Roen

iTrader: (2)

I know the proper way to control a bridgeport is to use a standalone in order to control fuel and timing via the MAP sensor, but what about using the AFM with an Rtek? Are there any success stories?

I'm thinking (on a whim) of bridgeporting the N/A but am thinking about the engine management to go with the car.

My other question is, how much low end tq/power does a HBP N/A save over a BP N/A, percentagewise?

RETed

The problem is that the BP will most likely PEG the non-turbo (and turbo also) AFM, so how would the stock ECU know it's flowing more air?

BP's should not be done on stock ECU's, period.


-Ted

Roen

iTrader: (2)

Using the Rtek and forcing fuel dump at every RPM higher than the RPM at which the AFM is pegged? The other problem is then I'd probably want to go with something like itb/velocity stacks to actually not let my bp outflow my intake mani.

Yea, I realized that I would have to switch to the MAP for best efficiency after I posted that....oh well, I'll just stick to a streetport with a custom intake mani......at least I should still be able to maintain a decent ride with decent power.

toplessFC3Sman

iTrader: (1)

if you are limiting the flow thru the engine so as to not out-flow your AFM and intake manifold, you are limiting the power that you can make, and basically negating most of the porting work. the potential power you get out is directly proportional to the mass of air you can flow (since fuel injection rate is not the limiting factor).

for a BP you basically just have to go stand-alone, its hard to get around. I guess you could try putting a stiffer spring in the AFM to basically change the scale of deflection vs air flow, but then you'll need to do a lot of experimentation and richening with the Rtek, and it still wont be perfect.