Rtek RTEK 2.x feature request thread
10-30-07, 08:33 PM
#26
Not if you are supplying the cars.
Actually on a serious note since it was mentioned twice, DTI designs and manufacturers engine management electronics, we aren't in the tuner market. IMO, supplying predefined maps is a recipe for disaster. For one, every car is different so I could never comfortably give out predefined maps. I don't believe in the one size fits all approach to tuning. Second, the whole point to the rtek is to give you the user power to tune. Having predefined maps available will encourage people to buy an rtek and feel the predefined maps are adequate without learning anything about tuning. As it is already, people buy the Rtek without knowing anything about tuning... but at least they know the ecu is basically stock from us. The predefined maps will give the uninformed a false confidence that the tune will automatically be fine for their car. We simply don't want that liability.
But theres nothing that says the community can't share maps.
Would anyone have interest in a website that you could upload, view, edit, and share maps with other people?
Actually on a serious note since it was mentioned twice, DTI designs and manufacturers engine management electronics, we aren't in the tuner market. IMO, supplying predefined maps is a recipe for disaster. For one, every car is different so I could never comfortably give out predefined maps. I don't believe in the one size fits all approach to tuning. Second, the whole point to the rtek is to give you the user power to tune. Having predefined maps available will encourage people to buy an rtek and feel the predefined maps are adequate without learning anything about tuning. As it is already, people buy the Rtek without knowing anything about tuning... but at least they know the ecu is basically stock from us. The predefined maps will give the uninformed a false confidence that the tune will automatically be fine for their car. We simply don't want that liability.
But theres nothing that says the community can't share maps.
Would anyone have interest in a website that you could upload, view, edit, and share maps with other people?
When the RTEK just came out, it reminded me of the Kinghtsports ECU which basically was tuned for the Knightsports hybrid turbo so that is where the idea came from; However, a website to upload predetermine would be great for people to be in range of similar set-ups
11-01-07, 11:33 PM
#29
Drive.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, North Carolina
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
so yea...I'd say:
-AFM removal
-Ability to upload maps to the system without having to actively put them in while hooked up to the ecu
-An "auto tune" capability with a wideband hooked up.
-AFM removal
-Ability to upload maps to the system without having to actively put them in while hooked up to the ecu
-An "auto tune" capability with a wideband hooked up.
11-02-07, 12:57 PM
#31
RotoriousRx7
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: goodlettsville,tennessee 37072
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but afm convert to map would be the most needed by everyone so we can run those bigger turbos and a more defined rpm range for fuel tuning
i.e. 0-500 and 500 increments to red line not 6600
01-04-08, 11:49 PM
#36
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Texas
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not quite how it works. Most ECU firmware use a global IPW multiplier and a map lookup point. When increasing the size of injectors, you change the global multiplier, not the values on the maps. There's a few other things that need to be tweaked such as injector latency and tip-in values, but that's more injector (and ecu type) dependent. In essence, yes, whatever size injectors we're compensating for do act like stock injectors, but that's what we want. Mazda spent a long time getting the fuel system to run as well as it does, having larger injectors mimic the stock injector characteristics is not a bad thing.
With that said, when increasing the size of injectors in stock firmware, other considerations have to be taken. The stock maps are the largest limiting factor. You may have enough fuel to supply x horsepower, but your maps load calculations max out at a load point far short of the amount of air you are flowing and you go to static value at peak torque. IPW caps and fuel cuts are other limiting factors, but those are easily removed, and they already are in the Rtek line of ecus.
With that said, when increasing the size of injectors in stock firmware, other considerations have to be taken. The stock maps are the largest limiting factor. You may have enough fuel to supply x horsepower, but your maps load calculations max out at a load point far short of the amount of air you are flowing and you go to static value at peak torque. IPW caps and fuel cuts are other limiting factors, but those are easily removed, and they already are in the Rtek line of ecus.
If all it's going to do is mimic the stock injectors, why go any bigger than 1.5? Will it still flow 720cc when needed, or is it only flowing 550cc from a bigger injector?
01-05-08, 08:18 AM
#39
I think the advantage of the 1.7 is that when running bigger secondaries, it creates a far better secondary injector staging transition than what you would be able to do with just an external AFC. but as far as the fuel map, your engine wont see any more fuel than stock. now the 1.8 has the same pri's and sec's so it does not have this advantage
Last edited by gxl90rx7; 01-05-08 at 08:23 AM.
01-05-08, 02:14 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, you have to understand that a 720cc injector flows more fuel than a 550cc injector. Say your pulsewidth is 5ms on both injectors, what injector is going to inject more fuel per "squirt"? Now, take an ecu that's programmed for 550cc injectors and install 720 cc injectors, what's going to happen? You're going to run very rich because the pulsewidth does not change, so more fuel is being injected per "squirt". The 1.7 and 1.8 compensate for this by backing off the pulsewidth so you don't run rich. Rtek, or any reprogramed ecu for that matter, compensates for this by decreasing pulsewidth on the larger injector to correct what would be an overly rich fuel mixture.
01-05-08, 03:45 PM
#41
HAILERS
Join Date: May 2001
Location: FORT WORTH, TEXAS,USA
Posts: 20,563
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
19 Posts
This written for the fellow who *wished* for a way to keep out of closed loop while tuning (I assume he pulls the 02 sensor wire presently). Well if you go to the pin on the ECU that is for the NEUTRAL switch, and install a wire in the socket with the present wire, and them put the other end of the New wire to gnd, then the ECU won't EVER go into closed loop. You migh want to install a switch in line with the new wire so you can flip the switch and now have closed loop available
I wrote the above on another thread on this RTEK forum.
And.........screw LAPTOPS and loading someone elses maps. There are other businesses that use Palm's for tuning. It's not that unusual. Saw one on the Speed Channel just a month or so ago.
I wrote the above on another thread on this RTEK forum.
And.........screw LAPTOPS and loading someone elses maps. There are other businesses that use Palm's for tuning. It's not that unusual. Saw one on the Speed Channel just a month or so ago.
01-05-08, 06:18 PM
#42
First, you have to understand that a 720cc injector flows more fuel than a 550cc injector. Say your pulsewidth is 5ms on both injectors, what injector is going to inject more fuel per "squirt"? Now, take an ecu that's programmed for 550cc injectors and install 720 cc injectors, what's going to happen? You're going to run very rich because the pulsewidth does not change, so more fuel is being injected per "squirt". The 1.7 and 1.8 compensate for this by backing off the pulsewidth so you don't run rich. Rtek, or any reprogramed ecu for that matter, compensates for this by decreasing pulsewidth on the larger injector to correct what would be an overly rich fuel mixture.
1) 550 injector on stock ECU:
ECU wants 10% d/c, sends 10% d/c to 550 injector = 55 cc fuel
2) 720 injector on stock ECU:
ECU wants 10% d/c, sends 10% d/c to 720 injector = 72 cc fuel
3) 720 injector with rtek 1.7 or 1.8:
ECU wants 10% d/c, sends 7.5% d/c to 720 injector = 55 cc fuel
now what is the difference between 1 and 3 as far as the amount of fuel the engine sees? no difference.
now imagine an engine with full intake/exhaust, 10+psi. If you ran setup 3 it would POP
The same can be applied to the 2.x presets with 0% correction
01-06-08, 12:02 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, we use larger injectors to lower duty cycle. When we flow more air, we want more fuel, no? Stock injectors go static with minimal mods. In other words, when we hit 100% duty cycle we lose the ability to supply the engine with more fuel because the injectors are flowing at their maximum.
There's two ways to overcome this:
-Increase fuel pressure thereby increasing injector flow. People do this with an FMU and raise the pressure at ratios higher than 1:1
-Upgrade our injectors so our duty cycles are lowered thereby increasing fuel flow.
So, at the point where the 550s are at 100% duty cycle, our 720s will be at roughly 76.67%. We have another 23.33% duty cycle to go before the injectors go static which means we have the ability to supply more fuel than the 550s.
I think where you're getting really confused is how the ecu calculates fuel. The ecu calculates load and looks up a fuel value on the map at that specific RPM to come up with pulsewidth, not duty cycle. Duty cycle is a function of RPM and pulsewidth. It's a number we use to determine the sufficiency of a particular injector for a given engine.
To correct you:
1) 550 injector on stock ECU:
ECU calculates 5ms, sends 5ms to 550 injector = .046 cc fuel
2) 720 injector on stock ECU:
ECU calculates 5ms, sends 5ms to 720 injector = .06 cc fuel
3) 720 injector with rtek 1.7 or 1.8:
ECU calculates 3.8ms, sends 3.8ms to 720 injector = .046 cc fuel
There's no difference between 1 and 3, but we WANT it that way, otherwise we would be running rich all of the time.
What it all comes down to is that the ecu programmed for larger injectors will always supply more fuel, when needed, than stock injectors.
There's two ways to overcome this:
-Increase fuel pressure thereby increasing injector flow. People do this with an FMU and raise the pressure at ratios higher than 1:1
-Upgrade our injectors so our duty cycles are lowered thereby increasing fuel flow.
So, at the point where the 550s are at 100% duty cycle, our 720s will be at roughly 76.67%. We have another 23.33% duty cycle to go before the injectors go static which means we have the ability to supply more fuel than the 550s.
I think where you're getting really confused is how the ecu calculates fuel. The ecu calculates load and looks up a fuel value on the map at that specific RPM to come up with pulsewidth, not duty cycle. Duty cycle is a function of RPM and pulsewidth. It's a number we use to determine the sufficiency of a particular injector for a given engine.
To correct you:
1) 550 injector on stock ECU:
ECU calculates 5ms, sends 5ms to 550 injector = .046 cc fuel
2) 720 injector on stock ECU:
ECU calculates 5ms, sends 5ms to 720 injector = .06 cc fuel
3) 720 injector with rtek 1.7 or 1.8:
ECU calculates 3.8ms, sends 3.8ms to 720 injector = .046 cc fuel
There's no difference between 1 and 3, but we WANT it that way, otherwise we would be running rich all of the time.
What it all comes down to is that the ecu programmed for larger injectors will always supply more fuel, when needed, than stock injectors.
Last edited by gross polluter; 01-06-08 at 12:21 AM.
01-06-08, 02:17 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-06-08, 08:28 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your reasoning is poor because you have no idea how EFI strategies work. It's clear I'm not getting through to you, and you refuse to learn why you're wrong.