I thought you had the AEM?MiamieNeSeX said:
BBSC New SS Box Thread
- Thread starter kpond
- Start date
KGP said:
I do, but that dosent answer my question.
Armando
MiamieNeSeX said:
The answer is Yes, and as I stated in my prior post it (and other ECUs such as Motec) will do that and much more.
sjs said:
Thank you
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
I will be borrowing the dealership's Honda data scanner this weekend. While I have not seen it in action, the tech says it is configurable to read the NSX's ECU, not just Accords, Civics, etc.
Three variables that I will be looking for are (a) total timing up to redline (b) fuels trims (c) intake air temperature.
Does anybody else have other data requests? Then again, I may end up scrolling through the scanner's menus and reporting back everything that I see.
Due to mechanical issues not at related to the SS box or the BBSC, this data logging exercise will be postponed for several weeks.
However, while I was at the dealership yesterday the tech plugged the scanner into my car's diagnostics port and showed me how to use it. I think it can display thirty or more parameter values. The units of the values can be configured as you see fit. For example, MAP can be viewed as PSI, inches of mercury or VDC.
The car had just returned from a test drive, and here are just a few values that I recall. Throttle body (inlet air) temperature was 97°F. Yesterday was in the low 70's. Take the 97° with a grain of salt - could have been heat soak. There are two pairs of LTFT and STFT, one pair for each cylinder bank. I seem to recall that all four values were less than 1.0, but I do recall that one of those four values was 0.0. Timing was 0° BTDC because the engine was not running.
Three variables that I will be looking for are (a) total timing up to redline (b) fuels trims (c) intake air temperature.
Does anybody else have other data requests? Then again, I may end up scrolling through the scanner's menus and reporting back everything that I see.
Due to mechanical issues not at related to the SS box or the BBSC, this data logging exercise will be postponed for several weeks.
However, while I was at the dealership yesterday the tech plugged the scanner into my car's diagnostics port and showed me how to use it. I think it can display thirty or more parameter values. The units of the values can be configured as you see fit. For example, MAP can be viewed as PSI, inches of mercury or VDC.
The car had just returned from a test drive, and here are just a few values that I recall. Throttle body (inlet air) temperature was 97°F. Yesterday was in the low 70's. Take the 97° with a grain of salt - could have been heat soak. There are two pairs of LTFT and STFT, one pair for each cylinder bank. I seem to recall that all four values were less than 1.0, but I do recall that one of those four values was 0.0. Timing was 0° BTDC because the engine was not running.
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
Back In Action
Yesterday was the first FJO recording with the new SS box in control. The average air-fuel ratio from 2500 RPM (initial sign of boost) to redline is 11.9:1, which is the same value the old SS box yielded. There are a couple of "rich dips" to 11.6:1 in the upper RPM band that I will be working on to remove. After this is complete I will finally re-dyno to see how much (if any HP) was gained from the untuned state of the controller that yielded very rich numbers.
At that time, as promised for the OBD-1 guys, I'll borrow the Honda scanner and see what the total timing is. Qualitatively, the SS box is managing timing adequately, as I hear no pinging. Having said that, as a data point, the cell value in the new SS box’s timing map that corresponds to 8 PSI at 8000 RPM is 9.2. That same cell value in the old SS box was 4.6 --- all timing map cell values in the new SS box are exactly 2x that of the old SS box.
Yesterday was the first FJO recording with the new SS box in control. The average air-fuel ratio from 2500 RPM (initial sign of boost) to redline is 11.9:1, which is the same value the old SS box yielded. There are a couple of "rich dips" to 11.6:1 in the upper RPM band that I will be working on to remove. After this is complete I will finally re-dyno to see how much (if any HP) was gained from the untuned state of the controller that yielded very rich numbers.
At that time, as promised for the OBD-1 guys, I'll borrow the Honda scanner and see what the total timing is. Qualitatively, the SS box is managing timing adequately, as I hear no pinging. Having said that, as a data point, the cell value in the new SS box’s timing map that corresponds to 8 PSI at 8000 RPM is 9.2. That same cell value in the old SS box was 4.6 --- all timing map cell values in the new SS box are exactly 2x that of the old SS box.
How are those numbers defined?? Are they a % change, or a timing changing in degrees? Or something else?
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
Slightly Off Topic
This is mostly directed towards Kendall, since he came up with the method in the first place (thanks man) with the FJO but if anyone else knows, please chime in.
There is a way to import datalogs from the FJO recordings into Excel, so that plots of the air-fuel ratio vs RPM can be made. Additionally, you can select a range of values to let Excel provide the mathematical average.
Can this be done for a boost recording that the SS box creates? Ditto that for HP / TQ from a Dynojet plot?
I’ve seen three separate plots of (a) air-fuel vs RPM (b) boost vs RPM (c) power vs RPM; however, if the three plots could be electronically combined on one Excel file for graphical purposes, now that would be pretty cool.
This is mostly directed towards Kendall, since he came up with the method in the first place (thanks man) with the FJO but if anyone else knows, please chime in.
There is a way to import datalogs from the FJO recordings into Excel, so that plots of the air-fuel ratio vs RPM can be made. Additionally, you can select a range of values to let Excel provide the mathematical average.
Can this be done for a boost recording that the SS box creates? Ditto that for HP / TQ from a Dynojet plot?
I’ve seen three separate plots of (a) air-fuel vs RPM (b) boost vs RPM (c) power vs RPM; however, if the three plots could be electronically combined on one Excel file for graphical purposes, now that would be pretty cool.
Andy,
The answer is yes, all of this is data can be easily imported into excel, no problem. Perhaps your real question is if anyone has written a macro to make this easier to manipulate, create and merge graphs. I haven't done this.
The answer is yes, all of this is data can be easily imported into excel, no problem. Perhaps your real question is if anyone has written a macro to make this easier to manipulate, create and merge graphs. I haven't done this.
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
Finally, I Am Finished.....
.....for now.
With my current 8 PSI configuration, the mathematical average of my air-fuel ratio while the BBSC is singing loud, is 12.0:1. Granted there are a few "bumps-n-dips" in the curve, but nothing outside the parameters of being too rich nor too lean.
The plus side is that I'll re-dyno soon, and will post what the LTFT and STFT values and timing values are.
The minus side is that I start all over again with the 10 PSI pulley.
Cripes, when does it end? 
.....for now.
With my current 8 PSI configuration, the mathematical average of my air-fuel ratio while the BBSC is singing loud, is 12.0:1. Granted there are a few "bumps-n-dips" in the curve, but nothing outside the parameters of being too rich nor too lean.
The plus side is that I'll re-dyno soon, and will post what the LTFT and STFT values and timing values are.
The minus side is that I start all over again with the 10 PSI pulley.
Cripes, when does it end?
Re: Finally, I Am Finished.....
I think the answer to your question is "NEVER"
Armando
AndyVecsey said:.....for now.
The minus side is that I start all over again with the 10 PSI pulley.
I think the answer to your question is "NEVER"
Armando
Re: Finally, I Am Finished.....
Ahh, the pleasures of the Go Fast Crack Pipe - they are bountiful and seem never ending.AndyVecsey said:
Re: Re: Finally, I Am Finished.....
LOL but what a great feeling
KGP said:
LOL but what a great feeling
The slippery slope has no bottom...
...once you start the slide, it will go on as long as you have your wallet.
My short description :
"excrutiatingly gratifying"
...once you start the slide, it will go on as long as you have your wallet.
My short description :
"excrutiatingly gratifying"
prova4re said:It only ends when you run out of money...........or she makes you sell that dam thing. lol
Beleive it or not Divorce might be a cheaper option not by much though
Hello All, my name is Len and I'm an addict. It's been 6 months since I last hit the pipe, I tried to stay sober and clean, but the FI kept calling me, the NSX's curves were too tempting, I just had to get them together for a threesome. I stand before you high and trying to find a cure...
Last edited:
len3.8 said:
Once you admit to the problem then the problem exists, continue to deny and the problem does not exist.
Armando
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
Long Post
Oh, what a tangled web us NSXers weave for that endless search of forced induction power optimization. I was driving home from the dyno shop last night with the biggest question mark hovering over my head. Here goes.
When I first got by car back from MB, it dyno'ed at 383 RWHP. The air-fuel ratio was very rich - dipping down in the low 10's in the middle portion of the RPM range then coming back up at redline. It even flat-lined to ten, suggesting to me that it has actually richer than that, but the dyno shop's wide-band oxygen sensor could not read that low (rich). The conventional wisdom suggested that my AFR needed to be leaned out for two reasons - avoiding detrimental cylinder wash over a long period of time and picking up some horsepower. I certainly agreed with the former; however, part of me always questioned the benefit realization of the latter. I adjusted the fuel map of the SS box to eventually yield an average air-fuel ratio of 12.0:1. And talking about a smooth / flat curve, you would be impressed! I'm having trouble opening the Dynojet file, I think I need to download an upgrade.
OK OK, get on with your story, boy. The car now dyno'ed at 342 RWHP. While I was perplexed as to why, and initially I was disappointed, I now am not. Speaking at length with the dyno guy (their shop specializes in Japanese cars) we superimposed the before-and-after dyno curves with the corresponding air-fuel ratio curves. You can see that in the early segment of the RPM range, the horsepower curves followed each other identically. But when the new air-fuel ratio begins to go lean from the original one, that is when the new horsepower curve begins to drop off. He also said what has been mentioned here – Honda engines respond better to timing changes than to fuel changes.
So, what does this all mean?
In my opinion, although I dropped 10.7% on paper, the "seat-of the pants" measurement of horsepower is virtually zero. To soothe the pundits, the reason I can make this statement is because the gradual reduction of horsepower of 10.7% occurred over a time span of many months. It is not like the car was making 383 RWHP on Saturday then 342 RWHP on Sunday.
How do I get the "lost" horsepower back? I have three options. Restore the fuel map to the original rich condition, install smaller pulley to increase boost or dial in some timing advance.
Rich Fuel Map - an option not to be considered because of the aforementioned concern of long term cylinder wash.
Increase Boost - changing pulley and belt takes about twenty minutes. Oh, but now I will have to re-tune. Remember what I said, this is a tangled web weaved.
Add Ignition Timing - uncharted waters for most, especially with the SS box. How much is too much?
I will begin with option #2 followed by option #3.
In closing, I'll offer an anecdotal opinion. I am not inviting flames, only healthy "debate" and exchange of ideas. I think that NSX engines boosting 6-8 PSI and making upper 300 RWHP to 400-ish RWHP, have too much timing advance to be generating that much horsepower. Obviously, this comment is predicated on an average air-fuel ratio of 12.0:1. Kendall - are you reading this? I know, I still owe you the promise of the Honda scanner results.
Why do I make this comment? A few weeks ago in another thread, Miami's NSX with Novi 2000 and AEM produced "only" 340-ish RWHP. The pundits landed on him pretty hard by saying that the engine should be making some 15% more power. Armando defended his configuration along the lines of, "Hey, I'm happy so why do you guys have to critique my results?" Interestingly enough I was wondering with an air-fuel ratio of X and boost of Y and timing of Z, just what should a forced induction NSX engine be making?
Finally, with regards to timing. Armando's AEM has the timing map set to be at 18-19° of advanced timing at redline (peak boost). I believe that most will acknowledge this is a conservative value for NSX forced induction. As I increase the boost and trim the air-fuel ratio to maintain 12.0:1, by holding the timing advance to 18-19°, the horsepower will be what it will be.
Oh, what a tangled web us NSXers weave for that endless search of forced induction power optimization. I was driving home from the dyno shop last night with the biggest question mark hovering over my head. Here goes.
When I first got by car back from MB, it dyno'ed at 383 RWHP. The air-fuel ratio was very rich - dipping down in the low 10's in the middle portion of the RPM range then coming back up at redline. It even flat-lined to ten, suggesting to me that it has actually richer than that, but the dyno shop's wide-band oxygen sensor could not read that low (rich). The conventional wisdom suggested that my AFR needed to be leaned out for two reasons - avoiding detrimental cylinder wash over a long period of time and picking up some horsepower. I certainly agreed with the former; however, part of me always questioned the benefit realization of the latter. I adjusted the fuel map of the SS box to eventually yield an average air-fuel ratio of 12.0:1. And talking about a smooth / flat curve, you would be impressed! I'm having trouble opening the Dynojet file, I think I need to download an upgrade.
OK OK, get on with your story, boy. The car now dyno'ed at 342 RWHP. While I was perplexed as to why, and initially I was disappointed, I now am not. Speaking at length with the dyno guy (their shop specializes in Japanese cars) we superimposed the before-and-after dyno curves with the corresponding air-fuel ratio curves. You can see that in the early segment of the RPM range, the horsepower curves followed each other identically. But when the new air-fuel ratio begins to go lean from the original one, that is when the new horsepower curve begins to drop off. He also said what has been mentioned here – Honda engines respond better to timing changes than to fuel changes.
So, what does this all mean?
In my opinion, although I dropped 10.7% on paper, the "seat-of the pants" measurement of horsepower is virtually zero. To soothe the pundits, the reason I can make this statement is because the gradual reduction of horsepower of 10.7% occurred over a time span of many months. It is not like the car was making 383 RWHP on Saturday then 342 RWHP on Sunday.
How do I get the "lost" horsepower back? I have three options. Restore the fuel map to the original rich condition, install smaller pulley to increase boost or dial in some timing advance.
Rich Fuel Map - an option not to be considered because of the aforementioned concern of long term cylinder wash.
Increase Boost - changing pulley and belt takes about twenty minutes. Oh, but now I will have to re-tune. Remember what I said, this is a tangled web weaved.
Add Ignition Timing - uncharted waters for most, especially with the SS box. How much is too much?
I will begin with option #2 followed by option #3.
In closing, I'll offer an anecdotal opinion. I am not inviting flames, only healthy "debate" and exchange of ideas. I think that NSX engines boosting 6-8 PSI and making upper 300 RWHP to 400-ish RWHP, have too much timing advance to be generating that much horsepower. Obviously, this comment is predicated on an average air-fuel ratio of 12.0:1. Kendall - are you reading this? I know, I still owe you the promise of the Honda scanner results.
Why do I make this comment? A few weeks ago in another thread, Miami's NSX with Novi 2000 and AEM produced "only" 340-ish RWHP. The pundits landed on him pretty hard by saying that the engine should be making some 15% more power. Armando defended his configuration along the lines of, "Hey, I'm happy so why do you guys have to critique my results?" Interestingly enough I was wondering with an air-fuel ratio of X and boost of Y and timing of Z, just what should a forced induction NSX engine be making?
Finally, with regards to timing. Armando's AEM has the timing map set to be at 18-19° of advanced timing at redline (peak boost). I believe that most will acknowledge this is a conservative value for NSX forced induction. As I increase the boost and trim the air-fuel ratio to maintain 12.0:1, by holding the timing advance to 18-19°, the horsepower will be what it will be.
Last edited:
Long, but good. Thanks for the update. My first thought is that the difference has very little to do with AFR and everything to do with ignition timing. If you look back you will find that when the problem of the early SS box was reveled, I speculated that it probably accounted for the broad range of HP results (some worked better than others) and that once resolved the higher numbers would probably come down significantly. I think your car and several others are proving that out. When the SS box failed to retard the timing, people got impressive dyno results, but also risked serious consequences. You were more fortunate than some. I’ve forgotten the timeline on your project, but if the 383 hp results were after installing forged low compression pistons then they bought you a large margin of safety.
Too bad the SS is not simpler to tune. I’m guessing that adding fuel will have little if any benefit, and will probably drop power even further before you reach 10:1. With an ECU such as the AEM you could instantly apply a % change to any or all of the fuel map on the fly and make another pull. Also, if mapped correctly for your long-term max boost you could change pulleys as often as you like and never need to re-tune.
Too bad the SS is not simpler to tune. I’m guessing that adding fuel will have little if any benefit, and will probably drop power even further before you reach 10:1. With an ECU such as the AEM you could instantly apply a % change to any or all of the fuel map on the fly and make another pull. Also, if mapped correctly for your long-term max boost you could change pulleys as often as you like and never need to re-tune.
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
When the SS box failed to retard the timing, people got impressive dyno results, but also risked serious consequences.
Hiya Steve - correct!!! I think I am coming to the same conclusion. To emphasize this is the fact that I now have the upgraded SS box with the timing map unchanged from the old box. Therefore, it can be argued that the electronic intelligence of the new SS box controls timing better, albeit with a conservative drop in power.
I’ve forgotten the timeline on your project.....
I picked the car up in November 2002. I attended two track events with the original SS box - NSXPO 2002 in October and a local track event in February 2003.
I began tuning in January 2003 and suspended this effort in April 2003 when concerns with the original SS box manifested. It was about that time when ambient air temperature was rising, which further exacerbated the potential detonation problem. I installed the upgraded SS box in December 2003 but only recently fine tuned the fuel map because of a busted transmission.
I have my first track event in thirteen months (major major major withdrawals) in two weeks. I will be upping the boost and re-tuning afterwards. This loose nut behind the wheel does not need another variable to contend with on the track with Ruf in my mirrors. 
.....but if the 383 hp results were after installing forged low compression pistons then they bought you a large margin of safety.
Absolutely, which is why I was rather lenghty with my previous post. There are some BBSC NSXers with the impressive power numbers (I do not know if they are on the first gen SS box or the second gen SS box) with factory cast 10.2:1 pistons. While we may not always agree, I wanted them to think about "dialing it back a bit".
Too bad the SS is not simpler to tune.
As far as the fuel map, it is (in my opinion) not terribly difficult to tune but it does take several iterations. Kodiac or Nut or KP or MB - how user friendly is the SS timing map to tune?
Hiya Steve - correct!!! I think I am coming to the same conclusion. To emphasize this is the fact that I now have the upgraded SS box with the timing map unchanged from the old box. Therefore, it can be argued that the electronic intelligence of the new SS box controls timing better, albeit with a conservative drop in power.
I’ve forgotten the timeline on your project.....
I picked the car up in November 2002. I attended two track events with the original SS box - NSXPO 2002 in October and a local track event in February 2003.
I began tuning in January 2003 and suspended this effort in April 2003 when concerns with the original SS box manifested. It was about that time when ambient air temperature was rising, which further exacerbated the potential detonation problem. I installed the upgraded SS box in December 2003 but only recently fine tuned the fuel map because of a busted transmission.
I have my first track event in thirteen months (major major major withdrawals) in two weeks. I will be upping the boost and re-tuning afterwards. This loose nut behind the wheel
does not need another variable to contend with on the track with Ruf in my mirrors. .....but if the 383 hp results were after installing forged low compression pistons then they bought you a large margin of safety.
Absolutely, which is why I was rather lenghty with my previous post. There are some BBSC NSXers with the impressive power numbers (I do not know if they are on the first gen SS box or the second gen SS box) with factory cast 10.2:1 pistons. While we may not always agree, I wanted them to think about "dialing it back a bit".
Too bad the SS is not simpler to tune.
As far as the fuel map, it is (in my opinion) not terribly difficult to tune but it does take several iterations. Kodiac or Nut or KP or MB - how user friendly is the SS timing map to tune?
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
It Just Keeps Getting Better
When our hero last reported into central command, he had a couple of half-baked (NetViper, here is your opportunity to do a
..... ) ideas of why HP was down.
One theory was the removal of fuel to lean the AFR, cut power. Another postulation was that the new SS box controls timing more conservatively, which also cuts power.
Well, I have another facet to consider. Ol' dickhead here apparently does not know how to tighten a supercharger belt adequately. What was 8 PSI two days ago is now 6 PSI. In the confines (man, I LOVE my exhaust sound) of the dyno shop, we could not hear the slipping belt. On the way to work today, I goosed it a couple of times and heard a faint squeal. On the way home from work I did an SS recording and sure enough, I was down on boost.
To be extremely methodical I shall do another dyno to see what HP is at 8 PSI with the current lean map, then reload the original rich map at 8 PSI, then have some Huradura to cogitate over the HP disparities.
One of these days I may be finished. Then again, perhaps not.
When our hero last reported into central command, he had a couple of half-baked (NetViper, here is your opportunity to do a
..... ) ideas of why HP was down. One theory was the removal of fuel to lean the AFR, cut power. Another postulation was that the new SS box controls timing more conservatively, which also cuts power.
Well, I have another facet to consider. Ol' dickhead here apparently does not know how to tighten a supercharger belt adequately. What was 8 PSI two days ago is now 6 PSI.
In the confines (man, I LOVE my exhaust sound) of the dyno shop, we could not hear the slipping belt. On the way to work today, I goosed it a couple of times and heard a faint squeal. On the way home from work I did an SS recording and sure enough, I was down on boost.To be extremely methodical I shall do another dyno to see what HP is at 8 PSI with the current lean map, then reload the original rich map at 8 PSI, then have some Huradura to cogitate over the HP disparities.
One of these days I may be finished. Then again, perhaps not.
Re: It Just Keeps Getting Better
Then what would you do to occupy those extra few thousand brain cells?
AndyVecsey said:...........One of these days I may be finished. Then again, perhaps not.
Then what would you do to occupy those extra few thousand brain cells?
Re: Re: It Just Keeps Getting Better
Oh what a mental quandary we have on our hands.
j/k, Andy. Let's hope we all can enjoy the warm season in our NSX's, relatively trouble free.
Hmmm... If Andy stops breaking things our learning curve may flatten.AndyVecsey[/i][b] ...........One of these days I may be finished. Then again said:Then what would you do to occupy those extra few thousand brain cells?
Oh what a mental quandary we have on our hands. j/k, Andy. Let's hope we all can enjoy the warm season in our NSX's, relatively trouble free.
