scathcart

Why do you always argue on subjects you have no experience or knowledge on? The "air-box" thread was another perfect example of ignorant opinion.

You've never taken the system apart, you've never done any measurements to calculate flow, you've never done or even seen this modification, or its effects, so why do you argue?

Instead, you cite meaningless and inapplicable analagies and think it proves your point... You really think putting your finger over a hose is in any way remotely similar to a multiple bleed oil flow system?

Makenzie71

Not arguing...looking for clarification...and I'm sorry none of you could tell me why an air box was superior to a simple pipe fed by cold air (but there's a whole other thread out there you're welcome to ellaborate that in).

I've taken the system apart and played with the different bits...I never said I haven't. I said I haven't played with aftermarket oil jets. I'm also not arguing.

WTF? Yeah, I think it does. AGAIN, you said so yourself, there's a ******* machine inside the stock jet. It WILL hinder flow. If the flow in the stock jet hindered, then removing the hinderence will allow MORE oil to flow, and possibly too much to be effective in this application. If you know train of thought is wrong, then please tell me why.

Is there an angry little monkey up your *** with a cattle prod or something? Because I have yet to see anyone question your opinion on anything without you taking it as a personal attack against your intellegence. Sometimes people just want a little clarification.

Everyone here is eager to learn everything...some of you people really need to keep this in mind.

ddub

Can you two please take this elsewhere? Or do I need to now start deleting this crap form my own thread?

scathcart

Like I said... take the system apart and you'll see how it works.

When the spring opens from centrifugal force, the entire ball and spring is bypassed. Seriously, take out the jets and you'll see the bypass passage.

Why doesn't your hose theory work? B/C at any rpm where this is a concern (above 6000 rpm) the ball and spring are completely overcome by centrifugal force. There is no force exerted onto the oiling system by the ball and spring at all at these rpms.

So we now have a smaller jet fed with equal pressure. This equates to lower flow.

Makenzie71

I'll take it back apart when I get home...I have a spare S5 e-shaft no one ever seems to want to buy. I just don't remember there being a way for oil to completely bypass the ball valve assembly.

scathcart

Under what forum rule do you do this? No flaming is occurring, the posts are technical and debating an obviously unclear subject, and directly related to a particular modification that you did on your project. No where in the forum rules does it state that thread material must remain completely on topic.

You can't just delete material b/c you don't agree with it.

ddub

You two are arguing, no one else is contributing besides you two. What you are doing can easily be taken to PM if you want to continue this. If someone else questions it they can come in here and comment and you two can give your input.

But right now all you're doing is arguing with each other. Plus the point of this thread was not to debate the e-shaft oil jet mod... it was just one thing I did. Are you going to debate everything also? That would turn pretty boring and insanely long.

Plus you two are arguing about something NEITHER of you have concrete evidence and proof on. No one does that I've seen to date, all anyone has is their personal experience or belief. So until there is other data to support your claim, it is only a claim.

Makenzie71

What two are arguing?

And isn't the lack of concrete evidence the point of discussing a difference of ideas?

Step back man, and breath a couple times, then re-read the last dozen posts or so without the automatic assumption it's some kind of online ***** contest and I'm sure you'll see this differently.

scathcart

^ I agree.



Don't see this as a personal attack on your project. I am thoroughly impressed with your work.

However, I am certainly allowed to express and clarify my opinion for others to read, and the past several posts have certainly been more worthwhile, even if I am completely wrong, to forum knowledge than any post that simply states, "Wow! I'm impressed! Keep up the god work!' While its motivational merit to the person working on the project may have some worth, its total forum contribution is minute.

It is too bad no one is yet to chime in with an explanation for doing this mod. I used to be of the belief it was beneficial, but have since changed my mind. With such little information available on it, I propose that this information be left for those using the search function.

ddub

Yah I'm going to leave it.

I guess I just saw you and Makenzie as arguing for the sake of arguing, which Makenzie does a lot. The information is interesting, I'll say that, but it just seemed like it would get pretty old pretty fast if you two continued on for another couple of pages. Guess that was my only point...

Hopefully some day there will be more concrete evidence. Until then, I saw it as a possible good investment for higher than stock rpm's, but who knows...

Makenzie71

Only in the Lounge......elsewhere I argue because I want to learn.


Forum technique not shared in the rules or faqs...if you argue with people, they'll correct you with the propper information. If you ask for information, they'll tell you to search and go **** yourself. Go figure.

scathcart

Mr. Hanover made an interesting point that with increased oil pressure, the oil jets feed far more oil to the rotors than is necessary, and so the jets are installed to limit oil flow to the rotors in the upper rpm in order to ensure the bearings see more flow. While this idea makes sense... it does not explain the reasoning behind the third gen engine design. 110 psi of stock oil pressure, better flowing pump, and the ball-and-spring jets remained in place... With oil pressure that high, you would think they would have in the very least reduced the stock oil jet size to give the bearings more flow. Its not that the information or research wasn't available to them with their extensive racing program... yet the design remained unchanged.

Jager

iTrader: (10)

But why post so much misinformation and confuse everyone else?

Makenzie71

blah blah blah...lol...I'm actually not wrong that often (don't confuse "wrong" with "ignorant"...errr...don't confuse ignorance with stupidity, either). My bits of "misinformation" come from things I've simply misunderstood (brake rotar misunderstanding is the only thing that comes to mine [since I still don't think noise redux was very high on the "to do" list when it came to designing the stock air box])...

But I usually learn something new out of it.

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

Forgetting the past 2 pages of the same thing said in 50 different ways, what eventually WAS the fix for the MS? Or was it just a result of all your regrounding?

Jager

iTrader: (10)

Yeah thats what important.

I have the same question. Builders error? Or what?

ddub

Well Ken, muythaibxr, had previously told me to ground the MS at the battery. However, after all the weird interference issues I was getting he suggested to try grounding it at the bellhousing (where the stock ground goes to the firewall) instead. Interestingly enough he also told me about some very strang things that go on with the starter and coil. I'm not even going to begin to try and repeat them as I'm not that knowledgeable with circuits, currents, or electrical stuff.

Long story short. The metal mesh covering that the stock CAS wiring has to protect it from interference was reground through the MS, the MS was reground from the battery to the bellhousing under a 4 gauge ground I have that runs to the firewall, and a small ground was ran from the bellhousing to the battery. After that it all read properly with no fluctuations, spiking, or strange values.

Also, due to my battery being relocated, before I had to route the MS ground through the interior to the battery for the ground. This in fact caused the ground to be pretty long, and grounding it at the bellhousing cut it in half. The ground wire was 10 gauge and should've been sufficient, but maybe there was some voltage drop problems due to it being too long? Not sure.

muythaibxr

Yeah, I had previously had people tell me that grounding to the battery would work fine, and did work fine in their cars... however those people were running fuel only.

When running ignition the place you ground it is a lot more important it seems. As an added point, Tofuball and I had his grounded to the LIM, then we moved it to the bellhousing... and both of those methods worked.

The "coil" I was talking about was any device that has a coil in it, such as relays, injectors, etc... Those things can cause weirdnesses due to inductive load (and I think that's the reason for the flyback circuitry for low-impedance injectors). That flyback can fry transistors and such.

I think maybe the starter might have been causing AC noise on the ground or something which was interfering with the dual lm1815 circuit that was installed in the MS to condition the CAS signals.

felixwankel88

welll good luck Drew, i hope to see the post thats itz running

theman4444

"Man, Nobody understan' the words comming out of yo mouth."

Good luck D-dub.

scathcart

I don't understand the reason for a change in ground causing a difference in ignition pertformance... the battery is grounded to the chassis, as the engine (and thus bellhousing). There should be nearly immeasurable resistance between these points when the vehcile is properly bonded to battery negative.... so voltage potentials between any two chassis points to a hot should be immeasurable.

I can understand the interference caused by placing high-current wires or inductive loads in the proximity to the CAS or its wires... and why the stock CAS braided shielding must be grounded. Wouldn't the addition of wire shielding/noise filter greatly decrease any signal issues? For very little cost, I think it is worthwhile.

The routing of the alternator wire can have a significant affect on ignition performance... the current output from the alternator will generate a significant mag. field around it its lead, which will indoubtedly induce current in all surrounding wires.
Same thing with the starter feed wire... the starter pulls major amps, and if you have your starter lead anywhere near your CAS/CAS wiring, it will especially cause induced currents when cranking.

ddub

Then explain to me why merely changing the Megasquirt chassis ground solved my RPM signal issues? Nothing else was changed between one point of having interference problems with the CAS wiring/RPM signal besides the MS ground.

The shielded mesh covering was present at all times during the process for the CAS wiring also.

It was odd to me as well, but any chance it's because the battery is relocated now? Too long of ground wire causing voltage drop issues? I'm not really sure. I'm just glad my RPM signal is finally correct.

Makenzie71

Doesn't anything with electrical current emmit an electromagnetic field? EM fields are what cause noise, right? Ground straps, I know, are particularly noisy, it seems (in the stereo department). I know that if your stereo and amp grounds are in proximety to factory or chassis grounds you'll catch a lot of interference and your sound quality will be sketchy. On top of that I know that if your grounding cables and leads to your fuse or capacitor assemblies, as well as shielded speaker cables, you get a lot better sound.

I can see the same thing happening with an ECU or something...

scathcart

I can't explain it. That's why I said I don't understand. I was hoping for an explanation.

By relocated now, do you mean back to the stock position? The only thing I can think of is a very long main ground wire being undersized, or one of the MS wires being run in close proximity to a high current carrying conductor.

What was your old/new battery set-up? What changed between now and then?

scathcart

Yes, any current carrying conductor will produce lines of magnetic field surrounding it. The higher the current, the more lnes of flux. These magnetic fields will induce current in any conductor in close proximity.
That's why we sheild the wire. Lines of flux will pass through any material; it cannot be stopped. We can, however, bend them. Copper is diamagnetic. By placing a material more susceptive to being magnetized around the wire, the lines of flux will bend around the wire rather than pass through it.
Magnetic sheilds are often just large circles of a ferromagnetic material (usually iron) encasing an object.
Sheilding wire is not really complicating... heck, even wrapping the wires in aluminum foil, which is paramagetic, will result in decent shielding.