat shield from an old mulching machine hopper that fits between the engine an the intake system and also goes under the airbox to shield it from trans heat (real exercise in geometry by the way). Then I put Rubber heat sheilding under the Galant intake to sheild it from the Radiator and engine heat and wrapped the whole intake in silver Ducted heating tape

End result is quite interesting: wrt the intake pipe , the poke down low is either about the same or maybe a even a little less, and the poke up high is definately significantly stronger. I put this down to the overall diameter increase of the pipe reducing velocity , but adding volume : a scenario that typically favours better peformance at a higher engine speed. I've now resolved to somehow construct a dual or variable length intake. I'm tossing up between trying to use a variable Helmholtz resonator (which I suspect won't work) or constructing two different length ducts separated by a butterfly valve to start with, and see what happens

Two principles at play here: one is air volume and velocity favouring a particular engine speed, the other is the factor the pre-throttle body intake system plays in the total tuned length of the intake runners in terms of acoustic resonance and compression wave return timing to the valves.
I'm also considering a valve that just closes off my lower airbox intake (long 60mm pipe - lower res mod) or my much shorter , wider upper galant intake at different revs, any thoughts?

The heat sheilding hasn't worked as well as I'd hoped: the side of the airbox and intake feel significantly cooler after a drive, but there's not a massive reduction in the IAT vs Ambient, although it does take a lot longer for the spread to occur

Anybody else paid any attention to temp variations under the hood with their OBD scanners?
Sorry for the long post, all I can suggest is if you find it boring , stop reading !! :happy:
Cheers,
RG

Just imagine if Mitsu had put money into variable intake ducts for the 380 just like the VE V6? Had the noise reducing narrow duct for low rpm switching to an open system above, say 2,500 rpm. Bet it would have made ~ 195kw ATF straight up. Such a shame they didn't develop this great engine.

The dual runner system is only to improve bottom end and not really help with top end, alot of mitsu engine do run dual intake runner system, I guess they didn't feel it would benefit in the 380 given its a relatively big engine for the car... it wheel spins enough as it is too! The 6G75 in NP and on Pajero's have the dual runner, 6A12's, some 4G63's etc.. usually left for smaller engine's/heavier loads.

The last engine to have variable length intake was the 12V SOHC 6G72 in the 2nd gens. Pity Mitsubishi did not keep the technology to the 24V SOHC 6G72, 6G74 and 6G75.

(2004 on) NP 3.8 v6 Pajero has variable intake..

I'm talking about magna/verada/380 engines. No use talking about pajero engines. The 6G72/74 engines used by magnas/veradas were actually made here in Oz.

The dual system helps with both bottom and top end. At low revs it uses the long path to maximise bottom end torque and at high revs it uses the short path to maximise top end power. In the middle it has both open.

Sorry boys it was all about cost. You want 4 valves? no dual intake (cost offset). Not many people buy 98? lets loss the knock sensor (costdown). Regarding the 6G75, MMAL managed 195 kw's with a free'd up intake,#7 cams and VRX exhaust. MMAL just ran out of time plus we had to work with Bosch which was far from ideal, more cost down that didn't work that cost us a good engine package and money. It would of been heaps better if it was all in house but MMAL were getting close to the very conservative 3.8 MiVec which wouldn't have been a good idea.
MMAL Lonsdale engine plant were tooled up to build the 6G75 and managed a 40 block trail run. Got very close.

Cheers Dave

so the question now is how to shoe horn a dual runner intake onto a 3g?

Sorry boys it was all about cost. You want 4 valves? no dual intake (cost offset). Not many people buy 98? lets loss the knock sensor (costdown). Regarding the 6G75, MMAL managed 195 kw's with a free'd up intake,#7 cams and VRX exhaust. MMAL just ran out of time plus we had to work with Bosch which was far from ideal, more cost down that didn't work that cost us a good engine package and money. It would of been heaps better if it was all in house but MMAL were getting close to the very conservative 3.8 MiVec which wouldn't have been a good idea.
MMAL Lonsdale engine plant were tooled up to build the 6G75 and managed a 40 block trail run. Got very close.

Cheers Dave

Sorry if this seems a dumb question (no such thing I really know) but does the 380 NOT have a knock sensor - ie is it unable to "sense" optimum advance for fuel in use so using hi octane a waste of money??

Sorry guys, yes MMAL got the Knock sensor back with 6G75 thank god so we got to keep 10:1 comp, (no piston change=cost saving). Yep so 98 helps the engine through the entire rev range. Due to MMC'
s conservative spark strategy you don't get the most out of 98 but there is a gain everywhere. Bloody hell and you want dual runners too !!!!!!!!!!!!
The 6G75 is better on 98.

The 6G75 plenum is actually a very nice piece of work, alot better than the previous 6G7 4 valve plenums.

Cheers Dave

Thanks Dave you are a wealth of INFO

195KW geez that would be nice

And totally agree on the 98RON gains

Sorry guys, yes MMAL got the Knock sensor back with 6G75 thank god so we got to keep 10:1 comp, (no piston change=cost saving). Yep so 98 helps the engine through the entire rev range. Due to MMC'
s conservative spark strategy you don't get the most out of 98 but there is a gain everywhere. Bloody hell and you want dual runners too !!!!!!!!!!!!
The 6G75 is better on 98.

The 6G75 plenum is actually a very nice piece of work, alot better than the previous 6G7 4 valve plenums.

Cheers Dave

:)

No wonder mine runs so nicely on LPG! - I can't detect any performance difference! BTW I do just use E10 in tank as it starts and warms on petrol, and a tank lasts 6 months or so so the ethanol is good for dealing with with any H20 condensation etc in the petrol tank andsystem!

So does that also mean fitting the Galant 90 intake degrades the "nice piece of work" ? or is the "plenum" post filter?

No the Galant intake is good........the plenum is the part of the intake manifold that the TB bolts on to.

I gotta agree with the 75 plenum being a "nice piece of work". :happy:

It would be interesting to see someone do a "back to back" dyno with one on a 74 motor.....but thats a story for another forum.

Tks Zero

Sorry boys it was all about cost. You want 4 valves? no dual intake (cost offset). Not many people buy 98? lets loss the knock sensor (costdown). Regarding the 6G75, MMAL managed 195 kw's with a free'd up intake,#7 cams and VRX exhaust. MMAL just ran out of time plus we had to work with Bosch which was far from ideal, more cost down that didn't work that cost us a good engine package and money. It would of been heaps better if it was all in house but MMAL were getting close to the very conservative 3.8 MiVec which wouldn't have been a good idea.
MMAL Lonsdale engine plant were tooled up to build the 6G75 and managed a 40 block trail run. Got very close.

Cheers Dave
So in your opinion Dave, what do you think the flywheel figure would be for a 380 with the 90mm intake & straight thru rear muffler (similar to the one on a TJ Sport/VRX)?

I think it would be around 175 kw's, thats with standard cats in place,

Cheers Dave

Sorry guys, yes MMAL got the Knock sensor back with 6G75 thank god so we got to keep 10:1 comp, (no piston change=cost saving). Yep so 98 helps the engine through the entire rev range. Due to MMC'
s conservative spark strategy you don't get the most out of 98 but there is a gain everywhere. Bloody hell and you want dual runners too !!!!!!!!!!!!
The 6G75 is better on 98.

The 6G75 plenum is actually a very nice piece of work, alot better than the previous 6G7 4 valve plenums.

Cheers Dave

Thanks for the Info Dave and, yes ....I want it all!!:facejump:

In fact I want it so bad that I'm in the process of building a Dual width Throttle body intake to try and offset this. the different intakes I've built over the last couple of weeks showed a typical increase in power at higher engine speeds with a wider diameter intake pipe (between the MAF and Throttle body), but predictably, response suffered.

With a 90mm pipe I got a maximum increase of 5 g/s airflow and a calculated power figure of 159kw atw over an 80mm pipe (155kw), but it feels less powerful to drive , due to the poor response . This was proved by the fact that my measured 0-100 times went up form a best of 6.76 seconds to 7.67seconds and even an 8 second pass. Just goes to show: Max KW isnt everything, the power/torque curve is the important bit.

I don't think I'm going to have much success tackling the dual runner problem before the throttle body due to dispersion of waves through the MAF/air filter and I think it's probably going to be an expensive exercise to tackle this after the throttle body (i.e the Manifold) unless I can find a cheap factory part (from a different model with dual intake) to start with that pretty much already matches the 380 heads, any ideas on this Dave? For this reason I'm tackling velocity and volume optimisation first

I'll post the pipe design when I'm finished, but effectively it's just one primary 76mm (3 inch) pipe, with an auxillary 40mm pipe that opens with a butterfly valve after 3500 rpm. Still a WIP , but I expect good things from this. Reviewing the logs I think this is worth the effort for the more optimised power curve through the whole rev range

Stage two will be playing with my dual CAI pipe lengths, by putting another butterfly in the Galant snorkle (shortest pipe) that partially blocks it at low revs to encourage compression waves down my lower (much longer) 60mm intake at low revs. I really don't know if this will achieve anything, since even though technically the whole intake system forms part of the intake runner length equation, in practice I think resonance control before the MAf is probably going to have a negligible effect compared with genuine intake runner length on the manifold, but hey, it's not hard to install and test , so I'll probably give it a shot before going down the more complex variable helmholtz resonator path off the primary throttle intake pipe.

Cheers,
Another nice long post by: RG

For anybody still interested: an almost straight, 76mm smooth walled silicon tube (Caliber) only dropped 1g/s of airflow (192 vs 193g/s max) and 2 max calculated Kw (157 vs. 159) from a 90mm convoluted flexi pipe. Bigger isn't always better -> velocity vs. volume, plus the convolutions seem to form a major obstruction

Edit: Mind you the bloody thing cost $60 for a 300mm piece of silicon tube (+ $20 for an 80mm plumbing extension from bunnings) :doubt:, add to that all the other pipe combinations I've tried so far and I reckon I've blown at least $150 optimising the stock throttle body intake pipe for a gain of about 5 g/s and 4 calculated kw!.. :roll:, ah well, lucky I enjoy experimenting .... with car modifications.

Good work RG, it's all trial and error. keep a good log of changes and results.

Yeap the intake system is a very strange beast, I feel alot of the problem is the ECU is locked into close to ideal for the standard intake system, so it's easier to go backwards. When we did temperature sweeps trying to find max power out of the mapping, 29 degrees intake temp at the MAF was the sweet spot. The temperature correction in the ecu could of been a bit better, hence the looking for an ideal temp for a power run.
The problem is you may find a gain but it may make the engine knock a bit, so less power but if you could alter the fuel and spark you could get that air flow/power gain you found, if that makes sense.
So keep testing it's great to hear people trying and testing stuff.

Cheers Dave

I think it would be around 175 kw's, thats with standard cats in place,

Cheers Dave
So with the standard 380 putting out 175kw, you are saying that the 90mm intake and straight thru muffler wont give a power increase due to the manifold cats?

So with the standard 380 putting out 175kw, you are saying that the 90mm intake and straight thru muffler wont give a power increase due to the manifold cats?

It's rated at 175kw, whether it is or not is a different matter.

Yep thats rated, 90mm is worth 3 kw's. maybe + 1k with muffler, the 380 muffler is pretty good. Yep cats and the white brick underneath do some damage to the exhaust flow and the air/fuel ratio.

Cheers Dave

Yep thats rated, 90mm is worth 3 kw's. maybe + 1k with muffler, the 380 muffler is pretty good. Yep cats and the white brick underneath do some damage to the exhaust flow and the air/fuel ratio.

Cheers Dave

Dave,

In your opinion how many killerwasps are released by replacing the stock exhaust manifolds with extractors and the stock white brick 3rd cat with a 200 CPI hi-flow cat? These are two of the mods I have done.

KJ.

Good work RG, it's all trial and error. keep a good log of changes and results.

Yeap the intake system is a very strange beast, I feel alot of the problem is the ECU is locked into close to ideal for the standard intake system, so it's easier to go backwards. When we did temperature sweeps trying to find max power out of the mapping, 29 degrees intake temp at the MAF was the sweet spot. The temperature correction in the ecu could of been a bit better, hence the looking for an ideal temp for a power run.
The problem is you may find a gain but it may make the engine knock a bit, so less power but if you could alter the fuel and spark you could get that air flow/power gain you found, if that makes sense.
So keep testing it's great to hear people trying and testing stuff.

Cheers Dave

Yes , this does make sense. Unfortunately , I think I might be having this problem already.
I managed to get up to 195g/s flow rate and 160 calculated kw at an IAT of about 20 degrees at 100Km/hour on two days ago in auto mode, but noticed a strange "flat spot" (I always floor it at a particular spot, the same way every day) i.e. either a reluctance to drop down to first (the way it usually does) rolling at about 30Km/h when I boot it, or a flat spot. I didn;t think much of it, motors can be quirky.
Then yesterday I fitted the Berklee and had an 02 bung welded in.

Today the beastie can hit 195g/s flow rate and 160 calculated kw in auto same as above , but now at about 80Km/h..... at 100km it went up to 200g/s and 164 calculated kw. However, same flat spot occured, same location , same conditions. Further driving has shown this occuring more and more: a strange reluctance to drop gear under certain conditions (the only way I got the above figures is by using the tippy to the redline from takeoff) It doesn't seem to want to drop down to first when I'm rolling at slow speed (about 30-40Km?) anymore, like it has alway done

I also fancy I noticed some surging , here and there, so I'm wondering if I've introduced a knock condition? Fitting the WB 02 sensor this weekend, so should be able to see some evidence of this.
Dave, you seem to be implying that higher than stock air flow/velocity conditions could introduce a knock without something in the fuel or timing to compensate (I know this is always true of most vehcles at some point, I just didn't think I could reach that point with the modest modifications done so far). I already run 95-98 ron, do you think a water injection kit might help advance the timing without knock, even though it's only a NA? I have a setup I was thinking of putting on , but was waiting to see if there would be any point. I mean Fooz and Blackstart are using FI! but that's with a piggyback.
Once the AFR goes on, my custom piggyback system (Jaycar Voltage adjuster with some customised additions) will get finally installed , maybe I can then offset some of this. What do you think about some water injection - seriously .. I know it seems a bit wanky on a NA, but I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't reduce detonation and intake temps just the same

My Digital Manometer arrived today, so I will have a look at the airflow through that 76 mm pipe. There might be no point going down the dual diameter intake path if the single smooth 76mm already flows more than the ECU (or Timing) can handle

EDIT: A sweet spot at 29 degrees!! I can't understand this. surely you'd get a better advance and power at a lower temp? my IAT with the the heat shielding often hovers between 11-15 degrees at the moment (while in motion)

This is better than' Top Gear!'

Cheers!.. and done on about one billioneth of the budget :D

KJ, it's just my guess but round the 180 kw's with that set up.

RG, remember it's corrected power and map temperature corrections not quite being right. With dyno corrected power it shouldn't matter what the ambient temp is, the correction should make it all sweet, but if the map temperature correction is out a little bit you will find a sweet spot. We are talking rated power.
You don't need water injection, just fix that mapping for your upgrades. may be a piggy back would be easiest or find someone who can reflash the Botch ecu.

Cheers Dave

KJ, someone who can reflash the Botch ecu.

Cheers Dave

From what I have read here the "Holy Grail" of a 380 reflash still seems elusive! eg comment s of Bosch is anal in protecting IP etc

"Botch" ECU?

Sounds about right!

KJ, it's just my guess but round the 180 kw's with that set up.

RG, remember it's corrected power and map temperature corrections not quite being right. With dyno corrected power it shouldn't matter what the ambient temp is, the correction should make it all sweet, but if the map temperature correction is out a little bit you will find a sweet spot. We are talking rated power.
You don't need water injection, just fix that mapping for your upgrades. may be a piggy back would be easiest or find someone who can reflash the Botch ecu.

Cheers Dave

lol I like it too!

I'm thinking more & more I need a full aftermarket ecu to run the engine & leave the Botched ecu to run stuff it can handle like the air-cond & stereo lol ..... I'm guessing it will still need all the engine inputs though so it can talk to the the auto gearbox ecu & it will still all work?

A company called softronics tuning say they can re-flash boxster 2.7's, which I think has a very similar ecu to the 380. If they can do that then I think it would be possible to do the 380. It's just finding someone who is interested I'd say.

Cheers Dave

KJ, it's just my guess but round the 180 kw's with that set up.

RG, remember it's corrected power and map temperature corrections not quite being right. With dyno corrected power it shouldn't matter what the ambient temp is, the correction should make it all sweet, but if the map temperature correction is out a little bit you will find a sweet spot. We are talking rated power.
You don't need water injection, just fix that mapping for your upgrades. may be a piggy back would be easiest or find someone who can reflash the Botch ecu.

Cheers Dave

I'm not sure I understood what you wrote here Dave,

When you say "map temperature correction", are you referrring to the timing advance at a particular intake temperature (plus Altitude, load rpm etc.of course) part of the engine Map here?
My little custom piggy back, can change the IAT and MAF readings, but that's all. Exactly which mapping are you talking about when you say "fix that mapping". Sorry to sound dense, I just want to be sure of what you're talking about.
Because this might be kind of the opposite direction I was going in, i.e. I was thinking of leaning the fuel a bit at WOT up to about 11.8 - 12, and dropping the IAT reading a little on 98 RON so that the ECU thinks the air is denser etc. -> more advance, and possibly putting in a setting to shave a significant (maybe 10 degrees) off the IAT and simultaneously engage a water spray to help the knock retard. I'm wondering if you are talking about retarding the advance to compensate for the mods instead?

BTW , I still have that same flat spot/gear change problem at exactly the same location, weird!
I installed my AFR gauge over the wekend , and haven't seen it go lower than 10.5 (many people's stock rides have gone as low as 9's ) so far, which is consistent with my theory that carefully enlarging the outer MAF screen holes lets a nice little volume of air through to ever so slighlty lean the mix (blind mans tune)
Also when you say "dyno corrected power" do you just mean tuning the AFR's and IAT on the dyno (this was the plan so far)
Thanks for the input mate,
Cheers.
RG

Edit:
Here is a screen shot of the OBD PID readings at the point where the" flat spot" ocurrs, for postulation on whether this is evident of a knock - retard scenario (or just a retard driving :happy:)

You can see at about line 512 (Red) where I've put my foot down, which elicits a timing retardation of -24 degrees! then at line 526-531 (yellow) you can see the calculated load drop back to 35% and absulte Throttle position drop to 17% as I lift my foot again after getting no response from the car and wondering what happened.
Then about 1 second later at line 533 (Green) I hit it again and get a better (but not ideal response).

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5360/flatspot.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/flatspot.jpg/)

Hmm , that didn't come out so well: direct link here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/flatspot.jpg/

Hi

I have just sarted playing around with logging parameters using "DashCommand" iPhone app and its sister program ScanXL on the pc

I am not seeing all the PIDs recorded eg throttle position, coolant temp etc - Is there some list of which PIDs are compatible etc

BTW did u get your max airflow mass readings at max Torque, Max power or elsewhere in the rev range - I have always had in my mind from long long ago that max volumetric efficincy and max torque occurred about same revs??

T

Hi

I have just sarted playing around with logging parameters using "DashCommand" iPhone app and its sister program ScanTool on the pc

I am not seeing all the PIDs recorded eg throttle position, coolant temp etc - Is there some list of which PIDs are compatible etc

BTW did u get your max airflow mass readings at max Torque, Max power or elsewhere in the rev range - I have always had in my mind from long long ago that max volumetric efficincy and max torque occurred about same revs??

T

For the first question , I'm not sure where you would get this, but would need to be pids supported by the 380 (I get about 37 I think) and would also depend on the software.
For the second question: no I don't get any relationship to mass airflow and max torque, huge relationship to Max Power (KW) though, almost in lockstep. torque seems too tricky to correlate (with RPM, Calc Load , advance and airflow etc.)

For the first question , I'm not sure where you would get this, but would need to be pids supported by the 380 (I get about 37 I think) and would also depend on the software.
For the second question: no I don't get any relationship to mass airflow and max torque, huge relationship to Max Power (KW) though, almost in lockstep. torque seems too tricky to correlate (with RPM, Calc Load , advance and airflow etc.)

Thanks

I will pm u a data export .csv file that lsits which data is being captured at moment

Help desk guy in US who sorted out an iPhone connection issue said this veh uses SAE pids, but maybe that is US Galant or maybe something he could see in the debug file he got me to capture and send to him, but I couldn't find anything to read content - just came up machine code in TextPad

So I am slowly adding pids from s/ware menu but not all are supported - So a list of the 37 you capture would be of interst please

Terry

See next post I fumbled fingered this one

Maybe ur getting some form of EMR interference at that location?

I'm not sure I understood what you wrote here Dave,


BTW , I still have that same flat spot/gear change problem at exactly the same location, weird!

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5360/flatspot.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/flatspot.jpg/)

Hmm , that didn't come out so well: direct link here:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/flatspot.jpg/

Maybe ur getting some form of EMR interference at that location?

Maybe ur getting some form of EMR interference at that location?

what you mean someone taking out my TPS or suchlike with "Frickin Lazers!!" ? , funny thing is , it never happened before I fitted the smooth bore 76mm Throttle intake pipe. It's almost like the engine is literally gagging on the bigger airflow.

I know the Intake plenum from the 380 fits on the 74, but is there much difference to the throttlebody between the two engines?
Will the intake pipe from the MAF to throttlebody on the 74 fit over the 380 throttlebody?

Having a thought here lol

It just seems very strange to note it happens in same place - any new mobile phone towers?

Not at Black Mountain Telstra tower in CBR I presume - known location for problems with remote locking etc ??
T

I know the Intake plenum from the 380 fits on the 74, but is there much difference to the throttlebody between the two engines?
Will the intake pipe from the MAF to throttlebody on the 74 fit over the 380 throttlebody?

Having a thought here lol

380 plenum has a bent end, 380 throttle is electric.

So can the 74 throttlebody bolt onto the 380 plenum then?

You need to weld up the holes & re-drill,thread to fit.
Also need a longer throttle cable & sort out a mount for it.

If someone in SA has a spare 380 manifold to measure from I might be able to make an adapter to fit a 6g74 TB? But you'd need a slightly even longer throttle cable again.

RG, Yep to the first part your getting it, yes to leaning to 12:1 A/F but the engine is very knock limited around max torque so you will need to actually reduce the ignition timing to suit the leaner mixture and increases in airflow. Shouldn't need water spray if you get the timing right, I realize what your thinking.
Dyno corrected power is so that the engine can be compared at different ambients. It's a correction factor.
Is that flat spot on the kick down of the Trans? the revs go from 2200 to 3600 when the timing retard happens. There is torque reduction on gear changes by closing the throttle and redarding the ignition, this is to protect the trans. Your looks excessive though but I know knowthing about the trans/engine mapping. The water temp is a bit low as well not sure if thats got something to do with it. Sorry just checked the speed I think you are rolling in 1st and booted it? May be a little more info might help.

Cheers Dave

RG, Yep to the first part your getting it, yes to leaning to 12:1 A/F but the engine is very knock limited around max torque so you will need to actually reduce the ignition timing to suit the leaner mixture and increases in airflow. Shouldn't need water spray if you get the timing right, I realize what your thinking.
Dyno corrected power is so that the engine can be compared at different ambients. It's a correction factor.
Is that flat spot on the kick down of the Trans? the revs go from 2200 to 3600 when the timing retard happens. There is torque reduction on gear changes by closing the throttle and redarding the ignition, this is to protect the trans. Your looks excessive though but I know knowthing about the trans/engine mapping. The water temp is a bit low as well not sure if thats got something to do with it. Sorry just checked the speed I think you are rolling in 1st and booted it? May be a little more info might help.

Cheers Dave

Yes to this, except it is rolling in second, the flat spot is in the kick down to first. I never had a problem with this before fitting the smooth bore throttle intake though?
Incidentally it seems a little better on 98 Ron compared with 95 ( I could be imagining it though)
What is it you are saying looks excessive above?

Yeh I understand what you're saying about retarding the spark, I will have to change the circuit to add voltage to the IAT instead of adding resistance (I built this back when I shared the common misconception that more advance = more torque). The trouble is that this is obviously not the best way of controlling advance (also affects AFR amongst others)

I haven't figured out the best way to change the timing yet to factor in the faster burn rate, so I'm thinking of changing only the AFR's above 3000 rpm a little at first (knocking off a graduated 10-5% from MAF output between peak readings (about 201 g/s) and about 70% of peak (140 g/s) i.e. 201 becomes 191, and 140 becomes 139 with a gradual drop in between the two) and leaving the IAT alone (my ony means of advancing the timing) and see what the Torque/power averages are. Counting on the factory knock sensor to do it's thing here, in worst case

I don't have a Dyno to tune on, I have to make the voltage adjustments -> drive -> log/measure -> re-adjust etc.
I'm thinking of taking it to a tuner to help me tune it to peak torque/power on the dyno, but I'm not sure how I'll go explaining the nuances of the system to them
In your opinion (or anyones else's) whats the best parameters to tune to:
Peak Torque at particular RPMs, Peak Power at particular RPMs, or either at particular Temps and RPMs?
Also do you think its better to stick it in a particular gear (2nd or 3rd) and tune at specific RPM's or let it go up through the auto range at WOT and adjust the flow at certain RPM points for max torque/power
Sorry for all the questions, I know a bit about cars , and a bit about electronics, but not much about dyno-tuning frankly

It just seems very strange to note it happens in same place - any new mobile phone towers?

Not at Black Mountain Telstra tower in CBR I presume - known location for problems with remote locking etc ??
T

Heh, no.. look, ten points for thinking outside the square, and I do infact pass close to a large TV station tower at this point, however I've driven tha e car past this for over a year with no trouble until I changed the throttle intake pipe, so not likley to be interference
The PIDS you are after I will have to run a log for , as all my logs only collect from specific PIDS (otherwise too lengthy) some of the ones I can remember off the top are:

Manifold pressure
coolant temp
advance
Intake air temp
Calculated load
absolute throttle position
Mass Air flow
all the 02 sensor readings (b1s1, b1s2, b2s1 and b2s2 in lamda, % and Volts)
GPS position
Vehicle speed
Fuel system (open/closed/cold/load)
Calculated KW and HP
Torque
Time since DTC cleared
other stuff about DTC's and Mils (that I don't care about.... yet)

BTW I use Obdscope for all this, running on an older Symbian nokia with video out to a Rear mirror TFT screen, it's not a bad product for 12 euro licenced.

Cheers,
RG

Thanks RG

I have captured a log and console tech log from mine and sent them back to Palmer Performance Engineering (software suppliers for DashCommand (iphone)and ScanXL (pc) to see if they can tell what PIDs are not being captured and why.

Some I see on Phone, but don't show up when log is replayed on pc etc

I have not been able to get any of the AFR or Lambda readings, but does capture fuel trim values

T

Have just doen a bit more testing using the B/T OBD-II direct to the pc and got some better results; including finding I think that there is NO output to OBD for AFR from oxygen sensor

Is this so - Is a extra external sensor needed?

Just a couple of WOT acceleration runs round the burbs gave max readings (on e10) of:

134 Kw, 263 nm both at 5280 rpm and MAF = 164 g/s using WOT in tippy 2 from 0 to about 100 km

On LPG a bit lower, in Drive but not standardised runs

123 kw, 250 nm, but gulping 184 g/s MAF

Does this sound about right?

Only mod is 90 mm intake, with KN filter

Well, theres nothing like a bit of complete failure to bring you back to reality is there.

Carefully test benched my voltage interceptor yesterday and calibrated to between 0 and 5.0 volts to accept input from the MAF. Tested on the car and found a small 70 mV discrepancy between the in and out voltages , gave it a shot anyway (was going to lean it anyway) and achieved very mediocre results (this is with no tuning adjustment, just trying to get the interceptor to output whatever is input to start with) -> fail.
Airflow will not go above 169 g/s power locked at 139KW (was 164KW, 200g/s before fitting)
Back home, out she comes ,back on the test bench -. re-calibrate for 1 to 5.5volts . Fix an error with the gain, pat self on back back and re-install -> fail again. power and airflow locked at 171g/s and 141KW ,disconnection of interceptor resulted immediately in 191g/s and 159KW.
Sat in car and scratched head for a while , then did a few runs logging the output voltage from the interceptor , connected and in bypass mode- > consistent 15-20 kw difference
Went home and reviewed logs.There is strange voltage appearing very briefly in all logs right at peak intake of about 8 - 8.6 V , way above what I would expect the MAF to output (left is interceptor,right column is bypassed)

3.7563.6393.9983.974 0L 0L8.418.594.224.364.194.36

Don't really understand this, but will re-calibrate for 0- 12 volts tomorrow and try again.
A bit nervous tho' as at peak error up to 20g/s of air is getting in that the ECU can not see, and my AFR guage appears to be untrustworthy to boot, is going back to Kade speed and marine
Can't work out why the voltage in is shifted 70mV on the way out in the car, but not on the test bench, and why these cryptic MaF voltages, maybe BS readings also.... sigh

FFS! getting nowhere with this unit. All I want it to do is: nothing , and I can't get it to happen
Recalibrated it for 1-9V and thoroughly testbenched it. Everything working absolutely perfect , all voltages between 1 and 9 come in and go out exactly the same to the millivolt. Put it back in car, and exactly the same thing happened: topped out at 140KW and 170g/s airflow (this equates to about 4.37V from the MAF). I can't work out what the difference between the testbench and the car install is.
Supply voltages are all good, and the wiring tests out perfect also at 0 ohms. I can only think this could be due to a bad serial cable I initially used to connect the hand controller unit to the Interceptor. Caused a burning smell to come from the handunit and didn't work otherwise. However the whole system has worked perfectly in test since I replaced the cable, but maybe something got damaged in an "interesting " way that only shows up under certain conditions
There also has to be something that is happening in the car that is not happening in test, but I can't think what it is, beyond maybe a supply voltage fluctuation at WOT (whichis unlikley to be low enough to cause a problem , bu I will test shortly).

Now I'm faced with the decision to buy another kit and build it again, or keep perservering /testing just to get the unit to pass the MAF voltages through without changing them, haven't even begun to try tuning yet!

Thanks RG

I have captured a log and console tech log from mine and sent them back to Palmer Performance Engineering (software suppliers for DashCommand (iphone)and ScanXL (pc) to see if they can tell what PIDs are not being captured and why.

Some I see on Phone, but don't show up when log is replayed on pc etc

I have not been able to get any of the AFR or Lambda readings, but does capture fuel trim values

T

Have just doen a bit more testing using the B/T OBD-II direct to the pc and got some better results; including finding I think that there is NO output to OBD for AFR from oxygen sensor

Is this so - Is a extra external sensor needed?

Just a couple of WOT acceleration runs round the burbs gave max readings (on e10) of:

134 Kw, 263 nm both at 5280 rpm and MAF = 164 g/s using WOT in tippy 2 from 0 to about 100 km

On LPG a bit lower, in Drive but not standardised runs

123 kw, 250 nm, but gulping 184 g/s MAF

Does this sound about right?

Only mod is 90 mm intake, with KN filter

Hi Terry,
WHat PC program are you using to read the scanner, and when you say " direct connect" what do you mean?..... does your bluetooth OBDII have a direct serial connection as well?
The calculated KW and nM seem ok , after all, you've only changed the intake and you are running e10 . However, with the 90mm intake, straight through exhaust, additional lower 60mm intake , improved throttle pipe, EGR condenser and 95-98ron I'm seeing a top of 164KW and 201g/s which is a lot more than the above. The programs might be calculating the KW differently , but the airflow would be directly comparable, as coming straight from the CANBUS.
Maybe this just highlights the huge airflow improvement you can get from about $400 worth of "simple" Mods running on 95-98ron
Cheers,
RG

Hi RG

Thanks for the input.

By direct connect I meant bluetooth straight to laptop "ScanXL" program on car seat as opposed to using the physical cable to connect the iphone to car and using the iphone Dashcommand software to capture log then email to pc and open it there with ScanXL

I have also explored the pc software a bit more and found it has the ability to produce a "dyno" type out put graph - will experiment with that that this week

I agree re difference in calc pids and assumed constants etc - as you suggest MAF is proably the best direct indicator of changes, as measured same way on all our vehs

BTW you mentioned earlier about drilling MAF sensor screen to cause leaning - would this not have the opposite effect by letting more air hit sensor, thus gaving ECU comand more fuel? - or am I missing something

How are u getting Air Fuel Ratio results?

T

Hi RG

Thanks for the input.

By direct connect I meant bluetooth straight to laptop "ScanXL" program on car seat as opposed to using the physical cable to connect the iphone to car and using the iphone Dashcommand software to capture log then email to pc and open it there with ScanXL

I have also explored the pc software a bit more and found it has the ability to produce a "dyno" type out put graph - will experiment with that that this week

I agree re difference in calc pids and assumed constants etc - as you suggest MAF is proably the best direct indicator of changes, as measured same way on all our vehs

BTW you mentioned earlier about drilling MAF sensor screen to cause leaning - would this not have the opposite effect by letting more air hit sensor, thus gaving ECU comand more fuel? - or am I missing something

How are u getting Air Fuel Ratio results?

T

The MAF has two screens, an inner housing the sensor itself (don't touch!) and an outer. I enlarged the hole in the outer (just rounded the squares off) to allow very slightly more air to flow around the sensor and reduce restriction in the MAF housing.
For the AFRs I use an Innovate MTX-L gauge with a Bosch Lsu4.1 sensor logged with Logworks
Cheers,
RG

Just for info. The biggest improvement I found to performance after changing the snorkel and the mufflers was switching to 98 ron from 91

The MAF has two screens, an inner housing the sensor itself (don't touch!) and an outer. I enlarged the hole in the outer (just rounded the squares off) to allow very slightly more air to flow around the sensor and reduce restriction in the MAF housing.
For the AFRs I use an Innovate MTX-L gauge with a Bosch Lsu4.1 sensor logged with Logworks
Cheers,
RG


Thanks

So why is it we can't get the lambda info form the ecu and calc AFR from that?

Thanks

So why is it we can't get the lambda info form the ecu and calc AFR from that?

You can, but:
A. It will be of no use to you as it is from the factory Narrow band sensors which are 0-1V and don't distinguish between degrees of richness and leaness very well. i.e. you will just be able to see that it is "Rich" "Lean" or "Stoich", not really HOW rich etc.
B. My Lambda output is complete rubbish - most is missing and the rest look nothing like Lambda values at all, they are not even between 1.28 and 0

You can, but:
A. It will be of no use to you as it is from the factory Narrow band sensors which are 0-1V and don't distinguish between degrees of richness and leaness very well. i.e. you will just be able to see that it is "Rich" "Lean" or "Stoich", not really HOW rich etc.
B. My Lambda output is complete rubbish - most is missing and the rest look nothing like Lambda values at all, they are not even between 1.28 and 0


I tried to record SAE.Lambda pid but got no data - is there another one?

The ScanXL software seems to have some function for examing the Lamda data I woul like to try to get working

Have you installed the wideband sensor or is it an up the pipe type?

I tried to record SAE.Lambda pid but got no data - is there another one?

The ScanXL software seems to have some function for examing the Lamda data I woul like to try to get working

Have you installed the wideband sensor or is it an up the pipe type?

Installed with a bung between the two primary and single secondary CATS

Installed with a bung between the two primary and single secondary CATS

Hi RG


Is that an existing bung or did u have it welded in?

Hi RG


Is that an existing bung or did u have it welded in?

New one welded in

For anyone interested in Air/Fuel ratios and MAF voltages ..... .
After trying every concievable approach with the first MAF Voltage Interceptor to no avail, I purchased and built another kit. Same problems exactly (airflow topping out around 20g/s below typical maximum with interceptor disconnected)./
However, after much testing and logging I was able to get to the bottom of why the MAF readings are so much less at high load then the actual MAF output once it goes through the Interceptor.

Basically the MAF voltage output is not linear, it's more like logarithmic i.e. at low load around 230mV is equivalent in ECU language to about 1 g/s of airflow, whereas at high load it's about 3-4mV per 1g/s of airflow, That's a massive difference in the voltage to airflow translation algorithm at low and high load.

SO what was happening?
My interceptor was outputing about 50mV less than the actual MAF voltage. I still don't know why. I even ended up running wires direct from the battery for both + and - with a switch and fuse- no effect. All bench testing does not do this. Car battery checks out fine
This isn't much of a difference as 50mV down low translates to not even one quarter of a g/s of airflow, but as this increases steadily up to 177g/s , 50mV is worth about 15-17g/s! Hence no real impact throughout the low and mid load range , but once into high load territory, a big difference.

To solve this I've simply told the interceptor to add voltage to the output increasingly as it approaches high load (about 4.37V) to calibrate for this. Then once the output figures matched the inputs (roughly within 1-4 g/s) I've started reducing these again to lean the load in a controlled fashion

With 8 controlled runs at WOT across the same stretch I measured and logged the AFR's as I reduced the (calibrated) output downwards gently, two runs for each adjustment point.
Got home and reviewed the logs, and sure enough there was a consistent rise in AFR's with each decrease in MAF output. At baseline calibration (no adjustment) maximum AFR's were 9.6:1. At 15mV less across the upper range this increased to 10.07:1.
15mV less again (30mV below normal) yielded a maximum of 10.45:1 at WOT and this is where I stopped.

I won't be going any further until I have a gauge I completely trust that I've checked with another tuners sensor to verify it, and once I finish the circuit to alter the timing we'll have a go at tuning it on a dyno.
For now tho' I'm happy with this, AFR's are at least 1 point higher (whether the guage is out or not, I'm pretty confident it's getting it's relative readings right
The proof in the pudding is I now have between 13.5L and 14L/100 on the usage meter instead of the 15.6L/100 I had prior to adjusting