How many of you still run MBC's?
10-14-2004, 12:48 AM
#16
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
ed,
I disklike an MBC for all the reasons I mentioned.
I specifically said I can switch maps with the UTEC, the need implying that things vary. The reason is that an MBC uses the stock ECU which changes its tune with the weather... which presents its own problems for an MBC. The UTEC is less intelligent, in one way, than the ECU: it just does what you tell it. I tell it how to maximize each situation. You can't do that with your MBC unless you are going to continually tweak it. With an MBC you must sacrifice something.
Silver arrow, your experience sounds backwards.
jason
I disklike an MBC for all the reasons I mentioned.
I specifically said I can switch maps with the UTEC, the need implying that things vary. The reason is that an MBC uses the stock ECU which changes its tune with the weather... which presents its own problems for an MBC. The UTEC is less intelligent, in one way, than the ECU: it just does what you tell it. I tell it how to maximize each situation. You can't do that with your MBC unless you are going to continually tweak it. With an MBC you must sacrifice something.
Silver arrow, your experience sounds backwards.
jason
10-14-2004, 01:24 AM
#17
Originally Posted by mmboost
ed,
I disklike an MBC for all the reasons I mentioned.
I specifically said I can switch maps with the UTEC, the need implying that things vary. The reason is that an MBC uses the stock ECU which changes its tune with the weather... which presents its own problems for an MBC. The UTEC is less intelligent, in one way, than the ECU: it just does what you tell it. I tell it how to maximize each situation. You can't do that with your MBC unless you are going to continually tweak it. With an MBC you must sacrifice something.
Silver arrow, your experience sounds backwards.
jason
I disklike an MBC for all the reasons I mentioned.
I specifically said I can switch maps with the UTEC, the need implying that things vary. The reason is that an MBC uses the stock ECU which changes its tune with the weather... which presents its own problems for an MBC. The UTEC is less intelligent, in one way, than the ECU: it just does what you tell it. I tell it how to maximize each situation. You can't do that with your MBC unless you are going to continually tweak it. With an MBC you must sacrifice something.
Silver arrow, your experience sounds backwards.
jason
What MBC's have you used in the past? It seems that you've had some bad experiences, but personally I've gotten very consistant boost from my MBC through widely varying conditions. My MBC runs 16psi when its cold out and around 14.5-15psi when its hot. This boost variance is actually what I'd like to see out of a boost control system as the car is more likely to detonate on a hot day or when its heatsoaked. You also make it sound like tuning an MBC is really annoying and complain that you can't switch boost levels at will. There is a Hallman unit that has a cable driven in-cabin adjustable dial. So you can tune your boost while driving w/o ever popping the hood... add a couple marks for different boost levels you like to run, and you're good to go.
-- Ed
10-14-2004, 08:30 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by mmboost
ed,
I disklike an MBC for all the reasons I mentioned.
I specifically said I can switch maps with the UTEC, the need implying that things vary. The reason is that an MBC uses the stock ECU which changes its tune with the weather... which presents its own problems for an MBC. The UTEC is less intelligent, in one way, than the ECU: it just does what you tell it. I tell it how to maximize each situation. You can't do that with your MBC unless you are going to continually tweak it. With an MBC you must sacrifice something.
Silver arrow, your experience sounds backwards.
jason
I disklike an MBC for all the reasons I mentioned.
I specifically said I can switch maps with the UTEC, the need implying that things vary. The reason is that an MBC uses the stock ECU which changes its tune with the weather... which presents its own problems for an MBC. The UTEC is less intelligent, in one way, than the ECU: it just does what you tell it. I tell it how to maximize each situation. You can't do that with your MBC unless you are going to continually tweak it. With an MBC you must sacrifice something.
Silver arrow, your experience sounds backwards.
jason
10-14-2004, 10:08 AM
#19
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
You like (or don't mind) variance in the way your car responds to the throttle? 1.5 psi variance even? 1.5 psi is not a "little" variation nor is it "consistent", especially when you are at or near the peak of your turbo's efficiency or ignition's timing. If you've ever really tuned, you'll realize that knock from a tuned car, previsouly thought to be well tuned, usually shows its teeth when the weather gets colder, and even worse when its cold and humid. I'll leave it as an excersize to you to realize why this is the case - the point is, your 1.5 variance forces you to either comprise in the winter or the summer if you never touch your mbc. You may not think you are stressing your engine or your fuel economy, and most likely both, but you are. And I bet you have knocking way up top (like 5500rpm or above) and you don't know it because the ECU isn't listening for knocking up there and so it does not retard the timing... oh, btw, my UTEC does.
vaus, you keep talking about varying boost as though I'm claiming it doesn't happen with EBCs or UTECs. can you stop doing that, please? yes it varies with an MBC, and EBC and a UTEC. It actually varies with the stock BCS, but the ECU compensates because it calculates load according to MAF. Something that does not communicate with the ECU (or MAF) on this level will not take advantage of this feature... and nothing but a stock ECU or reflash does. My point on this note has always been the ease of which this problem can be countered with an EBC or UTEC, which leads me to...
As for the Hallman Dial-Uh-Boost, let me introduce to the world of solid state devices. Your ball+spring will never be as accurate as an electronically (the solid state part) controlled dual solenoid. If you don't believe that statement, this conversation should really end right here. For that matter, how are you reading your "consistent"(ly varying) peak boost? How about boost when its not peaking? I think your consistency claim is more of an ***-dyno feeling or at best a quick glance at an analog gauge as opposed to consistent, digitally recorded readings from a device that is not intrinsically part of the controlling mechanism.
Since you asked, in the past I have use the Vishnu (read "Dawes") and TXS MBCs. And, by the way, my Blitz Dual SBC Spec-R uses "true" close-loop boost control. Don't argue it with me, just call Blitz.
This conversation is getting old. You spend $30. You get what you pay for, nothing more. Really.
jason
[edit]
p.s. waaaaaaait a minute, are you trying to get me to prove that MBCs suck so you can then say "Ah ha! See everyone should buy one of my OLM boxes to go with their MBC!"
[/edit]
vaus, you keep talking about varying boost as though I'm claiming it doesn't happen with EBCs or UTECs. can you stop doing that, please? yes it varies with an MBC, and EBC and a UTEC. It actually varies with the stock BCS, but the ECU compensates because it calculates load according to MAF. Something that does not communicate with the ECU (or MAF) on this level will not take advantage of this feature... and nothing but a stock ECU or reflash does. My point on this note has always been the ease of which this problem can be countered with an EBC or UTEC, which leads me to...
As for the Hallman Dial-Uh-Boost, let me introduce to the world of solid state devices. Your ball+spring will never be as accurate as an electronically (the solid state part) controlled dual solenoid. If you don't believe that statement, this conversation should really end right here. For that matter, how are you reading your "consistent"(ly varying) peak boost? How about boost when its not peaking? I think your consistency claim is more of an ***-dyno feeling or at best a quick glance at an analog gauge as opposed to consistent, digitally recorded readings from a device that is not intrinsically part of the controlling mechanism.
Since you asked, in the past I have use the Vishnu (read "Dawes") and TXS MBCs. And, by the way, my Blitz Dual SBC Spec-R uses "true" close-loop boost control. Don't argue it with me, just call Blitz.
This conversation is getting old. You spend $30. You get what you pay for, nothing more. Really.
jason
[edit]
p.s. waaaaaaait a minute, are you trying to get me to prove that MBCs suck so you can then say "Ah ha! See everyone should buy one of my OLM boxes to go with their MBC!"
[/edit]
Last edited by mmboost; 10-14-2004 at 10:21 AM.
10-14-2004, 01:07 PM
#20
Jason.
First of all, I have tuned many different types of engines and engine control systems, so lets try to speak with a little less sarcasm and patronism.
A 1.5psi variance from a 100 degree day to a 50 degree night is indeed consistent and exactly what I want to see from a boost control system and even mirrors what the stock BCS does in varying temps. And FYI, I use deltadash to measure my boost and analyze my boost curve, not a " an ***-dyno feeling or at best a quick glance at an analog gauge."
Now you speak of cold weather knock from a previously tuned car... I know this all too well and also know that its very specific quirk that pops up mainly with UTECs. Yes, cold air is more dense and requires more fuel, but at the same time. Its the fueling side that needs to be taken care of here rather than boost or timing. If you're not running out of injectors, than I stand by the fact that you can run more boost in colder weather with a similar timing curve... again if a/f ratios are maintained propperly. I suggest you invest in a wideband a/f sensor and check out what your UTEC is doing on nice cold nights when it so badly needs a re-tune. I bet you'll find that with the colder, denser air, and the added boost, the UTEC is leaning out enough to cause some bad knock. The fact that most UTEC users simply lower their boost for colder weather, is so because boost is much easier for most people to tune than fuel or timing. Ideally, of course this quirk would have been worked out, but hey... no system is perfect. So I maintain that I can be very close to peak performance with an apropriate variance in boost from hot to cold if the EM can handle fueling propperly as well.
As far as knock above 5500RPM and stressing the engine... You need to be filled in on a couple of things. First of all, the ECU does indeed listen for knock above 5500RPM and it will retard timing if it hears any. The thing it does not do above 5500RPM is learn from the knock event. So if there is a persistant knock above 5500RPM, you will keep encountering it and the ECU will not learn for the next time around... keep this in your mind, however, it WILL react to the knock in a similar fashion as your UTEC by pulling timing advance. That said, the stock ECU mapping is relatively smart and done in such a way that you will not knock above 5500RPM unless you're knocking bellow that as well. In this case, if you knock at say 5000RPM, the ECU goes ahead and pulls knock correction all the way through redline anticipating that there may be knock above 5500RPM. I'm sure you've heard of reflashes persistantly knocking ONLY above 5500RPM. Such a problem is a simple sign of a poorly mapped ECU. If an ECU is mapped propperly, and it knocks above 5500RPM, it should also be knocking at other points in the RPM range... this is of course due to factors such as bad gas, excess heatsoak, etc.
I'm glad that you admit that pretty much all boost control systems out there do infact vary with conditions. My point is that a good MBC will vary a good deal less than most electronic boost control systems. The variance that most good MBC's exhibit are also what one would want to see from a boost control system... slightly less boost in very hot conditions to prevent detonation, and slightly higher boost in very cold conditions to maximize power. The stock ECU does that same thing and also varies by about 1.5psi in the conditions I described. Simple EBC's and even the UTEC vary a great deal more than that under the conditions I described... maybe your EBC is actually done propperly, but how much did you pay for it?
Lets see...
The world of solid state devices huh?? What do you think my OLM is?
You say your EBC is a solid state device.... yes the controller is, but the actual method of boost control remains very mechanical. You solenoids constantly bleed boost in sequential pulses to try to keep an equilibrium on the wastegate actuator. The wastegate actuator, wastegate arm, and whole damn turbo setup for that matter, is a mechanical, vacuum/boost controlled feedback system. I don't see how your EBC is making things any more precise than a simple mechanical ball and spring valve that opens for a pre-set pressure level everytime. I'm not saying that an MBC is necessarily more precise, but its certainly no less precise than a constantly active solenoid trying to bleed the appropriate amount of pressure... and the appropriate amount of pressure is constantly varying.
I have also used the dawes devices mbc and although it worked ok, the hallman unit works much better. Any BTW, if I can spend "$30" (actually closer to $100) and get a simple, mechanical system that works as well if not better than a $400+ complex, electronicly controlled system, all the better IMO.
The reason I designed the OLM is because I like the MBC so much and wanted to be able to run it safely on the WRX, not because MBC's suck.
You're right... this conversation is getting old and probably a bit boring for others to read. In the end its deffinately a decision of preference, all we can do is bring all the facts to the table and let people decide for themselves.
Wow... I feel like this is a presidential debate or something....
"I'm Ed Uksusman, and I approve this message!"
First of all, I have tuned many different types of engines and engine control systems, so lets try to speak with a little less sarcasm and patronism.
A 1.5psi variance from a 100 degree day to a 50 degree night is indeed consistent and exactly what I want to see from a boost control system and even mirrors what the stock BCS does in varying temps. And FYI, I use deltadash to measure my boost and analyze my boost curve, not a " an ***-dyno feeling or at best a quick glance at an analog gauge."
Now you speak of cold weather knock from a previously tuned car... I know this all too well and also know that its very specific quirk that pops up mainly with UTECs. Yes, cold air is more dense and requires more fuel, but at the same time. Its the fueling side that needs to be taken care of here rather than boost or timing. If you're not running out of injectors, than I stand by the fact that you can run more boost in colder weather with a similar timing curve... again if a/f ratios are maintained propperly. I suggest you invest in a wideband a/f sensor and check out what your UTEC is doing on nice cold nights when it so badly needs a re-tune. I bet you'll find that with the colder, denser air, and the added boost, the UTEC is leaning out enough to cause some bad knock. The fact that most UTEC users simply lower their boost for colder weather, is so because boost is much easier for most people to tune than fuel or timing. Ideally, of course this quirk would have been worked out, but hey... no system is perfect. So I maintain that I can be very close to peak performance with an apropriate variance in boost from hot to cold if the EM can handle fueling propperly as well.
As far as knock above 5500RPM and stressing the engine... You need to be filled in on a couple of things. First of all, the ECU does indeed listen for knock above 5500RPM and it will retard timing if it hears any. The thing it does not do above 5500RPM is learn from the knock event. So if there is a persistant knock above 5500RPM, you will keep encountering it and the ECU will not learn for the next time around... keep this in your mind, however, it WILL react to the knock in a similar fashion as your UTEC by pulling timing advance. That said, the stock ECU mapping is relatively smart and done in such a way that you will not knock above 5500RPM unless you're knocking bellow that as well. In this case, if you knock at say 5000RPM, the ECU goes ahead and pulls knock correction all the way through redline anticipating that there may be knock above 5500RPM. I'm sure you've heard of reflashes persistantly knocking ONLY above 5500RPM. Such a problem is a simple sign of a poorly mapped ECU. If an ECU is mapped propperly, and it knocks above 5500RPM, it should also be knocking at other points in the RPM range... this is of course due to factors such as bad gas, excess heatsoak, etc.
I'm glad that you admit that pretty much all boost control systems out there do infact vary with conditions. My point is that a good MBC will vary a good deal less than most electronic boost control systems. The variance that most good MBC's exhibit are also what one would want to see from a boost control system... slightly less boost in very hot conditions to prevent detonation, and slightly higher boost in very cold conditions to maximize power. The stock ECU does that same thing and also varies by about 1.5psi in the conditions I described. Simple EBC's and even the UTEC vary a great deal more than that under the conditions I described... maybe your EBC is actually done propperly, but how much did you pay for it?
Lets see...
The world of solid state devices huh?? What do you think my OLM is?
You say your EBC is a solid state device.... yes the controller is, but the actual method of boost control remains very mechanical. You solenoids constantly bleed boost in sequential pulses to try to keep an equilibrium on the wastegate actuator. The wastegate actuator, wastegate arm, and whole damn turbo setup for that matter, is a mechanical, vacuum/boost controlled feedback system. I don't see how your EBC is making things any more precise than a simple mechanical ball and spring valve that opens for a pre-set pressure level everytime. I'm not saying that an MBC is necessarily more precise, but its certainly no less precise than a constantly active solenoid trying to bleed the appropriate amount of pressure... and the appropriate amount of pressure is constantly varying.
I have also used the dawes devices mbc and although it worked ok, the hallman unit works much better. Any BTW, if I can spend "$30" (actually closer to $100) and get a simple, mechanical system that works as well if not better than a $400+ complex, electronicly controlled system, all the better IMO.
The reason I designed the OLM is because I like the MBC so much and wanted to be able to run it safely on the WRX, not because MBC's suck.
You're right... this conversation is getting old and probably a bit boring for others to read. In the end its deffinately a decision of preference, all we can do is bring all the facts to the table and let people decide for themselves.
Wow... I feel like this is a presidential debate or something....
"I'm Ed Uksusman, and I approve this message!"
Last edited by MethodBuilt; 10-14-2004 at 01:14 PM.
10-14-2004, 10:35 PM
#21
VIP Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,023
Car Info: Subaru Impreza WRX 2002
I don't want to enter in to this fray directly, so I'll just go on a tangent... It seems to me that the "common wisdom" on this board that MBCs are a bad thing is not due to the device itself, but due to the fact that so few people have the ability and knowledge to actually manage it properly. An MBC has few failsafes to it and is indeed a good way to blow up an engine or burn a turbo in the wrong hands; in contrast, using an Accessport or reflash to modulate boost is much safer, though it might not produce the maximum results.
Your own argument, vaus, isn't a good example of why MBCs are "good" -- in fact, it is a strong argument AGAINST having an MBC, because you also have to use a lot of advanced knowledge, a Delta Dash and frequent adjustments to make it work. I would say 90% of those on this board just want something they can set-and-forget, and not spend an hour or two a month logging from their Delta Dash and twiddling under the hood with a hex wrench or screwdriver. THAT is why most threads about MBCs warn people against them -- not because they don't work (they clearly do) but because for most people, they are going to be outside of their skill set to adjust and maintain.
Your own argument, vaus, isn't a good example of why MBCs are "good" -- in fact, it is a strong argument AGAINST having an MBC, because you also have to use a lot of advanced knowledge, a Delta Dash and frequent adjustments to make it work. I would say 90% of those on this board just want something they can set-and-forget, and not spend an hour or two a month logging from their Delta Dash and twiddling under the hood with a hex wrench or screwdriver. THAT is why most threads about MBCs warn people against them -- not because they don't work (they clearly do) but because for most people, they are going to be outside of their skill set to adjust and maintain.
10-15-2004, 12:36 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
The real problem is EM to work with a MBC and using retraint when adjusting. They are very easy to set if you reuse the Subaru restrictor and set it in 3rd gear. It take minutes. Do the same for a warm weather setting mark them and your done. They have good MBC that don't uses Hexes adn can be adjusted from in the car.
10-15-2004, 01:45 AM
#23
Originally Posted by meilers
Your own argument, vaus, isn't a good example of why MBCs are "good" -- in fact, it is a strong argument AGAINST having an MBC, because you also have to use a lot of advanced knowledge, a Delta Dash and frequent adjustments to make it work. I would say 90% of those on this board just want something they can set-and-forget, and not spend an hour or two a month logging from their Delta Dash and twiddling under the hood with a hex wrench or screwdriver. THAT is why most threads about MBCs warn people against them -- not because they don't work (they clearly do) but because for most people, they are going to be outside of their skill set to adjust and maintain.
-- Ed
10-15-2004, 11:42 AM
#24
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
"as long as you don't go crazy with it"
that's called "compromise" .... whether its between low and high loads, or cool and hot ambient temps, or both, you're compromising.
"and take care of PTFB" , with? Your OLM box? Yes thats creating a indirect subset of UTEC functionality. I'm not ripping on your device, not at all. I'm just pointing out that while you are praising MBCs you have also designed and manufactured a device that corrects one its inherent problems that puts you a step closer to owning UTEC. You're shooting the purported soundness of MBCs in the foot by creating this device.
I know, of course, you don't see that.
jason
that's called "compromise" .... whether its between low and high loads, or cool and hot ambient temps, or both, you're compromising.
"and take care of PTFB" , with? Your OLM box? Yes thats creating a indirect subset of UTEC functionality. I'm not ripping on your device, not at all. I'm just pointing out that while you are praising MBCs you have also designed and manufactured a device that corrects one its inherent problems that puts you a step closer to owning UTEC. You're shooting the purported soundness of MBCs in the foot by creating this device.
I know, of course, you don't see that.
jason
10-15-2004, 11:43 AM
#25
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by Silver arrow
I just switched from EMI and MBC to accessport and I miss the quicker boost of the MBC. Wish they had a stage 2 map for use with a MBC. Would be killer.
jason
10-15-2004, 04:08 PM
#26
Originally Posted by mmboost
"as long as you don't go crazy with it"
that's called "compromise" .... whether its between low and high loads, or cool and hot ambient temps, or both, you're compromising.
"and take care of PTFB" , with? Your OLM box? Yes thats creating a indirect subset of UTEC functionality. I'm not ripping on your device, not at all. I'm just pointing out that while you are praising MBCs you have also designed and manufactured a device that corrects one its inherent problems that puts you a step closer to owning UTEC. You're shooting the purported soundness of MBCs in the foot by creating this device.
I know, of course, you don't see that.
jason
that's called "compromise" .... whether its between low and high loads, or cool and hot ambient temps, or both, you're compromising.
"and take care of PTFB" , with? Your OLM box? Yes thats creating a indirect subset of UTEC functionality. I'm not ripping on your device, not at all. I'm just pointing out that while you are praising MBCs you have also designed and manufactured a device that corrects one its inherent problems that puts you a step closer to owning UTEC. You're shooting the purported soundness of MBCs in the foot by creating this device.
I know, of course, you don't see that.
jason
Jason,
If you haven't learned about compromise, than I'm sorry to say you haven't learned much about tuning. Besides that, when I said don't go crazy with it, I was implying running apropriate boost levels for the given turbo, fuel system, and octane. I simply mean don't go set your MBC to run 18psi on a 100 degree day on 91 octane cali gas and expect everything to sort itself out. Any tuning (especially UTEC) has to be done withing reason and a safety margin, and if you don't know about that and are tuning your own UTEC, I'd start saving up for a new block.
As far as the OLM... it was created to fix an idiosyncrasy in the OEM subaru ECU, not an inherent problem with MBC's in general. If the ECU was designed a bit smarter and used boost or even load as a prominant trigger for the open loop/closed loop switchover, there would be no need for the OLM and everyone could use an MBC w/o worrying about PTFB.
BTW, as far as I know, the UTEC does not have the same functionality as the OLM. Yes, with the new firmware, the UTEC takes control of fueling at any point you want irrelevant of the TPS, but it does nothing to kick the ECU into open loop while it takes control. This is what leads to the part throttle hesitation issues with the UTEC that need to be massaged out. When the UTEC takes over fueling at lower than 70% throttle, the ECU keeps trying to maintain stoich a/f by trying to pull a lot of fuel, then when you come out of UTEC control, you get a nasty lean spike until the ECU catches up. If the UTEC implemented a similar algorithm to the OLM, this could easily be avoided.
-- Ed
10-16-2004, 09:29 AM
#28
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally Posted by vaus
Jason,
If you haven't learned about compromise, than I'm sorry to say you haven't learned much about tuning. Besides that, when I said don't go crazy with it, I was implying running apropriate boost levels for the given turbo, fuel system, and octane. I simply mean don't go set your MBC to run 18psi on a 100 degree day on 91 octane cali gas and expect everything to sort itself out. Any tuning (especially UTEC) has to be done withing reason and a safety margin, and if you don't know about that and are tuning your own UTEC, I'd start saving up for a new block.
If you haven't learned about compromise, than I'm sorry to say you haven't learned much about tuning. Besides that, when I said don't go crazy with it, I was implying running apropriate boost levels for the given turbo, fuel system, and octane. I simply mean don't go set your MBC to run 18psi on a 100 degree day on 91 octane cali gas and expect everything to sort itself out. Any tuning (especially UTEC) has to be done withing reason and a safety margin, and if you don't know about that and are tuning your own UTEC, I'd start saving up for a new block.
As far as the OLM... it was created to fix an idiosyncrasy in the OEM subaru ECU, not an inherent problem with MBC's in general. If the ECU was designed a bit smarter and used boost or even load as a prominant trigger for the open loop/closed loop switchover, there would be no need for the OLM and everyone could use an MBC w/o worrying about PTFB.
BTW, as far as I know, the UTEC does not have the same functionality as the OLM. Yes, with the new firmware, the UTEC takes control of fueling at any point you want irrelevant of the TPS, but it does nothing to kick the ECU into open loop while it takes control. This is what leads to the part throttle hesitation issues with the UTEC that need to be massaged out. When the UTEC takes over fueling at lower than 70% throttle, the ECU keeps trying to maintain stoich a/f by trying to pull a lot of fuel, then when you come out of UTEC control, you get a nasty lean spike until the ECU catches up. If the UTEC implemented a similar algorithm to the OLM, this could easily be avoided.
jason
10-17-2004, 09:47 AM
#29
Dahveed aka Robin Hood
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Robbin' the Hood (Claycord)
Posts: 4,793
Car Info: (RIP) '04 STi Silver
Originally Posted by RussB
oh, and have you considered getting vendor status?
https://www.i-club.com/forums/bay-area-15/introducing-ed-vaus-here-i-club-he-can-help-those-you-mbcs-75849/
Currently Kastleskorner.com sells them, and Ed is in talks with a vendor here on i-Club.
10-18-2004, 12:02 PM
#30
Originally Posted by dahveed
Ed doesn't sell the OLM device, he makes them.
https://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75849
Currently Kastleskorner.com sells them, and Ed is in talks with a vendor here on i-Club.
https://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75849
Currently Kastleskorner.com sells them, and Ed is in talks with a vendor here on i-Club.
Sorry for the dellayed response... I was busy all weekend with Rally school and Rally X and bleeding my brakes
Dave,
Thanks for clarifying for me. I've considered becomming a vendor, but at this point and these volumes its just not worth it for me to pay the vendor fee and to deal with shipping individual units and such. So instead, I'm just letting current vendors handle that for me. KastlesKorner.com is the only one right now, but hope to see an I-Club vendor carying them soon.
Thanks
-- Ed