Well............. support would be better then being so damn negative.





Tim

 

I have faith in your work Tim. I sure that their will be good gains from this mainfold.

 

Being facetious......or being an a$$?

You did say it yourself.....

 

why do many people attact and put down Tim @SFR when they have as much or more knownledge as other shops and have a beast **** turbo kit(the best IMO)?? Is it because they don't have big banners and people sucking up to their ****?? Or lack of marketing on this forum?? Please just leave the man alone when he knows his shiet!! Just my 2cents...

 

I know why Gurgen attacks Tim constantly. He's blown what 8 or 9 motors. He's had probably had the worst experience of anybody in the history of turboing the 350z/ g35 platform. I mean the guy is obviously intelligent with all those lenghthy post on the theory behind everything and the mathematical equations behind everything. Yet all that intelligence just makes his ridiculous track record boosting the VQ worse. If your so smart how come how your so sh!tty at boosting this motor. Why so many failures.

It must really bug you that a normal guy like Tim can design, build and install his own kit on a stock block and churn out over 470 rwhp for almost two years on whats considered the worst engine management available, the split second box. I would bet thats the stock block record for most horsepower for the longest period of time.

I dont even know Tim, but while I owned my Porsche 944 turbo he produced some of the best components available for that car. That was 4 or 5 years ago and more than half of the companies that supplied parts for the 944 are gone now. The guy knows his stuff and has survived a tough market.

Get off his a$$ Gurgen, you've got the worst track record of anyone in this forum for FI, This guy has made 470rwhp for close to 2 years on a stock motor!!!! You've been extremely effecient at blowing motors.

 

lets be fair, Gurgen has his knowledge but you can't down play him for his blown motors because he wasn't the one doing the work. You can have all the wealth in the world but if your not the one screwing down bolts, installing the parts and doing the tune its all out of your hand and control.

Why Tim and Gurgen both go at it, i dont know nor should i get involved or care. I already PM'ed Tim as what sort of gains this will show through the NA route and he's already responded back to me rather quickly stateing things are still getting fine tuned and can't say until everything is done. However he did mention the who twin TB is meant for the twin turbo guys. I hope Tim finds time to test this with NA setups.

 

If you do know exactly what it takes and done that several months ago, why not share with us your findings? or at least the gains and drivability of the car?

This really funny, I just got my self an EVO 9, about a week ago, and so far, I found that EvoM forum has a group of members, that have no problem in sharing their findings which makes them a community.

Regards,

Az

 

We are finishing up the fabrication right now so I will post some pictures in a couple of days. Are you ready to crap yourself? Ha! Ha! AZ,you might need this set-up man.We could modify your existing plenum and run the twin TB's so you dont have to buy a completely new set-up.

 

People dont share thier findings in the 350z market. I wish they would.

 

I have always shared with the community... everyone knows that. Especially in the beginning when the scene was far newer/fresher than it is now (being that's it's been 4-5 years now).

I found that the useful range on the MAF was about 16 psi or so in a 4" housing. What I was saying is that the scaling is not even close to being linear. You first have to construct a g/sec scale for the stock housing, did that. Than you have to get your new housing (enlarged diameter would be useful for the extended range) run it through a flow bench and construct a new curve for the larger housing (CFM vs volts). Convert CFM to g/sec taking the ambient air into consideration. If you want to do a dual MAF you would want to have a standalone small computer that would have a simple 3D lookup table and combine this into the correct 'common' voltage.

An EMS with built-in math function-based variables/tables can do this within the EMS. I just have not seen this new constructed value (the one that combines both MAF voltages PROPERLY) allowed to be used as the main LOAD indicator (and only for auxiliary indicators). I have discussed this with a Motec dealer a while back..and he agreed with me that a standalone 3D table processor would work best. They had done this for a race car in the past, where they wanted to do a dual MAF proof-of-concept. But, it didn't work as well because they didn't work out the kinks completely.

HKS Fcon has an input for two MAF (ala RB26DETT), I plan to discuss this with Sam@GTM next time I see him (next week) and see exactly what it is that the Fcon does with two inputs (ideally you would want the two resulting g/sec values to be added together and be used as the main load value, or be converted back to voltage and it be used for a main load voltage.

This is the basic part of the R&D. As far as making it work, it is proprietary information (i.e. the throttle plate control, etc). I do not hear anyone saying this to Tim or any other vendor to reveal how they are doing things...as well Tim/anyone else should not reveal it, it's their proprietary knowledge.

ANyway....Tim...I apologize to you for the ill-conceived comments...my apologies.. whatever I say it's not personal. Good luck with this, I'd love to see this as an option out there, because MAFs are in one important way superior to MAPs.

 

Exactly...have I been doing all the work? SO all those boneheads (PORTUGEE included)..instead of just throwing it out there without knowing the story...do not bother.

My problem has been getting into FIing way to early when we didn't know anything, and being one of the first ones to FI this motor (from the famous initial rods/pistons group buy by Sharif). So I was the one to find out that the Arias pistons were not made correctly, prompting all the group buy pistons to be sent back to Arias...i did save people a lot of heartache and money. So the engine had to come out and that be fixed. Then it was discovered that the a$$holes at Z1 in Georgia put 6-8 thou cyl-to-wall clearance... which is why the engine sounded like a diesel truck. So that engine had a ring sealing problem and we blew a ring when TS experimented with a 4" MAF housing...went lean and blew a ring... but because of the loose engine I decided to the AEBS sleeves (before Darton got really big), which were not pressed in correctly and 2 of them were leaking. So that had to go. When I was living in NorCal, I was forced go with Ted (Scott Perf) ..and more recent engine problem was a blown head gasket because (as we were taking it apart) we saw that he torqued few of the studs (#4 cyl) to 114, splitting the head gasket in that spot.

So which of these are my fault. I have benefited this forum and this community quite a bit...more than the naysayers for sure.

As far as why me and Tim go at it, look at the previous thread, and if you truly understand the discussion you will know why.

Anyway, I am gonna leave it at that... Good luck to all

 

Gurgen,


We can be friends LOL. Ok, now we are even. I know you are a calculations sort of guy and math is definitely part of your arsenal but on your testing with the MAF was it done on a running car or just bench testing?The reason I ask if for many years we have figured out ways to extend all sorts of MAF's usable ranges, Bosch, Ford, GM, etc........without clamping the voltage.

Afterall, the MAF is there to do one thing and provide an air signal to the ECU, so if you can get the correct signal with a stock 3" sensor why bother going to like a 4" ? We have seen that by increasing the size of the MAF housing you lose alot of velocity over the hotwire which leads to erratic readings which results in drivability issues.The problem is even worse when FI is part of the equation. We could see an issue with this by running twin MAFs but we have some ideas if that occurs.

 

Well the 4" was done if a single MAF was to be used, I neglected to mention that. It does give a decent usable range, but as you said, erratic idle, etc were some of the issues. And this one we did have on a running car, a while back...but left the idea in favor of MAP.

We did the dual MAF R&D on the bench, and had not a chance to install it on a car (because I was borrowing one of the MAFs, to start with). That's where I discovered that hte best way to proceded would be a standalone processor (not too expensive, but still a totally custom job). I am cautiously optimistic on the Fcon being able to do this...but this is definitely in my plans to work on, some time in the future.

Honestly, with a proper MAP elevation and temperature correction...and I say proper as in on a reliable EMS system and proper values programmed (with the elevation correction not being constant relative to the type of FI used), MAP is far easier to deal with. The problem is that virtually (if not literally) NO one does both of these functions on cars the way I described it. Hence, MAFs can be safer in this fashion, since they already measure MASS, with no need of correction for elevation or IAT.

I would not personally bother with it for an N/A car, i do not think that the gains, if any, would be worth it.

On the friends thing...I am just here to keep people honest, Tim, that's all....just as people like Dennis Kusinich and Al Sharpton get into presidential races without a chance of winning...it's to keep the rest of the candidates honest. I hope you understand...it's not personal.

 

Well, another problem is what will you do with air reversion that will occur with large duration cams, since MAF counts air going in either direction (that's its drawback)... you would need to have an EMS that can do idle AFR compensation (anti-stall).