Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)



Granted.... you are right about extreme performance. Most people are no
where near that threshold on this list. Mel is the closest and he still
manages with the Link... I think that the air density is an important part
of the equation but not enough for the average FM-II owner.

And that's why you used the TEC-II... or at least that is what I assume is
the reason. I know that one of the reasons I chose the wolf was this reason.

Mark


>
> (email redacted) wrote:
> >
> > It does work well, and if you want a more "accurate" system the Wolf and TEC
> > systems do calculate true speed/air density. This might allow you to get
> > that last bit of performance out of the system... but how close do you
> > really need to be...
>
> When you are trying to milk 3hp out of each cubic inch and you are only 4 or 5
> degrees of ignition timing away from your knock threshold, you need to come close...
> very close.
>
> -shiv
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)>


I think Ray's point was that at higher temps you will be running a little too
rich, not lean. Rich doesn't blow things up. Also, from what I've recently
read, contrary to popular opinion, lean mixtures don't make heat, but they do
cause detonation. Lean without detonation actually runs cooler than stoich,
according to Gordon Jennings.

(email redacted) wrote:

> >If you make no correction for rising air temps, the mixture gets richer,
> >not leaner. Why does that bother you? I'm more concerned about
> >humidity (absolute, not relative) dropping.
>
> Anytime my EGO authority range is banging against the stops, I'm
> bothered because it's costing me power at best and an engine at worst.
> Sure, I can increase the EGO authority range to account for a greater
> range of air densities but now the mixture response time is greater and
> engine response/drivability degrade. Easier to just use the density
> correction parameter.
> But, now that you mention it, how about a humidity sensor with
> accompanying correction as well? :-)
>
> Regards,
> Barry

--
Bill Cardell
The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
Grand Junction, CO
dlralt.com
200mphmiata.net
970-242-3800 tech inquiries
1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Jason and Satori <(email redacted)>




(email redacted) wrote:

> I'm contemplating the purchase of an FM ECU for my naturally aspirated
> 90. I fully intend to buy a turbo kit, just want to prepare and get used
> to the tuning and operation of the ECU first. PLus, money doesn't grow
> on trees, so I can't buy the FMII in one shot.
>

I understand...I had put myself on a $100/week savings budget for my turbo
upgrade. I was 2/3 of the way to $5000 when a used system with a Link ECU
became available. I decided that the money was burning a hole in pocket, so
I bought the used system. Since I bought it, I've had to put another $600 in
to the system for injectors/knock sensor/fasteners/connectors that didn't
seem to make it to me. I'm not sure if I came out ahead yet or not.

>
> I'd like some feedback from user's of the FM ECU in NA format, or even
> F/I users if you think it will apply to me. What kind of power gains can
> I look for? I have a Thermal 2.25" exhaust, but everything else is
> stock.

I don't know what gains I had for the 3 weeks I've driven N/A with the
Link....they seem real. I suspect 5-10% gain.

> What kind of intake setups are you guys using to take advantage
> of the removed flowmeter and possibility of a shortened intake tract? Any
> other info I missed?

I've had a JR CAI for a while and started with that elbow and a K&N
filter....then I remembered that Randy shows that the stock resonance chamber
helped with the low and mid range, so installed the first section of the OEM
intake, and put the same K&N on the end of it, where the 'accordian' piece is
at. The air was coming from right behind the radiator regardless, so that's
not an issue me, and the OEM elbow seemed to give a bit more low and mid
torque. This way I had a shortened (vs. OEM AFM setup) intake, and a
resonance chamber. If I wanted to go nuts I could easily duct some cooler
air up to the K&N.

>
>
> Thanks in advance for all the replies and the thought behind them.

Thought? Heh, that's the easy part....it's the skin and blood that hurts!!
Last night, Stephen Goode saw what my hands and forearms look like, and it's
not pretty, and he noticed that I don't even have blisters yet (IOW the
turbos not running!)

> I am
> so glad I have this list as a resource to provide good advice.
>

I'll second that!!

>
> Aaron Lee
>
> _

Jason and Satori
Riverside, CA

Begin Geek encoding:
GAT/CS/FA/H/ED/O/U d- h@ s+:++ !g p? au+ a30 w+++ !v C+++ IL--- UL--- !P L+
!3 E? N++ K++++++ W--- M+ -po+ Y++ t+ 5+ Jx R+++ G !tv b+++ D+ B@ e*u+@
h-- f+ r->+++ n+ y+(---)
--
Begin Miata Geek encoding:
91b+++ SU+ i++>I++ ex>+++ sw+++ sp++ sh++ r++ W+ t+ d++ d++ S m++(+++) w(+++)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>


Hmm... I thought rich mixtures reduced heat due to the cooling effect of the
unburnt fuel. - Beau

--- The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> I think Ray's point was that at higher temps you will be running a little too
> rich, not lean. Rich doesn't blow things up. Also, from what I've recently
> read, contrary to popular opinion, lean mixtures don't make heat, but they do
> cause detonation. Lean without detonation actually runs cooler than stoich,
> according to Gordon Jennings.
>
\
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
im.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)




Did the Rat run rich at Laguna? Did you notice any increase or decrease in
the SOTP Dyno, or did it seem exactly the same because we know that the Air
Density is FAR different!!!

When I moved to Colorado years ago my camaro (laugh if you must) hated the
change in altitude and had to be re-tuned to make the car run right. Plus
that 91 Octane Squirrel Piss didn't help much!!!

Mark


>
> FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch a thing. Also, the
> richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's software.
>
> (email redacted) wrote:
>
> > O2 Guessback while not optimum seems to work fairly well (albeit a bit rich
> > at times) on the 1.8 when I had my ECU... if anything the car ran a bit rich
> > initially. Overall air density does not change much really in the desert...
> > you could almost always set the barometer the same every day and have the
> > altitude reading correct on the F-15's I worked on out here... It would be
> > different if you were commuting from Palasades, CO to San Diego, CA each
> > day. I don't know anyone in that boat...
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > (email redacted) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Knowing this tells you that a programmable ECU
> > > > would give gains on a bone stock motor.
> > >
> > > Until air temp/density changes and you rely on o2 guessback... er... feedback to fine
> > > tune the system ;) Not only is this slow, inaccurate and often annoying, it also
> > > means that you need to run closed loop (with a lot of authority range) all the time.
> > > I don't want to sound like a stickler, but how can people expect to permenantly
> > > fine-tune a speed density-based EFI system when the computer cannot calculate true
> > > air density?
> > >
> > > Ray, how hard would it be to incorporate an air intake temp input into the Link?
> > > Or perhaps an aux. fuel trim module that reads air temp? Wouldn't this help?
> > >
> > > -shiv
> > >
>
> --
> Bill Cardell
> The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
> Grand Junction, CO
> dlralt.com
> 200mphmiata.net
> 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
> 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)>


It ran just fine. Your camaro had a non feedback carb. Even when tuned right, it would still be
close to 20% shy on power compared to sea level, as will any of us. I did run with lambda on,
just didn't save anything while running in CA.

(email redacted) wrote:

> Did the Rat run rich at Laguna? Did you notice any increase or decrease in
> the SOTP Dyno, or did it seem exactly the same because we know that the Air
> Density is FAR different!!!
>
> When I moved to Colorado years ago my camaro (laugh if you must) hated the
> change in altitude and had to be re-tuned to make the car run right. Plus
> that 91 Octane Squirrel Piss didn't help much!!!
>
> Mark
>
> >
> > FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch a thing. Also, the
> > richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's software.
> >
> > (email redacted) wrote:
> >
> > > O2 Guessback while not optimum seems to work fairly well (albeit a bit rich
> > > at times) on the 1.8 when I had my ECU... if anything the car ran a bit rich
> > > initially. Overall air density does not change much really in the desert...
> > > you could almost always set the barometer the same every day and have the
> > > altitude reading correct on the F-15's I worked on out here... It would be
> > > different if you were commuting from Palasades, CO to San Diego, CA each
> > > day. I don't know anyone in that boat...
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (email redacted) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Knowing this tells you that a programmable ECU
> > > > > would give gains on a bone stock motor.
> > > >
> > > > Until air temp/density changes and you rely on o2 guessback... er... feedback to fine
> > > > tune the system ;) Not only is this slow, inaccurate and often annoying, it also
> > > > means that you need to run closed loop (with a lot of authority range) all the time.
> > > > I don't want to sound like a stickler, but how can people expect to permenantly
> > > > fine-tune a speed density-based EFI system when the computer cannot calculate true
> > > > air density?
> > > >
> > > > Ray, how hard would it be to incorporate an air intake temp input into the Link?
> > > > Or perhaps an aux. fuel trim module that reads air temp? Wouldn't this help?
> > > >
> > > > -shiv
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Bill Cardell
> > The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
> > Grand Junction, CO
> > dlralt.com
> > 200mphmiata.net
> > 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
> > 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
> >
> >

--
Bill Cardell
The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
Grand Junction, CO
dlralt.com
200mphmiata.net
970-242-3800 tech inquiries
1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


So now the $64K question is when will the Mk1 get the equivalent upgrade. I
know you have mentioned before that it is in your queue but how far down?

Randy

<< FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch a
thing. Also, the
richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's
software. >>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>


Not only would you want a mixture correction, but a timing correction
as well. With proper fueling, a timing map optimal for a 50 degree night
would be pingeriffic during a 90 degree day. - Beau

--- Ray Ayala <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> If you make no correction for rising air temps, the mixture gets richer,
> not leaner. Why does that bother you? I'm more concerned about
> humidity (absolute, not relative) dropping.
>
> (email redacted) wrote:
> > ...., air temps continue to rise and mixture continues to degrade.
> > I did not run long enough for temperatures to stabilize for fear of
> > meeting up with one of Texas' Troopers.
> > Why does this concern me? I once had an engine seizure (over-lean
> > mixture) on my Yamaha RD-350 at 95 mph
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
im.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)




It actually had an 800 CFM Quadrajunk (Quadrajet), which as you can imagine
was a wee bit large for the Altitude I was at... Even without the feedback
loop and 20% down on power it would easily run over 135 MPH. I had a place
in Colorado Springs tune it for the Altitude and managed to get back alot of
the missing power.

Amazing what those old solid lifter corvette engines would do for a trailer
trash cruiser like a Camaro. So I am to assume you noticed that the Rat was
significantly more powerful at sea level, than up there in South Park (oops
I meant Palasades.)

Mark

>
> It ran just fine. Your camaro had a non feedback carb. Even when tuned right, it would still be
> close to 20% shy on power compared to sea level, as will any of us. I did run with lambda on,
> just didn't save anything while running in CA.
>
> (email redacted) wrote:
>
> > Did the Rat run rich at Laguna? Did you notice any increase or decrease in
> > the SOTP Dyno, or did it seem exactly the same because we know that the Air
> > Density is FAR different!!!
> >
> > When I moved to Colorado years ago my camaro (laugh if you must) hated the
> > change in altitude and had to be re-tuned to make the car run right. Plus
> > that 91 Octane Squirrel Piss didn't help much!!!
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch a thing. Also, the
> > > richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's software.
> > >
> > > (email redacted) wrote:
> > >
> > > > O2 Guessback while not optimum seems to work fairly well (albeit a bit rich
> > > > at times) on the 1.8 when I had my ECU... if anything the car ran a bit rich
> > > > initially. Overall air density does not change much really in the desert...
> > > > you could almost always set the barometer the same every day and have the
> > > > altitude reading correct on the F-15's I worked on out here... It would be
> > > > different if you were commuting from Palasades, CO to San Diego, CA each
> > > > day. I don't know anyone in that boat...
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (email redacted) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Knowing this tells you that a programmable ECU
> > > > > > would give gains on a bone stock motor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Until air temp/density changes and you rely on o2 guessback... er... feedback to fine
> > > > > tune the system ;) Not only is this slow, inaccurate and often annoying, it also
> > > > > means that you need to run closed loop (with a lot of authority range) all the time.
> > > > > I don't want to sound like a stickler, but how can people expect to permenantly
> > > > > fine-tune a speed density-based EFI system when the computer cannot calculate true
> > > > > air density?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray, how hard would it be to incorporate an air intake temp input into the Link?
> > > > > Or perhaps an aux. fuel trim module that reads air temp? Wouldn't this help?
> > > > >
> > > > > -shiv
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill Cardell
> > > The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
> > > Grand Junction, CO
> > > dlralt.com
> > > 200mphmiata.net
> > > 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
> > > 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Bill Cardell
> The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
> Grand Junction, CO
> dlralt.com
> 200mphmiata.net
> 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
> 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray Ayala <(email redacted)>


If Link will send me one of their simulators and a MKI board I'll port
the code.

(email redacted) wrote:
>
> So now the $64K question is when will the Mk1 get the equivalent upgrade. I
> know you have mentioned before that it is in your queue but how far down?
>
> Randy
>
> << FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch a
> thing. Also, the
> richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's
> software. >>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Mel Hoagland" <(email redacted)>


Ok, since my name was brought up I will cast my vote. The way the system
works right now is just fine by me. The Link with Ray's software (1006x) has
allowed me to tune to extremes. For those that missed it, the first day on
the dyno I found 40 hp and 30 ft/lb. This much in 3 hours of tuning for
$225. Best $225 I've spent. Soon to help add to the figures (we hope) will
be an exhaust cam advance (one tooth - coming up).

Maybe we could squeeze a little more out of this system, but for the
majority of us it works (in the words of Tony the Tiger) GRRRREAT!!!

OTOH, the old credo, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is taken as a
challenge by most of this crew - hey that's what got us here (and I live MY
life that way). Between the ease of swapping ideas through this list and the
incredible pool of talent on it (reminds me of NASA in the 60s), we are
involved in a one-of-a-kind automotive event. This is evolution in action
and in the automotive field so much progress has never before occurred
outside a specialized design studio (and I believe never with as much
success). In varying degrees, the individuals on this list (you know who you
are) have helped to take an MG (but a strange, unknown RELIABLE one) and
created a Ferrari (but a strange, unknown AFFORDABLE one). I count the last
year as a blessing and I'm grateful I've been here (my family and friends
think I'm crazy, but who needs em - Philistines - f+ck em!).

Thanks for the bandwidth

KAWABUNGA!

>>+^ ]

Mel
------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Hoagland ((email redacted))
"Wheezy" black 96 FMII vrrooommmm


-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
To: Spathak <(email redacted)>
Cc: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>;
(email redacted) <(email redacted)>;
(email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: FM ECU on NA 1.6


>
>
>Granted.... you are right about extreme performance. Most people are no
>where near that threshold on this list. Mel is the closest and he still
>manages with the Link... I think that the air density is an important part
>of the equation but not enough for the average FM-II owner.
>
>And that's why you used the TEC-II... or at least that is what I assume is
>the reason. I know that one of the reasons I chose the wolf was this
reason.
>
>Mark

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray Ayala <(email redacted)>


There's obviously a lot of misunderstanding here regarding air density.
We're not talking about absolute air density like what changes with
altitude, because the MAP sensor corrects for that. What we're really
talking about is the amount of oxygen in the intake manifold at a
specific manifold pressure. It varies both with air temperature and
with the amount of other stuff (water vapor, exhaust from the car in
front of you, etc) that dilutes the air. Then there are variations in
fuel from one brand to another, as well as seasonal formulation changes,
that change the A/F ratio required for a good burn. I didn't used to
think that there was much difference from one brand to another, but my
neighbor's 420E can't adapt far enough to run well on Shell or ARCO, but
it runs fine on Chevron and Mobil. I've heard the same of Jap cars that
were brought to the US by private parties with the Jap-tuned ECUs still
in them. Apparently the range of fuel formulations is different
overseas but there is some overlap in the ranges.

(email redacted) wrote:
>
> Did the Rat run rich at Laguna? Did you notice any increase or decrease in
> the SOTP Dyno, or did it seem exactly the same because we know that the Air
> Density is FAR different!!!

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


Oops I kinda forgot about that... you are right since the software samples
the initial density to get a reading... I totally spaced that. You cannot
determine O2 dilution from temperature alone.

Oh well this beyond my area of expertise... I will continue to struggle and
learn however.


>
>
> There's obviously a lot of misunderstanding here regarding air density.
> We're not talking about absolute air density like what changes with
> altitude, because the MAP sensor corrects for that. What we're really
> talking about is the amount of oxygen in the intake manifold at a
> specific manifold pressure. It varies both with air temperature and
> with the amount of other stuff (water vapor, exhaust from the car in
> front of you, etc) that dilutes the air. Then there are variations in
> fuel from one brand to another, as well as seasonal formulation changes,
> that change the A/F ratio required for a good burn. I didn't used to
> think that there was much difference from one brand to another, but my
> neighbor's 420E can't adapt far enough to run well on Shell or ARCO, but
> it runs fine on Chevron and Mobil. I've heard the same of Jap cars that
> were brought to the US by private parties with the Jap-tuned ECUs still
> in them. Apparently the range of fuel formulations is different
> overseas but there is some overlap in the ranges.
>
> (email redacted) wrote:
> >
> > Did the Rat run rich at Laguna? Did you notice any increase or decrease in
> > the SOTP Dyno, or did it seem exactly the same because we know that the Air
> > Density is FAR different!!!
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Spathak <(email redacted)>


Ray Ayala wrote:
>
> It's not as bad as it sounds. The O2 sensor response time is less than
> 0.05 seconds at decent power levels, and the FM loop now uses it to full
> advantage.

0.05s sounds a bit quick to me. Is a sensor's response time a function
of its operating temp as well? Still, at 5000rpm, 4 combustion cycles
occur within that response time. Easily long enough time to cause a
lean spot and trigger a succession of knock. Also, o2 sensors offer
such limited accuracy at the a/f ratios we aim for, that relying on them
under load is of questionable merit. I think it's far better (for
performance and safety) to have set of fixed igniton/fuel maps that
automatically compensate/adjust for as many real-time conditions as
possible and only rely on o2 sensor feedback for minor corrections. At
the specific output levels we are dealing with, relying on an
exhaust-side sensor feeback system to control any significant amount of
fuel delivery is scary. YMMV, of course.

shiv

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Mark and Terry Allen" <(email redacted)>




I upgraded on the schedule you are suggesting. I "felt" 10 - 15, non
documented horses from the change! I was amazed at the difference! I would
say the inlet roar is worth about 30% of the cost. I LOVED the sound of the
engine through the new K+N air filter.

If you do it, you will need to run down to the local hardware store and get
a PVC pc. of pipe to connect your air filter, now that your air flow meter
is gone.

Mark S. Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>; (email redacted)
<(email redacted)>
Cc: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: FM ECU on NA 1.6


>
>I respectfully disagree. I saw nice gains from the FM ECU in NA trim. See
>the GRM article I wrote, 10rwhp just plugging it in and a total of 15 after
>fine tuning. Others have realized even more. -Randy
>
><< Ok here is the deal... expect little or no performance gain. You will be
> able to run larger injectors on the N/A application without affecting idle
> or daily operation and you should run them with anticipation of the turbo.
> On the 1.6 the MAF is more restrictive than the 1.8 MAF and you should
> actually see a 3-5 HP gain from this alone. >>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray & Cindy Ayala <(email redacted)>


Logs indicate that the response time is more a function of exhaust velocity
once nominal temperature has been reached. I certainly agree that true closed
loop fuel control is impossible, but predictive maps aided by recent O2 history
seem to work fine and would work even better if the historical data from one
zone was applied to the next zone predictively.

Spathak wrote:
>
> Ray Ayala wrote:
> >
> > It's not as bad as it sounds. The O2 sensor response time is less than
> > 0.05 seconds at decent power levels, and the FM loop now uses it to full
> > advantage.
>
> 0.05s sounds a bit quick to me. Is a sensor's response time a function
> of its operating temp as well? Still, at 5000rpm, 4 combustion cycles
> occur within that response time. Easily long enough time to cause a
> lean spot and trigger a succession of knock. Also, o2 sensors offer
> such limited accuracy at the a/f ratios we aim for, that relying on them
> under load is of questionable merit. I think it's far better (for
> performance and safety) to have set of fixed igniton/fuel maps that
> automatically compensate/adjust for as many real-time conditions as
> possible and only rely on o2 sensor feedback for minor corrections. At
> the specific output levels we are dealing with, relying on an
> exhaust-side sensor feeback system to control any significant amount of
> fuel delivery is scary. YMMV, of course.
>
> shiv

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Glenn E. Buononato" <(email redacted)>


Hello, Barry:

> Anytime my EGO authority range is banging against the stops, I'm
bothered because it's costing me power at best and an engine at worst. Sure,
I can increase the EGO authority range to account for a greater range of air
densities but now the mixture response time is greater and engine
response/drivability degrade.

Is this then why Lambda correction on the Link system is limited to 3% with
the keypad disconnected ( and Lambda on ) as opposed to 8% with it
connected? On account of the large temperature ranges my car sees in its
daily use ( cold morning, hot afternoon ), I have always been mindful of
this and simply left Lambda on and the keypad connected, to obtain the
greatest adjustment "trim," to avoid banging against the stops, then *not*
saving the changes.

I now wonder, after reading all the posts on this subject lately, if this
method is truly futile; perhaps a better course of action is to manually
compensate with previously created/tested zone maps, with Lambda off.
Better yet, to have several the ability to store multiple, user-programmed
maps right in the ECU? Perhaps the ECU can be offered with only one generic
turbo default map, and the second turbo and the two N/A maps could be
deleted to create the necessary storage space for turbo-only cars. The
Owner could choose this option at chip upgrade or purchase time, to gain the
storage space.

I know Stephen Goodes' Haltech ECU setup has this capability, including
other fancy ones, e.g. separate boost curves that can be selected
individually or even merged. Does the TEC II have this capability as well?
It would be great to have this capability in the Link, if for no other
reason than convenience and ease of use in cars exposed to widely varying
atmospheric conditions, or even multiple drivers...

Regards,

Glenn & The StreetFighter
"If something works, take it apart and find out why."
Visit Our Webpage: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GBuononato/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Glenn E. Buononato" <(email redacted)>


>I was merely suggesting a simple, user definable air intake temp-based
enrichemnt/enleanment. As far as I know, almost every modern EFI system
(OEM or aftermarket) uses something similar.

Excepting the Link, of course?

I share your concerns; all I can tell you is that I chose the Link ECU
firstly for Plug-and-Play installation, secondly for good Customer Support,
thirdly for value for the dollar ( integrated boost and knock control ), and
lastly for extreme tuning precision.

I am sure a future iteration ( would be great if software-based, no 1.6 Mark
1 to Mark 2 ECU board-upgrade blues ) will incorporate air temp
compensation.

Wouldn't it be great though if we could get a mass-air based Link system,
using a Bosch hot-wire MAF in addition to air temp compensation? I can
dream, can't I?

Regards,

Glenn & The StreetFighter
"If something works, take it apart and find out why."
Visit Our Webpage: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GBuononato/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Tom Graham" <(email redacted)>


----Original Message Follows----
From: The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)>


Also, from what I've recently
read, contrary to popular opinion, lean mixtures don't make heat, but they
do
cause detonation. Lean without detonation actually runs cooler than stoich,
according to Gordon Jennings.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems this is true. Most of us say lean when we mean 'less rich'. Diesel
engines run cooler exhaust temps than spark ignition engines for just this
reason. They are always lean.

TTTTTom

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at hotmail.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Inman)



In a previous life, I had a CVCC engine (three barrel carb, one rich two lean,
two intake valves per cylinder, tiny rich one, big lean one, rich fuel fed to
plug for reliable ignition, rest of engine is lean burn) - they were
reputed to
run hot, I never had a problem with detonation - I also never had a problem
with overheating, either - until I had to pass emissions one year (with
100K+mi
since the last carb tuneup) and leaned out the lean channels of the carb
enough
to pass - then it would run hot at high speed.

M

At 16:01 1/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I think Ray's point was that at higher temps you will be running a little too
>rich, not lean. Rich doesn't blow things up. Also, from what I've recently
>read, contrary to popular opinion, lean mixtures don't make heat, but they do
>cause detonation. Lean without detonation actually runs cooler than stoich,
>according to Gordon Jennings.
>
>(email redacted) wrote:
>
>> >If you make no correction for rising air temps, the mixture gets richer,
>> >not leaner.  Why does that bother you?  I'm more concerned about
>> >humidity (absolute, not relative) dropping.
>>
>>   Anytime my EGO authority range is banging against the stops, I'm
>> bothered because it's costing me power at best and an engine at worst.
>> Sure, I can increase the EGO authority range to account for a greater
>> range of air densities but now the mixture response time is greater and
>> engine response/drivability degrade. Easier to just use the density
>> correction parameter.
>>   But, now that you mention it, how about a humidity sensor with
>> accompanying correction as well?    :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Barry
>
>--
>Bill Cardell
>The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
>Grand Junction, CO
><dlralt.com/>dlralt.com
><200mphmiata.net/>200mphmiata.net
>970-242-3800 tech inquiries
>1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Spathak <(email redacted)>


Ray & Cindy Ayala wrote:
>
> Glenn, I data log EVERY DAY with lambda on and I have only once (on a 103 deg
> day) seen lambda hit the 3% limit, and even then it was only one zone that had
> been set a bit rich to start with.

How do you get away with such little correction, despite swings in temp? Are your
fuel curves automatically updating themselves or are they fixed?

-sp

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Spathak <(email redacted)>


Ray Ayala wrote:
>
> No automatic map updates, but I stick with one brand of fuel and I
> change maps when the seasonal fuel formulation changes happen. I'm sure
> it helps that we don't really have weather here.

Ha, no weather. Lucky. Still, you should still get intake temp creep/heat soak
when you idle at a stop light or sit in traffic, or under prolonged, low speed
flogging (i.e. like in an autox), waiting in a paddock, ect. Sometimes as much as
a 50F rise in temp. When you finally take off with fixed, non-temp compensating
fuel maps, you don't run more than 3% rich?

-Shiv

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray & Cindy Ayala <(email redacted)>


Glenn, I data log EVERY DAY with lambda on and I have only once (on a 103 deg
day) seen lambda hit the 3% limit, and even then it was only one zone that had
been set a bit rich to start with.

"Glenn E. Buononato" wrote:
>
> Hello, Barry:
>
> > Anytime my EGO authority range is banging against the stops, I'm
> > bothered because it's costing me power at best and an engine at worst. Sure,
> > I can increase the EGO authority range to account for a greater range of air
> > densities but now the mixture response time is greater and engine
> > response/drivability degrade.
>
> Is this then why Lambda correction on the Link system is limited to 3% with
> the keypad disconnected ( and Lambda on ) as opposed to 8% with it
> connected? On account of the large temperature ranges my car sees in its
> daily use ( cold morning, hot afternoon ), I have always been mindful of
> this and simply left Lambda on and the keypad connected, to obtain the
> greatest adjustment "trim," to avoid banging against the stops, then *not*
> saving the changes.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray Ayala <(email redacted)>


No automatic map updates, but I stick with one brand of fuel and I
change maps when the seasonal fuel formulation changes happen. I'm sure
it helps that we don't really have weather here.

Spathak wrote:
>
> Ray & Cindy Ayala wrote:
> >
> > Glenn, I data log EVERY DAY with lambda on and I have only once (on a 103 deg
> > day) seen lambda hit the 3% limit, and even then it was only one zone that had
> > been set a bit rich to start with.
>
> How do you get away with such little correction, despite swings in temp? Are your
> fuel curves automatically updating themselves or are they fixed?
>
> -sp

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Malcolm Gray-Stephens" <(email redacted)>


>
> Hmm... I thought rich mixtures reduced heat due to the cooling effect of
the
> unburnt fuel. - Beau
>
> --- The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)> wrote:
> >
> > I think Ray's point was that at higher temps you will be running a
little too
> > rich, not lean. Rich doesn't blow things up. Also, from what I've
recently
> > read, contrary to popular opinion, lean mixtures don't make heat, but
they do
> > cause detonation. Lean without detonation actually runs cooler than
stoich,
> > according to Gordon Jennings.

Think of Corky's fire .. a very lean one would burn cold .. if you could
avoid those small pockets that cause the knock .. and hence the large
pressure rise from colliding pressure fronts all would be rosy. So a
combustion chamber with no small pockets a la Larry Widner...but not sure on
how much a con rod stretches at 7,500 rpm?

.. the fire is just being extinguished by taking thermal heat out after
oxygen use has peaked... the nice idea is doing the other thing as in
stopping the excess heat in the first place.

Malcolm G-S

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Nico van Steen" <(email redacted)>


Any ideas what it will take to persuade Link to do so??

If the "Rayware" would be incorperated in the Mk1, I'd be temped to tinker a
bit more on the miata. At the moment I am getting my joy from the Subaru
Impreza turbo, currently chiptuned to 17,65 psi (that's 1.2 bar) holding.

Regards,

Nico van Steen, Netherlands
Meep Meep the 91 BRG MX-5 FM2 turbo
Roaaaarrr the MY99 555blue Impreza turbo
members.xoom.com/MX5_555/home.html





> If Link will send me one of their simulators and a MKI board I'll port
> the code.
>
> (email redacted) wrote:
> >
> > So now the $64K question is when will the Mk1 get the equivalent
upgrade. I
> > know you have mentioned before that it is in your queue but how far
down?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > << FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch
a
> > thing. Also, the
> > richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's
> > software. >>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray Ayala <(email redacted)>


No, actually slightly on the lean side, because the mixture gets richer
as the air heats up.

Spathak wrote:
> .... When you finally take off with fixed, non-temp compensating
> fuel maps, you don't run more than 3% rich?
>
> -Shiv

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Inman)



In a previous life, I had a CVCC engine (three barrel carb, one rich two lean,
two intake valves per cylinder, tiny rich one, big lean one, rich fuel fed to
plug for reliable ignition, rest of engine is lean burn) - they were
reputed to
run hot, I never had a problem with detonation - I also never had a problem
with overheating, either - until I had to pass emissions one year (with
100K+mi
since the last carb tuneup) and leaned out the lean channels of the carb
enough
to pass - then it would run hot at high speed.

M

At 16:01 1/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I think Ray's point was that at higher temps you will be running a little too
>rich, not lean. Rich doesn't blow things up. Also, from what I've recently
>read, contrary to popular opinion, lean mixtures don't make heat, but they do
>cause detonation. Lean without detonation actually runs cooler than stoich,
>according to Gordon Jennings.
>
>(email redacted) wrote:
>
>> >If you make no correction for rising air temps, the mixture gets richer,
>> >not leaner.  Why does that bother you?  I'm more concerned about
>> >humidity (absolute, not relative) dropping.
>>
>>   Anytime my EGO authority range is banging against the stops, I'm
>> bothered because it's costing me power at best and an engine at worst.
>> Sure, I can increase the EGO authority range to account for a greater
>> range of air densities but now the mixture response time is greater and
>> engine response/drivability degrade. Easier to just use the density
>> correction parameter.
>>   But, now that you mention it, how about a humidity sensor with
>> accompanying correction as well?    :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Barry
>
>--
>Bill Cardell
>The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
>Grand Junction, CO
><dlralt.com/>dlralt.com
><200mphmiata.net/>200mphmiata.net
>970-242-3800 tech inquiries
>1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)>


Link asked me earlier this week if it would help Ray to have a simulator. Of
course I said yes, now we just have to wait for them to ship something out.

Nico van Steen wrote:

> Any ideas what it will take to persuade Link to do so??
>
> If the "Rayware" would be incorperated in the Mk1, I'd be temped to tinker a
> bit more on the miata. At the moment I am getting my joy from the Subaru
> Impreza turbo, currently chiptuned to 17,65 psi (that's 1.2 bar) holding.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nico van Steen, Netherlands
> Meep Meep the 91 BRG MX-5 FM2 turbo
> Roaaaarrr the MY99 555blue Impreza turbo
> members.xoom.com/MX5_555/home.html
>
> > If Link will send me one of their simulators and a MKI board I'll port
> > the code.
> >
> > (email redacted) wrote:
> > >
> > > So now the $64K question is when will the Mk1 get the equivalent
> upgrade. I
> > > know you have mentioned before that it is in your queue but how far
> down?
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > > << FWIW, when we recently went to Laguna with the Red Rat, didn't touch
> a
> > > thing. Also, the
> > > richness you refer to is a thing of the past, now that we have Ray's
> > > software. >>
> >

--
Bill Cardell
The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
Grand Junction, CO
dlralt.com
200mphmiata.net
970-242-3800 tech inquiries
1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


WOOHOO! I guess Mk1 owners are people too. Can't wait for the
updates..thanks Bill and Ray!

Randy



<< Link asked me earlier this week if it would help Ray to have a simulator.
Of
course I said yes, now we just have to wait for them to ship something out.
>>