How many people have blown their Boosted engine with the FCON EMS?
09-26-2006, 02:48 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Bent a valve...I think he mentioned he hit 8000rpm with his auto trans.
09-26-2006, 02:55 PM
#22
With the FCon V Pro EMS you can set the rev limiter to anything you want, you have total control over the engine. The tuner of the system either didnt set one or have it set to a really high limit ( like 20K RPMS ) which would be the same has not having a rev limiter on a VQ platform.
-George
-George
10-01-2006, 10:30 AM
#27
Originally Posted by majik16106
Did sharif switch to the Fcon now or is he still on the UTEC?
The UTEC is great at WOT on high boost, but the part throttle is very challenging/impossible to dial in perfectly with its limited resolution....once you pass about 15psi.
10-01-2006, 12:57 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: atl. ga
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so you will be switching over? see thats the thing.. i like the idea of jwt driveability but how good is the tuning? i cant justify the extra cost of the jwt over the greddy when i know eventually ill have to swap the jwt management for the fcon and the greddy kit offers more power potential later anyway... and with the money saved up front.. thats money for the fcon or internals or whatever...
10-01-2006, 01:18 PM
#29
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: L.A, California
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by majik16106
i cant justify the extra cost of the jwt over the greddy when i know eventually ill have to swap the jwt management for the fcon and the greddy kit offers more power potential later anyway... and with the money saved up front.. thats money for the fcon or internals or whatever...
10-01-2006, 01:23 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: atl. ga
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ill just have to wait till next time i catch sharif at starbucks since i havnt been in awhile and bother him for like an hour or until he tell me im annoying and to go away... then ill just go bother ashley or valerie.. lol.
10-01-2006, 01:40 PM
#31
Either path you take will require some upgrades. The JWT will have lower initial cost on your stock engine...the Greddy will require a little more up front on your stock engine. You could probably flip a coin and go either way, if you feel you are definately going to build the motor and go for 550whp+, then the Greddy TT might be a better option for you.
10-01-2006, 03:39 PM
#32
I know this might be off topic, but Sharif, Phunk and all of you other experienced tuner gurus, do you think that with units coming out from UpRev and Cobb that give you complete and total control over the OEM ECU with every engine parameter possible, will these solutions measure up to the potential of the UTEC or the Fcon?
(Sorry for the hijack, but I really don't want to make another thread when we have such a concentration of knowledgeable people on this thread)
-Acree
(Sorry for the hijack, but I really don't want to make another thread when we have such a concentration of knowledgeable people on this thread)
-Acree
10-01-2006, 04:02 PM
#33
Originally Posted by Acree
I know this might be off topic, but Sharif, Phunk and all of you other experienced tuner gurus, do you think that with units coming out from UpRev and Cobb that give you complete and total control over the OEM ECU with every engine parameter possible, will these solutions measure up to the potential of the UTEC or the Fcon?
(Sorry for the hijack, but I really don't want to make another thread when we have such a concentration of knowledgeable people on this thread)
-Acree
(Sorry for the hijack, but I really don't want to make another thread when we have such a concentration of knowledgeable people on this thread)
-Acree
Anything that relies on the stock ECU under boost is going to have limitations at higher boost. The stock ECU mapping is an enemic 8X8....hardly the appropriate resolution for moderate to high boost. I see the offerings from Cobb and others, as better suited for mild FI, or NA applications.
10-01-2006, 06:45 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: atl. ga
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so.. this maybe a dumb question.and might need to start a new thread But how come people arent using the AEM or wiring up the powerhouse Map Ecu.. We use the PH units all the time on supras 3d mapping is fun especially with 374 available zones. those cars are factory MAF as well. im just curious why if your going to FI the 350z crowd isnt moving toward MAP based control. I understand the ph doesnt allow for ignition control but there is ways to fix that. especially on cars that drive everyday it would seem to me from the outside looking in that moving to a map system would be much easier. just curious.
And you might have to excuse some of the other posts on this name. 4 different people post on it and they have a bad habit of not paying attention and asking the same crap twice.
- Paul
And you might have to excuse some of the other posts on this name. 4 different people post on it and they have a bad habit of not paying attention and asking the same crap twice.
- Paul
10-02-2006, 05:14 AM
#35
Originally Posted by majik16106
so.. this maybe a dumb question.and might need to start a new thread But how come people arent using the AEM or wiring up the powerhouse Map Ecu.. We use the PH units all the time on supras 3d mapping is fun especially with 374 available zones. those cars are factory MAF as well. im just curious why if your going to FI the 350z crowd isnt moving toward MAP based control. I understand the ph doesnt allow for ignition control but there is ways to fix that. especially on cars that drive everyday it would seem to me from the outside looking in that moving to a map system would be much easier. just curious.
And you might have to excuse some of the other posts on this name. 4 different people post on it and they have a bad habit of not paying attention and asking the same crap twice.
- Paul
And you might have to excuse some of the other posts on this name. 4 different people post on it and they have a bad habit of not paying attention and asking the same crap twice.
- Paul
10-02-2006, 07:10 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: atl. ga
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and now that im actually taking the time to look my foot tastes pretty good.
I guess since those systems are "designed" to work with stock sensors i just assumed, which is dumb, dont know what i was thinking. Supra community uses the fcon and people swap to the map on it in fact ive installed it.. so dont ask me.
I really wish MAP would expand their plug n play line up.. way better than an aem. I love the 3d mapping. Its what i was going to use on my old 7m datsun. easy interface and loads of help.. even though its almost all out of new zealand or whatever.
anyway.. +1 for fcon over utec though.
I guess since those systems are "designed" to work with stock sensors i just assumed, which is dumb, dont know what i was thinking. Supra community uses the fcon and people swap to the map on it in fact ive installed it.. so dont ask me.
I really wish MAP would expand their plug n play line up.. way better than an aem. I love the 3d mapping. Its what i was going to use on my old 7m datsun. easy interface and loads of help.. even though its almost all out of new zealand or whatever.
anyway.. +1 for fcon over utec though.
10-02-2006, 07:26 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Hi Acree,
Anything that relies on the stock ECU under boost is going to have limitations at higher boost. The stock ECU mapping is an enemic 8X8....hardly the appropriate resolution for moderate to high boost. I see the offerings from Cobb and others, as better suited for mild FI, or NA applications.
Anything that relies on the stock ECU under boost is going to have limitations at higher boost. The stock ECU mapping is an enemic 8X8....hardly the appropriate resolution for moderate to high boost. I see the offerings from Cobb and others, as better suited for mild FI, or NA applications.
Sharif, I have perhaps silly question: assuming that MAF can be scaled down, or that MAP sensor somehow can be attached and if that 8x8 table(s?) can be made larger would that help for mild FI? Thanks
10-03-2006, 05:33 AM
#38
Originally Posted by dovla
Sharif, I have perhaps silly question: assuming that MAF can be scaled down, or that MAP sensor somehow can be attached and if that 8x8 table(s?) can be made larger would that help for mild FI? Thanks
10-03-2006, 01:19 PM
#39
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "$2500-$3500 for the hardware and misc options/harnesses/sensors. Tuning will vary, based on the vehicle and the application."
Good Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't afford to play anymore now!
Good Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't afford to play anymore now!
10-03-2006, 02:51 PM
#40
Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Hi Acree,
Anything that relies on the stock ECU under boost is going to have limitations at higher boost. The stock ECU mapping is an enemic 8X8....hardly the appropriate resolution for moderate to high boost. I see the offerings from Cobb and others, as better suited for mild FI, or NA applications.
Anything that relies on the stock ECU under boost is going to have limitations at higher boost. The stock ECU mapping is an enemic 8X8....hardly the appropriate resolution for moderate to high boost. I see the offerings from Cobb and others, as better suited for mild FI, or NA applications.
Stock ECU fueling is not 8x8. The fundamental VE map is 16x16 (injector map). There is an additional 8x8 'trim' map. This is analogous to the HKS's 32x32 VE map, and "only" a 16x16 submap (which is a trim map). 8x8 is totally ok for a trim map, becuase it's jsut that, a trim map. It is meant to adjust the AFR up or down based on an already presumably well calibrated 16x16 ve map. If you have erratic AFR, you do not adjust it in the ECU's 8x8... you adjust the 16x16, and then can use the 8x8 for additional trimming.
This is believed to certainly be the case with the pre Oct-03 LEV cars (non-WB O2 sensors). With the WB cars, there is a school of thought that the 8x8 is not a trim map, but a 'target af' map, which if you think is not very far from the trim map with respect to what it achieves. You can think of it this way. In the stock ECU, the 16x16 is used to specify the amount of gas for a given amount of air to schive stoich ratios, and from there the 8x8 trim map is used to adjust away from the stoich (read: go richer) under certain conditions. Which is why half of the 8x8 table (upper/left part, if you were to split it in half diagonally from the lower left corner to the upper right corner) has a neutral "80" hex value...80 in hex form is 128 in decimal form...right smack in the middle of the 0-255 range.
This being said, the 32x32 (ve) and 16x16 (trim) ofhte Fcon is much much (4 times) better than the stock 16x16 (ve) and 8x8 (trim), not to mention that the stock knock sensor algorithm (in addition to the lower resolution) is ALWAYS going to keep you from achieving the smooth dyno curves on non-Fcon cars. Just my opinion here.
Last edited by GurgenPB; 10-03-2006 at 03:04 PM.