You don't think it's happened yet?
Why you should go AccessPort with any sort of mods
- Thread starter chimmike
- Start date
You don't think it's happened yet?
fishdonotbounce
Registered Zombie
- :
- 08.5 CWP Speed3
Every single thing you said in your original post was what has been beat to death and is accepted by every single person on any Mazda forum. AP is better than the Hypertech in terms of tuning capability. No one is trying to argue that point.
What people are arguing is the fact that the Hypertech is an easy peasy tuning solution for the MS3. Plug in, select from the options, hit yes, and you're done. Like the other person on here said, I enjoy having the HT for my daily. I have gone about as far as I want to for now until I decide to go with a different turbo. The tune widens the powerband, bumps up the power a bit, and makes the car more fun to drive. Will I get an AP in the future? **** yes. Why don't I have one right now? Because I don't have the patience to mess with anything at all when I have a perfectly fine tuner that I can use for now and resell for the same I price I bought it for in 6 months or a year. Like you said, the AP is a couple hundred more. I don't want to spend a couple hundred more right now. 90% of people sell their HT and get AP. We get it. Thank you for sharing your experience and thought because I honestly think it's good for people to know.
Now everyone stop arguing and shut the **** up.
What people are arguing is the fact that the Hypertech is an easy peasy tuning solution for the MS3. Plug in, select from the options, hit yes, and you're done. Like the other person on here said, I enjoy having the HT for my daily. I have gone about as far as I want to for now until I decide to go with a different turbo. The tune widens the powerband, bumps up the power a bit, and makes the car more fun to drive. Will I get an AP in the future? **** yes. Why don't I have one right now? Because I don't have the patience to mess with anything at all when I have a perfectly fine tuner that I can use for now and resell for the same I price I bought it for in 6 months or a year. Like you said, the AP is a couple hundred more. I don't want to spend a couple hundred more right now. 90% of people sell their HT and get AP. We get it. Thank you for sharing your experience and thought because I honestly think it's good for people to know.
Now everyone stop arguing and shut the **** up.
does it really bump up the power a bit?
I looked at the log posted in here by the fully bolted HT owner. Then I went back and looked at my pre-big turbo logs on accessport. He's hitting MAF flow in the 220's g/s. Which is absolutely terrible for the mods he's got. He should be in the 240s+. Shoot, my crap tunes with just intake, downpipe, and fp internals with the accessport and stock intercooler I was in the 250's g/s. Which means I was flowing a LOT more than him, therefore making a bit more power, too.
I'll post the pre-big turbo logs later for reference.
I just cannot fathom spending a few hundred on the HT when you spend a couple hundred more on an AP, run an OTS map, even leaving it alone and not messing with it, and you'll STILL make significantly more power on any mod.
If I was driving a diesel truck, like my dad, I'd run a hypertech tune. Matter of fact, my dad IS running a hypertech tune, just because it's easier on his truck and frankly he barely knew how to use that thing. But we're not talking about a diesel truck that gets power just by upping simple things, this car is a bit more complicated.
I looked at the log posted in here by the fully bolted HT owner. Then I went back and looked at my pre-big turbo logs on accessport. He's hitting MAF flow in the 220's g/s. Which is absolutely terrible for the mods he's got. He should be in the 240s+. Shoot, my crap tunes with just intake, downpipe, and fp internals with the accessport and stock intercooler I was in the 250's g/s. Which means I was flowing a LOT more than him, therefore making a bit more power, too.
I'll post the pre-big turbo logs later for reference.
I just cannot fathom spending a few hundred on the HT when you spend a couple hundred more on an AP, run an OTS map, even leaving it alone and not messing with it, and you'll STILL make significantly more power on any mod.
If I was driving a diesel truck, like my dad, I'd run a hypertech tune. Matter of fact, my dad IS running a hypertech tune, just because it's easier on his truck and frankly he barely knew how to use that thing. But we're not talking about a diesel truck that gets power just by upping simple things, this car is a bit more complicated.
Pololo_MS3
Member
- :
- Mazdaspeed 3
I guess you need to go back to school TO LEARN HOW TO READ AND WRITE!!! Seriously, you "lost" me with so much wording and no much essence. I never said TECII is more complicated than the MS3 ECU... In fact it's a STANDALONE ECU that replaces the factory ECU but this WAS IN A MIATA... not a MS3. For the MS3 there just a few options of a "piggyback" and that's about it. Have you ever tuned a car with a STANDALONE ECU? APs and even the BEGI options are "child's play" compared to that.
But going back to the MS3 discussion, I do have experience with the AP and it's a great device, customer support is top notch and they know what they do. I just don't want it now... For $300.00 that I paid for my used HT, I am very very happy and allows me to get other mods with the money I saved. It's my DD so I am not planning on doing any engine or turbo upgrades.
If you are an AP fanboi, go ahead but at least write some informative content in this forum...Damn I just wasted 5 minutes of my precious time...
Do you want me translate what I just wrote for you? You know, just checking...
Good luck...
I'll address your idiocy one thing at a time:
No much essence? Re-read your sentence and practice what you preach.
I know the TEC II is a standalone. I also know the TEC II techology is about 7-8 years old now.
First, you called a TEC II more sophisticated than the AccessPort. Since the TEC II is nothing like the AP and what it does, it is unfair to compare, so, I compared the TEC II to the stock ms3 ECU, to which it is NOT more sophisticated, not by a long shot.
Why do you call the AP child's play? Because it's simpler to tune with and get results from than a standalone? Is the ease of use of the AP offensive to you after having to painstakingly tune CL and OL maps for the standalone on your miata? The only "piggyback" for the MS3 is the CP-E Standback, which has since fallen out of favor because the AP utilizes the abilities of the stock ecu and allows you to modify tables accordingly to fit the tune you need. Why use a standalone when the AP is a better platform? Further, there are no standalones that can control our stock DI system. AP isn't a piggyback. I don't think you understand exactly what the AccessPort does based on your two posts that I've responded to.
I have used standalones before, and I recently helped a buddy tune his haltech-controlled car. I much prefer the ease of use of my AP, and the use of datalogging thanks to the factory wideband O2.
I've been tuning cars long enough that 9 years ago I used an apexi SAFC and an Innovate LM1 box to tune a car. That was before they came out with anything smaller than the Innovate LM1, and before the TEC II or even AEM EMS came out.
So be it. My first post in this thread was not bashing, simply stating fact. And the more you mod, the less effective that HT tune is, indicated by MSMS3's datalogs showing g/s in the 220's.
No much essence? Re-read your sentence and practice what you preach.
I know the TEC II is a standalone. I also know the TEC II techology is about 7-8 years old now.
First, you called a TEC II more sophisticated than the AccessPort. Since the TEC II is nothing like the AP and what it does, it is unfair to compare, so, I compared the TEC II to the stock ms3 ECU, to which it is NOT more sophisticated, not by a long shot.
Why do you call the AP child's play? Because it's simpler to tune with and get results from than a standalone? Is the ease of use of the AP offensive to you after having to painstakingly tune CL and OL maps for the standalone on your miata? The only "piggyback" for the MS3 is the CP-E Standback, which has since fallen out of favor because the AP utilizes the abilities of the stock ecu and allows you to modify tables accordingly to fit the tune you need. Why use a standalone when the AP is a better platform? Further, there are no standalones that can control our stock DI system. AP isn't a piggyback. I don't think you understand exactly what the AccessPort does based on your two posts that I've responded to.
I have used standalones before, and I recently helped a buddy tune his haltech-controlled car. I much prefer the ease of use of my AP, and the use of datalogging thanks to the factory wideband O2.
I've been tuning cars long enough that 9 years ago I used an apexi SAFC and an Innovate LM1 box to tune a car. That was before they came out with anything smaller than the Innovate LM1, and before the TEC II or even AEM EMS came out.
So be it. My first post in this thread was not bashing, simply stating fact. And the more you mod, the less effective that HT tune is, indicated by MSMS3's datalogs showing g/s in the 220's.
Well, Chimmike, you brought me back into the discussion, so I have to respond. I'm not fully bolted. We'll get to that in a moment.
As I stated above, reliance on g/s of AIR flow is a very poor indicator of actual power. There are simply too many variables that influence how to try to convert g/s into power, not the least of which are air temp, barometric pressure, intercooler efficiency, and the commanded and actual air to fuel ratios. A pig rich tune is going to have more fuel per gram of air (g/s measures only air), for instance. The role of timing advance at high rpm under load short of inducing knock should not be overlooked, either.
But having said that the Garrett turbo people, who I tend to trust in such matters, suggest that generally speaking, and it is a generalization, in turbocharted applications at sea level and assumed 80 degree ambient temp AND a relatively efficient intercooler, you get about 10 horsepower (9.5 to 10.5 range) per pound/minute of air flow. I'm typically averaging about 238 g/s of max air flow, which works out to 31.5 pounds per minute. Ten times that is 315 whp. 9.5 times that is 299.2 whp. 10.5 times that is 331 whp. Of course, that's quite a range. Ambient air temp was 88 degrees on the day of the posted data log.
I'd say that 238 g/s on a pig rich tune down in the low 11's and even 10's at sea level is just about right for the horsepower that I'm making, which is probably right at 300 whp.
And I am NOT fully bolted. I'm running the stock TMIC and the stock CBE, for instance. About all you can say I have is a CAI and a catless dp/rp (with an additional reso in the rp to control drone) into stock CBE, and at that time, stock fuel pump internals that were starting to drop pressures with 60,000 miles on them.
The flaw in using g/s is that you can flow higher g/s and not produce more power. That is especially true if you are pushing the turbo into ineffeciency with the tune, running leaner and losing combustion chamber cooling, or running less aggressive timing due to the lean tune. You should note that with the fat AFR's HT is able to run much more aggressive timing under load at high rpm without inducing significant KR, as compared to the AT tune OTS maps and many custom AP data logs are showing. It's shown there in the log here and the ones on the other board. I'm consistently hitting timing advance of close to 18 degrees on rich fuel mixture at or close to redline, but with boost tapered down to about 14 out there.
I guess if I had a properly sized FMIC I might be able to flow more g/s and produce a bit more power without too much pressure drop in the process. That's a thought.
I humbly suggest that Chimmike take a review course on the accuracy of g/s as a true measure of power, and its proper use and misuse. With respect I think he put way too much importance in that factor to the exclusion of a lot of other important metrics.
EDIT: Attached is a .csv done about 10 days before the other one. Ambient temps were 11 degrees cooler and it shows zero KR and better g/s flow, but also was the first log suggesting that 60,000 miles in my stock fuel pump was showing up in some pressures down into the 1400 range.
Last edited:
WhoIsJeremy
Member
- :
- 2007 Mazdaspeed3
Eggzachly. AP > HT for everything unless it's the only thing you're doing, than they're about even. You spend a couple minutes reading and you know enough.
WhoIsJeremy
Member
- :
- 2007 Mazdaspeed3
Yeah. The fact that that dude paid $300 for a used HT. That's what's wrong.
MSMS3: I had a long response written but the webpage failed on me, so I'll touch on a few points.
Post up for me where Garrett talks about what you said, regarding g/s equalling that much power, generally. Because i can guarantee with the first log you posted, that was NOWHERE near 300whp. Especially not with those mods and boost tapering so low at the top end.
go download virtualdyno. It's free, and fairly accurate on 3rd and 4th gear logs on our cars. You'll plug those in, and making sure you're not using dumb correction factors, you'll see.
Second log you just posted, where the hell are the AFR's? And where's Ignition advance? I can't see either. What i do see is your g/s is in the 230's now, which is still terrible for your mods. Absolutely garbage. I also see you're pulling 13psi to redline, which is better than 11, but still terrible. I will again post later my logs with essentially the same mods as you, bad injen CAI, ebay TIP, stock CBE and TMIC, 3" downpipe, and I was making g/s and flow significantly better, with better afr's (and therefore better MPG under WOT), and boost held much better to redline.
Running more ignition timing due to running richer? well, it's really not helping you that much, because there's still a bit more unburnt fuel coming out, hence the rich afrs (which I can't see in your log anyways) you're apparently getting. If you want to get more power from timing without being stupid rich, run some e85......oh wait, you can't take advantage of e85 with HT. Anyways, I'd like to see that 18* timing advance on the top end.........because that's unheard of on 93 octane without methanol or e85 on these engines without detonation.
I think the problem is, you're trying to argue where HT is better. Frankly, it's just easier to install, that's all.
But let me put this to you. If you installed your downpipe, how long did it take? 3? 4 hours?
If you spent 1-2 hours tuning your car with an accessport, you'd gain more horsepower than you did simply with the downpipe itself, plus you wouldn't be greasy, sweaty, and have cuts/bruises all over your hands and a potentially stripped o2 sensor like many other ms3 owners have gotten. And I'm not talking a ragged-edge tune, I'm talking an 11.8:1 afr at WOT tune with some decent ignition timing, solid boost to redline (tapering because stock turbo sucks beyond 5500rpm) that doesn't drop to 13psi. This would increase your midrange/top end significantly over stock, and it wouldn't be AS necessary to short shift when visiting the 1/4 track.
Even with a good tune, I still had to shift at 6krpm to break 13s in July on stock turbo. It just sucks after 6krpm.
Post up for me where Garrett talks about what you said, regarding g/s equalling that much power, generally. Because i can guarantee with the first log you posted, that was NOWHERE near 300whp. Especially not with those mods and boost tapering so low at the top end.
go download virtualdyno. It's free, and fairly accurate on 3rd and 4th gear logs on our cars. You'll plug those in, and making sure you're not using dumb correction factors, you'll see.
Second log you just posted, where the hell are the AFR's? And where's Ignition advance? I can't see either. What i do see is your g/s is in the 230's now, which is still terrible for your mods. Absolutely garbage. I also see you're pulling 13psi to redline, which is better than 11, but still terrible. I will again post later my logs with essentially the same mods as you, bad injen CAI, ebay TIP, stock CBE and TMIC, 3" downpipe, and I was making g/s and flow significantly better, with better afr's (and therefore better MPG under WOT), and boost held much better to redline.
Running more ignition timing due to running richer? well, it's really not helping you that much, because there's still a bit more unburnt fuel coming out, hence the rich afrs (which I can't see in your log anyways) you're apparently getting. If you want to get more power from timing without being stupid rich, run some e85......oh wait, you can't take advantage of e85 with HT. Anyways, I'd like to see that 18* timing advance on the top end.........because that's unheard of on 93 octane without methanol or e85 on these engines without detonation.
I think the problem is, you're trying to argue where HT is better. Frankly, it's just easier to install, that's all.
But let me put this to you. If you installed your downpipe, how long did it take? 3? 4 hours?
If you spent 1-2 hours tuning your car with an accessport, you'd gain more horsepower than you did simply with the downpipe itself, plus you wouldn't be greasy, sweaty, and have cuts/bruises all over your hands and a potentially stripped o2 sensor like many other ms3 owners have gotten. And I'm not talking a ragged-edge tune, I'm talking an 11.8:1 afr at WOT tune with some decent ignition timing, solid boost to redline (tapering because stock turbo sucks beyond 5500rpm) that doesn't drop to 13psi. This would increase your midrange/top end significantly over stock, and it wouldn't be AS necessary to short shift when visiting the 1/4 track.
Even with a good tune, I still had to shift at 6krpm to break 13s in July on stock turbo. It just sucks after 6krpm.
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^---- alll of this = WINNING!!!
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
WhoIsJeremy
Member
- :
- 2007 Mazdaspeed3
that's OVER 9000!!!!
O.K., so I think I can download an excel spreadsheet here, even though the .csv files are not accepted. I'll try to attach the whole, very long, multi-parameter measured data log for that 10-26-11 WOT run, converted from .csv to .xls. And I've run it through Virtual Dyno and attach a jpg chart. This is a 4th gear pull, included my weight (180 lbs., and also is SAE corrected for both barometric pressure and ambient temp to match the values in the data log. You can run it through VD yourself and get the same thing.
And, yes, timing does continue to advance from 10 degrees at 5,300 rpm up to 17 degrees at or close to redline. It's 15.5 degrees at 6,000 rpm, where I would shift.
I'm also attaching the Garrett Turbotech 103 data as appears on their website. I do have to correct one mistake I must acknowledge: Garrett says that the rough approximation of 9.5 to 10.5 hp per pound per minute is at the flywheel and not wheel hp. So I do have to lower my numbers by about 10% based on our fwd efficiency. That would put a 238 g/s flow, which is 31.5 lbs./min at somewhere between a low of 270 whp and a high of 297 whp. The middle of that range is 284 whp. VD says 310/319.
And, yes, timing does continue to advance from 10 degrees at 5,300 rpm up to 17 degrees at or close to redline. It's 15.5 degrees at 6,000 rpm, where I would shift.
I'm also attaching the Garrett Turbotech 103 data as appears on their website. I do have to correct one mistake I must acknowledge: Garrett says that the rough approximation of 9.5 to 10.5 hp per pound per minute is at the flywheel and not wheel hp. So I do have to lower my numbers by about 10% based on our fwd efficiency. That would put a 238 g/s flow, which is 31.5 lbs./min at somewhere between a low of 270 whp and a high of 297 whp. The middle of that range is 284 whp. VD says 310/319.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hate to tell you, but there's absolutely no way you were making 270whp with 238same g/s. Guaranteed. I'd be willing to put money down now that you go to a dyno and you don't crack 285whp with your setup now.
Here's a log for you. Stock turbo. Minimal kr mostly lower rpm due to engine noise, but look at the BAT's. This log is from july 10.
I'm running more boost than you, better g/s, good timing, and a leaner afr. So based on that, I should be making what, 325whp at 273g/s? Yeah, guarantee I wasn't. These cars simply won't make that power on stock turbo without ethanol. I think you're failing to realize how inefficient these turbos are when run beyond 15psi, which is pretty much stock. Plus, your boost drops quite a bit and that doesn't help either.
Use of Garrett's equation is less than good logic. Too many variables such as VE, and drivetrain losses of 10% are optimistic, IMO. You're looking more along the lines of maybe 15%, especially with stock 30lb dual mass flywheel and balance shafts in there.
View attachment datalog7excel.xls
Here's a log for you. Stock turbo. Minimal kr mostly lower rpm due to engine noise, but look at the BAT's. This log is from july 10.
I'm running more boost than you, better g/s, good timing, and a leaner afr. So based on that, I should be making what, 325whp at 273g/s? Yeah, guarantee I wasn't. These cars simply won't make that power on stock turbo without ethanol. I think you're failing to realize how inefficient these turbos are when run beyond 15psi, which is pretty much stock. Plus, your boost drops quite a bit and that doesn't help either.
Use of Garrett's equation is less than good logic. Too many variables such as VE, and drivetrain losses of 10% are optimistic, IMO. You're looking more along the lines of maybe 15%, especially with stock 30lb dual mass flywheel and balance shafts in there.
View attachment datalog7excel.xls
So, if I say the sun rises in the east, you'll disagree. That's fine. lol.
10% drive line loss on a transverse fwd engine layout with standard transmission is pretty standard. Maybe 12%. 15% gets you up there with rear wheel drive cars, IMHO.
I think you make my point when you are saying running more boost out at high rpm is incredibly inefficient. I agree completely. That's why this tune tapers the boost. That's what I've been saying all along and why I criticise custom AP stage 2 tunes on the stock K04 holding 18-20 psi out to redline with very lean (by my standards) AFR's and no regard whatsoever for exhaust gas temps.
I think the key to making safe power on this turbo is to have higher boost and higher load limits in the turbo's efficiency range, keep AFR's rich and make them even richer out past 6,000 rpm, taper the boost, but keep it a couple psi above stock and crank up the timing out there if it can be done without seeing KR. That seems to be what HT has done. And it's safe.
I guess you saw the HT car's posted chassis dyno on the other board with 297 whp with similar mods to mine on DynoJet? I guess he just made that up, too? And it pretty much lined up perfectly with his and other VD charts, IIRC for similar mods.
And, let's see what else: Garrett is all wrong? Hummmm. They were careful to point out that mass air flow conversion to hp is just an estimated range. I agree and have not suggested otherwise. But it is a good guide. You asked for the data, so I supplied it.
And I tend to agree with you that you cannot predict 325 whp with your g/s flow. You can increase flow and not get any more power once you get past a certain point on this turbo. That is because you are running the turbo into pretty extreme inefficiency. That high g/s air just can't get pushed through the turbo without getting overheated, and hotter air makes less power. Yeah, meth and more efficient intercoolers can compensate some, but that little turbo can just do so much.
BTW: I noticed that the log I posted above has a lower AAT, so I need to make a different SAE correction in VD. I'll do that and attach it. There will be a difference, but it won't be much.
Please understand, I'm not slamming AP. It's good, and for more than fully bolted, it's a hell of a good product. I'm just challenging the extreme and overstated conclusion that you began with that it is THE way to go for all users with any level of mods. I disagree and believe I have demonstrated good reason to say that HT can safely come very close to AP for most users with typical bolt on mods on the stock turbo.
10% drive line loss on a transverse fwd engine layout with standard transmission is pretty standard. Maybe 12%. 15% gets you up there with rear wheel drive cars, IMHO.
I think you make my point when you are saying running more boost out at high rpm is incredibly inefficient. I agree completely. That's why this tune tapers the boost. That's what I've been saying all along and why I criticise custom AP stage 2 tunes on the stock K04 holding 18-20 psi out to redline with very lean (by my standards) AFR's and no regard whatsoever for exhaust gas temps.
I think the key to making safe power on this turbo is to have higher boost and higher load limits in the turbo's efficiency range, keep AFR's rich and make them even richer out past 6,000 rpm, taper the boost, but keep it a couple psi above stock and crank up the timing out there if it can be done without seeing KR. That seems to be what HT has done. And it's safe.
I guess you saw the HT car's posted chassis dyno on the other board with 297 whp with similar mods to mine on DynoJet? I guess he just made that up, too? And it pretty much lined up perfectly with his and other VD charts, IIRC for similar mods.
And, let's see what else: Garrett is all wrong? Hummmm. They were careful to point out that mass air flow conversion to hp is just an estimated range. I agree and have not suggested otherwise. But it is a good guide. You asked for the data, so I supplied it.
And I tend to agree with you that you cannot predict 325 whp with your g/s flow. You can increase flow and not get any more power once you get past a certain point on this turbo. That is because you are running the turbo into pretty extreme inefficiency. That high g/s air just can't get pushed through the turbo without getting overheated, and hotter air makes less power. Yeah, meth and more efficient intercoolers can compensate some, but that little turbo can just do so much.
BTW: I noticed that the log I posted above has a lower AAT, so I need to make a different SAE correction in VD. I'll do that and attach it. There will be a difference, but it won't be much.
Please understand, I'm not slamming AP. It's good, and for more than fully bolted, it's a hell of a good product. I'm just challenging the extreme and overstated conclusion that you began with that it is THE way to go for all users with any level of mods. I disagree and believe I have demonstrated good reason to say that HT can safely come very close to AP for most users with typical bolt on mods on the stock turbo.
Last edited:
fishdonotbounce
Registered Zombie
- :
- 08.5 CWP Speed3
chimmike, I'll probably be PM'ing you a bunch about the AP once I get mine since you obviously know your s***. The discussion in here is extremely informative.
