BuiltNBoosted wrote:.
Best way to do our cars? Harness swap and HPT.
While you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, I am going to beg to differ. Having driven a port fu*ker equipped car for almost 2 years now, I can say if money is saved or a deal can be had go port fueler. With my 2.4 build I was STILL averaging 30+ mpg, why? Because if I don't go above 2 psi, my big injectors never fire. My stock injectors are basically tuned for drivability, that's it. So while maintaining out of boost driving I can still maintain near stock mpg's. Before the 2.4 on my L61 w/ 280 whp I still maintained 37 mpg on the way to and from the bash (which included fueling up half way there(dyno + some highway fooling around with everyone on the way back from the dyno/track) I sincerely believe that the BEST route for the J is this system, is the harness far behind? No, it is a good system if one is trying to work on a very tight budget, as most J owners do, but if it;s possible to go with a Hahn or TTR product, by all mean's do it.
Granted you can argue tuning aspect's of having to do 2 different systems, I can respond with the fact that either way the person decides to go, he has 2 very able and intelligent tuners he can look up, Oldskool and Egleston, both of which are extremely talented.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered 
i was getting 35mpg before all these changes on a single injector, and i expect to get the same mileage again.
so you're saying you would rather have extra injectors over boost referenced fueling? I would MUCH rather have boost referenced fueling over anything else, and that harness provides that.
What do you think the port fueler system is? Its a boost referenced system that runs off a 3 or 5 bar map sensor and doesnt limit you to 14.7 psi. Can you tune higher then that? Yes, but its a fake "boost tune" above 14.7. Ill keep my 28 psi ability.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
Qwibby PTE Powered wrote:What do you think the port fueler system is? Its a boost referenced system that runs off a 3 or 5 bar map sensor and doesnt limit you to 14.7 psi. Can you tune higher then that? Yes, but its a fake "boost tune" above 14.7. Ill keep my 28 psi ability.
your ecu can read boost with that port fueler? i didnt know that was an option.... I know the harness is able to do that...
and what do you need 28psi for? camron is running the port fueler and is at 30psi with a gt35r..... why would you need 28psi?
Honestly If I'm going to make that much power on a j I'm going stand alone but lacing the stock computer to run the gauges. Then if I have drivability issues I'll run staged injection controled by the standalone. standalones are only about a grand. The only way you can lose gas mileage from 2 big injectors is if you cant get your pulse width low enough to maintain.
honestly the harness swap is nice but its going to cost the average person at least 300 bucks more like 500. then another 500 for hp tuners. about the same as a stand alone, then pay someone for credits and a case of beer and have them turn off all the check engine lights
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
BuiltNBoosted wrote:Qwibby PTE Powered wrote:What do you think the port fueler system is? Its a boost referenced system that runs off a 3 or 5 bar map sensor and doesnt limit you to 14.7 psi. Can you tune higher then that? Yes, but its a fake "boost tune" above 14.7. Ill keep my 28 psi ability.
your ecu can read boost with that port fueler? i didnt know that was an option.... I know the harness is able to do that...
and what do you need 28psi for? camron is running the port fueler and is at 30psi with a gt35r..... why would you need 28psi?
I never claimed I am running 28 psi or that I ever intended to, I said that if anyone in general, including myself ever wanted to go that high we/I had the ability. Secondly my stock ecu doesn't need to see boost if I am using another system for total boost controlled fueling. Timing is the only thing that I am losing, and that can be easily tunable w/o boost reference. I am done with this post, I am wasting too many of my posts here.
Leafy - well said, but some of us do not have the know how or ability to run a standalone, however I completely agree with what you said.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
Let me comment on the harness/reflash swap. Gas mileage no problem. Before this swap Roberts car got 30-32mpg on a factory Eco ecu tuned by HPT with 650cc injectors. Still that good with the reflash.
$300 to $500 to do that swap? Really then your getting gangbanged without lube.
Harness top price maybe $75 and that is high. Usually $45-$50. ECU usually can get that with the harness, maybe a extra $25. So lets say $100 for harness and ECU, and that is high.
$100 for HPT credits to unlock the ecu.
So $200, if your tuner does not have the model year unlocked, or you donlt have extra credits on your HPT.
Let me also say about J tuning in general. This is not to take away for the Port@!#$, or harness swap, but I truly think we are still finding things out in regards to tuning the J ECU. I do not think we have reached the limits. I do not mean that it will easily support 500+ hp with no issues, but I think the limits we can take it are going to go up, and be better than they once were. This is good for everyone.
Also going above 14.7psi on the 2 bar reflash is not faking anything. Simply going higher.
FU Tuning
There are people without decent yards in their area. I've seen yards charge over 200 for a computer, god knows what they'd want for the harness since it'll take them a while to pull it (not all yards are pick n pull). And if you have the skill to do the harness swap there's no way you dont own or are buying hp tuners.
But tuning on the eco pcm; NA, no problem, blower, its a tad hacked but it works as intended, turbo, its a @!#$ show and you know it. With NA and the blower air flow is directly proportional to throttle position, even in the transients. While steady state might be mostly proportional with the turbo there's no @!#$ way it is with the transients and that is just the nature of the centrifugal compressor, never mind the turbine powering it.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
BuiltNBoosted wrote:
im not trying to argue with you on it, just stating how i did mine.
I didnt set out and say i need injectors for 500+hp. Because I absolutely know I dont want 500hp. I said, ok i want to run 11.500-11.999. what do i need. 500hp? nope. the most efficient setup I can get? yep. Based off of using my 42.5#ers, I was able to figure out how much overhead I need to try to keep the new ones as close to 80% IDC as I could. All the while while keeping street drivability in the car. Which I did. hell I could have pulled a low 12 with 325whp... look at our top ET list. Don't need 500hp that you cant use for those times.
in my book, performance ='s how the car performs day in and day out. i measure my performance in a 1/4 mile. MANY AND MOST, use the dyno then brag about numbers. im expecting to have a semi low hp/tq combo but I figure if I use both, I can figure out how efficient im using my power. 450+ in a daily driven j imo, is pointless. You just cant use it. Im not even aiming for a power level. Whats the point of making power if you cant use it? everyone keeps asking me, how much power you want to make? I say, don't care, as long as i run my 11s that's all that matters.
Best way to do our cars? Harness swap and HPT.
Understood, i'm not trying to argue either. And I agree that a 500whp (or even less) can be pretty useless on the street. Basically to me it seems like you are saying you pick the smallest injector that will get you where you want to be at the track, but don't care what the whp is. That is fine. I guess though, when most people are just starting a build they have a hp number in mind, and 99% of the injector duty cycle calculators out there incorporate power, not ET or trap speed. Most people don't have the experience to pick an injector size out of thin air when starting a build and say "this will work for me". Not saying the HP calculators are perfect, but they get you damn close. So maybe you are looking at it from a point of view of upgrading your first build, and i'm looking at starting a new build altogether.
As far as the options being debated here, this is my full 2 cents lol.
LD9 harness/PCM/SC-OS swap: Cheap due to less added hardware expense, arguably less complicated to install, good resolution up to 2 bar but still capable beyond that, better spark advance resolution. To me, Egleston's work on Fetter's car, and Higgins' work on Robert's car shows that this is a VERY viable option.
Portfueler or similar set up: More pricy, but you're getting a nice sheet metal intake manifold, incredible resolution up to ~26psi, does not affect OEM spark advance capabilities (read as - still only one column for boost), does not affect OEM drivability off boost. If you subtract the cost of intake manifold itself, the cost is more comparable. So if you're looking to get an aluminum intake anyways, this option is worth consideration.
Stand alone: To me this is a race car option. So, i'm not saying it doesn't have it's place, or that the end result is not worth it, but no one will EVER convince me that stand alone is the best option for a street daily driven jbody (or really any DD for that matter). In addition to the cost and added difficulty of install, you are generally starting from scratch, and you have MAJOR hoops to jump through to meet local state emissions and inspection criteria.
What major hoops to jump through? All you have to do is leave the stock computer in and hooked up enough to run the gauges, and turn all the codes off with hp tuners. Then just make the harness for the standalone some what clean and no one will notice. Starting from scratch if kind if hard though, but stand alone is the only way I would daily drive a turbo j, well maybe harness swap too. To me the port fueler is an eic, a multi port eic but still an eic.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
You say that like it's nothing, but wiring it all up and figuring out what's needed where, what can go and what can stay with the factor ecm is not as easy as you're making it out to be. IDK where you live or what emissions standards you have, but in my county/state, we need 6 our of 7 readiness states to pass. Cannibalizing the stock system will almost certainly fail right off the bat, even if the codes are turned off - the sensors still need to be in the system for the readiness to pass IIRC. If you don't need to pass any inspection, then all bets are off, however. Hence my daily driven criteria.
Really? Standalone is the ONLY way you would daily drive a turbo J? You are basically saying either of the two simplest yet still effective routes are useless and choosing the most complicated and invasive route? Of course the PF is an EIC - that's why it works!
oldskool[/quote wrote:Basically to me it seems like you are saying you pick the smallest injector that will get you where you want to be at the track, but don't care what the whp is.
oldskool[/quote wrote:So maybe you are looking at it from a point of view of upgrading your first build, and i'm looking at starting a new build altogether.
yes lol! pefect wording. I look at it like a turbo... injector=turbo in my example, too small (low output saab vs a GT40R) stock motor, the saab is going to spool ultra fast, and the GT40, you will have tons of overhead. Same with injectors, 36# injectors are going to be small and you will run out of injector just like you will run out of saab turbo... and 100# injectors are too big and you will have too much overhead.
oldskool[/quote wrote:you have MAJOR hoops to jump through to meet local state emissions and inspection criteria.
true story!!! if it was so easy, why isnt everyone doing this option?hell not many people even have them on a cavalier/sunfire period...
Only ones I know of is PJ, Gary Voyles, soon to be fetter, and a local guy Jamie Smith who is selling his badass megasquirted cav. its not as simple as grab some wires, wire it in and go and turn off codes with hpt.... its a lot more complex and a lot more expensive, but WELL worth it when its in and working.
and yes the portfueler is just an eic. you can buy the injector driver box anywhere and make your own if you really wanted to.
oldskool, the only thing ill disagree with you about is dding the standalone. in my book, tossing out all the emissions requirements and what not... i think it would be the absolute best way to daily drive a car. you can fine tune it the best, and its an independent system that you can just zero in on anything and get it perfect.
Leafy (Club Jeffie FEA man) wrote: standalones are only about a grand.
Not all of them.
Leafy (Club Jeffie FEA man) wrote:What major hoops to jump through? All you have to do is leave the stock computer in and hooked up enough to run the gauges, and turn all the codes off with hp tuners. Then just make the harness for the standalone some what clean and no one will notice. Starting from scratch if kind if hard though, but stand alone is the only way I would daily drive a turbo j, well maybe harness swap too. To me the port fueler is an eic, a multi port eic but still an eic.
A port fueler with a programable DIS would give you similar tunablity to a standalone. You still have to compete with the stock injectors' Alpha-N contribution, but if you tune the stock maps as if the car were NA, then you shouldn't have an issue with tuning boost conditions with the portfueler.
BuiltNBoosted wrote:
oldskool[/quote wrote:you have MAJOR hoops to jump through to meet local state emissions and inspection criteria.
true story!!! if it was so easy, why isnt everyone doing this option?hell not many people even have them on a cavalier/sunfire period...
Gay sex is easy...Why isn't everyone a fag?
It takes me 15-30min to change a couple wires, and then I can pass emissions for another 2 years. Hell, if I connectorized it better (perhaps a small harness), it would probably take me a couple minutes. I would speculate that most people don't do it because they don't understand how easy/dumb car electronics really are, or are just too lazy to do a little wiring.
I have no signiture
wow...comparing sticking your pecker in some dude's rectum to wiring a car for stand alone? really? FWIW, you seem to have an exceptional background in automotive/mechanical/tuning theory, maybe you should not assume that everyone out there that wants a turbo j also has the same. Whether the theory/practice comes easy to you or not, it's not that way for 9 out of ten...
Whoa now. Old school, you set the codes to status 4 and it makes the marker read ready. Though some new inspections they check the codes, disconnect the battery then check them again, If they still read ready then they fail you for tampering.
Knowing what wires to keep connected is easy, you need, speed, rpm, ect, and every other senor that the dash shows.
Now I'll pass on the mega squirt, too many compromises, I like sequential fire injection on a daily driver and don't want to give up the 4 mpgs.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Hahn's portfueler...
This is hahn's supplier
This seems like a cheaper solution for the same thing. Unless Bill add his tricsk to it.
Sounds like you could order that to take in some data logs and then likely convert them to a format that log works from innovate can open and actually do something interesting with them. That makes it a tad more of a legit solution in my mind.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
That split second AIC is the "brain" behind the port fueler at a fraction of the cost.
oldskool wrote:wow...comparing sticking your pecker in some dude's rectum to wiring a car for stand alone? really?
It was the most radical comparison I could think of at the time.
oldskool wrote: FWIW, you seem to have an exceptional background in automotive/mechanical/tuning theory, maybe you should not assume that everyone out there that wants a turbo j also has the same. Whether the theory/practice comes easy to you or not, it's not that way for 9 out of ten...
I do accept that I know more than most people when it comes to automotive technology, but I am not even remotely close to knowing it all. I also accept that there is theory that is above those without a technical mind. However, I don't accept that wiring is one of those things. Believe it or not, there are things I don't know how to do that are regarded by most people as easy. If I took the time to do a little research about those things, I'm sure I too would see that it's easy.
The problem is not that the theory/application doesn't come easy to people. The problem is that they don't even bother to try to understand it or do any research, and so instead we spread this blanket statement that "Standalones are difficult". And when we say this enough times, we get this perpetual wave of thought that keeps people from trying it. I could write you guys a how to on hybridizing MS-II with the stock computer, but it's so trivial, that it's not even worth my time. Leafy pretty much summed it up anyways.
Leafy (Club Jeffie FEA man) wrote:
Now I'll pass on the mega squirt, too many compromises, I like sequential fire injection on a daily driver and don't want to give up the 4 mpgs.
MS-II Extra code probably has that option, but I know for sure it has COP support. The MS-III processor has native support for Seq injection and COP for up to 8 cylinders. Whatever standalone you go with, make sure it can read your trigger wheel, or else you'll probably have to do an external trigger wheel.
I have no signiture
blackbirdracing wrote:Hahn's portfueler...
This is hahn's supplier
This seems like a cheaper solution for the same thing. Unless Bill add his tricsk to it.
thats the one... same one my source told me....
i think most people dont do standalone because they dont need to...
I know that that IS the software box for sure.... I called and asked Split Second which device hahn uses... no need to hide names.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
