BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

I've been working on combining the 2.1 with larger injectors, 950 primes, 1000 secs.
Everyone has discussed that there would be an issue with the overly large primaries’ PWMs not being properly controlled at idle. Well it looks like it can be done-with a few adjustments.
A San Diego tuner who happens to be a good friend (Sandbagger ), bought into my idea I had to utilize the FJO injector driver to control all injectors. Howard Coleman has used this device with very positive results.
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...njector+driver
Tonite, after a long and stressful V-mount build (build thread to come soon) we started up the FC with a starting fuel pressure of 36psi. Our AFRs indicated 11.4. Sandbagger (Tim) felt that since we were using such a large injector, the stock setting was somewhat obsolete, so we ended up lowering that number to 30psi. That brought our AFR up to 12.1. While still somewhat low, we’ve created a very smooth idle, albeit stinky (no smoke)!
We’re now at the point where we’ll need to smoothen out the map. The positive aspects of these results….
-Duty cycle of @ 63% on the primaries at 8lbs of boost, dropping to @33 when the secondary’s come on line.
-Cruise duty cycle: 11.5%
With the limited tuning time Tim had to perform on the car, he has made a mini monster that’s pulling quite a bit harder than the factory turbo did at 12psi. I’m really looking forward to turning up the wick on this setup and realizing its full capabilities. More info to come after SEMA.
Mike

WingsofWar

awesome i also have been looking into the FJO driver, more good experiences like this make me want to spend more money.

arghx

iTrader: (3)

I would've adjusted the variable resistor function long before reducing base fuel pressure.

Sandbagger

VR was set to zero, prior to lowering fuel pressure. Main focus is to make the car driveable with decent AFR numbers. We will definitely be near if not on the limits of the RTek with his setup. It will be interesting to see how much can be produced with this setup.

turbo2ltr

iTrader: (1)

So we should offer this as a built in upgrade, huh?

BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

Sure! You can use my idea and in return for all my R&D, you can send me the web-based map adjuster and AFM delete ;-)

On a serious note:
1. where are you on this web-based mapping, and

2. have you considered writing code to allow us to upgrade to the Mustang Cobra MAF/meter.

~Mike

gxl90rx7

iTrader: (1)

I am confused.. the FJO driver increases fuel output by increasing p/w and current to your injectors. Im not sure what that has to do trying to lean out large primary injectors, if anything the FJO driver will make it idle worse due to higher injector flow

what was your fuel correction % at idle, maxed out? i assume youre running the 720/720 preset?

the only thing the FJO driver will buy you is more injector fuel flow for a given duty cycle

turbo2ltr

iTrader: (1)

It doesnt increase pulsewidth. The nature of the peak-hold injectors is that they open faster. So they flow more for a given PW allowing you to lower PW in order to maintain the AFR.

In addition, since they open faster, they are more consistent at shorter pulse widths where high impedance injectors can have more "jitter" in actual open time causing the idle to be unstable..


We have looked into the mustang MAF. From a hardware standpoint, its a bit of a mess. We decided to go straight for the elimination.

WingsofWar

gawd your such a tease..rofl

BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

Woah, didn't realise people were reading this. Thanks for the explanation, Turbo2ltr.

lastphaseofthis

iTrader: (8)

BFGRX7, Whats you fuel milage like with this setup? i am thinking of going the same with a BNR stage 4.

BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

Sorry, no fuel #'s yet as we finished the car a day before I left for SEMA. I'm most likely going to continue tuning later this week or this weekend.

HAILERS

************************************************** **************************

Yes, and retrofitted it to all the previous RTEK 2.1 you've sold. For free of course...( humor).

That would have saved me the $163.56 (shipping included) I spent on a FJO last month. Got it from www.horsepowerfreaks.com in Ca.

I put it on a RX that runs straight E85. I was using Siemens DEKA 1, 720 cc injectors I bought from Racetronix and the RTEK set for 550's (E-85 means you need more fuel and if I set the RTEK to 720's I had to add fuel 'cause it was too lean with 720 injector setting in the RTEK), and am now able to set the RTEK for 720's and idle the pig and have a lot of *headroom left over to add more fuel if needed.

Really just writing this to say you can get a four channel FJO injector driver for only $163.56 (price includes shipping). If someone is curious as to how well this might work, just buy one. Their fairly cheap imho. And the install is easier than the FJO installed in the threads above imho.

Like........chunk the solenoid resistor package or radioshack bought resistors.

EDIT: Actually that jpg isn't quite right. The four channel FJO comes with no electrical plugs. Just four wires for input from the ECU, and four wires for output to the injectors themselves. Then one black wire for gnd for the internals of the FJO (has a ring terminal) and one red power wire for the FJO's internals that you attach to a source of switched power that is fused for 15a or so.

The size is smaller than the original units. I'd put it along the size of the stock series four solenoid resistor package.

BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

Glad it worked for you, Hailers. While this project was intriguing and has worked out for me, I'm looking at getting rid of the 2.1.

First, the fact that it's cost prohibited to dyno-tune with the unit limits the amount of maps I can make & secondly, ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE FROM MANUFACTURER FOR A TIMELINE ON EFFICIENT FUEL MAP EDITING!!!!

While I'm at it, its a bit disconcerting that the creator of this product has rec'd multiple requests for a timeline on a few things (namely AFM removal, laptop/web-based emulator) and has not responded! That is just irresponsible business.

When you have consumers of your products willing to help develop YOUR product and develop it utilizing your design mission (i.e. keep it inexpensive) at their own costs, you could at the very least provide some sort of timeline/due date for features they're expecting to get.

Please understand, I appreciate the time and effort the creator has put into this product-and mind you, there's A LOT of development in this product, but that does not excuse keeping us in the dark. If you do not want to create the features (some 1+years pending) due to time, 2gen owners cheapness, or other business reasons, that's understandable-but just let us know so we can act accordingly.

Not trying to be nasty towards you, Turbo2Ltr, but I've needed to stress this point for a while now and it's on the mind of many in here. We await your response.

~Mike

Nick_d_TII

iTrader: (6)

Your post is way off topic and I disagree with most of what you posted. Do I want those additional features? Sure, but am I going to pout about it no.

The fuel map is pretty easy to adjust(there are 3 different ways to adjust it too). Although, I have no experience with other ECUs/standalones, I would assume your going to have to input all the values for each pressure/rpm for each cell. It's the same here, but you have to use the palm. If I had access to a dyno, I'd probably have my tune spot on, but I've done all my tuning on the street, and I'm getting pretty close.

No one here except possibly solareon is helping to develop anything. They're just bitching about new features they want all the time, notably the AFM removal. You can't give timelines for something you don't know how long or what it's going to take to make it happen.

I'd like to think that the 'developer' is working on additional features rather than playing around on some forum and answering repetitive questions that they don't know the answers to.

I know the answers you are looking for: AFM removal, Nope. PC Map editor, Nope.

Did you email pocketlogger/digital tuning inc? Maybe you should try there. On their website there is nothing about the features you are asking about or a timeline/dates additional feature releases. I'm not waiting for anything, if I wanted something more 'tunable' I would have gotten a haltech. I knew what it was capable of when I purchased it, doesn't sound like you did...

BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

Well Nick, this is my thread, and I've devoted time to opening up a way for people to add larger injectors w/the base pre-sets that the 2.1 have. It wasn't a great deal of money, but it's money/time none the less.

There was discussion on the AFM (which i can take or leave) removal as well as a web-based emulator that Turbo2Ltr has discussed in previous threads. Like I've said in the prior, if you don't want to develop any further, fine, just say so but don't show us items that are in the "pipeline" and then don't provide us with hard updates- even if they're updates saying, "i do not want to do this anymore".

FYI, there have been multiple issues with certain PDAs not holding the codes during tuning-meaning the PDAs link is severed during the process. Now i don't expect Turbo2ltr to check every PDA-not even remotely feasible. I've brought up thoughts on this in another thread because I wasn't sure if I was using this product for its' intended purpose-seemed as if i did....

https://www.rx7club.com/rtek-forum-168/dyno-tuning-2-1-w-950-1000-%3D-fail-875020/

Nick, I'd also like to think that the 'developer' is working on additional features as well. There have been posts STARTED by Turbo gauging interests in features-just no updates for 5 months....

https://www.rx7club.com/rtek-forum-168/feedback-web-based-map-editor-836698/

I realize you look at this as "pouting" but in every successful business, you have "action items" and "deliverables". Answering Nope & Nope to an action item just doesn't cut it. Hopefully you do not get offended by this-this is purely questioning done from a business perspective.

Nick_d_TII

iTrader: (6)

Well, your right. It is your thread, and it has some good info, but now its veered severely off course. You devoted your time for your own personal gain and shared this information, which we all do appreciate.

I wasn't aware of the PDA problems. I used one that was on the list of acceptable Palms and haven't have any problems that wouldn't allow me to 'tune'.
It's not like you paid for the feature(NO AFM) and then when you got the Product the feature wasn't available. It sounds as though you bought the RTEK 2.1 and YOU were planning on the AFM removal feature to be available and now if it is going to be available you want to know when so you can decide weather to ditch the RTEK or wait. Have you emailed Pocketlogger/Digital tuning inc?

I haven't seen any estimates, dates, or solid information that shows they will release the AFM removal feature in the near future, and I'm not counting on it. Although, I would like AFM Removal and the Map editor.

I do understand your frustration, but it sounds like YOU want the RTEK to do more than what it was advertised to be capable of.

Good luck with your project, and thank you for posting results and info regarding the FJO...

turbo2ltr

iTrader: (1)

For the past few days I've been mulling over what has been said here and I can agree on some points and on others, not so much.

Bottom line is this whole Rtek thing is a side project for both me and Henrik. There isn't enough money in it to devote hundreds, if not thousands of hours for something that is going to make us a few hundred bucks.

So, no, we don't have a timeline when when anything in particular will be complete. It gets complete when it gets complete. Do I wish there was enough business so this wasn't the case? Of course. I agree saying "whenever it gets done" is not the proper way to run a business. Would better map editing make the product better? Absolutely, we'd love to provide something. Would I be able to charge $500 per Rtek for it to make up for the time spent on developing it? Hmm, no. So I get to it when I can (in between jobs that actually have the ability to pay the bills).

It has been discussed internally several times about dropping the whole line. It is a drain on resources that keeps me from other higher paying jobs. You don't see the hours I spend on the phone helping people with problems that aren't even related to the Rtek, but it gets blamed anyway. If this person has a stage 1, I'm losing money at that point. But I keep it going because I know there are a lot of people out there that like the product and it does meet their needs. And while rather small, it helps cover expenses (thats right, *helps* cover, it does not cover them completely).

I don't know about you, but I buy products based on what they do at the time I buy them. You knew going in that editing was done on the Palm. To complain about a product not having the features you want is your right, but understand that you didn't buy the Rtek on the premis that x or y feature was promised and we failed to deliver on that promise. The product is/does just what we advertise on our site. I'm not saying take a hike and don't want to sound like we don't need your business. I appreciate all the business and I wish we could deliver on what you are asking in a timeframe that is acceptable to you so that the product would be better suited to your needs, but from a business / "I need to do what is going to pay the bills" perspective, it's just not possible.

I hope this helps.

turbo2ltr

iTrader: (1)

And I am unaware of "multiple issues with certain PDAs not holding the codes ". Not even sure what that means. As it says in the sticky, this is not the official support forum. If there is an issue or a bug, you need to report it at help.digitaltuning.com

BFGRX7

iTrader: (2)

Turbo, that was the BEST response to the issues. I now know;

1. You are barely getting any real revenue out of this "side project"
2. It will take 100s to 1000s of hours to complete either emulator/AFM
3. There's only two of you
4. Service dept: THERE'S ONLY TWO OF YOU!!!!

Just to clear things up, when I first researched your product, it did/worked JUST AS ADVERTISE!!!!! I was able to do exactly what I needed it to do! Please understand this! I truly felt that it was a product i'd grow with.

Initially adjusting the parameters was a pain, but I KNEW THAT COMING IN! Here's where my issue came into play.

Turbo, you started a thread on a web-based emulator. That was my "holy grail" to having everything I needed in an ECU. As stated earlier in another thread I started, I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED AFM REMOVAL. The emulator was it. I just wanted an update/ETA on completion. It never materialized.

I would not have pushed if it hadn't been PRESENTED to us.

FWIW, I did not bring up the issue of the PDA simply because it's not your fault-its the result of the connection port Palm decided to use for the Treo 650 - IT SUCKS! LOL! My tuner had an issue with two other Treo owners loosing their connections at the most inopportune time.

Just a little background on the 2nd gen I'm building. The goal was to create a time attack monster with inexpensive, quality products and acknowledge said products in a couple of blog/websites. You see, I'm at the point where I'm sick of hearing Greddy this, Apexi that: all the while noone truly understands how much of their stuff is made in CHINA! Some of the inexpensive companies out there are basically selling the SAME PRODUCTS, FROM THE SAME FACTORY!

Turbo, I appreciate the time and effort you've placed into this product-even moreso knowing these details. If there's anything you need with regards to help, let me know as I've people who may be able to help. My "rant" stops here. ;-)

~Mike

HAILERS

************Yes, and retrofitted it to all the previous RTEK 2.1 you've sold. For free of course...( humor).*****************

I hope everyone took note of the (humor) word and know that the remark I made was......meant to be humorous. As in a joke. Not a serious remark. But if someone wants to send me some FJO injector dirvers and install them for me, I'd say "thank you " and give you a glass of water or coke.

R.O.D

iTrader: (3)

thanks Hailers got a new sig. lol