Motec...

 

I'm running an Eletromotive TEC I that will shortly have the PROM swapped to essentially turn it into a TEC II. It self-learns up to the accuracy of the narrow-band oxygen sensor. With the base map and that capability, pretty good start to get you up and running right away. It also has it's own high power coils so no need for something like MSD. Problems are you need to have an external crank trigger wheel, and the computer is expensive... ~$3K.

That guy I PM'd you about (Huttner) is one of two dealers in MN that do TEC's. I called Fred over at Electromotive and he's very happy with this guy's ability to work with these computers. This is where my car is going in 3 weeks to finish the wiring. Just a thought since he's close to us, and I'm going to be his guinea pig for rotaries Not happy about that.

Microtech is another that will run this motor...Marcos Acousta in Tx runs all his FD 20B's on it and his own MX-3 20B race car. Don't know cost.

Wolf 3D's will run it but you have to modify the stock crank trigger wheel. ~$1300

Haltech - I think the only problem is that they won't run the leading/trailing firing...they only do it at the same time...not sure about that. ~$1300 ? guessing

Motec as mentioned earlier...cost is VERY expensive. ~$5K ... is this right? or much more? Tuning is also difficult because it is so complex and precise...but extremely accurate as well.

 

If you can afford it, get a Motec. Talk to Greg about getting one, he has some pretty awesome deals on them.

If you can't afford one, I'd pick up a Haltech and run it without trailing ignition (both firing together). You can ALWAYS sell an E6K to someone.... (when the E11 comes out)

Either that, or wait for the E11.... I highly doubt that there will be an AEM Plug and Play for a 20B.

 

You can't do true independent split trailing either.

"Cheap" - should be $1,000 if not UNDER that.


Which is pretty much the same as your TEC-I - requirement to retrofit "their" ignition trigger system.


MoTeC can't do 20B true independent trailing split - go call them and ask.&nbsp Tuning has nothing to do with "complex and precise".&nbsp Almost all of the other options you've listed can be installed to be just as "precise".&nbsp It's a function of the tuner to be able to handle the EMS capabilities and to exploit them to its fullest.


-Ted

 

With the AEM you would use their harness, not the plug-n-play version. And they claim that you can use an auxillary output to drive the sixth ignition and perform split timing. Not encouraging anyone to buy this ECU, just clarifying.

How about the E11? I have heard about this since I can't remember. Is this going to be available soon? Anyone have solid specs on it?

 

RETed...can you explain about your comment on the TEC not doing true split timing? The reason I'm not understanding why you are saying that is because: there are two magnetic pickups on the crank wheel and there are two sets of coil packs, one for leading and one for trailing. Why wouldn't you have split timing if I am picking up two separate timing signals which are 10 degrees apart (5 for L and 15 for Trl), and firing the spark plugs independantly? Maybe it seems too obvious but isn't that exactly what you need for "true" split timing? I could see where "false" split timing would one pickup for the Leading signal, and the computer calculates what the degree separation should be and then fires the trailing based on a calc. but this is not the case here so...I don't understand, please explain more thoroughly.

Sorry, "complex" is an ignorant comment on my part because I don't know anything about that particular computer. I'm assuming that because of the cost, that there must be some more complex algorithms and tuning variables that the tuner must deal with. "Precise" on the other hand to me means that it takes more readings per millisecond and is therefore more accurate. I was combining the terms "accuracy and precision" into one for simplicities sake. The ability of the tuner to do his/her job is a separate although related issue based in part of the number of parameters/input fields that the EMS gives you to work with. Make sense?

 

You seem to be familiar with the Electromotive system.&nbsp Yes, the Electromotive systems use dual magnetic pick-ups to trigger leading and trailing ignition timing spark; there is nothing fancy about the system - the split trailing spark is dictated by how far away the two magnetic pick-ups are physical separated. This means no matter what the load or RPM, the trailing split spark is always going to be the same (on the Electromotive unit) being dictated by the physical separation of the dual magnetic pick-ups.&nbsp The Wolf3D is similar, but soft-set internally with it's hand-held controller.&nbsp Due to it's dual magnetic trigger design, by sheer physical limitations, you cannot drop the trailing split timing down to zero - or less than about 3&#176.

Contrast this to the Haltech or MoTeC EMS units.&nbsp Both the Haltech and MoTeC units have an separate trailing split ignition spark map which you can program to your wishes.&nbsp This is a true 3D map which is dependent on RPM and load.&nbsp This means, depending on how the maps are programmed, the trailing split ignition spark changes dependent on RPM and load.


I feel the ability of the tuner is the #1 factor in a successful implementation and installation of a stand-alone EMS unit.&nbsp An inferior "spec'd" EMS unit installed and tuned to 95% of it's capacity is always going to run better than a superior brand EMS unit which is badly tuned.&nbsp Therefore, EMS unit specs can be thrown out the door (to a point), as the majority of EMS brands out there can competently control most Internal Combustion Engines (ICE's) combinations out there.&nbsp Sure, there are variances, and brands are going to tout their superiority of their design over others...but it's the competent ability of the tuner (and installer) that will dictate the success of a particular install.&nbsp More costs usually mean higher chip clock speeds and more outputs (i.e. more control), but the heart of the EMS is not boost control, traction control, shift lights, rev limiters, etc., it's control of the engine that's it's primary design perogative.&nbsp Most modern stock OEM ECU's barely run at 10MHz - so why do you "need" something that clocks in over 30MHz?&nbsp I say it's not necessary...sure, added speed won't hurt, but when you do the math of clock speed versus instructions/second and analyze the machine code that controls engine control, a 10MHz clock rate is more than enough.



-Ted

 

RETed... Thank you. Now THAT was the kind of answer I was looking for.

Another question which hopefully still corresponds to the intent of this thread...so why are the TEC's and Haltech's priced so differently? (I'm not looking for this to turn into a which one is better, just why do the options they have have pros/cons for what they do)

 

The Microtech MT12 unit will do a timing split map, however it is only dependant upon RPM. I would be very interested to hear from anyone that has tested load vs split timing as to any effects that it has. The other function we found useful was the injector timing map, I'm not sure whether the other units do this. The Microtech will also read the std CAS which assists in its ease of fittment and accuracy of the pick up.
RETed,
Do you think that the clock speed could improve the resolution for interpolation between the defineable sites? While I have been involved with the development of ECU's here in Aus, the only real difference I seen when the speed of a unit was increased was the ability to achieve a more steady MS (millisec) value, hence a more steady AFR. What is your opinion?
Regards-Anthony

 

Mazda programmed the stock trailing split ignition to be both RPM and load dependent.&nbsp The trailing split will hit it's max (over 40&#176) at high RPM, high-vacuum (i.e. high RPM decel).&nbsp How would the EMS know the difference between high vacuum decel versus WOT if it's purely RPM based?&nbsp The stock ignition trailing split goes to "0" under high load (i.e. WOT).


Injector "phasing"?&nbsp Both Haltech and MoTeC units are capable of doing this.

Both Haltech and MoTeC units are capable of doing this also.

Most definitely..."resolution" is definitely improved, as the increase clock cycle of the CPU allows it to initiate more "samples" per revolution of the engine.&nbsp Faster processors will definitely not hurt in this case...


-Ted

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other function we found useful was the injector timing map, I'm not sure whether the other units do this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Injector "phasing"? Both Haltech and MoTeC units are capable of doing this.

is this where you can adjust the firing of the injectors relative to the crank like the power fc?
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...threadid=70517

mike

 

REted'
Thanks for your reply, I was not trying to argue the effectiveness of split vs load but purely asking as I have never looked into it. Thank you for your data, if you take into consideration the effect of split, the process that you have described does make good sense. While not wanting to hijack this thread I am yet to be convinced 100% of firing L & T together on WOT, but that is not wot it is all about. Only included functions of MT because that is what thread Q? is about.
Thanks-Anthony

 

http://www.downingatlanta.com/

 

Mazda programmed them in the stock ECU's.&nbsp There are Formula SAE papers on the rotary engine trailing split ignition - maybe someone can dig them up?&nbsp There are several people on here who have had the resources to experiement with the trailing split and have found support real-world testing evidence.&nbsp I'm not going to say you HAVE to follow that rule (others have found counter), but there's a lot of supporting evidence for it...

Hey Evil Aviator, I never found anything interesting on the Downing URL - is there a more specific link, or do you want us to bombard Jim Downing with a **** load of questions?


-Ted

 

Hmm, on second thought, nobody there drag races, so it's probably a waste of time to ask. Nevermind.

 

Evil Aviator,
Just today I had several cars competing on the circuit, one of them, Rohan Ambrose(Guru Motorsports) took pole position, won all three races, and reset the lap record by over a full second. I also tune Twisters car whom I must congratulate on his strong results. Some of us are able to be involved in both circuit racing and drags. I am asking these questions to be applied under its topic of Rotary Performance, I do have different ways of tuning and am interested in learning from you guys that have tried other things that I have not. I would like to believe in innovations and not immitations.
Not being familiar with the SAE papers, I wonder whether these findings would still apply in extremely high boost conditions with the quality of fuels that we use today, i.e. as timing requirements alter, would the split factor still be relative. Not understanding why, but I have definitely found better power and torque on my dyno and at the track with the split in place. Could you post your recomended maximum timing for various requirements and if you believe there is any applied standards. Or should we start a new thread?
Regards-Anthony.
I did not post results to be flamed but only so that you know that I play circuit racing also, it is as big a part of my development as drag racing, it just does not create the same business profile here in Aus.

 

I have photo's of two racing Peripheral port 20B turbo engines prepared by Racing Beat that are running MoTeC ecu's in non split mode. One I can verify as a friend of mine was in RB's California dyno cell and they let him take photos of the engine ! This was back in late 98.

The other is of a very similar engine but transplanted into a drag car again with MoTeC, the dead give away of the RB PP's is the mechanical fuel pump Injector & Plenum set up and the dry sump set up along with the drive pulleys they use. The engine my friend saw dynoed 900bhp at around 1 bar boost and was straight methanol fueled, the engine instaled in the drag car looks very similar.

I am not sure if it is a RB philosophy or wether it is a limitation in the ECU to not fire split in a 20B config? You would assume they have tested which would be better but it is not out of the question that they just follow the N/A trend of higher power.

I know for a fact that ALL the three plug engines run a non split configuration, but non of these are forced induction. It would be nice to see some hard facts based around some engine dyno results done to some set standards such as those adhered to by SAE to get some conclusive results, Jim Mederer's research is another highly respected source on this subject based on what direct info (indirect spy photos !) I have been able to obtain. It is an interesting question, one that is divided even amongst ECU makers...Richard Aubert the maker of Autronic ECU's said to me that there is no way that you can reliably run 0 split in a high HP rotary, yet I have been doing so for 5 years....SO have RB ! but I will go on record as saying untill I can afford to run a full analytical test under controled conditions, that can be replicated and verified by other sources (as all good science can) then It really is just my own "practical" opinion, as the SAE papers I have are for N/A and for forced induction Peripheral Ports running in stratified charge mode.

I would love if RB was on the forum to share there experience on this as they are the only people I know of that have engine dynoed the differences we are discussing, based on what I have seen of theres they are running no split, either from hardware limitations or from ideal performance stand point, we will never know unless they tell us or we do the test ourselves?

 

I doubt Racing Beat would accept the offer...
I haven't heard a PEEP about Racing Beat experiences until you just posted - their secrecy is pretty damn good in the rotary world; they only devulge what they don't care about.

Those 20B PP turbo'd Bonneville engines - rumor has it - were tuned so close to the ragged edge, that they were billed as "one run wonders".&nbsp Rumor also has it that RB was "spitting in the wind" trying to tune those things, and it was surprising they even held up for one run.&nbsp Racing Beat had two more engines as back-up for their Bonneville run, "just in case"...

You got ANY info about these Racing Beat engines, I'd LOVE to hear about it - even if it contradicts what I've heard!



-Ted

 

Rice,
I am not sure from where I have read it but I believe that the factory did run split control in its three plug engines and actually dropped the leading plug out all together which surprised me. When trying to analyse this on a two plug engine, I could only match the top end power with the leading ignition disconnected with another 15deg added, it killed the mid range. The base figures were using 8deg timing split. I will look today so that I can quote my source. Wasn't Racing beats project funded by the US government to create 1000hp for 1min, surely they needed to be more reliable than mentioned. That RB Drag engine definitely did not live up to its figures on the track, or at least not in the condition that it was supplied in. A NY racer bought it and was very disappointed,
Regards-Anthony

 

I know they are funded by Mazda Japan direct, this goes back to 1986 when Mazda Japan shipped over there full bridge port turbo GTP engines for RB to use for their Land Speed record attempt in their 2nd gen car. These engines along with following RB derivatives in two and three rotor form have been totaly reliable to my knowledge, so far as in the car racing based engines have been able to cover over 500km between overhauls (racing)

When my friend was there a few years ago they ran the engine in front of him and a representative at the time Richard Henderson said it was very reliable in the 900bhp setting, at that time they were in the infancy of setting up a project for aviation engines (3 rotor single turbo PP's) this was the first engine they made to this spec and unlike the Boneville engines it ran with a single Garrett instead of 3 KKK's...The engine in question was commissioned by a customer in PR, which was not delivered due to the guy being involved in a drive by shooting (real story) and it was for sale, they offered it to my friend !

Anyhow that was a while ago now, and since then I have seen another engine of almost identical preperation (as mentioned) which was installed in a drag car (not sure if it was the one you are refering too Anthony?) The one I think you mentioned from NY was the one built by Rotary Power Aust, and it had nothing to do with the RB engines, only similarity was the Peripheral porting.

On a side note, RETed it is realy hard getting information from or about RB stuff, but I am trying my best, Engine life is no where near the 1 min mark that is for sure, they simply would not be attempting to develop an aviation power plant on a similar design basis (power/porting/turbo etc) is this were the case. Hell back in 87 Jim did a PP 13B that won its class at Pikes Peak it was producing 650BHP and during that weekend the engine did 3 passes up the mountain (around 10 min for one pass) so the reliability is there for sure.

 

To the contrary, they were very mild ! I have herd this is what lead them to consider developing the engine for aviation use as it's reliablilty was realy good, the only areas they needed to work on was weight reduction, hence the development of Alumminium end plates.

It is interesting to say the least, but yeah they are tight about there information for sure, I was amazed when my friend came back with the information he did "first hand" That for me was proof enough, they were very open and forth comming with complete information on their engine. I think given the situation, it was a one of as they had an engine for sale and he was in the right place at the right time so to speak

 

I wasn't flaming, just trying to help with the first post, and making a joke with the second. However, if one does not have the initiative to follow up on my first post, then there's nothing else that a nobody like me can do to enlighten the situation. There is life beyond the internet.

BTW, Rice Racing is correct, the R26B 3-plug engines fire simultaneously.