Meth Kit with CTSC

[DDozier]

The F/IC can handle the ignition retard on all model NSX's, the older 91-94 cars are harder to setup the fuel control do to the lack of fuel trim data to get it dialed in (this may soon be a non-issue on the 91-94) If you wanted to just clean up your CTSC fuel curve and add the ability to retard timing while in boost the F/IC will work perfectly for that and at a lower price than a stand-a-lone ECU and complete new fuel system.

IAT's in a WTA setup can be controlled for track use it is all about capacity, the more heat you generate the larger the coolant reserve and heat exchanger needs to be. You can even add some meth as a fail safe should the intake air temps start to climb. You can even spray the heat exchanger up front to cool the heat exchanger and remove more heat from the system if you do not want the water/meth to be injested by the engine. There are lots of ways to address the heat issues, but the simplest is often the best solution.

Another bandaid to the problem would be a simple resister and a relay to remove the effects of the intake IAT from the ECU's calculations on track days, or any time really. The process would be simple start car, wait for engine temps to heat up, engage relay to disconnect IAT sensor and supply the ECU with a fixed voltage that represents the value for the IAT you want. The resistance needed on a 5v reference voltage is aprox 550 ohms to simulate aprox 150 degree F. I am not saying this is the best solution to the problem but it is one. The ECU will always think the IAT are at 150 degrees and if this is a high enough value to get the ignition retard then you can cool the intake air as cold as you want making more power with out concern of timing issues. The data to make this work has already been collected by "sr5guy" here on Prime. He has mapped most of the stock ECU tables and seems to be willing to share if anyone needs the info.

http://nsxprime.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143407&page=4

I still think the best option is either a F/IC or a AEM ECU to get control of the issue, but if you are on a budjet and need a fix for the temp issue a simple relay may solve the problem.

Dave

 

[TURBO2GO]

I think we are getting somewhere here.... I see light!!

My question here is this:

At what capacity are the factory injectors and pump with the CTSC? 80%? 90%? In case there is meth being injected and a FIC doing some management, is there a need for increased fuel and does being close to the limit now require pump and injectors?

I suppose a solution could be meth/pump/injectors/FIC? Wouldn't this also allow 9 or so PSI as well fairly safely?

I don't care about constant street power. The car is way good enough and I'm not racing on the street.. just stylin' baby... But on the track, if I can run Meth that would be ideal.

Last question is, if we are doing all this and controlling meth spray... how different is this than say a 50HP shot of NOS? Didn't someone say that works "better" before the supercharger than meth? I know there is a big fear factor around NOS but its definitely got cooling properties. Maybe someone can tell me why Meth is a superior solution to NOS?

 

[stuntman]

IAT's in a WTA setup can be controlled for track use it is all about capacity, the more heat you generate the larger the coolant reserve and heat exchanger needs to be. You can even add some meth as a fail safe should the intake air temps start to climb. You can even spray the heat exchanger up front to cool the heat exchanger and remove more heat from the system if you do not want the water/meth to be injested by the engine. There are lots of ways to address the heat issues, but the simplest is often the best solution.

Another bandaid to the problem would be a simple resister and a relay to remove the effects of the intake IAT from the ECU's calculations on track days, or any time really. The process would be simple start car, wait for engine temps to heat up, engage relay to disconnect IAT sensor and supply the ECU with a fixed voltage that represents the value for the IAT you want. The resistance needed on a 5v reference voltage is aprox 550 ohms to simulate aprox 150 degree F. I am not saying this is the best solution to the problem but it is one. The ECU will always think the IAT are at 150 degrees and if this is a high enough value to get the ignition retard then you can cool the intake air as cold as you want making more power with out concern of timing issues. The data to make this work has already been collected by "sr5guy" here on Prime. He has mapped most of the stock ECU tables and seems to be willing to share if anyone needs the info.

http://nsxprime.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143407&page=4


Dave

Increasing the capacity of the coolant reserve (reservior/overflow/header tank) will not reduce the peak temperature of the system. It will only delay the system from reaching equilibrium. Increasing the surface area and cooling efficiency of the heat exchangers is probably the most important.

I personally wouldn't trick the IATs in fear of an increase in IAT teps and no timing compensation which could cause detonation and major damage.

0.02

 

[DDozier]

At what capacity are the factory injectors and pump with the CTSC? 80%? 90%?

The stock injectors are at the limit, that is why CT added the Boost-A-Pump, the only way to inject more fuel is with higher fuel presure. The little stock injectors are in the 90% Duty Cycle on a stock NA NSX. CT included slightly larger injectors and a rising rate fuel pressure regulator on their HiBoost Kit to get around it and it is barely enough fuel for what is really 8lbs of boost. These setups could see 90-100PSI rail presure and at the top it was still marginal at idle it was ussually to much and they would idle rich and be all over the place during WOT moving from really rich to lean. Just not enough control in the setup to deal with VTEC and everything else.

In case there is meth being injected and a FIC doing some management, is there a need for increased fuel and does being close to the limit now require pump and injectors?

This is one of the things I was talking about before, if you are not talking about making more power than a stock CTSC, this may work and the FIC can handle the retard of timing no problem, however you would have to get control of the IAT sensor voltage to the ECU because if the FIC is used to retard timing it will simply look at the commanded timing and retard it by whatever you ask it to at any given RPM and load range. If the stock ECU is pulling timing then the FIC will just pull more. If you can lock the stock ECU by feeding it a static IAT signal then you will have control of the timing retard. Then you can cool the air to your hearts content and the ECU will not react it will be up to the tune in the FIC to compensate for boost. Just remember, cooler air is more dense and more can be shoved into the engine, but with more air you will need more fuel so you may run out of fuel with the stock setup and Boost-a-pump.

I suppose a solution could be meth/pump/injectors/FIC? Wouldn't this also allow 9 or so PSI as well fairly safely?

This is the route most go, if you are going to put in the FIC, you might as well use it and get as much control of the fuel and timing as you can. But unless you are using a standalone ECU and have complete control you will still be working around the fuel added and timing removed by the IAT modifiers built into the stock ECU's code. If you go standalone and have a cooling method you should have no issues adding boost as long as you have enough fuel.

Last question is, if we are doing all this and controlling meth spray... how different is this than say a 50HP shot of NOS? Didn't someone say that works "better" before the supercharger than meth? I know there is a big fear factor around NOS but its definitely got cooling properties. Maybe someone can tell me why Meth is a superior solution to NOS?

The simple answer is Meth is cheap and NOS is expensive. The long answer is meth is a fuel and NOS is an oxygenator, you can add Meth and not have to add more fuel but you cannot add NOS without adding more fuel. I do not think a push to pass NOS setup would be the best solution for a track car, the benifits of Meth are there to use anytime IAT get to high or you go into boost.

Dave

 

[DDozier]

IAT's in a WTA setup can be controlled for track use it is all about capacity, the more heat you generate the larger the coolant reserve and heat exchanger needs to be.

Increasing the capacity of the coolant reserve (reservior/overflow/header tank) will not reduce the peak temperature of the system. It will only delay the system from reaching equilibrium. Increasing the surface area and cooling efficiency of the heat exchangers is probably the most important.

I think we said the same thing, either way I agree larger heat exchanger means larger reserves.

Dave

 

[RYU]

DDozier, (a few Dave's on this thread!) You've touched on so many things that helped me decide going full standalone will be me in my future. However, for the time being would like to stay low boost for a while.

I have a few questions around the existing stock Comptech fueling for you guys.

1. I'm upgrading the tired OEM fuel pump to a Walbro 255. I know Comptech turned the RRFPR by "boosting" the factory fuel pump resulting in increased pressure as you mentioned. A Walbro 255 should provide for higher fuel pressure than stock. Do you recommend removing the boost-a-pump for this setup? How about putting back the resistor? I've seen examples of different setups in the prime archives of folks having success doing either or but my logic tells me the RRFPR needs to be re-tuned.

2. 90% duty cycle on the factory injectors scare me. Has anyone heard of instances of injector lockup on here? What fuel pressure would be considered the max "safe" threshold for our stock injectors.

3. In the meantime, i'd very much like to explore a simple water injection system which I mentioned earlier. I assume little to no HP will be added but if I can turn on this system when IATs are approaching 250 and getting it down to a more manageable 180-200degs would be beneficial to my engine. Do you see any downside to this?

This is good discussion. Thanks for the comments gentlemen.

 

[TURBO2GO]

There is something I am missing. A lot of guys are running an EMS. Are none of these guys passing emmissions or is there a trick somewhere? In my state the machine plugs into the OBDII port and checks for CEL's. No CEL=pass.

I've heard the Fcon Vpro keeps CEL functionality. Is this true? anyone know?

RYU, stock injectors run at 90% STOCK. I am not sure that is an issue. That's what DD was saying.

Something else I am wondering about... doesn't the stock ECU go into an open loop mode at WOT? If that is the case, then wouldn't ignore all sensors including the IAT sensor? is AIT something the stock ECU uses but the EMS doesn't?!

I guess my question is how different is the EMS than than the stock ECU in terms of open loop/closed loop operation? Mike, sorry for all the questions, just trying to learn a little here.

 

[DDozier]

There is something I am missing. A lot of guys are running an EMS. Are none of these guys passing emmissions or is there a trick somewhere? In my state the machine plugs into the OBDII port and checks for CEL's. No CEL=pass..

On an OBDII car 95-05 NSX any standalone will not pass an OBDII plug in test, the OBDII port is dead when the new ECU is put in place of the OEM ECU, the F/IC will pass an OBDII plug in test and really will only have issues with a visual inspection as long as the tune is correct and no check engine codes are stored in memory.

Something else I am wondering about... doesn't the stock ECU go into an open loop mode at WOT? If that is the case, then wouldn't ignore all sensors including the IAT sensor? is AIT something the stock ECU uses but the EMS doesn't?!.

I guess my question is how different is the EMS than than the stock ECU in terms of open loop/closed loop operation? Mike, sorry for all the questions, just trying to learn a little here.

Open/Closed Loop only has to do with the O2 sensors. In closed loop the O2 sensors are in a feedback loop and the ECU looks at the data from the O2 and makes a temp adjustment to the base fuel table in order to reach a target air fuel ratio. When the ECU goes open loop the O2 data is ignored and the fuel is being driven by the base fuel table and the environmental sensors. Closed loop in most cars is only in use after the engine coolant levels have reached normal levels and the engine loads are low, think idle and cruise. Open loop is used when engine loads increase, when rapid throttle changes are detected or when engine RPM's increase above a certain RPM. One thing I have noticed at least with my '04 is that the car will stay in closed loop much longer than other cars from different makers that I have seen. This leads me to think the engineers may have a lot of faith in the ECU's ability to monitor and adjust for knock. The IAT sensor as well as Coolant, and Knock is used by the OEM ECU and stand-a-lone ECU's as a fuel and timing modifier both in Open and Closed Loop conditions. Most Stand-a-lone ECU's allow the tuner to set the conditions for the change from closed to open loop, or if closed loop will be used at all.

Dave

 

[TURBO2GO]

Thanks Dave, I thought that open loop was just going to a full fuel and ignition map and ignoring ALL sensors (except the knock), I guess that is not the case.

Dave am I wrong in that the FIC can only retard timing from what the ECU is doing and that is all?

BTW, SOS's site says "maintains OBDII operation" on the EMS for OBDII cars. Not sure what that really means.

 

[latzke]

So, I have what may be a dumb idea...but it is an idea none-the-less (I only read the first two pages of this thread...so I'm also missing some discussion):

Problem with lowering IATs isn't so much the lower IAT, but that the stock ECU sees the lower IAT and advances timing (back to normal or such).

There is also a problem if the stock ECU sees boost (not dangerous...but limp mode is not fun). The second way this was solved (I'm still using the first :wink was to use a voltage clamp between the MAP sensor and the ECU so it never sees a voltage above that which represents atmospheric temp.

So, if you want to keep the stock ECU but reduce the IAT through water injection or intercooling...do something to manage the voltage between the IAT sensor and the ECU. I don't know what the voltages are or which way is positive...but I could see putting a floor/limit that essentially never let the ECU see less than 150 (or some more-appropriate value) or modify the signal as necessary to effectively add x degrees to the actual reading.

I can see lots of potential for problems when driving not in boost, cold startup, etc...which may or may not be addressable via various means (manual activation/deactivation, automatic activation with injection system, etc, etc). Anyway, like I said...probably a dumb idea but I've not seen it addressed.

 

[latzke]

And a couple questions:

1. Besides loss of power, what is dangerous about high IATs (what would be damaged and how)?

2. At what temperatures is the threshold between safe and not safe believed to be?

 

[Semnos_NSX]

From what I was told, it is possible to run meth with the FIC, but it is not as safe as running It with a full stand alone. Reason being is that with a full stand alone, you can essentially have two maps….. One map set up to run the car with no meth (just premium gas) so timing is where it needs to be….. And a second map set up to run meth where timing has been adjusted for maximum performance. If heaven forbid you ran out of meth or the system malfunctioned, the stand alone would detect it and automatically switch over to the “non-meth” tune. I was told (by a reputable tuner) that the FIC does not have this capability and therefore is unsafe to run with meth. I was later told by someone else that the FIC does indeed have the capability to run to maps so now I am really confused.

-Steve

 

[DDozier]

From what I was told, it is possible to run meth with the FIC, but it is not as safe as running It with a full stand alone. Reason being is that with a full stand alone, you can essentially have two maps….. One map set up to run the car with no meth (just premium gas) so timing is where it needs to be….. And a second map set up to run meth where timing has been adjusted for maximum performance. If heaven forbid you ran out of meth or the system malfunctioned, the stand alone would detect it and automatically switch over to the “non-meth” tune. I was told (by a reputable tuner) that the FIC does not have this capability and therefore is unsafe to run with meth. I was later told by someone else that the FIC does indeed have the capability to run to maps so now I am really confused.

-Steve

The F/IC has the ability to run two maps, switching between the two maps is as simple as grounding a wire in the F/IC harness. If you use a low level switch in the Meth bottle to go to ground when the bottle is low then the F/IC will switch to the alternative map automatically.

The advantage that the AEM ECU has when used with meth is that the meth system can be mapped to any number of sensors and run directly from the ECU without the need for another controller to run the meth system. While it can be done, most tuners even with a AEM ECU still install the meth system as its own standalone system and trigger a seperate map just like you would with a F/IC should the bottle run dry. The controlling of the Meth system in the AEM ECU is setup the same way you would control a boost controller on a turbo install.

Dave

 

[TURBO2GO]

While it can be done, most tuners even with a AEM ECU still install the meth system as its own standalone system and trigger a seperate map just like you would with a F/IC should the bottle run dry.

Why do they do that? Why complicate it if the EMS can do it better and cleaner?

This emmission restriction really blows. It just says that on any 95-newer NSX you can NEVER run an EMS unless it is not a road car.

Can anyone chime on on an Fcon Vpro? Same issues there? There are lots of EMS's out there even if we just continue to talk about AEM.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I'm afraid dynomike can come back and post fantastic data but it won't really matter. No inspection means no driving the car on the street. No one is going to want to switch everything back (including injectors) to stock once a year. That is nuts. So that leaves us with the FIC or a piggyback of some sort as the only solution. And the original intention is not to create more power, just to make sure the power level is always maintained.

Ryu, why would a FIC not work for you in CA? It would need to have two tuning maps as we have spoken of.

 

[DDozier]

And a couple questions:

1. Besides loss of power, what is dangerous about high IATs (what would be damaged and how)?

2. At what temperatures is the threshold between safe and not safe believed to be?

The short term issue with high intake air temps is that hot air takes up more space than cold air, and that means you get less oxygen and fuel in the engine and it makes less power as a result.

The long term issues are elevated cumbustion chamber temps, elevated exhaust temps, and elevated operating temps of the engine oil and coolant. These conditions can cause knock to occure and damage the engine very quickly. Heat is your enemy in any engine, there is a max temperature that the oil and coolant are effective when that temp is exceeded the oil will thin out and provide less protection to the bearing surfaces leading to internal engine damage.

Mid engine motors will see higher IAT's than front mounted engines due to lack of air flow through the engine compartment and can run 20-30* above ambient air temps, but with a CTSC it is not uncommon to see IAT in the 190-240* range. I think most would agree this is way to high and border line dangerous for track use, If you can keep your IAT under 150* I think most would agree this is an exceptable high limit, but someone else may have a different idea on these limits. I will also add that oil and coolant temps are items you will want to try and control on a NSX track car.

When I setup my WTA intercoller on my turbo setup I was designing for a Ambient + 50* as a high temp limit and ambient + 25* as a normal operating temp.

Dave

 

[RYU]

Anyone have any comments on post #81 please? Just trying to protect my motor instead of it going KABOOM

Ryu, why would a FIC not work for you in CA? It would need to have two tuning maps as we have spoken of.

I'm OBD1. It will work just fine assuming a good tuner is behind the helm - which it will have.

On the 90% duty cycle... I'm concerned about the 100+ psi line pressure which is high.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I'm OBD1.

Damn you! :biggrin:

 

[DDozier]

Why do they do that? Why complicate it if the EMS can do it better and cleaner?

Same reason some do not setup the two step launch control, or the traction control, or the boost controler, or the speed/gear based boost control on turbo cars, the AEM ECU is an amazing piece of equipment in the right tuners hands. If you have a need for these features and the tuner has the knowledge to set them up then you can use them, if not you get the basic tune and the car drives close to stock and is safe under boost. If you want all of these features setup be prepared to pay for tune time, they all require lots of test and tune time to make operate correctly.

Some tuners believe using the ECU to run everything is the complicated route, and in the case of meth it can be, adjustments made on a Meth controller are ussually as simple as turning a knob to adjust so why complicate it by actually mapping it to a given RPM or boost condition? I think the ECU gives the tuner the most control, and prevents the end user from turning the knob to see what will happen. If the knob points at two then moving it to three or four has to be better, right.

Dave

 

[DDozier]

Anyone have any comments on post #81 please? Just trying to protect my motor instead of it going KABOOM


I'm OBD1. It will work just fine assuming a good tuner is behind the helm - which it will have.

On the 90% duty cycle... I'm concerned about the 100+ psi line pressure which is high.

Agreed, 100 psi is not ideal and the only way around this is to look at larger injectors, higher flow fuel pump and a way of adjusting for the changes, and you have come full circle back to the stand-a-lone ECU or Piggyback ECU. You have to decide what is best for you. On your OBDI setup I would and did decide to go with the AEM ECU, on an OBDII car I would and did decide to go with the AEM F/IC, with SOS and Autowave now having stand-a-lone options for the OBDII cars we have yet another option to think about.

Dave

 

[TURBO2GO]

with SOS and Autowave now having stand-a-lone options for the OBDII cars we have yet another option to think about.

Dave

Yeah but that is only good for off-road cars, right? I realize they have some sensors and DBW systems working with it but it still won't pass in any state, right?

 

[Mac Attack]

Yeah but that is only good for off-road cars, right? I realize they have some sensors and DBW systems working with it but it still won't pass in any state, right?

They're plug and play. For you, once a year or whenever you have to be tested, just unplug your aftermarket full ECU and plug in your OEM ECU and take it to be tested, right That's not too difficult if it works. Maybe even with slightly bigger injectors....

Dave

 

[yellow-scorpion]

subscribed, very interesting.

 

[DDozier]

Problem with lowering IATs isn't so much the lower IAT, but that the stock ECU sees the lower IAT and advances timing (back to normal or such).

So, if you want to keep the stock ECU but reduce the IAT through water injection or intercooling...do something to manage the voltage between the IAT sensor and the ECU. I don't know what the voltages are or which way is positive...but I could see putting a floor/limit that essentially never let the ECU see less than 150 (or some more-appropriate value) or modify the signal as necessary to effectively add x degrees to the actual reading.

See Post #75, it has been tossed around. The issue with a traditional voltage clamp is you set a high voltage limit and everything below that limit is unaltered untill the set voltage is reached then the clamp takes over and feeds the ECU the desired voltage, works good with a MAP sensor because it represents vacuum as a low voltage and boost as a high voltage, IAT sensor are the oposite the represent cool temps as a higher voltage and hot temps as a lower voltage. 200* = aprox. 0.48vdc, 165* = aprox. 0.78vdc and 80* = aprox 2.03vdc.

If someone can design the voltage clamp to work the oposite way we can trigger it when in boost to either clamp at the needed voltage to represent the temp you want the ECU to see, or pass the true lower voltage if the IAT temps are higher than what the clamping voltage represents. I do not have the knowledge to design and build integrated circuits, but I can help someone with the logic part of the problem as I understand most of what the ECU is doing with the info once it gets it.

We are getting out in the weeds now but;

I have not done this yet, but for those who want to run the F/IC and want to lock the influence the IAT's have on the OEM ECU, the F/IC has an A/B input table modifier that is voltage based and could be used to send out a fixed voltage based on a MAP and RPM, the way this would work is the F/IC would look at the IAT sensor and at any load/rpm cell in the table you can decide to leave the signal unaltered, modify it, or replace it with a voltage of your choice, sending the modified signal back to the OEM ECU. In the F/IC you can use this voltage modifier to change any 0-5v input to the ECU. Again I have not done it as I have not seen the need to lock the timing modifier that the IAT sensor will have but it can be done.

Dave

 

[DDozier]

They're plug and play. For you, once a year or whenever you have to be tested, just unplug your aftermarket full ECU and plug in your OEM ECU and take it to be tested, right That's not too difficult if it works. Maybe even with slightly bigger injectors....

Dave

Not likely to work very well, if the injectors are changed the OEM ECU will most likely throw a CEL for a rich condition as the fuel trims will exceed the programmed limit in the OEM ECU. The readiness test on the OBDII ECU is designed to test every part of the emmisions system and in order to do so the car must be driven several drive cycles with the OEM ECU in control of the emmisions systems. Once all tests are passed then the OEM ECU could be tested with a plug in test. This drive cycle process can be a pain in the butt to get done, we deal with this issue alot on domestic cars that have been flashed with a tune, they are very specific test that are not easy to trick or pass if everything is not operating in stock form. GM even had issues with the 2008-09 Z06's not passing the readiness tests for the rear O2 sensors and Cat efficiency on completely stock cars.

Dave