Guys, sorry about the away time but I have good news and bad news.

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by palerider ok...two things... and nobody pass out. im gonna do this thing over here with dcr. and hopefully john can handle the west coast as well. 1. about the secondary fuel rail... weve been discussing this at length here. what needs to be the exact correlation between the the di and the pi. its easy to get a IM with injectors and then to control it. but how difficult will it be to integrate it with whats already happening with the di. when we get past 350whp... and the stock di, what will happen if we start dumping more fuel in with the pi. is it going to still fritz out the computer if we just add fuel? it seems like it would. john... you once mentioned a year ago that a guy you knew in Florida had already overcome this. what are your thoughts specifically on the sencondary rail and the ability to integrate it immediately? 2. about our tuning solutions this discussion absolutely solidifys my argument that the ap cant make power on a big turbo. the cpe solution blocks the ecus logic to shut things down and is a stop gap to a higher number for now, but now seems limited to over 360ishwhp. the AP may be even worse until we get the phasing worked out. theres lots of bad news here...but good news as well. i think we will overcome the problem for the simple fact that we may have just identified the issue finally. i will have over 600+whp in my car by the end of this year. i dont care if i switch to complete PI with a new head. im gonna do it. this fall i get a 2010 ms3.... that will be the one i will be "patient" with. bottom line is for $6000-7000....if we wanted to...we will be able to take guys with stock motors and switch them to completely built, badass PI hybrid motors controlled with a standalone like dee k runs in his drag car. its a fairly easy swap and one we may want to investigate much more thouroughly if Cobb or cpe dont give us a solution soon.

Randy I will have to talk to either you or Darrel about the secondary fuel rail. It works and works well if you have the proper control in play to run it.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Haltech Theres still one variable Cobb discovered. The ECU is tapped at a 255 byte length of datastream, hence... why cars like Randy's and Ron's were cutting and acting all fucked up with the supposedly necessary fueling there. The computer is freaking out with this increase number of databits and doesnt know what to do other then go into a limp mode. Again, i think its the entire fuel system from the tank forward that is the problem. Randy and I have talked about it and theres a semi possible solution for this at a cost of $600 without the injectors. Thats not to much change to try it, but Randy's car is pretty much dead and the only other person near him with a bolted BT car is Sean, whom i dont know is willing to guinea pig this shit.

When you say data bits, are you talking about the ECU A/D converters having an 8 bit resolution and them hitting the upper 255 (2^8-1) limit?

Does this solution involve upping the rail pressure or using larger injectors and recalibrating the load tables?

Has COBB successfully been able to run a larger than stock MAF on this car?

[Lex]

Originally Posted by ptperformance I would have to say that its a tech term and it applies to when the injectors turn on in the crank rotation of the motor. We have been at 2400 psi for some time now but its not helping. The piggy backs are great for a few minutes untill the PCM tries to correct for what you are doing to it. The PCM logic is crazy and you need to change all the logics in the PCM in order to make things happy. Yes, the MAF can be completely reworked with the AP software.

What if you clamp the fuel pressure feedback so that the ECU only sees 1700psi of pressure much like the MAP sensor is clamped?

I am betting that if you're ingenious about it, you can use the MAP sensor clamp in a standback and apply it to the DI pressure sensor since both are likely 0-5V.

[Darksun280]

Originally Posted by Lex What if you clamp the fuel pressure feedback so that the ECU only sees 1700psi of pressure much like the MAP sensor is clamped? I am betting that if you're ingenious about it, you can use the MAP sensor clamp in a standback and apply it to the DI pressure sensor since both are likely 0-5V.

Looks like Lex is getting clamp happy.

[Haltech]

Originally Posted by Lex When you say data bits, are you talking about the ECU A/D converters having an 8 bit resolution and them hitting the upper 255 (2^8-1) limit? Does this solution involve upping the rail pressure or using larger injectors and recalibrating the load tables? Has COBB successfully been able to run a larger than stock MAF on this car?

I dont have an answer if Cobb actually tried this, but they had to do some sort of testing to develop the logic for the software in order to build into ATP/R. Christian can better explain it and ill try to get some sort of data behind it and post it.

Yes, the A/D conversion is the problem these guys are seeing.. There just isnt enough bandwidth to route the info to and from the ECU the way its designed. Im not even sure theres a bandaid for it and wont know until we try this software on exteme builds. The idea is, we will be forced to offload some of this handling from the ECU elsewhere. This can be several ways:

A) Build a breakout board that attaches before the ecu with a linux based os or some type of IC system with new logic to control the fueling
B) Standalone to offload the entire engine tune
C) Standalone specific for DI

The rail will have a fuel pressure regulator on the assembly, so whatever they have it set at ( possibly 19-39 psi for returnless ) is what is will operate at. 19 - 24 PsI seems more likely since its not force inducted. This is all speculation until we can try it of course.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Darksun280 Looks like Lex is getting clamp happy.

Hey, it seems like the ECU logic isn't easy to change ... the DI pressure sensor capped on the upper end isn't a bad idea. It can still react to low pressure, but won't know of anything above spec.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Haltech I dont have an answer if Cobb actually tried this, but they had to do some sort of testing to develop the logic for the software in order to build into ATP/R. Christian can better explain it and ill try to get some sort of data behind it and post it. Yes, the A/D conversion is the problem these guys are seeing.. There just isnt enough bandwidth to route the info to and from the ECU the way its designed. Im not even sure theres a bandaid for it and wont know until we try this software on exteme builds. The idea is, we will be forced to offload some of this handling from the ECU elsewhere. This can be several ways: A) Build a breakout board that attaches before the ecu with a linux based os or some type of IC system with new logic to control the fueling B) Standalone to offload the entire engine tune C) Standalone specific for DI The rail will have a fuel pressure regulator on the assembly, so whatever they have it set at ( possibly 19-39 psi for returnless ) is what is will operate at. 19 - 24 PsI seems more likely since its not force inducted. This is all speculation until we can try it of course.

I guess it only makes sense to see what COBB has been able to do with ATR. There is a difference between being able to recalibrate tables and changing actual logic (formulas, the way things are computed, trouble codes etc).

Until then the best bet for big power guys is to try piggybacks and add-on fuel sources. Heck, it might be the only solution to push past 400whp until a true standalone is introduced.

[Haltech]

Originally Posted by Lex I guess it only makes sense to see what COBB has been able to do with ATR. There is a difference between being able to recalibrate tables and changing actual logic (formulas, the way things are computed, trouble codes etc). Until then the best bet for big power guys is to try piggybacks and add-on fuel sources. Heck, it might be the only solution to push past 400whp until a true standalone is introduced.

Well standalones are expensive ass options... So lets focus on the smaller stuff to see where it gets us first before having to go extreme. Believe me, i like spending Randy's money just as much as the next guy

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by Haltech Theres still one variable Cobb discovered. The ECU is tapped at a 255 byte length of datastream, hence... why cars like Randy's and Ron's were cutting and acting all fucked up with the supposedly necessary fueling there. The computer is freaking out with this increase number of databits and doesnt know what to do other then go into a limp mode. Again, i think its the entire fuel system from the tank forward that is the problem. Randy and I have talked about it and theres a semi possible solution for this at a cost of $600 without the injectors. Thats not to much change to try it, but Randy's car is pretty much dead and the only other person near him with a bolted BT car is Sean, whom i dont know is willing to guinea pig this shit.

The supply side to the HPFP needs to be fixed (return line is working great) and that is just part of the problem. Those cars are screwing up because the other logics were screwed with the larger MAF. You cannot just change the PCM's map/tables with out making changes else where, that is where the problems started.

Possible solution being? Return line with 255 pump is fixing some of the issues that we had. Its cheap but its not the solution or "FIX ALL" for the car. We need injector control or a secondary fuel supply that the PCM cannot see.

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by Lex When you say data bits, are you talking about the ECU A/D converters having an 8 bit resolution and them hitting the upper 255 (2^8-1) limit? Does this solution involve upping the rail pressure or using larger injectors and recalibrating the load tables? Has COBB successfully been able to run a larger than stock MAF on this car?

Yes they have.

Originally Posted by Lex What if you clamp the fuel pressure feedback so that the ECU only sees 1700psi of pressure much like the MAP sensor is clamped? I am betting that if you're ingenious about it, you can use the MAP sensor clamp in a standback and apply it to the DI pressure sensor since both are likely 0-5V.

They are both 5 vlt but not needed, you can adjust the tables with the AP to meet your needs.... they just all have to be changed to make the PCM happy.

Originally Posted by Lex I guess it only makes sense to see what COBB has been able to do with ATR. There is a difference between being able to recalibrate tables and changing actual logic (formulas, the way things are computed, trouble codes etc). Until then the best bet for big power guys is to try piggybacks and add-on fuel sources. Heck, it might be the only solution to push past 400whp until a true standalone is introduced.

You are starting to get it, the logic is what we need control of.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by ptperformance You are starting to get it, the logic is what we need control of.

Has COBB offered solutions to changing logic? If they are at that point, they are essentially "creating" a standalone from the stock ECU so it seems far fetched.

It's one thing to recalibrate tables, it's another to change how parameters and tables interact in the ECU software. Might be able to get away with recalibrations for most things, but like you said, ALL table and parameter interactions must be understood so that no fault condition is created.

[TenaciousBoost]

Hey John, it was cool getting to talk with you the other night at the surgeline gtg.. You definitely answered alot of my questions about the sst and your meth injection setup, it was very helpful. Hopefully I can start scrounging up more cash so I can actually get my car where I want it to be, as long as it's not over 386whp..

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by Lex Has COBB offered solutions to changing logic? If they are at that point, they are essentially "creating" a standalone from the stock ECU so it seems far fetched. It's one thing to recalibrate tables, it's another to change how parameters and tables interact in the ECU software. Might be able to get away with recalibrations for most things, but like you said, ALL table and parameter interactions must be understood so that no fault condition is created.

I have a call into them on this, the injector logic is what we need control of. The WRX crowd had a full EMS with the AP, its only a matter of time before we do as well.

This is what we are working on, if all goes well injector control should be a controlled item soon. Only time will tell what we get and what we don't get control of, come on COBB!

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by TenaciousBoost Hey John, it was cool getting to talk with you the other night at the surgeline gtg.. You definitely answered alot of my questions about the sst and your meth injection setup, it was very helpful. Hopefully I can start scrounging up more cash so I can actually get my car where I want it to be, as long as it's not over 386whp..

Sure was and thanks. I cannot wait for the next gtg down there, lots of info I never knew before.

[spheed3]

For what it's worth all of our Lexus DI engines that are rated above 300HP use both DI and port injection, so two injectors per cylinder. Couldn't we just use an additional injector or two with it's own driver mounted in the cold pipe? Kinda like a wet nitrous shot with no nitrous. My friend has a supercharger on his Hemi Ram that uses a system similar to this. Just throwing ideas out....

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by spheed3 For what it's worth all of our Lexus DI engines that are rated above 300HP use both DI and port injection, so two injectors per cylinder. Couldn't we just use an additional injector or two with it's own driver mounted in the cold pipe? Kinda like a wet nitrous shot with no nitrous. My friend has a supercharger on his Hemi Ram that uses a system similar to this. Just throwing ideas out....

5th injector system, been around for ages and it works very well. You could do the same with meth injection based on the location that we are using for the expansion plug in the lower manifold. A m10 or m14 nozzle should be close a 550cc injector that is running on pure meth, this would not only help the motor with knock but add additional fuel as well. You just may have to keep an eye on the bottle or get a larger tank to support the WI/meth system.

We are working on this right now to determine what is the best way to monitor it and add fuel to feed it. We need to max out the current set up first and then start adding the meth into the mix.

[spheed3]

What if you used the cpe fuel contoller and standback with a fuel pump and injector instead of a meth pump and nozzle? Should work....?

[Deadman]

with strictly inj. cycles controlled, how much is that going to yield us?

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by spheed3 What if you used the cpe fuel contoller and standback with a fuel pump and injector instead of a meth pump and nozzle? Should work....?

Yes, but you would need to control the pump, so a regulator and return line would be needed. You cannot dead head a fuel pump, it would cause a failure very quick. The Meth is a better option, its already been proven to work and its much easier to install.

Originally Posted by Deadman with strictly inj. cycles controlled, how much is that going to yield us?

No idea. I would be willing to guess that we should pick up another 200 WHP of useable fuel injector on time, but you would have to have the supply from the intank unit to match the demand of the HPFP side of things. This is just a guess, so keep that in mind.

[phailerider]

Originally Posted by ptperformance Randy I will have to talk to either you or Darrel about the secondary fuel rail. It works and works well if you have the proper control in play to run it.

god will bless you for this effort..lol!!

[superskaterxes]

does this inj pulse problem have anything to do with motors going?

[bova]

christian has just confirmed with me that there are 2 things that limit power on this car, ecu load calculations and the amount of time we have to inject fuel (which we know). with direct injection we only have half the time to inject fuel over port injection. he said we can work around the ecu load calculations but the only real fueling resolution would be getting the rail from the new 2010 mazda 3 and working with that and a standalone.

[Darksun280]

Originally Posted by bova80 christian has just confirmed with me that there are 2 things that limit power on this car, ecu load calculations and the amount of time we have to inject fuel (which we know). with direct injection we only have half the time to inject fuel over port injection. he said we can work around the ecu load calculations but the only real fueling resolution would be getting the rail from the new 2010 mazda 3 and working with that and a standalone.

LOL good luck guys

[Superstretch18]

Originally Posted by palerider note to self.... be on the lookout for a 2010 mazda3, and rearend the shit out of it in 2008 gti. collect insurance on gti and make offer on mazda3.

I imagine the NA 2.3 that they are going to put into the base CX-7's would be the same set-up. I've got $10 for you if you kill an NA CX-7. I hear an angel will get it's wings, to boot...

[Fobio]

I know there's only so much the AP can do...and relying on Cobb to do all the cracking/programming legwork will be futile...another reason why we need ATR asap.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Darksun280 LOL good luck guys

LOL, wait till Looshie realizes this bout his new beema'

Remember the ricer math?

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by bova80 christian has just confirmed with me that there are 2 things that limit power on this car, ecu load calculations and the amount of time we have to inject fuel (which we know). with direct injection we only have half the time to inject fuel over port injection. he said we can work around the ecu load calculations but the only real fueling resolution would be getting the rail from the new 2010 mazda 3 and working with that and a standalone.

i think im going to sell my car.

[bova]

christian thinks 415whp is the max before we have to upgrade fueling to a 2nd rail.

[Darksun280]

Originally Posted by Lex LOL, wait till Looshie realizes this bout his new beema' Remember the ricer math?

Funny you say that he asked me about it this morning. I gave him till about 450-460 and BAM. With the di limit its not like its gradual once you hit the limit based on your set up and turbo thats it you aint getting past it with out figuring out a way to get more fuel into that intake stroke AND not bleed over into the exhaust stroke and fuck up your power.

[Lex]

In the end, most owners of all these cars will be satisfied staying under the limits of the system. The small % ones that want to go above and beyond will have to pay to play. Eventually off the shelf "fueling" kits will be made available.

[bova]

yeah exactly. if i can make 330hp without changing much i'll be more than happy.

[superskaterxes]

so do the bmw guys have this problem or not? can we get a list of what platforms have this technology?

[Darksun280]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes so do the bmw guys have this problem or not? can we get a list of what platforms have this technology?

They WILL have this problem but sine there a bigger motor and two turbos and fairly new no ones hit the threshold yet. im sure there close to it though

[Christian.]

First off, please take my posts as me simply trying to help. I have most likely tuned the greatest number of these vehicles across the world...nothing I am trying to brag about, I am simply stating facts. I would like to help and I have a pretty good understanding about what questions you all will ask concerning these issues that will need to be dealt with, or at least understood. Simply put, DI engines have approximately 1/2 the injection time available as Lex stated. The below picture and data should demonstrate this for you all. I have this information on a spreadsheet if you are interested in looking at it in detail?


I do not have any information about ATR, so please do not ask. If the conversation does not maintain some civility, then I will simply step out and let you all try to speculate as much as you desire.

Originally Posted by Lex Injector phasing? Is that a technical term? What does it mean PTP? I think there's still some thinking you have to do about all this.

I would describe this as the logic that switches between or blends from

stratified

Stratified_charge_engine

fueling to

homogeneous

Homogeneous

. This is the ECU literally switching fueling strategies back and forth as the engine constantly runs.

Originally Posted by Lex As long as the system stays unchanged, a higher pressure will result in a higher volume of fuel for the same opening time. Now, don't go to 3000psi because the system is not rated for this. You have to be smart about controlling the spill valve and I think you guys might have brute forced it with all or nothing. Try 1900psi, 2000psi. Try it in small steps until you achieve the desired fueling. This will require some fine tuning and something as "simple" as a piggyback should be able to control this if the stock ECU hasn't been "cracked" to do this.

I don't believe this to be the case. I have already tuned a few MS vehicles that a CDFP from a predominant vendor and I ran out of fuel flow on those vehicle. I had plenty of pressure, but not enough flow. This is something that should be able to be worked out with proper DI high pressure fuel lines and orifice sizing.

Originally Posted by Lex Big question is, have you been able to successfully recalibrate the MAF? Otherwise you're stuck at around 350whp give or take a few.

Not a problem, we had that since day 1...maybe day 2.

Originally Posted by Lex LOL, wait till Looshie realizes this bout his new beema' Remember the ricer math?

These vehicles have 2 additional injectors and additional displacement so you will have to analyze the torque output/displacement ratio in order to get apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by bova80 christian thinks 415whp is the max before we have to upgrade fueling to a 2nd rail.

Most estimates are based on flow of the stock fuel injectors. We can discuss this in greater detail later.

One of my objective was to complete all the R&D for this community so I could give you guys some good information about how to go about making various things work properly. I have already tuned for larger MAF housings, larger fuel injectors, larger turbos, EWG, etc. and I have all of this information ready to release after some final reviews.

Is PT Performance purchasing the ATP software? I would appreciate having the ability to discuss various things with a trusted tuner in this community.

I hope this information is helpful,
Christian.

[superskaterxes]

JOHN BUY THE ATP SOFTWARE!!!!!!!!

thanks christian.

on another note, does cobb have the ability at this point in time to change the phasing and make it work in our favor? or has that not been cracked yet.

[smakdown61]

Christian, thanks for the info. I'm still a little confused on where you think we stand with the fuel issue. It sounds like you're saying the stock fuel system is inadequate b/c the lines, holes, etc.. are too small to flow enough volume correct? But even upgrading that won't matter with stock injectors since you can't adjust how long they stay open or can you? Or do we just need bigger injectors (same opening time) and bigger openings throughout the system. Please elaborate.

[Deadman]

ya smackdown actually put it in good words... i was going to ask the same thing. Where do we stand if we upgrade the lines/orifice (something whoosh talked about while back i believe) If you can get control of the injectors is there enough time to cram some more fuel in there?!?

[ATE BALLER]

This is old news really. We've discussed this to no end over on 6club many moons ago. I already have my plan of attack decided unless I find something cheaper and/or easier come available.

[Erich]

So I wonder then if the throttle plate starting to close at 5700 is as much a function of compensating for DI limitations as turbo efficiency. Also wonder if DI limitations were a design consideration in selection of the K04.

[phailerider]

Originally Posted by ATE BALLER This is old news really. We've discussed this to no end over on 6club many moons ago. I already have my plan of attack decided unless I find something cheaper and/or easier come available.

what is the plan of attack? are you discussing it... or has it been discussed?