Is this a false statement to get people to buy their product? If you look at the dyno sheets that are provided and look at the hp it's not 46hp haha. What do you think and does anyone recommend the rtek 2.1? I would still buy it even if the hp increase is really only around 15ish, at 1000$ less than haltech

S5 RX7 NA stage 2 (the one I'm talking about) http://www.pocketlogger.com/index.ph...age=2&ecu=S5NA

All models http://www.pocketlogger.com/index.php?pid=rtek7

 

i never noticed that sheet before, that is false advertising.

if they put in bold that the example car had a serious issue and gained 46hp then it would be true but they failed to mention that the dyno chart indicates that the car is falling on it's face due to fuelling issues.

no stock car is going to take a nosedive at 6k unless it is having injector issues or exhaust system blockage.

that would be like me saying my rebuilt motors will do 500 horsepower but failing to mention that you need a large frame turbo, new fuel system and standalone.

 

Yeah, the guy that dyno'd that car failed to mention the issues it was having. The pull didn't even go to redline (8k), which only highlights the problem.

In the end, any power you can gain is going to be up to how you tune it. There's a considerable amount of fuel that can be pulled from the stock map. 10-11 AFR at WOT is just excessive.

 

does anyone think this ecu would be good if I were to port my '91 na's engine? from this website i have learned tuning is the big hp gain after the ports are made bigger, without it, porting is pointless if the fuel and timing is the way it was before the port

 

It's definitely a good choice no matter what. You can pick up power by tuning, and over-all make the car run a lot better. Porting or not.

 

Speaking of fuel tuning, someone told me that it's impossible to blow NA engine. "15:1, 20:1, the only downside is a loss of power". Any validity or a heaping pile of BS?

 

I'm sure somebody somewhere on the internet will claim to have blown up their NA due to a tuning mistake, but in my personal experience they will tolerate a lot of timing and a lean mixture even while still using 87 octane. It is definitely possible to have a tune that is "too aggressive" , so not making optimal power, but still not causing damage.

 

So then, why is it possible to blow-up a turbo engine with 15:1, but not a NA? Is it that there is less pressure and heat inside the chambers of a NA?

 

because whoever used the 15:1 example is an idiot, you could easily blow up a 15:1 CR n/a with even mildly advanced timing with excessive internal temps/EGTs.

the more compression there is, the more violent the detonation cycle is. the more violent the detonation cycle is the more easily it is to damage parts. in turbo applications it isn't very easy to blow an engine at 0-7 psi, beyond that it becomes very easy to blow out the seals which brings the rotating compression up to and probably a little beyond 15:1 effectively.

 

I believe the dyno charts came from C. Ludwig. The original thread,

https://www.rx7club.com/rtek-forum-168/thumbs-up-s5-na-2-0-a-668832/

 

I didn't mean 15:1 CR, I meant 15:1/leaner AFR

 

alright then, the reason turbos blow up is because more forced air is equivalent to increasing your compression. more air/fuel forced into the engine during combustion means a more powerful combustion cycle and also a more disastrous one if everything isn't ideal.

 

I have the RTek 2.1 in my car and while it's very well done, the limitations of using much of the stock computer mean that it will never perform up to the level of a Haltech or MoTeC.

That said, it's a nice plug and play solution and great for people that want to keep the stock electronic OMP (for S5s), stock 6-ports and VDI, stock emissions controls, etc.

I wouldn't expect gains anywhere near what was reported unless there is something wrong with your car. I need to get my car back to the dyno and play with some things, but even leaning out the top end to get closer to a 12.6-13.0:1 AFR didn't improve acceleration that much.