I am not plugging Megasquirt products and never did on this thread. Further I really do not assist those who are not willing to help themselves regardless of PCM brand. Consider that all SEM ECUs will need fitting and all will need mapping for optimum performance everywhere in the engine speed operating range. Do not look just isolate this type of PCM without considering the cost of integrating the other brands. Also mapping on a dyno is a small part of the process. There are many hours of off dyno time that have to be spent if the calibration is to be made robust. If you enjoy refining the product - your car - then you will enjoy tuning a SEM and will learn a significant amount about the calibration process. Also consider Chris Eyre's suggestion about DTA EXP48 units. Optimise the hardware with proper control and then if a hardware change is required optimise control again. With this method a std factory engine can be made to perform similar to an old school modded engine and then some more when carefully selected hardware is fitted to the engine.
So far I have obtained the following: ABF inlet manifold top and bottom, throttle body and injector rail - 50 from ebay. Corrado VR6 airbox - 30 from the Corrado forum. Air intake temp sensor - 14 2nd hand from ebay. ABF intake hose between throttle body and air box - Free from Matt82 (cheers Matt) Various bolts and washers to assemble manifold and throttle body 13 from ebay. Inlet manifold to manifold gasket - About 5 from ECP. ISV grommet, fuel pipe unions and Throttle body gasket - 30 VW stealers. 142 so far. I already have a wideband lambda sensor and gauge so I'll use that, along with the existing 2 pin coolant temp sender, and distributor for crank position. I still need MS ECU and loom, which I plan on buying fom Toyotec and various cables. All in it will have cost me around 600 to be at the point of calibration.
Exactly, it just makes sense for me to take the plunge and change to SEM in order to gain the best performance from my engine as it currently is and for the future to continue increasing it's spec.
As in the famous phrase about God Exactly my point about its not for everyone. You have to be willing to get stuck in and learn. Many Many Hours! But it can be very rewarding.
CFJ's dyno plots were posted on here some time ago....I'll have a look. Vince plotted it after he had done the warm up reg when it gave it's best figures. I'll probably stay on Kjet as the car is well looked after by Ex TSR staff and what with it's pulling power and the change to a 4.25FD it is ideal for track where it is mainly used. I'll see if I can find a Dyno plot which gives a rough idea of torque delivery.
With all the plots from the 16v day- would it not be possible to overlay the red k-jet ABF 16v plot from ABF into mk2 thread??? Mk2 ABF validation car That thread seemed to show the kjet car giving a stronger result than those fitted with oem digifant management... Different days/ambient conditions aside- a good result none the less considering the kjet car is only tweaked with a 10mm spanner on the dizzy & Allen key to tweak the mixture
My entirely stock KR made 158bhp at stealth, it was a good one, but you can't really compare with other places
Yes. VW quoted 139bhp but that was a minimum and many made a lot more. Again this just adds to the arguements of how much bhp mods really give unless you have a base figure of the car as standard.
No need, you already linked to the thread with an on day comparison. Mk2 ABF validation car No demonstrated. "It did say many iterations" and even tried to share with the reader what was required as diy adjustment. It is easy when you know how. That thread also talked about what a SEM as well the OE PCM could have have achieved in the next subheading. So that level of performance could have been improved further, without the need for significant hardware changes. Its all there Chris.
I would not say minimum but nominal. You are allowed some tolerance on that number, not that I would expect such an engine to achieve 160 bhp @ 6400 as std!
I meant could the validation car results be overlaid with the recent 16v day results? I'm after seeing what differences exist between good kjet & good MS ABFs on paper to see if the costs are justified...
Got you. It takes significant resource and logisitics to conduct these "controlled" experiments and a bit more to verify and present it. It would take quite a lot if time to attempt to walk 16v compare data from 9AMS/ABFdigi/ABFKjet/ABF MS thread, into the NASP dyno day thread because many assumptions will have to be made, in the end my perferred route would be best to get the digi 3.2 car and run back with other MK2 vehicles that had an ABF engine controlled by MS and the other by K-Jet. In as much as I would like to attempt this I do have a life. In such a case it would be best to catch up with one of the "good" cars and drive/be driven back to back in them as the dyno only demonstrates the reaction to the upper load limit. At WOT the G meter can be used to compare acceleration once the target vehicles are running similar gear ratios. That is if the vehicles can be all in one place at the same time . We all know how tricky that can be
Hi Ian, I have all the plots, both the Stealth from 2004 (yours) and the DD from Dec 206 (mine) ... I`ll post and email them later if required ? I wish I could post the driving / butt (G meter) experience but I`m sure I`d get banned
Prof... I'm sure Ian will be along to explain all but the TSR "thing" is/was a total myth! No special tricks- just fundamentals & decent hardware
I suppose if you build it properly, measure everything etc then it'll all stack up the right way, chuck it together in your garae and the results won't be as good
