Factor X How About ECU Approach For CTSC?

[Craig]

Ok so we now know that the ECU approach is the light at the end of the tunnel for the BBSC but will this approach work with the Comptech Supercharger?

Now that I have the CTSC on my car the fuel mgmt system that CT sells with the kit seems to work but it can't possibly be that accurate.

Are you able to reprogram the ECU to match the fuel needs for the CT unit as well?

I would love to feel assured that when I'm at WOT I'm getting exactly the amount of fuel the engine needs.

 

[NSXTC]

Craig, Bud...

Why???? Why would you mess with what is undoubtedly the most proven SC system for the NSX.

I know we have discussed this briefly in person, but I’d like to hear other’s opinions on this.

My thinking is that even if the ECU route is more elegant, controls the fuel curve better, or whatever, the CT solution still works fine…for the CT SC.

The basic concept behind the CT SC fuel system (i.e. the boost-actuated FMU and fuel pump voltage increase) was not optimal for the early beta BBSC’s because of a slightl lean spot between 6,800 to 7,200 RPM) but this system works great for the CTSC. Nobody will argue with that.

Someone else was thinking of using a SmartMap with the CTSC instead of the mechanical check valve on the #4 vac line. I don’t see how that would help either.

Unless you are looking for more boost or otherwise looking to change your CT SC setup in some fundamental way, why mess with it??

What's that saying about "if it ain't broke..."?

 

[Craig]

So I shouldn't even ask??? Besides what would be the harm in throwing a standard boost CTSC set up on the dyno and seeing just how accurate the fuel delivery is?

Sure it works fine, I've already said that, but can it be cleaned up?

Didn't you find that there were not only some lean areas in the fuel delivery with your CT9lb kit but also some rich areas along the RPM range? When you cleaned that up with the Apex computer you were amazed at the difference.

 

[Craig]

And Marc, another thing...I thought you were changing your user name to 9LbMarc? hmmmmm...time to move on buddy.

 

[ScienceofSpeed]

Originally posted by NSXTC:
Someone else was thinking of using a SmartMap with the CTSC instead of the mechanical check valve on the #4 vac line. I don’t see how that would help either.

Unless you are looking for more boost or otherwise looking to change your CT SC setup in some fundamental way, why mess with it??

All of the Comptech supercharger kits now ship with a SmartMap like device that blocks the MAP signal, instead of using the check valve.

FactorX actually has quite a bit of tuning experience with the Comptech Supercharger, and I'm sure with a piggy-back fuel computer, the fuel curve could be optimized as Ken did with his car. The question is, is it all worth the money for some extra HP here and there?

-- Chris


------------------

Sign up for the Northwest NSXCA Track Event at Thunderhill:
http://sacramento.nsxca.org/Events/thunderhill_driving_school_4-02.htm

 

[Russ]

Originally posted by Craig:
Ok so we now know that the ECU approach is the light at the end of the tunnel for the BBSC but will this approach work with the Comptech Supercharger?

Doesn't the GruppeM SC also use modified ECU firmware?

------------------
Russ
'91 black/black

[This message has been edited by Russ (edited 28 March 2002).]

 

[ScienceofSpeed]

Originally posted by Russ:
Doesn't the GruppeM SC also use modified ECU firmware?

The GruppeM Supercharger does not modify the ECU chip, but instead, blocks the stock fuel system signals with a piggy-back computer designed especially for the GruppeM Supercharger.

Regards,
-- Chris

------------------

Sign up for the Northwest NSXCA Track Event at Thunderhill:
http://sacramento.nsxca.org/Events/thunderhill_driving_school_4-02.htm

 

[David Allen]

Mark Basch tweaked my fuel system after I got my CTSC and got me an additional 10-15RWHP if I recall.

------------------
David Allen
'00 Silverstone NSX-T
Comptech SC, Headers, Intake, Exhaust & a little Mark Basch tweakage

 

[NSXTC]

I just spoke to Mike & Ken at Factor X about this. Their chip should clean up the fuel curve better than the system that ships with CT.

Cleaning up the fuel curve is a laudable goal, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Again, why are we considering doing this at all? For reliability? Certainly not. I think it’s like Chris says- is it worth the performance gain you are expected to get? Bottom line is that we really can’t answer that until we see some dyno numbers.

[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Carguy!]

I believe if someone came out with an upgrade for the fuel delivery system on the CT superchargers they would have several customers.

I purchased a CT supercharger over a year ago and wasn't very impressed with how they manage the fuel. I am currently upgrading my car to the 9 PSI pulley and injectors. There is a rough idle problem once the car has warmed up and my check engine light has came on twice and is believed to be related to too much fuel at WOT. I have considered adding a complex system to take care of the entire fuel curve and would of already done so if I knew of someone in the area fully capable.

So I guess what I am trying to say is if Factor X or someone else can develop a system that works with the CT you have one customer waiting in the wings and i'll bet a bunch more.

[This message has been edited by Carguy! (edited 28 March 2002).]

 

[Craig]

Originally posted by Carguy!:
I I purchased a CT supercharger over a year ago and wasn't very impressed with how they manage the fuel. [This message has been edited by Carguy! (edited 28 March 2002).]

My point exactly...I was told that at WOT on the CT unit that 95-100psi was optimal. After installing the SC and a new spring in the Fuel Reg. (I bought my SC from 9lb marc and went back to stock psi) we found that my fuel system was only producing around 87-90psi @ WOT.

Even with assurances that this is OK, it still doesn't seem to be too precise...especially with an entire engine at stake.

So again, I'm just wondering how efficent the fuel delivery on a 5lb CTSC car is.

And as far as the argument of, "How much are you willing to pay for a little more HP?" We all seem to plop down the same kind of money for other improvements that provide minimal HP gains, whereas wouldn't this provide a little more HP a little safer?


Factor X...........

 

[NSXTC]

I used to have the 9LB CTSC. In fact, it's now on Craig's car as a standard 5 PSI setup.

Carguy, Your rough idle is not because of the Comptech fuel system. It's more likely from the convoluted path the air has to take (under bypass) from the throttle body to the intake manifold, and the fact that the IAC cannot keep up, so the IAC "hunts" for the right idle speed. I had this issue myself. It has been discussed several times on the forums. How do you attribute this to Comptech's fuel system? Have you checked your trouble codes?

As far as where your car is running rich at high RPM, this is a unique feature of YOUR car. My 9 LB CTSC was too rich in the middle of its RPM range. This is a bit of a safety factor. Being too much too rich is bad, but Im sure you realize you dont want to run too lean at the top of your RPM range.

If you want your car "tuned", im all for it, you ought to pick up anywhere between 10-20 HP and Ft-Lbs, as the manufacturer of any particular fuel system cannot tune so close from the bench to work so perferctly on everyone's car. What we are discussing here is not a custom tuning job, but switching one type of fuel system for another, right?

I would at least have a long conversation with Shad at Comptech before attempting this. He is very protective of his supercharger, and for good reason.

The guys at FactorX really know what they are doing, and would not steer you wrong. The CTSC chip y'all are talking about does not exist yet. I know we are all excited about this technology, but it does not sound like that is what you need for your car given your stated problems and goals.

Bottom line, do your homework and know what your problem (if any) is before you simply throw more money at your car by bolting something new and slick onto it, which is the natural tendency many of us car guys have!

Originally posted by Carguy!:
I believe if someone came out with an upgrade for the fuel delivery system on the CT superchargers they would have several customers.

I purchased a CT supercharger over a year ago and wasn't very impressed with how they manage the fuel. I am currently upgrading my car to the 9 PSI pulley and injectors. There is a rough idle problem once the car has warmed up and my check engine light has came on twice and is believed to be related to too much fuel at WOT. I have considered adding a complex system to take care of the entire fuel curve and would of already done so if I knew of someone in the area fully capable.

So I guess what I am trying to say is if Factor X or someone else can develop a system that works with the CT you have one customer waiting in the wings and i'll bet a bunch more.

[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 28 March 2002).]

 

[Number9]

Originally posted by NSXTC:
Carguy, Your rough idle is not because of the Comptech fuel system. It's more likely from the convoluted path the air has to take (under bypass) from the throttle body to the intake manifold, and the fact that the IAC cannot keep up, so the IAC "hunts" for the right idle speed. I had this issue myself. It has been discussed several times on the forums. How do you attribute this to Comptech's fuel system? Have you checked your trouble codes?

As far as where your car is running rich at high RPM, this is a unique feature of YOUR car. My 9 LB CTSC was too rich in the middle of its RPM range. This is a bit of a safety factor. Being too much too rich is bad, but Im sure you realize you dont want to run too lean at the top of your RPM range.

Assuming the car idled OK before installing the new pulley, injectors, and recurved FPR, then the air flow theory wouldn't seem to explain the rough idle, as the air flow path hasn't been altered as compared to carguy's previously installed 6-lb kit. (BTW, my high boost install doesn't exhibit the rough idle symptom.) As for running rich at high RPM being "unique," my 9-lb boost 3.2L (same as Carguy's) also runs [slightly] rich at high RPM, so by definition, the experience is not unique. So like carguy, I'd pay for better fuel management, with the added constraint that it would have to be CA smog legal.

[This message has been edited by Number9 (edited 28 March 2002).]

 

[NSXTC]

You need someone who knows what they are talking about to physically inspect and diagnose your idle problem. We can only speculate blindly from here. The IAC / Fast idle valve problem is the most commonly noted idle problem with the CTSC, and even that does not affect everyone. I have never heard of this kind of idle problem being attributed to the fuel system.

[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 28 March 2002).]

 

[NSXTC]

Yes, the CT does run a bit rich as a rule. Again, this was done purposely as a safety factor.

It might be tempting to just take a screwdriver and lean up the FPU a bit, but this would be a BIG BIG mistake!

You may see the black smoke out your tailpipes, and naturally conclude that you are rich at high RPM, but it was discovered that my car was running way rich particularly at the midrange, not so much at high RPM's. Each individual car has slight differences in their air-fuel curves.

The only way you should mess with your CT fuel system is if you REALLY know exactly what you are doing.

The guys at FactorX can help in this regard. They got me about 15 HP and Ft-Lbs if I recall correctly.

Sorry, they can't do it via mail order.

You have to bring your car to them, hook it up to a wide-band air-fuel meter on their dyno, and let them see what is happening and tune it properly over several dyno runs. Im sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's the only way to do it right.


[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 28 March 2002).]

 

[NSXTech]

Originally posted by Craig:
Ok so we now know that the ECU approach is the light at the end of the tunnel for the BBSC but will this approach work with the Comptech Supercharger?

My humble opinion is that this sounds like a matter of doing something because you can, instead of because you should.
Yes, Factor X can probabally get 15 or 20 extra ponies out of the CTSC. As david Allen said, I got AT LEAST that much out of his after his dealer installed it, and I tuned it.
However, the limiting factor here (no pun intended) is the Whipple Charger. The *main*
problem IMO is the displacement of the blower. The Whipple selected by CT is at, or almost at, the limit of its displacement for a 3.0 L motor. When I was doing a TON of pulley and tuning experiments with it a few years ago, I learned that spinning it any faster than CT does in their 7.75 psi aplication (aka, 9lb kit) it makes LESS boost. This is because it can't compress any more air. To add a new fueling system to a config that can't get any more boost would only be worth the cost if the HP gains per dollar were there, and IMO they are not.
The CTSC only makes 65 or 70 hp and that is with what I consider a well designed fuel system for the ap. You need more blower to get more squeeze to make better use of fuel before you can get more ponies.

The SmartMap however is another story. IF imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, than I am flattered. CT copied my smartMap idea and now sells it as an upgrade to the early CTSC kits. I don't know what their claims are, and I am not prepared to make any today however next week we are installing a SmartMap on a CTSC I installed a few yaers ago. We are doing dyno pulls before and after, with fuel graphs, to see exactly if, how, and where we clean up the power curve. We are going to do three pulls each way and the install should not cause enough time to lapse between pulls to cause any temp or other influences on the Dynojet.
We will certainly post our results.

Stay tuned,
Mark Basch

 

[BrentCobb]

Originally posted by ScienceofSpeed:
The GruppeM Supercharger does not modify the ECU chip, but instead, blocks the stock fuel system signals with a piggy-back computer designed especially for the GruppeM Supercharger.

Regards,
-- Chris

My GruppeM kit does indeed have a ECU chip as part of the kit. In fact, there are 4 different chips available for the ECU depending on the gasoline you use with the GruppeM kits - they're progressively more aggressive. So, I do have to say that the GruppeM does have a chip as well as 2 piggy-back controllers.
Brent Cobb

 

[ilya]

***Sorry, they can't do it via mail order. ***


I sure hope not.

That would be a sign of a pretty poor tuning shop just out for money. Every vehicle is different and only tuning it on location will yield the best results. I don't think any good tuner, including Factor X, would ever send out a straight unit (ala Speedchips). Yes, the various chips available are cool, but I would not compare them to having YOUR specific car tuned by a pro.

 

[4g62bt2c30a]

Can this type of system create more power and better drivability? Absolutely! Can the Comptech deliver more power? Yep! Dougs car makes 396hp at the wheels with the comptech.Is it at its max capability? yep!But, It will make the power with the proper tuning and mods to the supercharger. Its been proven.... so.... is 385-400 rwhp enough? Thats up to you but, Your current system will do it!

 

[ilya]

There is a bit more involved in Doug's 396HP Race Car. It is a stock engine, but there are other mods such as internal polshing, headers, very loud exhaust, and some other stuff you may not want on a street car. That being said, you could probably come pretty close to that number +/-25HP without that stuff. I don't know all the secrets to what he did and wouldn't ask... it's his proprietary info. All I know is if I had a CTSC I would give it to him to do the same.
If only there were some extra ones laying around.

 

[Factor X Motorsports]

Originally posted by Craig:
Ok so we now know that the ECU approach is the light at the end of the tunnel for the BBSC but will this approach work with the Comptech Supercharger?

Thats an excellent question Craig and one that we have asked ourselves when we began development of our fuel management system. Unbeknownst, to most of the community we have been running our fuel management system on a CTSC w/NOS for quite sometime.

We are posting this to clear up some misconceptions about what we are trying to accomplish with the CTSC. The upgrade ability that we are offering is not an upgraded fuel system. It is a new engine management system. Through our engine management system we are able to manipulate fuel and ignition maps (VTEC on the way). The ramping of ignition curves on the low end and the retarding of timing on the top end makes the CTSC safer and "less prone to detonation" all while increasing low end and mid range torque. Another added benefit is the lowering of the fuel pressure.

 

[Factor X Motorsports]

We agree that a limited amount of peak rwhp (10-30rwhp) can be obtained with the CTSC without affecting drivability and price. The whipple unit can only produce so much. However, how often do you spend at 8,000rpms for a sustained period of time? The key value is the Area Under the Curve.

 

[Factor X Motorsports]

Peak Horsepower v. Area Under the Curve

On average, daily driven vehicles spend more time in the mid range than at the peak horsepower point. The quicker you get to your peak horsepower point the quicker your vehicle will be.

For example, if your vehicle takes 10 seconds to get to 300rwhp at 8000 rpms v. another vehicle that takes 7 seconds to get to 280rwhp at 8000 rpms. The 280rwhp car will be quicker than the 300rwhp car.

This is why low-mid range tuning is more important than obtaining that big balls peak horsepower number that everyone likes to brag about. Case in point, we had the opportunity to race the Factor X all motor Type R on a closed track v. 2 centrifugally charged NSXs.(Not the 101 at 2am before the Camarillo AutoX

The result was surprising to some. The Factor X all motor Type R producing around 200rwhp actually ran pretty close to dead even (.5car) with the 300+rwhp NSXs from 80mph to 140mph. (Ask Darkcyd)

 

[Factor X Motorsports]

Bottom line, can we and are we doing this? Yes. Should you do this to your CTSC NSX? You should if you desire better performance through the low-mid range power band (AutoXers/Daily Drivers), lowering the stress on your fuel injectors (Why are your fuel injectors only rated at 45psi?), and making it possible to run the SC w/NOS safely How does 270+ft/lbs at 3500 rpms sound with a 50 shot?

Speed Safely,

Factor X Motorsports

 

[Lud]

Originally posted by NSXTC:
You need someone who knows what they are talking about to physically inspect and diagnose your idle problem. We can only speculate blindly from here. The IAC / Fast idle valve problem is the most commonly noted idle problem with the CTSC, and even that does not affect everyone.

Confirmed. I have a rock solid idle, hot or cold, on my '98 with the CT supercharger.