The 460s are orange. The 550s are purple. I trust the guy that sold them to me, he wouldn't want to tarnish his business to save a few bucks by painting 460s to look like 550s.

 

460 = red

 

color does change tone thanks to heat and age but the general idea is the same

 

Do you know when the Superchips ECU was done?
I know for a fact that the Superchips ECU for the FC3S does not change the fuel maps.


-Ted

 

my 460cc injectors are orange...

 

yeah so are mine, but im willing to bet its from heat and age...

 

You'll need more advance over stock if the modded ECU isn't supplying it. On our ITS engines we mapped the full load timing between 5-8k RPM with the stock ECU. That's the only rev range we were concerned with. The curve is flat there and the stock ECU provided 20* advance. We made imcremental bumps to the timing with consecutive dyno runs noting strong power increases to 30* total advance. After that point there was no gain in power. We saw a 10hp difference at peak with the 10* bump as well as significant gains across the board.

 

The Superchips' ECU was done in '95 or '96. It made 1 more hp over the stock N327. I cannot say that they're original claims are unsubstantiated since the car is heavily modded, and the chip was meant to be put in an otherwise stock car. I have the ad at home, I'll see what the HP improvement was supposed to be. I'm inclined to buy a Microtech setup at this point. I had a really bad ignition problem during the winter where the car would misfire under high rpm/load. This has improved a lot since swapping out the wires but it still happens. What do you think the Superchips' ECU does?

 

As far as I know in ITS you have to use the stock ECU, right? How do you accurately advance the timing? Are you marking the pulley or using a timing gun with advance? Can you give instructions on how to do this with a timing gun that has the advance adjustment?

 

The FC3S ECU's are set-up where there is no fuel map - *gasp*.
Unless the RTEK guys are going to chime in, I don't think anyone else can confirm or deny this.
I had a nasty feeling this was so when messing around with the stock ECU system on the bench.
The AFM is the primary load sensor - fuel delivery is dependent primarily on how much the AFM is open.
There are other sensors that affect fuel delivery, but these end up being correction factors.
So, like the Electromotive TEC systems, fuel delivery is basically a linear equation between RPM and load (i.e. AFM signal) - it's a straight line.

The ignition maps are there - my guess is that the ignition maps were changed.
Almost every modded ECU for 1986 - 1988 FC's are just molested ignition maps.
Ask any of these vendors, and they will tell you they cannot change the "fuel map".
G-Force has explicitly stated this.

I used to run a Superchips ECU on my 1987 Turbo II.
It ran hella rich.
I think all changed one of the correction sensor parameters - most likely coolant temp.
It ran rich all over the RPM range.
It backfired due to too much fuel all the time.

I switched over to the G-Force ECU, and all of that rich problems went away.
G-Force states they do not touch fuel on this ECU (or any Zenki FC ECU).

Superchips was "busted" by DSM.Org when the DSM.Org guys cracked the stock ECU code; the Superchips code was compared to the stock ECU code and neither (maybe just ignition map was changed?) maps were touched!
This was a major scandal back a few years ago...
I really abhor Superchips products since then.


-Ted

 

This is all very good info. I think this thread so far is a great resource for NA guys.

Good job everyone.

 

Actually the rules have been opened up to, in a round about way, allow stand alone ECUs. That's another long story all together and not something I'm going to dilute this thread with. For purposes of what we're discussing I am using a box stock ECU. Since we aren't concerned with anything below 5k we put the car on the dyno and used the dyno brake to find full load advance at 6k, 7k, 7.5k. With the CAS set in the factory position we obtained 20*BTDC leading at all tested RPM intervals. We then set about consecutive runs bumping the timing each run. We saw about 1hp per degree of advance up to 30* total advance at which point the power stabalized and didn't increase anymore. So we backed it back down to 30* and called it a day.

That number seems to be a relative number for all NA engines. Or close to it anyway. I've spoken with guys running in other SCCA classes with bridge and p-port engines and their timing numbers usually end up in the 30* range +/- 5*.

 

I'm running 30 on 87 octane, C. Ludwig, what octane fuel are you using? I havent experienced any noticable knock yet but as the temps go up around here in summer I'm sure I'll encounter it eventually while I refine the air temp ignition correction map.

 

We run 87 with no knock. We're using a custom radiator and twin, stock oil cooler too to help keep temps in check which helps slightly with the knock issue.

 

just get a damn megasquirt and sell everything else. i bet you could gain an easy 20 to 30 hp just by switching to stand alone and getting rig of the afm and doing some tuning.

 

i have 210 rwhp is ther a way to get more

 

maybe i'm just being critical but how the hell could u get 210 rwhp? do u have a bridgeport? monster streetport? PP?! prove to us u do...then tell me your secrets

 

the secret is that the stock ecu sucks and that the afm is the most restrictive damn thing on the whole car besides the exhaust. i belive 200+ wheel hp is possible with some good tuning on a stock port.

 

On a stock port? No. Speesource is claiming around 185whp for a stock port ITS motor running off a Motec. If there was more power there they would be someone that could find it.

And as far as the stock ECU sucking...it's not that bad IMO. I have A/F datalogs that show a very flat curve. It goes a half point rich over 7000rpm which is worth 2 or 3hp but not a huge amount. The timing is not very agressive but a twist of the CAS can take care of that. Speedsource says their Motec setup is worth 10hp across the board v. a stock ECU. With a ported motor you may see a bit more than that. But again the fuel curve is basically flat so you can zero in the mixture with an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and some careful tweeks of the timing and see 95% (literally) of the results that you would with a standalone.

 

Then you're kidding yourself. On a mildly modded engine (i.e. stock ports) the ECU and AFM are not the restriction, far from it.

 

Eh, you might want to try some new plugs. I've heard a lot of places suggest 5k miles or so for plugs, and in my experience the plugs are getting somewhat chewed up by then - I can feel the difference when I put new ones in.

-=Russ=-

 

you can make 185rwhp on a dyno turn into 215 easy by leaning the fuel out a little. Not that recommended in the rotary community but done daily in the piston world.

 

If its done properly and not tooo far leaning out can be done safely. As far as I know its the only reason n/a guys get a safc.

 

Uh, no you can't.

If the 185 is real, it should already be close to perfect for best power.
Leaning any more from best power kills power - you should try it.

What happened to the original poster?



-Ted

 

peak burn rate for gas mileage is 14.7 right ? so what would u use for peak hp ? or is 14.7 for both peak hp and gas mileage