Yeah! New rtek 1.7 chip now available
10-07-04, 03:27 PM
#51
But if you already have the FCON, there is no reason you need to dump it. Though, it's overkill.. I certainly wouldn't recomend anyone getting an FCON instead of a AFC for use with 1.7. And technically, with 720s and a fuel pump, you shouldn't need any additional control.
Regards,
Mike Montalvo
digital tuning, inc.
www.pocketlogger.com
Regards,
Mike Montalvo
digital tuning, inc.
www.pocketlogger.com
10-07-04, 04:07 PM
#52
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my car when i bought it came withthe fcon and gcc, so i might as well use it. i plan on using it becuase i will be running around 14psi of boost with a hybrid turbo
eric
eric
10-07-04, 04:44 PM
#53
Yar-Har-Har
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nashville, 37217
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive asked this before, but here goes again (dawns flame suit)
ok ... lets say i have 720's, with a larger fuel pump, and i get the 1.7 chip ...
does the chip compensate for more boost ...
does it increase fuel as boost increases, or does it simply keep the 720s from running rich ..
if it continues to add fuel proportional to boost, then theoreticly (sp?), i could just use this chip with my walbro/720;s and have no need for the safc ....
i have an safc (soon to be installed), and the 1.7 chip keeps calling my name for some reason.. ... if it doesnt add fuel per boost, then i will just stick with the safc for now ..
any clarity on this would be much appreciated
ok ... lets say i have 720's, with a larger fuel pump, and i get the 1.7 chip ...
does the chip compensate for more boost ...
does it increase fuel as boost increases, or does it simply keep the 720s from running rich ..
if it continues to add fuel proportional to boost, then theoreticly (sp?), i could just use this chip with my walbro/720;s and have no need for the safc ....
i have an safc (soon to be installed), and the 1.7 chip keeps calling my name for some reason.. ... if it doesnt add fuel per boost, then i will just stick with the safc for now ..
any clarity on this would be much appreciated
10-07-04, 04:52 PM
#54
Yar-Har-Har
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nashville, 37217
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never mind .. i just read a prior post explaining exactly what i asked ...
i do have another question ... it was posted that it will compensate for fuel, but the timing wont advance any further ... is a stand alone the only thing i can get to adjust my timing like that , or is it even worth worrying about running less than 10-13 psi??
i do have another question ... it was posted that it will compensate for fuel, but the timing wont advance any further ... is a stand alone the only thing i can get to adjust my timing like that , or is it even worth worrying about running less than 10-13 psi??
10-07-04, 07:05 PM
#57
RX-7 Alumni
Originally Posted by Fitness Stain
i do have another question ... it was posted that it will compensate for fuel, but the timing wont advance any further ... is a stand alone the only thing i can get to adjust my timing like that , or is it even worth worrying about running less than 10-13 psi??
What lots of people forget is that AFC type units fool the ECU with a lower airflow signal and this results in further advanced timing from what it should be--and that's not good at high airflows (read high boost). This chip does not have that problem and timing should be per the OEM map (up to 9 psi of course).
What I'd like to know is does it retard timing all the way up to the max boost sensor signal of 15 psi?
Scott
10-07-04, 07:13 PM
#58
Eat, sleep, work, mod.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rex4Life
No the chip will retard timing 1 degree for each pound of boost above 9 psi. Henrik already stated that the fuel is not really impacted by boost above ~ 1-2 psi--it's adjusted per the AFM signal (airflow). So I think you are OK with the fuel.
What lots of people forget is that AFC type units fool the ECU with a lower airflow signal and this results in further advanced timing from what it should be--and that's not good at high airflows (read high boost). This chip does not have that problem and timing should be per the OEM map (up to 9 psi of course).
What I'd like to know is does it retard timing all the way up to the max boost sensor signal of 15 psi?
Scott
What lots of people forget is that AFC type units fool the ECU with a lower airflow signal and this results in further advanced timing from what it should be--and that's not good at high airflows (read high boost). This chip does not have that problem and timing should be per the OEM map (up to 9 psi of course).
What I'd like to know is does it retard timing all the way up to the max boost sensor signal of 15 psi?
Scott
THANK YOU, someone who understands
I mentioned the timing issue before - though the AFC works, it's far from ideal. With the rtek7 chip (1.5 and 1.7) there is no worry about advanced timing since you are using a true ECU signal for fuel, not a fooled one.As for adding fuel, the AFM does that based on the volume of air it takes in...it translates air volume into a request for fuel from the ECU. The AFM CAN max out if it takes in a measurement of air beyond it's range. When people hit those power levels, they often have a standalone. For a stock ECU based car, the injectors is the fuel roadblock most easily run into when upping the boost.
Last edited by jon88se; 10-07-04 at 07:16 PM.
10-07-04, 07:19 PM
#59
Eat, sleep, work, mod.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbo2ltr
But if you already have the FCON, there is no reason you need to dump it. Though, it's overkill.. I certainly wouldn't recomend anyone getting an FCON instead of a AFC for use with 1.7. And technically, with 720s and a fuel pump, you shouldn't need any additional control.
Regards,
Mike Montalvo
digital tuning, inc.
www.pocketlogger.com
Regards,
Mike Montalvo
digital tuning, inc.
www.pocketlogger.com
P.S., I have the 1.5 already and will get the 1.7 soon once the injectors come to the shop hehe
10-07-04, 09:42 PM
#63
Originally Posted by jon88se
THANK YOU, someone who understands I mentioned the timing issue before - though the AFC works, it's far from ideal. With the rtek7 chip (1.5 and 1.7) there is no worry about advanced timing since you are using a true ECU signal for fuel, not a fooled one.
As for adding fuel, the AFM does that based on the volume of air it takes in...it translates air volume into a request for fuel from the ECU. The AFM CAN max out if it takes in a measurement of air beyond it's range. When people hit those power levels, they often have a standalone. For a stock ECU based car, the injectors is the fuel roadblock most easily run into when upping the boost.
I mentioned the timing issue before - though the AFC works, it's far from ideal. With the rtek7 chip (1.5 and 1.7) there is no worry about advanced timing since you are using a true ECU signal for fuel, not a fooled one.As for adding fuel, the AFM does that based on the volume of air it takes in...it translates air volume into a request for fuel from the ECU. The AFM CAN max out if it takes in a measurement of air beyond it's range. When people hit those power levels, they often have a standalone. For a stock ECU based car, the injectors is the fuel roadblock most easily run into when upping the boost.
http://www.pocketlogger.com/index.ph...rtek7_techinfo explains exactly what was said in this post. Read up guys. I don't post this stuff on the website for my health.
10-07-04, 09:45 PM
#64
Eat, sleep, work, mod.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Henrik has an S4 TII of his own...I'm sure if he had an S5 to play with it wouldn't be a problem.
As for using this on a supercharged NA, I wouldn't try it. A standalone is the best bet...microtech or haltech. If you spent $$$ on a the supercharger kit, don't cheap out on the engine management. A fuel pump, 550cc's and an SAFC should work too (if you dont run a lot of boost, maybe like 7 psi). But the standalone is the best way to go...the NA ECU has no knock control and if you turn the injectors up you'll be advancing the timing even further. OR just talk to the few people that have foreced induction NA's and see what they say...
As for using this on a supercharged NA, I wouldn't try it. A standalone is the best bet...microtech or haltech. If you spent $$$ on a the supercharger kit, don't cheap out on the engine management. A fuel pump, 550cc's and an SAFC should work too (if you dont run a lot of boost, maybe like 7 psi). But the standalone is the best way to go...the NA ECU has no knock control and if you turn the injectors up you'll be advancing the timing even further. OR just talk to the few people that have foreced induction NA's and see what they say...
Last edited by jon88se; 10-07-04 at 09:48 PM.
10-07-04, 09:52 PM
#65
Eat, sleep, work, mod.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbo2ltr
I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that people keep asking the same questions or the fact that I posted links to the answers people don't read them.
http://www.pocketlogger.com/index.ph...rtek7_techinfo explains exactly what was said in this post. Read up guys. I don't post this stuff on the website for my health.
http://www.pocketlogger.com/index.ph...rtek7_techinfo explains exactly what was said in this post. Read up guys. I don't post this stuff on the website for my health.
10-08-04, 07:53 AM
#72
I was thinking about the secondaries coming on at 3300. My highways speed at 80mph is about 33-3400 rpms. This will now make the secondaries come on and really kill the gas mileage right?
10-08-04, 09:06 AM
#73
Eat, sleep, work, mod.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kuhlrx7
ok, gslse 680cc injectors, arnt they just under rated 720cc injectors?
Originally Posted by Bukwild
I was thinking about the secondaries coming on at 3300. My highways speed at 80mph is about 33-3400 rpms. This will now make the secondaries come on and really kill the gas mileage right?
Last edited by jon88se; 10-08-04 at 09:09 AM.
10-08-04, 11:30 AM
#74
Unconfirmed
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: florida
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jon88se, hondahater that was just a knowlage check. I have 2 injectors from an gslse and 2 720cc injectors all 4 were sent out and serviced by a well know injector company. the readings on the flow test were 1) 723cc 2)721 3)722cc 4)720cc can you tell from this flow test what injectors were the gslse injectors?
mazda also had both 680 and 720 listed as the size on diff docs.
also take a look at this web sight http://www.hitman.hm/injectors.htm there are many other sites that list the gsle injectors as 720cc
anser for above is 1 and 3
I am not saying gslse injectors are 720cc, just that they may be. if you have them you should have them flow tested to be certian. I know some people have had bad luck with the gslse injectors but many have had good luck with them.
mazda also had both 680 and 720 listed as the size on diff docs.
also take a look at this web sight http://www.hitman.hm/injectors.htm there are many other sites that list the gsle injectors as 720cc
anser for above is 1 and 3
I am not saying gslse injectors are 720cc, just that they may be. if you have them you should have them flow tested to be certian. I know some people have had bad luck with the gslse injectors but many have had good luck with them.
10-08-04, 11:36 AM
#75
well those 680's may work however I'm just kind of partial to what the instructions say and it is very avid about saying use 720's or larger. I think having the peace of mind upgrading to 720's instead of using the 680's would be the way I would go but then again I'm no mechanic. Use your 680's and tell us how it goes, if everything works fine then yehaw for all the peeps with 680's.