|03-03-2014 04:02 PM|
|Drew in Houston||
I just was out there this past summer doing some high plains testing though and did make it to the coast for a few days. My girlfriend and I took a drive down Rt. 1 the one day, which was totally awesome. Paid for a day pass at Los Padres, hiked down to the ocean and did a little swimming. We'll be going back again sometime for sure.
|03-02-2014 02:31 PM|
. It pulled a car length and a half on 996 911 twin turbo from about 30 to 110 and it's my daily everyday 120 miles/day commuter car so I get plenty of seat time to work on it lol.[/QUOTE]
coming to west coast anytime soon ?
|03-02-2014 08:59 AM|
|DrewP||Yes, it can be done.|
|03-01-2014 03:06 PM|
|Drew in Houston||
Thanks! You know, I've been really lucky and blessed career-wise, when I was first out of school I had the opportunity to work under some really talented engineers and business folks who were willing to help and put-up with a young guy tagging along asking a bunch of questions. The thing I was always careful about (especially in front of customers and bosses) was to observe the chain of command and support those guys though, and support what they were trying to accomplish vs. trying to one-up them. Anyway, I appreciate the comment for sure.
Along those lines I also sure don't want to take credit for developing T7 Suite, I didn't do any of the heavy lifting on that effort at all. That was Dilemma doing the coding with some amount of input from some other key players. It was really neat seeing how that developed, particularly when a key Russian player came up with some really critical information. I did however provide seed information I had collected, some initial limited input, funding, the name of the place--I was doing work at South Texas Project nuclear facility a few months previous to the founding of ECUProject, and the idea to do it (along with Steve Hayes). Naming the site was funny, it took Steve and I days, maybe weeks, kicking ideas just to name the place lol.
Since then I've acted through Steve mainly, and I've shared some stuff, but I've developed some calibrations for my car that are unique and seem to work pretty well. Really have to get my Vig on the rollers soon, I'm expecting about 350 peak whp with a big broad torque curve on this current 19T setup. It pulled a car length and a half on 996 911 twin turbo from about 30 to 110 and it's my daily everyday 120 miles/day commuter car so I get plenty of seat time to work on it lol.
|03-01-2014 01:57 PM|
Listen, instead of lol-ing, let me ask you this:
Take a walk with me, here...
Given the success of the dsm community using the gm maf in a blow through setup to accurately meter air, is it reasonable to assume it can be done?
|03-01-2014 01:46 PM|
Loving this thread Drew...
It makes me laugh that you quoted Dunning-Kruger... one of the prime examples is when a non-trained person challenges the developer of the product and since you developed T7 suite ( not alone of course) this becomes a text book example of D-K...
Reminds me of my sister, an engineer, who started at a new company. A junior person challenged her in front of the big boss about the content of an industry manual they were using to develop QA and testing techniques. She was trying to be civil but the less experienced person was just not getting it ( making stuf up in front of the non-engineer boss). So she had to say, I know whats i the manual, she flipped it over and slid it across the table, and right on the cover was her name... she wrote it...
|02-26-2014 11:23 AM|
|Drew in Houston||
Well, I am an engineer craig, and I've spent hundreds of hours studying electrical component application and failures and reliability, and in contrast you're making up numbers and presenting them as fact. There actually are real ways to calculate real reliability numbers but your umm, lack of rigor lets call it, in citing 1000's is nonsense. But you don't know about that do you craig.
I'm certainly not your "bro" lol
You haven't apparently even read or understood what I wrote, like when I said blowthrough can be done and explained why in my opinion it shouldn't be done for an application where the goal is to have a low maintenance reliable daily driver. Maybe you should calm down, un-wad your panties and concentrate real hard on your reading comprehension and try to understand what I wrote. Can and should are not the same thing.
You're an uneducated non-technical person mouthing off to a trained (former) instrumentation/control engineer working in the industry that has directly oversaw calibration and "tuning" on billions of dollars worth of equipment, I certainly don't know everything, and I recognize that there are a lot of people that know more than me, experts who speak carefully and devote time and thought and resources to this sort of thing. But you're not one of them, not even close, and for sure you're really showing ignorance. These days I just consult and lead design and prototyping efforts, and without a doubt you're ignorant of your ignorance. In fact, it's people like you doing exactly what you're doing now that discourage truly knowledgeable people from sharing in forums like this. Believe me, I have better things to do than help you understand things, especially when you're such a, well you know lol.
So really, I insist, go look at the wiki article on Dunning Kruger effect and know that it applies to you directly. I recognize that you're quite proud of yourself, but the "tuning" you've done and the stuff you've mentioned are child's play and statistically don't change a thing, even assuming your imaginary fabricated numbers might each actually represent a valid daily driver with performance similar to a stock T7 configuration (and we both know they don't).
I answered the original question of this thread as a knowledgeable professional with professional experience. You may not like what I wrote, but you can't refute what I wrote. I understand that you think your awesomeness is so great though, so maybe if you're not happy you should start your own thread about DSM's and your awesome tuning ability in the off topic section and leave this thread alone. I think everyone understands your opinion now based-upon the fact that one time at band camp banker awesome craig used some awesome tools that someone else made and did some awesome tuning on some awesome 1990's DSMs and that awesome tuner banker awesome craig thinks blowthrough setups are super awesome, bro.
Let us all know when you're going to convert your T7 cars to awesome blowthrough setups and calibrate them with your awesome tuning skills. If you post up an awesome thread I may even buy the parts for you. You don't live too far from me, so of course I'd want to drive the awesomeness of your awesomeness on condition of paying for it lol.
edit: here's a link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
This part is interesting: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."
|02-26-2014 10:41 AM|
LOL, bro... I'm not an engineer. I never claimed to be.
as you've stated, I'm a banker. a Banker that seems to have a better track record making GM MAFs run reliably in flow-thrugh setups than you.
all I have?
here's what I see... hundreds, possibly thousands of people using GM MAFs in a blow-though setup successfully, in MUCH higher stress environments than you'll ever see. I know mine went 60k+ miles without a hiccup. possibly closer to 80k.
I see you here, pouting, talking about how it can't work, or shouldn't be done, and insisting you're correct while people are out doing it. do you think Tom plugged a GM MAF into his DSM, and it just WORKED? No. he was insterested in bettering the tuning community, and put the time and effort into MAKING it work. the result was that he presented a solution to a problem, and opened doors for making things better, instead of just saying "no, it won't work"
So... I'm telling you... *I* have real world experience doing what you say can't be done, with repeated results across a LARGE pool of users in vastly different setups. I share in a pool of knowledge with OTHERS that do the same. CLEARLY people over in sweden have experience with it, or you wouldn't have instances of it showing up online.
So.. instead of insisting that everyone ELSE is wrong, you may want to re-consider your approach.
|02-26-2014 10:04 AM|
|Drew in Houston||
That's it lol?
Since you're over your head talking about sensors, installation detail, transient response, failure modes and equipment longevity and what mass is in relation to accuracy, now you want to talk about your awesome prowess at poking user level software programs written by someone else as applied on antiquated 90's engine controllers with at best 90's driveability, one time at band camp?
You should look up Dunning-Kruger effect and consider how it might apply to you in a very real way lol
|02-26-2014 08:21 AM|
It was sold when I bought the wagon, actually; A DSM, 9-3, and 9-5 were more than I needed.
I don't know what your assumptions are based on, though. It ran perfectly stoich cruising, and ran the same 11.8 that everyone runs on a DSM @ WOT.
It made 300whp, and 290lb/ft which met my goal of a 110mph daily-driven pump gas car.(actually, it trapped 114mph)
I can tell you're an expert on DSMs, and ECUlink. I'm curious how you had yours set-up.
were you using 'link? or an AEM or maybe an sAFC? were you still using a VPC on yours?
PCV on a DSM plumbs back to the intake manifold, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with oil. since they're seperate lines, most people just put a filter on the breather, or run a line behind the engine. It takes a considerable about of oil, and even vapor to make it through the intake, IC, and up to the MAF, though.
|02-24-2014 06:28 PM|
|Drew in Houston||
Whooweee, I sure don't think I'd be letting someone "tune" on my car who can't/doesn't feel the difference between T5 and T7 and compares both to DSMs!
Look, it's really simple, placing a MAF sensor after a turbo puts it into a harsher operating environment where:
1. Exposure to oil is increased
2. Exposure to heat is increased. Additionally
3. T7 systems are particularly sensitive and tend to crack pistons due to marginally bad or partially failed MAF sensors
Do you know what a failure mode is? One of the main modes of failure of MAF sensors is through fouling. One of the main contributors/indicators of failure for ALL electronic devices is temperature. Do you think it's a) a better idea to expose a MAF sensor to more of the main failure modes, or b) worse?
I never said that it can't work (or even that it wouldn't work well for a period of time although I am skeptical of the drive-ability). I said that in a world of design compromises that it's a stupid thing to do. Btw, besides packaging, you still haven't hit the main reason why people do it for Saabs either (it's certainly not reliability or accuracy lol).
You've also misunderstood what I wrote regarding accuracy, likely because you don't understand how the sensor works, but that's speculation. For sure, you're not going to measure mass more accurately though. I didn't say it would have less accuracy either.
Oh and you may want to watch boasting about all the "tuning" that you do lol. There are actually people, real engineers typically, who understand the principles-of-operation and design, specify, and calibrate sensing and control systems professionally--who would be pretty amused by you. Using an interface built by someone else, applying "tables" built by someone else, mucking around with calibration values built by someone else...(see the pattern?)...doesn't really qualify as "tuning" I think.
edit: oh yeah and whatever did happen to that 60k mile awesome blowthrough setup that you had. still running it? convert back? sell it for someone else to enjoy the awesomeness lol? or wait, it wasn't actually installed on a T7 Saab with a modern engine control system...but a pig rich dsm from the early 90's running a catch can that probably needed 1000 mi oil changes that got sold because it drove like crap (compared to T7 especially) and smelled like a gas station?
|02-24-2014 03:38 PM|
In MA, all OBDII cars are load tested for SMOG all of the people I know with 2gs running a GM MAF do so with no issue.
You'd Need to explain to me how a MAF before an IC would have a more accurate count than after? It would replace the need for a temp sensor post-IC, wouldn't it? you'd have an exact count of the air about to enter the TB/manifold.
this is backed with the info here:
Help with GM maf or Speed Density - DSM Forums
Furthermore, If you think the Pool of modified SAABs is larger than the pool of Modified DSM/EVO/3si, you're delusional.
I don't get your comparison of the 5/7 cars. I've owned both. modified and stock. I don't remember being blown away by the differences in the 7.
What I do remember is the improvement in driveablity in switching from a 2g maf to GM MAF, and then more with the blow-through.
How much real-world experience do you have with a blow-through, by the way? or DSMs for that matter. I've tuned both, first hand, on plenty of occasions. I didn't design DSMlink/ECUlink, but the gentleman that did, thought highly-enough about blow-through usage of the GM MAF that he(The engineer) designed the software to run a GM MAF through a MAF translator, and eventually built a jumper harness to run the GM MAF in place of the stock MAF.
This blowthough idea isn't new. It's been better than 10 years that DSM/EVO guys have been using blow-though MAF. The biggest issue with them is with guys that run smaller pipes than the MAF, and don't space the MAF correctly.
|02-24-2014 12:49 PM|
|Drew in Houston||
Just because you did it once doesn't mean that it's a good idea long term. One example also isn't a statistically valid sample from a maintenance perspective. Also, are you still driving that car like that? What happened to it?
a: Placement: someone who isn't a banker but instead is technical and knows what they're doing and wanted to design for reliability wouldn't put a MAF after a turbo on purpose and would design a better location for it. Engineering is the art of compromise, and if reliability is a driving factor, you wouldn't make that compromise
b: come on now, that's the opposite if you know about electronics. Do some searching on FMEA of electronic components
c: if you understand the principle of the measurement of these MAF's you wouldn't write what you wrote here either
d: if your major design concern is leaks you should go back and do a better job designing a leak free system with better components, like say, the stock system for example lol. Most cars maintain the stock configuration and somehow people are able to deal with the big bad leak monster that you're pretending exists but doesn't
...and out of all of those DSM cars, I suppose that they meet emissions under load on the rollers, don't dilute their oil and waste fuel with over fueling during transients, are as smooth and drivable as a stock T7 car with the MAF in the correct location, are actually recovering crank case fumes and burning them vs. releasing to atmosphere...
It can be done, sure, it's just dumb for a reliable daily driven street car; especially considering how T7 uses the signal. It's just not better for a reliable daily driver. This business of 'me not being able to convert to a pressure-based control system' is total straw man nonsense. I don't even know why I'd want to do that, so I'm not sure why you'd imply not only that I want to, but that I can't lol.
Also, since you think you made a point but didn't, you should review your highschool physics regarding what mass is.
Consider the driveability of a stock T5 car to the more advanced T7. It's not even a close comparison. Now consider any of those old DSM cars compared to T7, lol. That's the comparison that counts. No one cares if DSM guys are able to make a crappy system continue to get down the road after a crappy modification. There's no comparison between the level of refinement and emissions control capable in a T7 car compared to even T5, let alone old DSM. The fact that you'd even try to make that comparison is curious.
|02-24-2014 10:57 AM|
uhh... 20k miles/year is pretty "daily" if you ask me.
The reason to do it would be a: turbo/intake placement b:reliability c: accuracy in airmass d: less room for leaks to influence mafcount
You can be a douche and ignorant to the fact that the POS DSM guys managed to tune around a GM MAF better than you have, or try to learn from it.
moving the MAF to the pressurized side allows for a smoother intake path, allows for MAFcount to be AFTER any pressure-drops, and charge cooling, and limits possible boost/vacuum leaks to just the throttle body.
I can point to at *LEAST* 10 daily-driven 1g and 2g DSM's that are 100% daily driven, get better than stock fuel economy, and pass smog better than stock MAF'd cars. These are first-hand knowledge, and not conjecture.
|02-24-2014 08:36 AM|
|Drew in Houston||
But, like always, it depends if you're trying to build something that you can drive like a stock car for 100k miles, or if it's a car that you're going to save for weekends, change the oil every 1000 miles, that has full instrumentation and you're going to be able to tell if the MAF signal goes marginally bad, with the over-rich oil-diluting driveability of a piece of crap DSM...or if you're building something in between.
I'm very skeptical that anyone has put the time or resources to make one of these setups nice to drive, but forgetting driveability and tuning issues, installing a MAF after the turbo is a harsher environment with more potential for fouling. There's potentially oil fouling from the turbo as well as oil fouling from the crank vent system unless that's totally re-done as well. The unit is also operating at a higher temperature continuously, and we all know that two of the major determining factors of electronics reliability are temperature and time. If any of that matters to you, then don't do it. If none of that matters to you, then by all means, have at it. I wouldn't do it for my cars because I drive a ton of miles, my cars drive very closely to stock, and I like to drive and maintain mine like stock AND still make lots of power...
So then the question is: Why would you do it in the first place? To me, it would be a lot better to maintain stock reliability and driveabilty but still gain all the benefits...one way that comes to mind would be to run a piggyback system *gasp*.
|02-24-2014 07:42 AM|
This is a mystery to me.
Many, many fast DSM guys ran GM mafs in a blow-though setup for years, and still do without any issues. I've done it, myself, putting better than 60k miles on a blow-through 3" GM MAF. Since then, DSM Tuning has evolved to removing MAFs entirely, and they're going speed-density. Lots of people still run the GM MAfs, though.
|02-23-2014 01:43 PM|
|02-23-2014 09:50 AM|
|Drew in Houston||
I wouldn't consider it if you're trying to build a daily driver that'll see lots of reliable miles.
It takes one of the weaker links in the T7 system and puts it into an even harsher environment with increased temperature and likelihood of contamination.
|02-23-2014 09:28 AM|
|02-23-2014 09:24 AM|
MAF Placement Question...
I have noticied a few guys up in Sweden Running the MAF closer to the TB..... Is this a possible way to run I Atmospheric Dump Valve?? I dont understand the Logic on this...