daking350

Well what do you think the problem is EJ? ATI doesnt make the AEROMOTIVE FMU unit, and this unit WILL flow the fuel to support alot more HP..SO it only leaves the timing issue..Maybee some Z's have different MAPS in their STOCK ECU's that cause an issue with the timing?I heard rumors of the first batch of ECU's having issues but I dont know how valid that is...If its getting the proper fuel ratios then what is left to cause detonation at that level of boost???

GaryK

Where did you get the idea that everybody needs less than 95 psi fuel pressure to get enough fuel in? Is anybody even monitoring this on their properly tuned cars? I can tell you mine is much higher than that on the fifth band in order to get enough fuel in the higher rpms.

If your injectors are at max duty cycle then you will need more fuel pressure to get more fuel through them. It really sounds like that is your problem, and I'd look there if you want to get safe a/f ratios using your current equipment. Your other option is to put less air into the mix, in other words run less boost...and I'm sure you don't want to do that.

BTW, I'm not at high elevation and my car works fine with the fmu. I checked and I'm actually only at 75% on the 5th slider....

12SecZ

Daking, sounds like a good plan, I need to go read the thread. The best bet when you go the TS route is to get everything done first then flash last. This is easier with N/A then it is with FI. With FI you don't just want to throw it all together then go flash and hope for the best so I got my kit running correctly at 7 pounds at 11.5, flashed, then supplemented the fuel more, opened up the exhaust more and then added more even air (Crawford, and more boost;, pulleys) now I will go flash again to 11.5. Time consuming but safe and accurate.

Swinke,
I can be in Redding in 2 hours on a good day. Straight shot North on I5 from Sac International Airport, used to go there all the time.

I understand your concerns about dual or even tri mapping and the ATI complete kit.

Are these statements accurate?

1. You believe that the 5k "complete H.O. kit" should take into consideration different altitudes and octane’s and the fact that people who spend 5k for this kit may travel for a living and should not have to go stop at a Dyno or have a Wideband and be a self tuner to run this kit in another state or at different octane without risking their engine? Dyno before going to Grandma’s etc?

2. Our stock fuel system is not up to par (100%) for the 7 even 8 pounds of boost (documented in writing in EJ's letter from ATI) the kit can make?

If your answers to one and two are yes, well obviously yes I agree and that is why I did what I did with my car. The only option for me if going to 4k elevation is stay off boost and baby my baby.

I would also add a 3rd statement.
I believe that some here are staying under 4k or nowhere near redline thus not seeing any issues and if they pushed their car like a blown car is supposed to be pushed they may get spanked with the oil gremlin. Boosted cars were made to fly! Mine flies! 32 degrees last night and woo hoo!

swinke

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 12SecZ
[B]Daking, sounds like a good plan, I need to go read the thread. The best bet when you go the TS route is to get everything done first then flash last. This is easier with N/A then it is with FI. With FI you don't just want to throw it all together then go flash and hope for the best so I got my kit running correctly at 7 pounds at 11.5, flashed, then supplemented the fuel more, opened up the exhaust more and then added more even air (Crawford, and more boost;, pulleys) now I will go flash again to 11.5. Time consuming but safe and accurate.

Swinke,
I can be in Redding in 2 hours on a good day. Straight shot North on I5 from Sac International Airport, used to go there all the time.

I understand your concerns about dual or even tri mapping and the ATI complete kit.

Are these statements accurate?

1. You believe that the 5k "complete H.O. kit" should take into consideration different altitudes and octane’s and the fact that people who spend 5k for this kit may travel for a living and should not have to go stop at a Dyno or have a Wideband and be a self tuner to run this kit in another state or at different octane without risking their engine? Dyno before going to Grandma’s etc?

2. Our stock fuel system is not up to par (100%) for the 7 even 8 pounds of boost (documented in writing in EJ's letter from ATI) the kit can make?

If your answers to one and two are yes, well obviously yes I agree and that is why I did what I did with my car. The only option for me if going to 4k elevation is stay off boost and baby my baby.

I would also add a 3rd statement.
I believe that some here are staying under 4k or nowhere near redline thus not seeing any issues and if they pushed their car like a blown car is supposed to be pushed they may get spanked with the oil gremlin. Boosted cars were made to fly! Mine flies! 32 degrees last night and woo hoo!

Reply to Q1) I have not gone anywhere since I installed the kit so my traveling issue is not a problem at this point. I mentioned the traveling thing because it makes the point that the kit is not safe in all situations and elevations. I believe that the kit should be capable of running a little richer at lower elevations, which it obviously can’t be. This is my main issue. If the proper testing was done on enough cars to eliminate the possibility of engine damage the manufacturer of the kit would have realized what was going to happen and maybe came up with a more complete kit. But they didn’t.

Reply to Q2) This is very true! How did we know? How did the people that bought the kit know this before engine damage? Well, they didn’t. That to me shows a little irresponsibility on behalf of the kit manufacturer (my basic point in this thread). It states the following on page 57, “EFMU Tuning” section of the included manual: “Your EFMU comes preset with a safe program for stock installation.” This is obviously not true.

My point in this thread is still the same. ATI/Procharger clearly states in the manual a “safe setting” for all untuned cars the kit is installed on. This is not even close to true. It has never been true. And with the current kit build and included equipment the kit is not safe for all Z’s that it is being installed on.

elektrik_juggernaut

well here's the deal......the FMU can flow enough fuel, but my injectors cannot.......not for my octane anyway.......some people who have higher octane, or have less air going in may be fine, but i believe that they are just barely okay.......as far as the problem with the timing maps, it not with just the early ones, because i have one of the most recent ECM flashes from Nissan......i think from what we've seen from other manufacturers, it's pretty obvious that larger injectors and/or timing control is a necessity.........i really don't understand why people are still debating this

swinke, i really appreciate this thread........there's a lot of good information in it.......it's too bad that people have to bring their "wars" in here..........i've really learned a lot from your research.......please don't let this discourage you in the future

12SecZ

I concur, it is not failsafe when shipped from the factory.

For what it is worth I will broaden that theory. I live in a Valley. I think our nearest airport (Executive) is 27 feet above SL.

I can only get 91 Octane.

If the kit wasn't ever tested in these conditions (by any company claming it was safe) it shouldn't be sold to this Valley.

It is not "safe" (the complete kit in stock form at stock settings on a stock car) at 27 feet ASL on 91 Octane at 6600 rpms's PERIOD!

The fuel is wrong, the timing is wrong etc etc.

Now I think that about covers all of the symantecs being tossed back in forth right there in one post.

Bottom line, buy the tuner kit in California or prepare for the worst because if you have a problem you will wind up in a battle that the kit maker will even go as far as libel to defend themselves in.

12SecZ

It's hard to read because it is a snapshot, not scanned but this is what they say.

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...0289911&idx=63

"systems do work work exactly as advertised when installed as reccommended on stock vehicles."

That is exactly what was done by the petioner BTW from a very well known mechanic even Black LS1 must know from the boards!
Black Magic Racing!

If you cannot read that I will be happy to type it all in verbatim but I don't think it's necassary. The part I circled says the kit can make 7-8 pounds on stock cars safely but EJ modified his which is blatant libel. Have a nice day I am done here, sorry for the interuption.

jesseenglish

EJ,

This isn't a war, Gary pointed out that his fuel pressure is not adequate. I was telling him reasons it wouldn't be adequate. I know that 95 PSI would be just barely adequate in mine either so he can either try to figure out why or blame it on ATI/Aeromotive/Nissan. His choice, it's no skin off my back either way.

elektrik_juggernaut

maybe this has some relevance......this was an email sent to me from ATI's tech department:

daking350

The system I may use on my car will most likely utilise EXTRA injectors run off a seperate fuel pump/line....How do the techno gurus feel about that??

GaryK

Ok, I'm launching my next "attack"...here it comes:

Lets look at some numbers. For this example, lets assume 360 whp with 15% driveline loss, giving us ~423 hp at the crank. Assume a BSFC factor of 0.6, injector flow rate of 280cc/min at 43.5 psi. This can all be used to calculate the fuel pressure required. At 100% duty cycle, you'll need at least 110 psi at the fuel rail to support 423 hp. If you have only 95 psi at the rail, you barely have enough to support about 395 hp at the crank.

These numbers are not exact, in fact its a rough guess because I obviously don't have real numbers from your car to calculate with. One of the assumptions is that you're tuning it to a safe a/f ratio, and not on the ragged edge. But, based on my estimate, you're short on fuel pressure without a doubt.

You can point fingers all you want, but you're still pointing the wrong way. Figure out what's up with your fuel pressure and you'll solve your problem. Or, ignore the sound advice you're given and go spend a bunch of money....whatever works for you.

swinke

The E-Manage has the capability of running 2 additional injectors. For the price that I gave you earlier with all the gadgets I have the ability to run and map the 2 extra injectors against RPM any of the parameters I select. I can choose from mapping to RPM/Boost, RPM/TPS (bad idea), RPM/MAF (MAF reading is at 100% from 3500rpm up at WOT). This is a simple way to solve the problem but I would not know the best place to add injectors for this setup to get balanced fuel delivery to all cylinders. The only place I have seen injectors placed when aditional injectors are added would be upstream of the TB. This seems like a bad idea to me. It makes a wet manifold system out of a dry. Is this acceptable? What about all the parts that were not made for exposure to fuel in a dry intake setup? Will it work anyway?

swinke

Honest question here. What fuel pressure are you running at the rail on the 5th slider at WOT/redline/full boost?

swinke

I love it when Gary gets pissed. It’s apparently when he does his very best work.

Thank you Gary for the most useful post I've seen in days. I had the numbers wrong based on your math. It’s really not my field so I will certainly use your numbers from here forward on the PSI/InjVol numbers.

Thanks again.

daking350

By the time the Extra injectors fire up the airflow is such that you will have no problem getting all the fuel atomized properly and to each cylinder..The guy I am working with suggest the same setup and has used it on some serious HP vehicles in the past with no problems...I have faithin this system and think it will work..The problem at this point becomes the fuel pressure and the addition of a stronger fuel pump or an extra one...

daking350

Gary tends to get pissed quite often and feels he is alway right Sometimes he can be quite confrontational....

jesseenglish

When I originally had my car tuned at 12.0:1 A/F ratio at 6100 ft elevation (Colorado Springs) I was running a max Fuel Pressure at redline/WOT of 99 PSI. I don't regularly run a fuel pressure gauge, so I don't have readings now, but I guarantee it's higher now because I've turned up the FMU slightly to compensate for a slightly lower altitude and a richer mix of 11.7:1 which is what I'm currently running.

D'oh

swinke, Gary mentioned on his first post that your fuel pressure was probably the problem, and for some reason you chose to ignore that post and instead give an attitude to him and anyone with ideas. I'm surprised these guys are helping you at all.

-D'oh!

swinke

You really dont understand why yet do you?

Mind your own buisness.

Or should I dial-up instead of cable modem pretend I am someone else and defend myself with a different name and login?

elektrik_juggernaut

i've seen a lot of stuff in this thread that looks similar to the reaction that i got with my problems......it can get extremely frustrating when people ask the same questions that have already been answered in several other threads.........Gary's "exit statement" made it clear that, no matter who posts what on this forum, he believes that there is only a 1% failure rate with these systems........i can't really say that........not with eight blown motors and several people getting pre-ignition.........if Gary became too angered to carry on his fight anymore, thats his deal, but no one else carries responsibility for that