>>Pretty soon, you'll be able to tune your own Mini Cooper as well.
>>
>>(oops... did I say that, bad shark!)
>>
>>Later Folks, I have to watch some people spend 100G's.
>>

It's about time!

 

As I asked before, looking at my runs, do you have any explanation why Run 1 is definitely the leanest, but run 10 has IAT just as low, and has ECT even lower, yet it runs considerably richer?

BTW, do you still believe that owners can't dyno OBD-II cars?

http://member.rivernet.com.au/btaylo...tDynoOBD2.html

_________________



1/4 Mile Database

 

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

Trading Spaces? :smile:

--
Cheese

 

TomM,

If you mean the "it's about time" for the tuning..

I'm re-releasing it for OBD-II apps because I've been writing it for myself and
have had many requests for it. Still, it's like a sharp knife.. as good for cutting
fingers off as for cutting carrots to make a trinity. (Yes, JC cooks)

Cheese,

Trading spaces, yes. I've always wondered if the $1000 was taxable as a gift,
which doesn't matter at the 1k level.. but it would for 50G's. YEOWCH!

(Small business owners think about those things.. sad huh )

Andy,

I don't know what you keep trying to get at, but lets try this again since
for some unknown reason I'm not getting thru. Maybe I'm not being clear enuf.

The richness is a function of TI_COP. TI_COP isn't ONLY a function of TIA/TCO
that is just ONE set of parameters. What is happening is that you are developing
a short term anti-knock correction which is increasing (in a negative direction) the
number IGA_COR, which increases COP. In essence it's working as designed.

A cursory look shows that the richness is almost assuredly TI_COP because the correction disappears as RPM and TI_VL (full load enrichment increases). Note that
the difference between Run 1 and Run X is great initially but disappears as the
"normal WOT richness" increases. This makes sense when you realize that the
system takes "the greatest of" TI_COP, TI_FL and other factors to use as an
enrichment.

In essence, knowing how the whole thing works as a system is almost 100%
necessary to being able to either tune OR understand what your seeing on a
dyno for valid data analysis.

It's not really "my opinion", it's scientific fact as the systems today are simply
too complex for the average person to easily comprehend at a glance.

As to "owners cannot". Don't take this the wrong way, but this discussion is sort
of the proof in the pudding. It's not a belief, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion
of the same type as "the average home owner can't rebuild his dishwasher".

It requires skills, knowledge and experience beyond that of everyday life.

Can some people.. sure.. they are rare though, and the sad fact is that most
people just end up fattening up the dyno owners pockets for little valid data/info.

It has nothing to do with strapping a car on a dyno, and everything to do with
being able to divine something useful out of the data gained for the money and
time you've just expended.

Horsepower goes up.. why did it go up.. was it the thing you did? Did you hold
every other factor the same, or if not, can you predict and compensate for the
effects. Far too often the answers to those questions aren't there, and hence
there is nothing meaningful to be gained from the exercise.

Andy, I don't know you well, so I'll have to ask this:

Did you ever take a Chemistry or Physics course? Other physical sciences may
teach this as well.. if so, you should have remembered Significant digits and
the significance of a measurement depending on the measuring instrument.

In short, you can't measure to microns with a tape measure.

You've made an unfortunately false assumption that runs 2-17 yield statistically
significant info regarding their separate air/fuel ratios, such that they are
"different from each other". But they are not.

An LSU4.9 sensor has a "lab" accuracy of +/- 1.5% when used under lab conditions
with a Bosch LA-4, that's about +/- 0.2 AFR on the rich side

Now remember the "under lab conditions". That's having just verified the calibration
of the sensor with a known "cal gas" in a cylinder/etc.

Real world accuracy of an LSU4 is around +/- 0.3 afr.

Real world accuracy of an LSM-11 is around +/- 0.5 afr.

LSM sensors as used on many "cheap" AFR meters are less accurate in total.

What that means is that those nice thin "AFR" lines on your graph that are thinner
than the height of the numbers (the number 13 in the AFR legend for example)
should in fact be about 3-4.5 "digit heights" wide.

Essentially the lines on your graph are "pretty" but they are thinner and more
accurate than they have any right to be considering the data source. They should
be BIG BANDS of overlaying color and the only run that has any real significant
visible difference would be/is Run 1 vs "All the rest".

So you have determined that the first run is leaner than "the rest".

Which as has been demonstrated by most who have dynoed an MCS.

BTW, you made the same sort of "error" with ECT/TCO (BTW, ECT/IAT are GM
nomenclature for those variables, TCO/TIA are US/BMW/Mini and TKW/TANS would
be the German/BMW/Mini equivalents) in that a difference of 170 to 210 is a
significant difference. they aren't in the control of an engine as 170F/76C is
generally considered "OT" and 210F/99C is still "OT" and nowhere near overheat
conditions.

Hopefully this explains some of this to you, if not.. contact me offline.

JC

 

Jim - Thank you so much for personally responding to this thread. I have two questions, what was the reason for not designing the Shark specifically to work with aftermarket exhaust? Most people who change the pulley and the intake would also change the exhaust. It seems like the best combination without going wild with money and mods, Intake, Pulley, Exhaust, ECU. Do you know what effects putting an exhaust on with the Shark would in general due to performance? (I have a Borla Race Exhaust, the same one that Turner Recommends with their performance package that includes the Shark.)

One last question unrelated to the Shark. Why does the MINI have a Speed-Density system and not a Mass-Airflow system? I was supprised because I thought most new cars would have Mass-Airflow systems?

 

lndshrk wrote:

Where exactly did I make any assumption that runs 2-17 are in iny way different from eachother? What I asked was about the difference between runs 1 and 2-17. You yourself admit there is a difference between run 1 and the rest.

Thanks for the information on COP. Since you asked, I have had classes in Chemistry, Physics, etc. and am quite familiar with the scientific method. You'll notice that I did not make an hypothesis, nor any conclusions. I simply posted my data and asked you some questions. Thanks for (sort of) answering them. I have also worked as an Automotive Engineer with Tier 1 automotive suppliers and have a pretty decent layman's grasp of automotive engine management concepts.

So, if I buy a Shark Injector, and want to dyno my MINI to see the difference, how does this sound?

1) With the stock program in the car, clear any fault codes (even if none are present) and reset:

Misfire Adaptation
Knock Spark Adaptation
ECT Throttle Adaptation
Lambda Adaptation
Knock Control Adaptation
MAP Adaptation
Dynamic Trim Adaptation

Then, do a couple dyno pulls, noting ambient conditions.

2) Install the Shark program, clear any fault codes (even if none are present) and reset:

Misfire Adaptation
Knock Spark Adaptation
ECT Throttle Adaptation
Lambda Adaptation
Knock Control Adaptation
MAP Adaptation
Dynamic Trim Adaptation

Then, do a couple dyno pulls, noting ambient conditions.

3) Reinstall the stock program in the car, clear any fault codes (even if none are present) and reset:

Misfire Adaptation
Knock Spark Adaptation
ECT Throttle Adaptation
Lambda Adaptation
Knock Control Adaptation
MAP Adaptation
Dynamic Trim Adaptation

Then, do a couple dyno pulls, noting ambient conditions.


Granted, this will not show the effect of learned adaptation values over time, but shouldn't plotting the resulting curves give a good indication of the performance difference that the Shark makes?

 

Indshrk and andy-
Thanks for a great discussion. I'm appreciating more and more what is going on behind the scenes-fascinating technical stuff.

Jim- got a question for an end user point of view for the Shark injector. Once the softwear is installed, is there anyway to tell if it is still functioning at optimal levels? Why not build in to the shark unit something like a feedback LED screen that can do a simple read out that says which version of the software is loaded and that the status is "optimal" or "loaded". So for those that have already installed the program via the Shark is there no way to run a diagnostic program to evaluate that all is OK? Then show the result either in the lights or on the LED screen.

Here's the reason. If the dealer accidentally messes with the ECU program when the modified MINI goes in for servicing or if for some reason the shark modified ECU program gets corrupted, How is a MINI owner to know that the program needs to be reloaded? How can we tell other than by performance?

Thanks for taking these questions- your answers are great and very much appreciated. Your work looks like wicked fun.

 

my mcs has been a consistent rich runner. I always see soot in the tailpipes and have only seen 2120 miles per tank (11.6 gal fillup) on one rare occasion. In town I get about 190 miles. I have heard reports of other spirited drivers with the same mods (pulley, header, exhaust, intake) getting 250-300 miles per tank, highway.

my car has also been a HP underachiever, give its state of tune and the dyno and track results of others (170hp at the wheels. 14.7 1/4). I have tried two versions of the EVO chip as well, with no appreciable dyno or 1/4 mile improvement.

So my question to Jim (and anyone) is: what is up? I have not had the chance to measure wideband AF, but it would seem something is amiss in my management system.

 

>>Jim - Thank you so much for personally responding to this thread. I have two questions, what was the reason for not designing the Shark specifically to work with aftermarket exhaust?

Which exhaust?

There's the problem.. it's the same with BMW's or any other marque

Some exhausts do nothing but change the sound.

Others flow better, some flow worse than stock.

So which one do you pick?

We have an open offer to exhaust manufacturers to supply us the hardware and
we'll be happy to tune for it. Lots of talk.. little action if you get my drift.

As to the MAP sensor.. the only thing I can think of is cost. That's a guess of course.

EMS2000 has a pretty good manifold model, so the MCS (and MC) run quite a bit
better than most Speed-Density systems.

 

>>Misfire Adaptation
>>Knock Spark Adaptation
>>ECT Throttle Adaptation
>>Lambda Adaptation
>>Knock Control Adaptation
>>MAP Adaptation
>>Dynamic Trim Adaptation

Why not reset Idle Speed Adaptation as well?

Beyond the simple fact that clearing all those adaptations without then running
the car for hours under the proper (and identical for testing) conditions to reset
each of them back to the norm puts your MCS in "not the state it will run in"...

In short:

Why clear all those adaptations.

The Mini Injector doesn't.

Certainly you don't want to change the MAP adaptation, since you haven't
actually changed the MAP sensor.. why would you want to make the MAP
sensor acq. portion of EMS2k more INaccurate?

Ditto for the Throttle Control ad. unless you're changing the throttle motor/etc.

Ditto for Misfire adaption. Haven't changed the segment wheel have you?

Since we don't change the main (Ve) fueling table (and wouldn't unless we
were tuning for actual mechanical changes like new cams which change the
Ve of the motor) you don't need to touch Lambda or Dynamic Trim either.

That basically leaves the Knock ad pair, but unless you are using a different
fuel to test than you normally run your car with I wouldn't mess with them.

So if you want to test any upgrade (specifically on an MCS, not to be
attempted to be interpolated to any other vehicle) on your MCS, make sure
your car is stock.. run it to OT, dyno it, and then make your changes and
re-dyno it.

Unlike the BMW Shark Injector, the Mini Shark Injector doesn't clear adaptation
at the end of the programming session. That's due to the differences in the
software in the differing vehicles.

Essentially, don't try to equate much from the BMW world with the MCS world
because they are very different internally. Even the Injector, while it looks
identical and operates similarly has completely different firmware.

Once you've changed something (hardware/software/etc) you have the same
other issues to deal with in dynoing.

1) Making sure that the vehicle is in the same state (temp/etc) for testing

2) Making sure that if the dyno is doing "SAE Corrections" that the air temp/etc
it is reading is really what the vehicle is ingesting (Dynojets have this issue)

3) Making sure that if on a "constant load" dyno, the ramp rates are kept
consistent between "stock" and "modified" (many "constant load" dynos
allow you to modify the ramp rates by modifying the "load" during an
accel. dyno run) Different rates will have different dyno results.

Doing that on hardware, keeping the software constant doesn't always work
as sometimes hardware needs software to function properly. Doing it with
software where the hardware is modified beyond that which the software was
designed won't give you "true" results either.

Now, making sure all that's correct, you can do some decent testing.

Back to my statement about "owners can't".. how many do you think actually
bother to go thru all of that? Not saying YOU won't.. but you aren't the "norm"
are ya

 

>>Jim- got a question for an end user point of view for the Shark injector. Once the softwear is installed, is there anyway to tell if it is still functioning at optimal levels? Why not build in to the shark unit something like a feedback LED screen that can do a simple read out that says which version of the software is loaded and that the status is "optimal" or "loaded". So for those that have already installed the program via the Shark is there no way to run a diagnostic program to evaluate that all is OK? Then show the result either in the lights or on the LED screen.

The LED's already do that.. they show one configuration if you've uploaded
performance data, another if you've returned to stock.

It's in the instructions

>>Here's the reason. If the dealer accidentally messes with the ECU program when the modified MINI goes in for servicing or if for some reason the shark modified ECU program gets corrupted,

The program won't ever get corrupted and you won't know.. if it was "corrupted"
at best you'd get a MIL, at worst the car wouldn't run.

If it gets changed, you'd notice it.

That's why owning the Injector is a good thing.. if the dealer DOES blow your
programming away, you can simply reload it.

JLM,

If you think your car isn't right, go get the adaptions read out of it.

But note.

"Black soot" doesn't always mean "rich running".

It can also mean fuels with a higher percentage of Aromatics vs Aliphatics
(types of hydrocarbons).

For those with access to a Chem Lab, burn a few CCs of Toluene in the hood
versus a few CCs of say IsoOctane (and be careful!).

Toluene burns with lots of "soot" produced. Most Aromatic Hydrocarbons do as well.

BTW, I note you have a header... an air leak BEFORE your O2 sensor will cause
"rich running" as it will fool the air/fuel control system into thinking that the
system is "lean" when it isn't.

Jim

PS: No "chip" will solve a mechanical problem.. Not a Shark Injector, not any other
brand of software.. mask? maybe.. fix? never..

 

Since you get to keep the Shark, this is really not necessary. I'd just reload the software after any dealer visit just to make sure. I'm sure it only takes a couple minutes.

 

Jim,

First and foremost: thank you for taking the time to post the technical explanations and answer questions related to the Shark. I've been very curious about the unit but the dealers have limited info and this thread has been very enlightening. I have one quick question if you have the time:

Will installing the Shark without the smaller supercharger pulley make a noticeable improvement in driveability? I'm not as much concerned with actual HP gain as I am with improved throttle response without a major drop in fuel economy. I am ready to buy a Shark and would value your opinion.

My MCS is a May build 2003 model with a Remus exhaust and modified air box. The air box modification consists of opening the rear inlet to a 2" diameter with a tube to connect the air box through to the cowl chamber.

Also, since your moniker is lndshark then I guess a response could be considered a "Candygram"? (from the old SNL skits)

 

With the Mini Shark Injector (or the BMW "OBD" version) you don't want to do that.

Why?

Because with only one button, the button becomes the DTRT button (DO the RiGHT
thing). Essentially, pressing that button if your car is stock, makes it modified and
pressing it if it's modified returns it to stock if possible. (and it should ALWAYS be
possible)

Which procedure it's just done is indicated by either a solid green or solid green
and solid RED led.

Guys, BTW it's easy to tell if the dealer has removed your upgrade. Between the
throttle response and the rev limit differences, it should be a no-brainer to tell.

Otherwise, just "using" the injector when not needed can require you to use it
TWICE if your car was already loaded with software. Once to go back to stock
then you grumble and then you return it back to upgraded status

Jim

 

Curmudgeon asks:

I would suggest using the "93 octane" version of the SI if you are NOT running
a pulley. You will gain both a few HP and the throttle response/rev limit gains
but note that running it with a pulley is optimal.

Where do you live? Do you have 93 octane fuel available? I don't ask for
"without the pulley" because it really won't matter.. I ask for "with the pulley"
should you add it later.

Jim

 

Does the shark remove the top speed governor on the car and let it run past the 135 or 142 MPH limit?

 

>>Curmudgeon asks:
>>
>>>>
>>I would suggest using the "93 octane" version of the SI if you are NOT running
>>a pulley. You will gain both a few HP and the throttle response/rev limit gains
>>but note that running it with a pulley is optimal.
>>
>>Where do you live? Do you have 93 octane fuel available? I don't ask for
>>"without the pulley" because it really won't matter.. I ask for "with the pulley"
>>should you add it later.
>>
>>Jim
>>

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the quick reply. I live in Virginia Beach, VA. Both 91 and 93 octane fuels are available depending on which vendor you go to. We do have the EPA-weenie mandated reformulated fuels here, though. The EPA is worried about air pollution but they don't seem to care that the fuel's odor will just about asphyxiate you when filling up. Maybe that's what they're aiming for: asphyxiated drivers = less cars on the road = less pollution

I am considering installing the pulley but probably won't do so until the powertrain warranty expires since MINI dealers haven't been too forgiving of it to date. I'll probably go with the 93 octane version of the Shark since fuel availability is not a major issue. I appreciate your response.

Allen

 

Jim:

"JLM,

If you think your car isn't right, go get the adaptions read out of it.

But note.

"Black soot" doesn't always mean "rich running".

It can also mean fuels with a higher percentage of Aromatics vs Aliphatics
(types of hydrocarbons).

For those with access to a Chem Lab, burn a few CCs of Toluene in the hood
versus a few CCs of say IsoOctane (and be careful!).

Toluene burns with lots of "soot" produced. Most Aromatic Hydrocarbons do as well.

BTW, I note you have a header... an air leak BEFORE your O2 sensor will cause
"rich running" as it will fool the air/fuel control system into thinking that the
system is "lean" when it isn't. "

I'm pretty sure my exhaust system is tight, in any case, I had the same results with the stock header and with two or three different exhausts we were testing. (Stock, Helix, Rogue, Supertrapp, and now Supersprint. with the Supersprint header.) My car was dynoed and track run with those various exhausts with and without the Evo chip (two versions), the 61mm throttle body and Promini cam. Only the pulley made a significant HP gain, and that was a few hp less than an otherwise stock car (had the pulley) dynoed same day.

I typically run Sunoco 94...don't know if that give anyone else a soot problem?

Still hard to explain is the low highway gas mileage, even when I am babying it.


got any ideas?

 

Geez. I didn't know that. I figured if it held 2 programs you could choose which one you wanted to load. Sorry!

 

Jim,
Any efforts or progress on a Shark Injector for the MC? If the gains are too small
to be worthwhile, consider that a shark for the mini-one would be a big boost, and
would probably translate to about the same end result as a shark for the MC.
The AMD one-click is available for the MC, but isn't readily available in the states
yet, and is more expensive than the shark.
It would be nice to have a easy user installable, reversible obd upgrade for the
MC, even if it only nets 8-12 hp with 93 (us) octane fuel.

 

>>Does the shark remove the top speed governor on the car and let it run past the 135 or 142 MPH limit?

The only speed limit we've ever seen on a US Spec Mini is the one that
is created by 1/2Rho*Cd*A*V^2 or aerodynamic drag.

While there is speed limit "code" in EMS2000, the actual limit is set to 255kmh.

The limits on the stock vehicle are simply the realities of a 0,36 Cd.

At the 163hp (stock) level, the car can do about 133 REAL Mph (Real as opposed to Indicated)

At the 200-210 level, it does somewhere in the 140's.

It simply has to much drag to go any faster without altering gearing/etc.

 

As soon as someone brings over an MC, I'll be happy to tune it.

Everyone I know in Utah has an MCS, and we've played with numerous of those,
but no Coopers.

The Mini One is cake, (all they do is artificially limit the throttles) but its not offered
in the USA.

We're not sure if we're going to offer the Injector overseas.. our Patent (pending)
only protects us in the USA.

 

No worries.

It's the way it is for a reason. (that I cannot go into in a public forum)

No need for Sorry either

(some Tequila would be good though )

Jim

 

Jim,
here is our problem in Hawaii, we have only at best 92 octane.
So what do you recommend the shark for 91 or 93 octane?

So if I understand right. If I have a MCS and plan to add the pulley but don't have it yet I can ask for the 93 octane version and ask for the pulley mod version. Later when I add the pulley I will be OK and before I add the pulley I can still do OK with the 93 octane pulley version?

My exhaust is the Milltek exhaust header and Quicksilver cat back exhaust.
I have the 61mm throttlebody

Any chance you will optimize the shark for the header and or the throttlebody upgrade? Would be nice.
Thanks for your comments. It's a great read every time.

 

Sorry to go back to something that's already been said, but I didn't fully understand.

I bought the pulley and injector from TMS but was having problems loading the software...I kept getting the 1-2-3 message...so I will try to load it at a later time.
What I did not understand (one of the many things) was what was said about what you should do if the dealer restores the program to stock.

I was under the impression (from a phone conv.) that once you've injected your car, the injector holds both the Shark and the stock program. If you go to the dealer and get an updated version of the software, then all you have to do is re-infect the car and you are ready to go.

If I understood correctly from the thread, what you are saying is that I should return the stock program, go to the dealer, get the new spftware and then re-inject my car?

Also, snce I have the Shark Father on the thread, I will tell you why I think the Injector did not work...
I pulled the fuse for steering, turned the monitor off (gps) waiting the recommended times, followed the instructions, but it didn't work.
When I tried to start ym car after multiple attempts, I found that something was definately wrong. Further investigation showed that it had NOTHING to do with the shark, but I did something that cut one of my ignition wires (the ones connected to the adaptor.)

By this time it was getting late so we didn't try the injector again...but could that have been the problem?

Louay