As far as Octane goes, I believe the ECM will adjust for what it sees in terms of spark advance, etc.

AFR (Air fuel ratio). Without posting a chart...

Stock- 2000rpm 13 AFR, 3000-12.7, 4000-12.1, 5000-11.3, 6000-11.1, dip to 10.9 at 6150.

SHARKED- 2000rpm 12.1 AFR, 3000-12.05, 4000-11.45, 5000-10.95, 6000-10.7, dip to 10.6 at 6,100.

-Pete, Stratmosphere

 

I don't get why the shark makes the mixture RICHER. Something is wrong with those numbers because all the numbers I've seen have the S with much richer air/fuel mixtures. And if you make them richer on top of that, well I just don't get it.

 

>>Run with stock (no Shark). 155.6ft/lb with a peak at 4,384. 188.9hp at 6,890.
>>
>>With Shark. 202.3hp at 6,937. 159.3ft/lb with 4,485 peak but the torque is earlier and separates from stock at 2,900 rpm with a good deal of area over the stock torque curve through 5,000 and then much more from there to redline. Shark torque is flatter, stock is peaky.
>>
>>Very important. Car ran at least .5 AFR lower with the Shark (more rich). Some stock pulls just looked too lean to us.


Only 3.5lbs in peak torque? And an increase in richness? I'm confused. I know the torque curve is fattened but it can't be by that much if the peak is only 3.5lbs. The GIAC chip should give well more than twice that and I hear the torque curve is REALLY FAT!

Still very confused about making the mixture richer...

 

>>I don't get why the shark makes the mixture leaner

You may want to edit this say richer - I believe that's what you meant

 

>>>>1) I have read on several forums that the stock MINI ECU can only be re-flashed 13 times. I am not sure why there would be such a limit, or how that would work, but again that was thrown out in several posts. Does this mean that with the Shark, you can only change from Shark back to stock 6 times after the first change to Shark? Does the unit keep track of this, and will the dealer be able to tell if a unit has been re-flashed more times than in the dealers record?
>>
>>
>>All of the existing ECU modifications (EVO, Powerchip, Shark, MTH, JCW, etc.) only modify the maps, not the whole code of the ECU. The reflash counter is not tripped when such a small fragment of the code is altered.
>>
>>-Eric

Erik and Antranik,
thanks for your answers, and the octane boost as well is a good idea!
I'm beginning to warm up more to the idea of this Shark injector!
M.

 

I just got 2 sharks in for my and my brothers Mini. I read the install instructions and that put the fear in me. How hard was it to do the upgrade yourself??? I have all the tools to do it, should i take it in to a pro.?? Thanks!

 

The prices will come down - if you can wait. If you research the import aftermarket there are several ECU mods out there that can be done to other makes for $400 or less (I had my VW and Volvo done by Upsolute for $350 each). And I'm talking about a real ECU mod that gives a 9 or 10% increase, unlike the Shark. The MINI is expensive because it's still new, the companies have to cover their R&D costs. If I ever do the ECU, I'll wait until prices are comparable to other makes.
Even though the Shark doesn't give as much power as other mods like the Evotech, it is nice because you can switch back to stock if need be. Superchips has a similar device, but not for the MINI yet.

 

I'm with Silver-Mini-S...the instructions make you think twice about doing it, but I'm assuming that other chip remappings (like Powerchip) have to be done the same way.
I am, however, having it done by a professional...but he's never done the injector so I hope it all goes well. I mean, I want to drive home that day

Lou

 

To silver-mini-s: What tools do you think you need? Conforti suggests a battery charger to insure voltage for the entire operation but no tools (other than a mirror!). Do you need help?

To greatgro: Keep in mind that you can make more power running lean, but there is a threshold of danger for the mid-term and long-term doing that. We saw monster power during first pulls when the car ran lean (before it adjusted richer) but I tossed out those results. Stock and SHARK behaved like this, but the SAHRK always started richer and ended up richer. -Pete

 

It's really easy.

Just read the instructions and follow them verbatim.

I did it to my M3 all the time.

Was it worth it? No. Not really.

 

Howdy all,

Just thought I'd take a minute to answer some of the questions about the
Shark Injector and the Mini's EMS2000 ECU.

First, on the "13 programmings" thing. The reality is that you can only change
the SOFTWARE VERSION NUMBER 13 times. It has to do with there only being
13 more "empty spaces" to program a new software version number in something
called the AIF or Aenderungs Information Feld (Change Info Field). Since the
Shark Injector doesn't change the Software Version Number.. it simply matches
a new version with performance changes to the old "original" version. Hence you
don't use up any of the AIF spaces. I have an EMS2000 ECU I've programmed well
over 100 times on my bench during our testing.

Cheers to all, and most of all.. enjoy your cars, they're pretty cool beasties.

Jim

 

>>Howdy all,
>>
>>Just thought I'd take a minute to answer some of the questions about the
>>Shark Injector and the Mini's EMS2000 ECU."

WOW! We heard from the Shark, himself. For those with no BMW experience, I can only say he is the king of Guru's and has the complete confidence of the BMW online boards. I used his programing on my M3 and wouldn't consider another tuner. It's quite rare for Jim (the Shark) to respond to any e-mails. But you can always get straight answers from Eurosport and Turner who are his master distributors.

Jim: Can I convince you to do a Shark injector for the non-S mini's?

 

>>I just got 2 sharks in for my and my brothers Mini. I read the install instructions and that put the fear in me. How hard was it to do the upgrade yourself??? I have all the tools to do it, should i take it in to a pro.?? Thanks!

Silver-min-s and Samawil, I won't try to talk you into doing the install youself, but I will tell you if you follow the "very good " instructions, it's a piece of cake.
You will need a mirrow to lay on the floor of the drivers side so you can observe the led lights as they go from blinking to solid, Also, you will need a battery charger that will give a continuous charging of 10 amps for cars without daylight running lights and 20 amps for those, mostly Canadian cars, with safety daylight burning lights.(if you car has the electric power steering motor that runs when the switch is turned two clicks, you will need to remove and replace that fuse) My car doesn't have the daytime running headlights ,so I was able to use a 10 amp battery charger I bought at Walmart for less than $40.00. Every one needs one and it also has 50 amp quick start feature, winter is coming and no garage should be without a good battery charger.
The rest was waiting for the most part, You wait a total of 11 minutes or so, press a button when the instructions tell you to and turn the key on off and on and off again when your told and your done. oh yes, you put a twenty minute charge on your battery before you start just for good measure. Very, very easy to do, but if you feel better having someone else do it, then by all means do... peace of mind is important. However, as easy as it is, it should not cost but 30 minutes labor tops. Most garages have a minimum charge which would probably pay for the charger.
Sorry to ramble along for so long, Good Luck and Best Regards, Itzamazn

 

No need to "convince" me.. it's in the works.

Just need a few test cars in Utah to.. umm.. modify ).

In fact, there is enough difference between 91 AKI RFGII and
93/94 AKI "non-oxy-non-RFG" gas to require different tunes
to extract the most power on many engines.

On a FORCED INDUCTION ENGINE however, the "safe" range
is quite a bit richer, with 10.5:1 to 12.0:1 being the "good"
range. In the case of the Mini Cooper S, with a smaller
S/C pulley, since you're running the Eaton at the raggedy
edge (thermo efficiency wise) and it's producing a bit of
HOT air even post-intercooler.. you want to be on the
richer side of that for long-term engine durability

Oh, and you don't have to take my word for it, you can do
a little reading in books by guys like John Heywood or
C.F. Taylor from MIT. If reading dry post-grad college text
books isn't your thing, go read up around the 'merican
car forums where throwing superchargers on everything that
moves is a weekend pastime

Lean will certainly give you impressive "dyno numbers" but
one bad tank of gas can also give you the need for a nice
new motor. Oh, and remember that whole COP thing from
above.. after a few pulls, the hot Intake Air, coupled with a
little knock retard from the EMS2000, and poof suddenly
you are back to being (very) rich again.

If anyone is ever coming thru Utah, shoot me a line and I can
sit you down and show you all of this in the actual code
of the DME.

Jim

 

<let me state right at the beginning that this is a joke>



Of course, if you want to violate all the instructions, skip using
the mirror, and lay upside down inside your Mini, like an
Apollo astronaut with your feet thru the sunroof..

I want PICTURES!!

 

Any Utah MC owners available. We need the Shark injector for the MC.

Landshark said
>>No need to "convince" me.. it's in the works.
>>
>>Just need a few test cars in Utah to.. umm.. modify
>>
>>(any volunteers?)
>>
>>
>>Jim

 

""Remove motor from Mini" or "Take a Drill, Torch or a
lump of C4 and..." (OK, it wasn't quite that bad, but having the choice of
removing the S/C and the front of the S, or DRILLING/CUTTING off the old pulley
wasn't our style... "

not quite that bad. the first pulleys written about were installed by Helix and mfg by P&D. It required a special puller adapter, also made by P&D. It took Helix about 4 hours, using the remove the front option. Then Cadman pioneered the jack the engine method which Randy (and others) now use for 40 minute installs. All the pulleys I have seen are two part, with the exception of one European model a poster had problems with. The two piece model ownners can later change the pulley dia with an even simpler post-install, if required.

 

Itzamazn...

I bought the kit from TMS...pulley injector and plugs...that's why I'm having it done professionaly :smile:
But like you said, winter approacheth and I do need a battery charger especially if I need to "re-inject" my baby.

JIM

I'm trying to get an answer from a couple of people, but so far no one has been straight with me.
Now the supposidely the ":stumble" has been fixed, a new s/w version is being released.
Once we load that new BMW s/w, we'll have to reinfect our minis. Will the shark s/w be outdated by then, or it doesn't make a difference?

Louay

 

Well,

There is no "new" BMW/Mini Software as of CD 35.1 just released to the dealers.

(How old is your Mini?)

If your car is upgraded to a version of Mini software that the Injector already
contains, no worries.. it just "works". If it doesn't have this "new" version
then you will need to send your injector back to your dealer for a free update.

But again, as of CD35.1 there isn't ANY "new" Mini software.

If my memory serves me correctly, there hasn't been any new Mini software since
CD33.

Jim

PS: Note that when I speak.. I am speaking of "US Emissions spec" Mini's only!
(just for clarification)

 

lndshrk wrote:
Do you have any Air/Fuel plots to back up your theories about pulleys making the engine run TOO lean? As you know the MINI Cooper S uses a boost-referenced Fuel Pressure Regulator, like most modern vehicles. As manifold pressure increases, so does fuel pressure (up to a point of course). More fuel pressure, more fuel through the injectors for a given injector pulse width.

As far as the COP, do you know what the trigger points are for this? Here is some data logged on the dyno, all with the stock file (wideband A/F meter and generic OBD-II log data):




Run 1 is definitely the leanest, but run 10 has IAT just as low, and has ECT even lower, yet it runs considerably richer. Any feedback on this? Thanks.

Also, do you have any dyno plots comparing the pulley with stock programming to the pulley with your programming?

 

I'm curious about the philosophy/design of Evotech, Powerchips & Giac relative to Landshark (Jim Conforti) on enriching the mixture at hi boost and it's connection to engine durability. I assume everyone has same exhaust temp equipment and test capabilities.

My 1988 M3 with Jim Conforti chip ran really rich and I was concerned about carboning up the combustion chamber and cat too much because I didn't run it out to 7,000 all the time. The power improvement was definitely there with that chip, though and I had no regrets getting the chip. (15 horses or so for $100 used chip!)

I am concerned about too much carbon in the head/valves/cat and even lower mileage. Currently I just get 21 - 24 mpg with pulley and alta.

I would like to hear Helix/GIAC and Randy chime in in reference to LNDSHRK's comments.

 

>>Do you have any Air/Fuel plots to back up your theories

Andy, "Yes" I have data, and I also have a bit of EMS2000 Source Code,
(OK, I have all the Source Code, but don't tell anybody, OK )
as well as having worked with EMS2000 on another application (not Mini's)
in my consulting business (I work with "real" race teams, and OEM's) since
1999.

These aren't "theories".. they are experimentally proven.

And not just on Mini Coopers.

The problem comes in the way the Mini is "built". the EMS2000 system itself.

Unlike most vehicles which use a MAF, the Mini S uses a MAP sensor
and CALCULATES the amount of air in the cylinders using a complex model
and I'll try to explain the just the small part of it that affects what we're talking
about. (there are actually 2 MAP sensors, but it doesn't matter here)

Using a MAP sensor and RPM is a method called "Speed-Density" that takes
the manifold pressure (MAP), air density calculated via a temperature model
and the Volumetric Efficiency. The Volumetric Efficiency is where you run into
problems. VE is determined on a dyno, and stored in a "MAP" or 3d table
where MAP is stored as a function of AirFlow and RPM.

When you change the pulley/etc you are increasing boost beyond the original
data. Effectively, you "run off the end" of the table. Unlike other cars that
MEASURE AIR, this has an effect on the control of AFR.

The second problem you have is that "You can only screw up once".

Essentially, running (as I've seen) 13:1 AFR on 91 AKI fuel on a reasonably
warm day (say 80F?) at sea level can be suicide.

Someone asked about "philosophy".. Guys.. look.. I'll state this as simply as
I can, and hopefully you'll take it the right way as it's meant. I work with
OEMS. When we design a calibration, be it for your Mini, or for a Formula racer
we have the same concern. Keep the bits safely in the engine. You lose 100%
of the races you can't finish because your engine dropped out the bottom of
your car.

I also have to keep them "in" under all possible conditions of operating
altitude, temperature, and fuel quality.

Anyone can lean out the fuel to make "big dyno numbers". (Hey, you want LEAN
I'll be happy to make you a 13:1 chip after you sign waivers) Unfortunately most
of the "chips" sold in the USA that do this come from European tuners where
98 RON fuel (94+AKI) is the "norm". It's not in the USA. While it might really
amaze someone from the Eastern Seaboard (I'm from MA/RI myself!) the good
94 octane fuel you can get around there (the Boston area for sure!) isn't even
available in a large portion of the country. Some localities get not only "just"
91 AKI fuel, but also Oxygenated 91 AKI Reformulated Gas. Which from my
experience is really about 89-90 "effective" unless the temps are very cool.

You can't run as much boost, as lean, or as much spark advance on that fuel.

While I might make different tunes for 93+ and 91 octane fuels, I don't
make them so different that someone with a 93+ tune can't travel across
areas where only 91 is available.

As to "how COP works".

Without passing on the actual parameters, I can say this to help you understand it.

TI_COP is formulated based upon Engine Load, RPM, and the current Ignition
retard called IGA_COR (Ignition Correction).

If the IGA_COR is above a threshold (specific to that RPM and Load point)
then LV_TI_COP=1 (TI_COP enrichment is active)

When LV_TI_COP=0, there is no TI_COP.. aka TI_COP = 0.0

When LV_TI_COP=1, the actual TI_COP enrichment is calculated based upon
two tables, the first from IGA_COR and Load, the second, an RPM factor.

How this relates to Engine Coolant Temp (TCO) and Intake Air Temp (TIA) is
that the IGA_COR variable is composed of actual "knock retard" as well as a
component called IGA_TIA_TCO, or a retarding factor based purely on the
engine temp/air temp. Raise either and you increase IGA_TIA_TCO and hence
IGA_COR.. is it over the threshold? Well, that's in the data. If you are, or if
you are also knocking a bit, you will see the AFR go richer. As you request more
power (load) or more RPMS out of your motor, richer it goes even stll.

Lean mixtures increase the propensity to knock, the knock is registered as
an increase in IGA_COR which of course adds fuel via TI_COP.

So your lean "dyno mama" tune suddenly becomes rich again as the EMS2000
system takes over.

It becomes self-defeating.

As to SteveS's question: We've had beople (quietly) running these tunings for
the better part of a year. No problems whatsoever. Oh, and the way to get
better mileage is to not step so hard on the GO pedal all the time

JC

 

Jim

this has no relevence to this topic. But i was just curious as to what you are currently driving. Sorry I just got to know I had your chip on my e30 M3 and it was amazing. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication over the years. It's nice to see you taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer our questions. Can't wait to get my MINI "Sharked"

cheers,

Amit

 

Indshrk,
Thank you for taking an interest in this post and sharing your knowledge on the MCS Shark Injector.
I still seem to be the only person on this forum who has installed this ECU upgrade. I have shared my impressions of what differences I can tell from running Pulley, Air Intake, Scorpion Exhaust(2 1/4"ID) and then adding the Shark Injector.
Aside from the explainations you have expanded upon as to how the Device actually works can you give me an estimate of what actual hp gains I should have?
I am very satisfied with the product and applaud you and your efforts, but a lot of my fellow members are very interested in Numbers. Since you mentioned you secretly tested the Device for some time before it was released, surely you have an idea of what a car equiped like mine would have gained.
There have been comments that it should have been as much increase as the Pulley, say 15+ hp. I am talking Crank hp. I can not say that is true in my personal situtation, maybe 7+.
Would you be kind enough to comment on this. Thanks again and Best Regards, Itzamazn

 

What am I driving right now?

Depends on the day:

Usually my Jeep.

(I get my relaxation OFF road guys.. anyone who's driven with me ON road
can explain why ) and found 13.4 hp
(and I believe those numbers are corrected to crank by the dyno, not sure)
from the Injector vs the same hardware without programming. They are
posted above in this same thread. That gives any owner a ballpark of what
gains are attainable thru "the software".

That about covers all the numbers that are "releasable"..

Because we can load ANY tuning into them, as can any vendor who wishes to sell
their tuning via a Shark Injector.. they are pretty versatile. Patent Pending too

For those that want to load their vehicle using a PC and a serial (or soon USB)
interface, we've had that option since 1998 in case you didn't know.

Since the Shark Injector though, no one seems to want to use their PC, except ME
for all my R&D work. OK, so I wrote a pretty cool PC program for me

(oops... did I say that, bad shark!)

Later Folks, I have to watch some people spend 100G's.