Who wants dibs on the XEDE PnP System?

[SwampAss]

If no more bumps in the road.. CP-E's will be out early Jan

 

[Haltech]

Not sure but is this it. the connectors everyone has been talking about

Umm if anything, it looks like a damn foglight harness.. Its only missing about another 20 wires or so to be considered a harness, lol.

And steph, why are you tuning at a 9.0 AFR? Try 11.2 instead. 9 is WAY to rich.

 

[SwampAss]

those are injector plugs

 

[Jays07MS3]

And steph, why are you tuning at a 9.0 AFR? Try 11.2 instead. 9 is WAY to rich.

Those weren't AFR numbers she was talking about. They were efficiency numbers that they came up with by dividing Horsepower by MAP pressure

The standards for efficiency #'s:
Below 8 - Awful
8.0 to 8.49 - OK
8.5 to 9.0 - Good
9.0 or Greater - Excellent

Our Car: 288 whp @ 16 psi - 288/ (16+14.7)=9.382

Dyno Sheet recently posted on Web: Boost level was not specified, so both are listed.
253 whp @ 19 psi - 253/ (19+14.7)=7.508
253 whp @ 15 psi - 253/ (15+14.7)=8.518

 

[pHeeL tHiZ ViBe]

who made up those standards?

efficient: 350+whp @ 0 psi heheh

 

[Haltech]

Those weren't AFR numbers she was talking about. They were efficiency numbers that they came up with by dividing Horsepower by MAP pressure

Efficiency is claimed by horsepower divided by MAP pressure? Are you kidding me? Looks like the 14:7 number is stoch! Youre never going to hit 14:7 in boost and if you do, kaboom!

 

[laloosh]

lmao

 

[Haltech]

This whole efficiency thing is bulls***. Bottom line is, tuning. The more parameters you make avail to the customer, the easier the interface and the ability to be plug n play is ALL that is going to matter here.

How does one measure efficiency of a lawn mower since it doesnt have a map sensor? I mean, cmon. This reminds me of a guy who tuned 2 stroke motorcycles in Florida. When he decided to tune boosted ford engines with a fricken Gas Analyzer instead of a wideband, he got a very bad reputation with blowing up 18 vehicles in 2 weeks. He only tuned 18 vehicles, great stats huh?

 

[fourthmeal]

....The 14.7 is atmospheric pressure I think. So it is atmos. + boost.

 

[Haltech]

....The 14.7 is atmospheric pressure I think. So it is atmos. + boost.

Ugh, ok, if you say so. You do realize atmospheric pressure changes like, all the time? 14.7 is its weight at sea level and i guarantee you that there are more people above sea level with MS3s than those who are at sea level.

So this whole number scheme needs to be ditched because its hardly accurate. See below:

ript b 	Height Above Sea Level 	Static Pressure 	Standard Temperature
(K) 	Temperature Lapse Rate
(m) 	(ft) 	(pascals) 	(inHg) 	(K/m) 	(K/ft)
0 	0 	0 	101325 	29.92126 	288.15 	-0.0065 	-0.0019812
1 	11,000 	36,089 	22632.1 	6.683245 	216.65 	0.0 	0.0
2 	20,000 	65,617 	5474.89 	1.616734 	216.65 	0.001 	0.0003048
3 	32,000 	104,987 	868.019 	0.2563258 	228.65 	0.0028 	0.00085344
4 	47,000 	154,199 	110.906 	0.0327506 	270.65 	0.0 	0.0
5 	51,000 	167,323 	66.9389 	0.01976704 	270.65 	-0.0028 	-0.00085344
6 	71,000 	232,940 	3.95642 	0.00116833 	214.65 	-0.002 	-0.0006096

 

[fourthmeal]

No, no...I agree with you. I'm just saying that I think it was atmospheric pressure and not stoich. in regards to what the "14.7" meant with the "formula." The mysterious formula, at that.

I was just addressing the possibility of it not being what you thought (which you thought may be stoich), but I don't agree with the formula.

Ugh, ok, if you say so. You do realize atmospheric pressure changes like, all the time? 14.7 is its weight at sea level and i guarantee you that there are more people above sea level with MS3s than those who are at sea level.

So this whole number scheme needs to be ditched because its hardly accurate. See below:

ript b 	Height Above Sea Level 	Static Pressure 	Standard Temperature
(K) 	Temperature Lapse Rate
(m) 	(ft) 	(pascals) 	(inHg) 	(K/m) 	(K/ft)
0 	0 	0 	101325 	29.92126 	288.15 	-0.0065 	-0.0019812
1 	11,000 	36,089 	22632.1 	6.683245 	216.65 	0.0 	0.0
2 	20,000 	65,617 	5474.89 	1.616734 	216.65 	0.001 	0.0003048
3 	32,000 	104,987 	868.019 	0.2563258 	228.65 	0.0028 	0.00085344
4 	47,000 	154,199 	110.906 	0.0327506 	270.65 	0.0 	0.0
5 	51,000 	167,323 	66.9389 	0.01976704 	270.65 	-0.0028 	-0.00085344
6 	71,000 	232,940 	3.95642 	0.00116833 	214.65 	-0.002 	-0.0006096

 

[pHeeL tHiZ ViBe]

haha i'm glad i'm not the only one who saw that as wack!! LOL

 

[StephanieT]

The numbers to refer to atmospheric pressure at sea level, not fuel conditions. If you think efficiency is BS, I suggest that you ask ALL the turbo experts their opinions. And by experts I mean people who invented the turbos and race car engineers. Tuning is the key to efficiency. Ever heard of a turbo's efficiency range??? (homework)
Stephanie

 

[desperado-c]

The numbers to refer to atmospheric pressure at sea level, not fuel conditions. If you think efficiency is BS, I suggest that you ask ALL the turbo experts their opinions. And by experts I mean people who invented the turbos and race car engineers. Tuning is the key to efficiency. Ever heard of a turbo's efficiency range??? (homework)
Stephanie

Stephanie, I think you need to defer to the experts on this site and stop spouting off all this crazy stuff Corky Bell has put in your head. The guys here have wa-a-a-a-a-y more turbo tuning experience and knowledge than Corky, or any of your so-called "inventors" and "race car engineers" for that matter.

 

[Haltech]

The numbers to refer to atmospheric pressure at sea level, not fuel conditions. If you think efficiency is BS, I suggest that you ask ALL the turbo experts their opinions. And by experts I mean people who invented the turbos and race car engineers. Tuning is the key to efficiency. Ever heard of a turbo's efficiency range??? (homework)
Stephanie

Ever heard of properly measuring turbo efficiency? You cant base it off atompheric pressure, thats for sure because that leaves the guy in new mexico at 6500 ft elevation with worse efficiency than a stock tune!

Wanna measure efficiency? Measure by dyno graphs showing the power increase with the most efficient air/fuel ratio, which would be 11.1 to 11.3 for the street and 12.0 - 12.2 on race fuel at the track. Toss in IAT temperatures before and after the intercooler and measure EGT temps. It doesnt get an simpler than that. Results speak for efficiency when youre laying down more horsepower than the competitors with lower temps and lower a/ ratio's.

How is this done? More parameters for the tuner to change. Xede needs to add high pressure fuel pump parameters to their software. This is going to be the key to big turbo guys in the future.

And just for future knowledge, im not new to the world of tuning my own vehicles or owning force induction vehicles, so please dont treat me as if im stupid. Thanks.

 

[Nutari]

Stephanie, I think you need to defer to the experts on this site and stop spouting off all this crazy stuff Corky Bell has put in your head. The guys here have wa-a-a-a-a-y more turbo tuning experience and knowledge than Corky, or any of your so-called "inventors" and "race car engineers" for that matter.

Whoa whoa.. there is NO ONE on these forums that has more knowledge than Corky Bell.

The best of the best on these forums have all re-read this book several times.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/ (commissions earned)

 

[Jays07MS3]

^^ Sarcasm claims another one (lol2)

 

[Nutari]

^^ Sarcasm claims another one (lol2)

DOH!

internet sarcasm always gets me.

(rlaugh)

 

[fourthmeal]

Ok, now I'm lost. Which part was sarcasm?

 

[StephanieT]

Wanna measure efficiency? Measure by dyno graphs showing the power increase with the most efficient air/fuel ratio, .... Results speak for efficiency when youre laying down more horsepower than the competitors with lower temps and lower a/ ratio's.

Laying down more power than the competitor is nice and all. MY MAIN POINT IS -if one car can make the same power at a lower boost level - therefore resulting in a higher efficiency number - there is a clear winner in the tuning war. And a clear winner in who's engine will last longer.

14.7 is an accurate number for us at sea level or close to. It is a generic formula for us. And totally unfair to compare a car at sea level w/ one at altitude. If you want to calculate the efficiency bring me a car and we compare side by side. We'll calculate the efficiency based on this method, and the brake specific fuel consumption.

How is this done? More parameters for the tuner to change. Xede needs to add high pressure fuel pump parameters to their software. This is going to be the key to big turbo guys in the future.

If you want more parameters, go with a standalone EMS. Some standalone's out there are awesome and create even better efficiency #'s. But for some that is not practical and/or do not have the time to pursue it. Some people do, and more power to 'em.

The Xede has already added the tuning via fuel pressure - to no additional benefit. But it is there none the less. Maybe it will be more helpful when the MAF sensor has maxed out, but that has not occurred yet.
Stephanie