In reply to Captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :
I'm already here!
In reply to Captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :
I'm already here!
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:I do systems for these types on itb conversions all the time. Shoot me a pm or email me from the site.
Street use just blending map/tps works pretty well don't need anything crazy.
I tried that once and know 3 or 4 other who have as well, all were disappointed and moved on to other options. I do I suspect that what is a "street setup" has many different meanings but what I've seen on this path were much more race car than cruiser with great results near WOT but all kinds of stumbles and such at low throttle. All were fairly modified engines so no idea what would happen on a stockish engines but getting a good MAP signal solved 90% of the issues on the ones I'm aware of...."bad data is worse than no data" or "garage in, garbage out" kind of thing. Getting a good MAP signal from ITBs is not hard and really helps.
I have tried software tweaks as well as hardware like the syncromap and it really makes no difference. Big thing is getting a *repeatable* signal from either a vac log or individual sensors, one cylinder sampling just doesn't cut it but that's what many do. The big thing for tuning a blended ITB setup is the switchpoints between tps and map blending and it's easy to get wrong and chase your tail.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
Regarding batch injections. When I test injectors I use a stethoscope on each injector to confirm they are not only firing ( clicking) but I can hear a dirty injector because instead of a sharp click I get what I call a mushy click.
I was under the impression each injector "fired" at a different time. Am I wrong? With batch fired do they all just fire at once or is there something that signals which to fire and when?
I understand sequential And Jaguar didn't use that.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
Blending is so popular that most ECUs don't offer it. ...just sayin 
Vac logs by definition significantly degrade the signal because for everey 1 cylinder pulling vacuum there are 3 that are vacuum leaks so throttle closed it doesn't look to bad, but just crack the throttle and the signal is all but gone and unusable. ...some you're stuck with TPS. Years ago I saw a post on the syncromap but didn't realize any were built or sold, I've never seen one but it was on that threat I saw a sketch for a simple diode ciruit which I borrowed for the multiMAP and I assume is what is in the QuardraMAP thing because they says they will be offering more than 4 and that gets complicated with the syncromap design.
My engine with 12 54mm ITBs and pretty big cams is idling at around 35-38kPA and 2k rpm is like 45kpa, 3k is like 50kpa....it acts just like any manifold eninge MAP signal wise, smooth, clean linear signal. Nothing to fuss with, no tuning 2 load methods, no cross-over to try to blend....I'm not saying you can't make other setups work but this way is so easy and you can't even tell your working with ITBs.
In reply to mke :
How are you getting your MAP signal? Sorry if I missed it.
mke said:In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
Blending is so popular that most ECUs don't offer it. ...just sayin
Vac logs by definition significantly degrade the signal because for everey 1 cylinder pulling vacuum there are 3 that are vacuum leaks so throttle closed it doesn't look to bad, but just crack the throttle and the signal is all but gone and unusable. ...some you're stuck with TPS. Years ago I saw a post on the syncromap but didn't realize any were built or sold, I've never seen one but it was on that threat I saw a sketch for a simple diode ciruit which I borrowed for the multiMAP and I assume is what is in the QuardraMAP thing because they says they will be offering more than 4 and that gets complicated with the syncromap design.
My engine with 12 54mm ITBs and pretty big cams is idling at around 35-38kPA and 2k rpm is like 45kpa, 3k is like 50kpa....it acts just like any manifold eninge MAP signal wise, smooth, clean linear signal. Nothing to fuss with, no tuning 2 load methods, no cross-over to try to blend....I'm not saying you can't make other setups work but this way is so easy and you can't even tell your working with ITBs.
If I am reading this right, you are using a system of 12 MAP sensors, right? For the V12 Ferrari?
Since the quadramap is a $125 for the 4, that's a big cost vs. doing the blending.
mke said:yupididit said:In reply to fidelity101 (Forum Supporter) :
Big differences between haltech and MS for you?
SUPPORT!!!!
Haltech sells a finished product that they fully tech support, you call/email with a question, they give you the answer. They also are real enclosures, very rugged.
MS is forum supported for the most part and stuff like a case is optional, real sealed locking connectors are optional, the tuning software is 3rd party and requires a subscription to access the nicer features....this is why they cost less up front but not necessarily in the longer run. Its a fine option for a lot of people, but you do generally get what you pay for.
The MS that I just bought came with a waterproof case, proper sealed cavity connectors, and a Tuner Studio license. (Which is redundant, as I already have one)
Things have come a long way from Bowling & Grippo solder-it-yourself kits, where you had to twiddle trim pots to try to get a noise free crank signal.
In reply to mke :
This is my car on MS2. It is a bridge ported 13B so it idles at around 70-80kpa and has four 42mm throttle bodies, one per intake port, no plenum except for the channel that feeds the MAP sensor. I'm running speed density, not TPS. It is a complete Bob Costascat to drive. It does not have nearly the amount of part throttle stutters that bridge ports are known for. To be sure it has SOME, but you'll have that, no amount of tuning will entirely cover for having 100-150 degrees or so of overlap period.
Ignore the shifter manhandling... with the crazy amount of lash the locker diff has, and the 100% rod end rear suspension, my brain kept sliding into "dog box" mode.
Or this video, the reason for the 9": driving with a welded diff and a broken axle, in the rain, while towing a trailer, which is more or less where you would really really REALLY want smooth drivability:
Point is, having poor part throttle drivability isn't generally an ECU fault, it's a tuner fault. Most people who "tune" only care about getting it to run well at WOT, sort-of idle, and part throttle is a shrugfest as long as you may proceed to WOT from there. It takes a lot of time to get part throttle and especially tip-in from idle to work really well. I've had tuned OE PCMs that were horrible for part throttle and off-idle drivability because the tuner didn't care much about it.
alfadriver said:If I am reading this right, you are using a system of 12 MAP sensors, right? For the V12 Ferrari?
Since the quadramap is a $125 for the 4, that's a big cost vs. doing the blending.
Doing nothing and living with the issues is usually cheaper, that doesn't make it comparable to fixing the issues
For cost, 4 is enough for a good signal so 4, 8, 12 could use a signal quardamap and a 6 could you 3 I guess and still have a decent result I would think. The more cylinders you read the less smoothing you need to do to the signal so you get a stronger signal and faster response but a low power which is where this helps lag is fine.
The multiMAP I use with 12 sensors cost about the same iirc but I had to built it..it was like $20 for the board, $10/sensor and another $20 for diodes and resistors. It could be done on a breadboard to save the $20 but less neat that way.
Then there is what else can be done. In my setup I adjust the signal smoothing based on load and rpm to minimize lag. I also read all 12 sensor and use them adjust fuel to each cylinder so it doesn't really matter very much if the TBs are not in perfect or even very good sync.....its easy to get used to an ECU that lets you do whatever the heck pops into you mind on any give day 
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to mke :
Point is, having poor part throttle drivability isn't generally an ECU fault, it's a tuner fault. Most people who "tune" only care about getting it to run well at WOT, sort-of idle, and part throttle is a shrugfest as long as you may proceed to WOT from there. It takes a lot of time to get part throttle and especially tip-in from idle to work really well. I've had tuned OE PCMs that were horrible for part throttle and off-idle drivability because the tuner didn't care much about it.
I guess my point is you can't polish a turd.
I'm not dissing any ECU or setup and I agree that many things can be make to work but starting with a solid foundation has a much better chance of producing a good result in the end. Starting with good signals is usually better than starting with poor signals, using shielded wire for analog stuff is usually better than using unshield, using a more powerful ECU with more options is usually better than starting with bare minimum spec HW....at each setup there is a chance things won't work quite right and the more opportunity you give things to go wrong the more likely they will and the less likely you'll be able to correct it. But if it works it work big smiles, but when its not working and the hair pulling begins, you end up replacing stuff you learn it would have been WAY cheaper to do it right the 1st time 
Discussion is starting to go over my head lol
In reply to yupididit :
Nah, right now it seems mostly headed to what do you need vs what do you want. Save money and hope it all works out fine and you're happy or spend more and know it will be fine. Different issues happen on different setups and bother different people different amounts....I think that is all the last page or so says.
In reply to mke :
Oh, no doubt there are "issues". Scope tracing the electrical noise on a MS install vs. an OE install is eye opening. But I also can't say that this is strictly an MS problem, as the OE systems do have the benefit of having more engineering and manufacturing dollars thrown at them, to be amortized over millions of products. I have seen similar problems with other, much "better" hardware. More expensive and well-advertised hardware, at least.
I DID vote with my dollars, after all.
In reply to mke :
You are assuming that a good alpha-n calibration can't be done. It can. And when you factor the drive difference, cost then becomes a big deal.
Just because you apparently think one can't calibrate a good alpha-n system doesn't mean it's really impossible- Alfa Romeo was able to do that with a mechanical computer 50 years ago. And it drives great. Replicating that with an MS is very possible.
alfadriver said:In reply to mke :
You are assuming that a good alpha-n calibration can't be done. It can.
No, no, of course you can get a decent alpha-n tune. I'll bet 99% of ITB setups are done that way. a-N (with baro correction) is by far the preferred setup for track use because it has by far the highest resolution near WOT. On a setup like mine with BIG ITBs there is not a lot of change in air flow from 90% throttle to 100% so even with a multiMAP setup the signal would be like 98kpa to 100kp or a 2% change, but the TPS will see a 10% change giving the tuner better control where it matters most, at least on the track.
On the street though things reverse. on my engine with with big ITBs going from idle at 1000-1200rpm to 3000rmp ia 2-3% TPS change. I say 2-3% because its not always the same, it kind ot depends on how the linkage settles. But that is about a 10kPa change so here by far the preferred setup is a good MAP signal because it give the best tune where the engine is used most.
Blending schemes seem like the best of both worlds but I've personally never had good luck with it and the tune ends up basically 100% a-N because I had a poor MAP signal to work with that was only usable at idle, but I'm sure with smaller TBs and maybe less cam it would work better so I not really even saying anything bad about that path. I've also tried telling the ECU the MAP is a Baro for the a-N and that worked better, at least on the setup I was playing with.
I'm not in anyway saying there is a right or wrong path, I'm saying that if you pick the path that is strongest where you care the most you'll probably be happier with the end results.
Lots of options, pick your poison. To me personally, an additional $120 to let me use S-D instead of a-N on a street setup is well worth it because I'm more than a little OCD and having to raise the revs to avoid stumbling away from a stop light makes me insane, but to your point, that really is the whole difference between a good a-N tune and a good S-N tune on the street.
In reply to mke :
Maybe you have too big of throttles... all of your issues seem to point that way. It's a pretty common thing for Alfa drivers to put on 45mm Webers only to find out they drive like crap and really don't improve power unless you have a full race set up- and part throttle driving doesn't happen.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to mke :
Scope tracing the electrical noise on a MS install vs. an OE install is eye opening. ..... More expensive and well-advertised hardware, at least.
I DID vote with my dollars, after all.
I have nothing at all against anything MS..well, personally I like to see 25-40 rpm points on the fuel tables depending on the cams, but other than that nothing.
What I was saying was if at very choice of better/cheaper you pick cheaper then you can all but be certain performance has suffered...maybe not is ways you care about or can't deal with but maybe is ways that leaving you tearing your hair out and the fact that you ordered your MS2 with a sealed case and proper connectors tells me you've come to about the same place
In reply to mke :
Oh no, the WRX is getting an MS3Pro Evo. A little more money than the MS2 
But I want the higher processor speed, CAN capabilities, variable cam timing control capabilities, enhanced map switching/blending, and onboard data logging so I can log without having a laptop bouncing around in the car.
The ability to do drive by wire with an external controller is also interesting, but I want to wait for that to mature more and get integrated further with the antilag.
I had been considering a Link that could do DBW and on board wide band control, but it's the devil I know and I have done several MS3Pro installs with good success. And have been running MS/MS2 on the RX-7 since 2009 or so.
If you are fighting EFI, look up my name in YouTube. Having enough IO and having a useable user interface are the two big issues when using any stand alone EFI. Understand electrical noise and keeping things dry with high quality connections is huge on any install. Data logging capability is way under rated when purchasing and stand alone until you find out that the one you chose was designed for drag racing and you are hosed in the long run of road racing.
alfadriver said:In reply to mke :
Maybe you have too big of throttles... all of your issues seem to point that way. It's a pretty common thing for Alfa drivers to put on 45mm Webers only to find out they drive like crap and really don't improve power unless you have a full race set up- and part throttle driving doesn't happen.
Too big a TB for what? Remember this is an engine that goes to 11
The point about not helping unless its "full race" is right....if the engine can't flow the air then there is only downside to larger TBs. The 54mm size for my engine was chosen on the flow bench and confirmed with Dynomation engine modeling software, they are a pretty good match. The basic rule is if you can see it on the flow bench you'll see it on the dyno and these cost about 1% flow iirc but were the largest I could find at a reasonable price so 54mm it is. Also as the size goes up the software was saying the waves became less helpful so the flowbench and software predictions started to diverge with the software saying that last 1% was an illusion. These were the factory TBs on a race engine with a 375cc cylinder and street engine with a 500cc cylinder, I'm 458cc so closer to the street setup than race and clearly in the factory window. So flow bench says they are about right, the software likes them, ducati says they are about right displacement/intent wise....I think they are about right.
This is the beauty of TBs and EFI vs carb...carb rules about street vs race size just don't apply. With Webers if you want full hp at 9k then it not going to run much below 3k, its just not, so as you said for the street you have no choice but to downsize knowing its costing ...15% on top vs the race carb. EFI TB with no jets or idle junk sticking into the flow stream let the throttle be a little smaller for the same flow, but more importantly the fuel flow does not depend on air velocity so the correct mixture can be achieved for basically any cylinder/TB combination.
But yes, just putting on smaller TBs and saying heck with the hp would make tuning WAY easier....but where is the run in that? This is why I chose an ECU that allows me to make literally whatever setup or tuning change I please and all the things I've added (like the multiMAP) are focused on sorting low throttle issues caused by big TBs that are needed for full hp.
A lesser EFI setup (not dissing any ECU, I mean the whole setup and how all the pieces work together as a system) lets you run a street engine on the street just fine but a fancier EFI setup lets you run what 20 years ago was a race-only engine happily on the street. This is maybe the better way top look at it?
I'll have to pull up my individual MAP data, it definitely doesn't sound like your experience at all. I was thinking it was the cyl count being different but your thoughts around being able to use 4/12 would debunk that. Time to dive in again 
my next setup is 60mm throttles but it only has to idle and WOT and the middle doesn't matter at all.
On throttle sizing I have seen many with them too small, more often than too large. We see power gains on ITB over plenum setups only when the ITB are "pretty big" ie 45mm+ on 0.5L /cyl even with inefficient cylinder heads.
Pete, we have been doing a lot of the MS3 Pro / DBWX2 combos lately on the newer VW and BMW and it really works well. All integrated over CAN and the DBWX2 has been really robust once we helped get some of the little sw bugs worked out.
I also am puzzled by onboard WB because most of the time I don't use it due to needing a 2nd and wanting to match, or use a NGK sensor that's not supported, or using 1 per cyl...
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to mke :
Oh no, the WRX is getting an MS3Pro Evo.
They are nice but as you say no longer cheap and there are many options in the MS3pro price range. I paid $1000 for mine (new but opened box on ebay) that has about double of everything on your list....double the processor speed(actually about 6 times i think when you take 16 vs 32 bit into account), 2 CAN channels, 500logging channel at 1hhz or about a 1000 at 10hz, and yes, 2 built in DBW channels, built in WBO2 controllers, 24 analog in, etc......but it requires creating a model which is more work than most would want to do.
Pick your poison right?
In reply to mke :
For what? Real use. It's one thing to make sure the correct fuel is being delivered. It's another where your right foot has enough control. If your drive cycle is truly binary, then the mid-throttle control isn't that important. But having been a calibrator for just about 30 years now, the hardest part of making a car move well is slow, parking lot stuff. WOT is easy, stuff to WOT is easy. Driving in a parking lot where the passenger isn't a threat to throw up is a challenge. It's one of my pet peeved about our ETC- where there's a steep torque demand right off of zero- making slow moves much more difficult.
My example of the Alfa is also a 500cc cylinder. Not 4V perhaps. 45 DCOEs are marginal on the street, and bigger is a waste of time when you have to park.
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:I'll have to pull up my individual MAP data, it definitely doesn't sound like your experience at all. I was thinking it was the cyl count being different but your thoughts around being able to use 4/12 would debunk that. Time to dive in again
On throttle sizing I have seen many with them too small, more often than too large. We see power gains on ITB over plenum setups only when the ITB are "pretty big" ie 45mm+ on 0.5L /cyl even with inefficient cylinder heads.
hmmm...I have not done a 4 personally, that result I saw on the MS forum, it was a bike enigne iirc and what lead me to head down this path. I have done 8 and 12 and the result was what you'd expect, on the 8 you see wider, long humps on the raw single than on the 12 so more smoothing/filtering needed on the 8.
The board I had designed can literally be sawed to make it 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 MAP+ a baro capable but will work with any number of sensors installed or connected. When my engine goes back into the car in a couple week I'll try to unplug some hoses and see what happens, I could log 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 I guess and see how they compare with all other things basically equal.
As a reference its full ported 4V/cyl with 242/246 @ .050 cams, peak ho should be 9000-9500 with the lobe centers and headers it has, the software says changing those 2 items would add another 8% more hp but push the peak to 10500-11000...but that scares me.
Same on the TB sizing....TBs selected from carb size formulas are always much too small to make good hp and make less than the plenum that came off....but they look cool and are relatively easy to make run good so that makes a lot of people happy I suppose
You'll need to log in to post.
