>>Well I always thought that even when you put any pulley smaller than stock, the air fuel mixture should be unaffected as far as the side of the engine that manages the fuel delivery is sufficient in relation to the extra air that the supercharger is able to cram into the car. I don't have any data or quotes to prove this but it seems to make sense because regardless of how powerfully the SC is running, the engine management always strives to achieve the same ratio.

Thats a fair point but what I failed to mention was a conversation I had with my MA wherein he told me that after 4000RPM the ECU "gives up" and jst dumps in fuel. That would result in rich conditions regardless of pulley size.

>>If somewhere along the fuel delivery system there was a capacity problem, then the ratio goes off no matter what, but I don't believe that is really a problem since the JCW cars run more powerfully yet the fuel delivery is the same.

Is that really true? Does not the JCW come with an ECU remap?

>>With that kind-of stuff said.. if you are running a 19% pulley with an a/f ratio equivalent to stock (rich), then the ECU gains may, even moreso, produce a significant change in engine efficiency. Time for some kebab, lol.

Still don't really believe that the a/f ratio would be the same for 19% pulley vs. stock pulley, both with stock ECU

 

at WOT, the computer is reading values off of maps, and not computing fueling based on O2 sensor readings... So if you give it more air than expected it wont compensate because it doesnt "know". If you upgrade the injectors the opposite would occur...


--
Cheese

 

>>
>>
>>The above picture is a set of eaton rotors that have expanded enough from the heat of being overworked by a smaller pulley that the ceramic coating literally pops off and seperates itself from the rotors. The rotors then machine themselves to fit the case.
>>
>>There is only one place for this scrap to go, so now the question is: How does epoxy and aluminum chips figure into the air/fuel ratio?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Cheese
>>

So is this picture from your MCS? You seem to have all the answers on how this actually happened. How about giving some more details in addition to the scare-tactic picture?

 

That pic looks like something that happen to a friend trying to use NOS to the mix just before the SC, and with the extra heat some things could go wrong.
Just my two cents, no need to argue with me... JAJAJA
I will love to get a 17 or 19% pulley, I'm just getting the extra $$$ for it.

 

 

If you were to look at the thread linked to in the begining of this thread you will see where my "hijacked thread" i have posted a table of one day at the track with my 19% pulley, it shows O2 sensor voltage, through out the 20 min run, not once did it run lean.....

19% pulley group buy

 

>>If you were to look at the thread linked to in the begining of this thread you will see where my "hijacked thread" i have posted a table of one day at the track with my 19% pulley, it shows O2 sensor voltage, through out the 20 min run, not once did it run lean.....
>>
>>19% pulley group buy


Exactly.... You show that according to the O2 Sensor that it didn't run lean... Too lean. but neither does the Powerchip or EVOtech ECU upgrades they just run leaner than stock, but still safe and produce good HP improvements.

This was my point in the previous post. Upgrading from a 15% reduction pulley to a 19% reduction pulley is not going to give you large HP numbers alone. Something other than packing a little more air into the motor influenced your 20hp gain from 15% to 19% so I think it was an unfair test because with the Rich stock ECU and the 15% pulley we are still running to Rich, upgrade to the 19% with stock ECU and now we get large HP improvements by leaning the mixture out. A 15% stock pulley with a PowerChip ECU with give me about 30 HP improvement. You get 20 more from the 19% pulley over the 15% but with the stock ECU so you are getting 20+15 = 35 HP improvement from Stock pulley to 19% pulley. So my point is that the 15% pulley with the ECU upgrade gives 30hp and the 19% pulley will give you 35hp with the stock ECU and I'll bet that you won't get anymore by adding an ECU upgrade to the 19% because the HP gained by the ECU upgrade is from Leaning the mixture and you won't be able to lean it out anymore than you have with the stock ECU. So I think it's unfair to say that the 19% pulley will give you 20hp more than the 15% pulley, it only will with the stock ECU. Which may be a good point because we could upgrade to the 19% and not need an ECU upgrade.... if it can be proven that the Stock ECU continues throughout the power range to never go into a unsafe lean condition.

But in the end we are only 5hp ahead of the where we could be with the 15% pulley but we have ECU money left in our pocket

 

caddman wrote:




I respectfully disagree.

 

What about increased drag the smaller pullies cause? More air, more friction, the robbing of more power to make more. I've seen more "bottom-end" torque discussed, but have to disagree.

Without testing myself, I thought the curves would look something like:




_________________
-goin440 IB/IB MC

 

Hold-on, I'm confusing self.... I think I answered my own question.

I tried to understand though

 

>>Hold-on, I'm confusing self.... I think I answered my own question.
>>
>>I tried to understand though

440,
The graph from the original post shows how much HP is needed to turn the blower at a given RPM.

 

>>Kevin, I'm pretty sure that picture came up in a thread from a Miata owner with an Eaton blower on his car. So it's not from a MCS, but it's a similar Eaton to the M45, which isn't the same as the one the MCS has on it, but it's also similar.

I THOUGHT that SC looked familiar... FWIW, when I dismantled the M45 on my miata with 'stock' pulley, it showed the same scarring on the edges of the rotors, though the coating was fine. Not sure what causes the scarring (debris?) but it's not definitively caused by overspinning the blower - mine has never been overspun, and rarely sees redline (just doesn't need to with the boost!)

 

Andy,

I cant find any O2 voltages over 1 volt in that chart you reposted. if I missed it, where is it? If not, why exactly do you disagree?

respectfully

Chuck

 

That blower in the picture is a picture of an eaton unit used by Jackson Racing on a Honda that had been fitted with a undersized pulley. I belive it was ~20% reduction.

Chuck,
Voltages under .2 will yield a lambda higher than 1. The target you're shooting for when tuning for power is about .85 which is why the data from an O2 sensor is pretty useless.


--
Cheese

 

sooner or later we will have a real shootout...at the dragstrip.

Using high peak HP numbers is pissing in the wind, but it seems to be a rampant contagion.

 

>>That blower in the picture is a picture of an eaton unit used by Jackson Racing on a Honda that had been fitted with a undersized pulley. I belive it was ~20% reduction.
>>
>>Chuck,
>> Voltages under .2 will yield a lambda higher than 1. The target you're shooting for when tuning for power is about .85 which is why the data from an O2 sensor is pretty useless.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Cheese
>>
>>

Ahh. Yeah sorry bout dat. You'd think I've never read a graph before. must be dilerious because my mini is waiting for me at the dealer

 

Everyone,
This thread got a little out of hand and it has been cleaned up. Going forward please feel free to get into detailed discussions but leave the emotion out of your posts. Name calling will only derail threads like this and force the mods to remove them.

One item which I saw mentioned that I want to clarify was the comment relative to Randy's departure from the site. It was in fact not a departure as I developed and maintain Randy's web site. We both felt that in order for him to convey his views on the products that he is reviewing/carrying and communicate with his customers that a forum on his site would be the most beneficial. This also provided me with the ability to attract other vendors to the site without them feeling like they had no chance to get product exposure. This change was originally announced HERE.

As before the site is about bringing as much MINI-related information to the members as possible so that you can make your own decisions about what you like and don't like in the market. Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

Now lets get back into the details....

Best regards,

Mark

 

Thanks Mark!
My apologies to any that i may have offended if any...
I do not mind a heat discussion about facts, but name calling is wrong as well as discussions about findings without means of proving your findings, but as i said before if two people have diffrent findings does not mean that one or the other are wrong, there are two many variables at play, and that could be all the diffrence, as well i admitted when i made my mistake about my "laws of physics" misqoute and thankfully i was corrected, thanks you all have a nice day!!

 

Superchip,

I forgot to mention on you post earlier about the graph, and not running lean, you made the comment about a 15% pulley with a ECU, vs 19% without, I have not done that comparison, I does need to be done, just for seeing which of the two yould be a better option if one wanted to choose between the two... anywas back to what i was originally going to say, the table are from a 19% WITH an Evotech ecu upgrade, which in all actually would force it it to run leaner, than with stock ECU..

Just trying to clear up some of the details.....

 

caddman,

Do you see now that the datalog you posted does not back up your claim that your car never runs lean? I have no idea if your car does or doesn't run lean, but you haven't posted any relevant evidence to support your claim.

_________________



1/4 Mile Database

 

PLease explain, No i still dont see your claim, because i tested with a wideband, and it agrees with the datatlogger....That was one of my first major concerns with the 19%, i just don't have a "written" copy of the wideband, since was a stand alone, not dtatalogging unit, you have to watch it( i borrowed it) and it wouldn't have been the type I would buy, but free is free and it served its purpose.....

Also from my understanding you have not tested a 19%, correct?, so are you sure that i am running lean, just trying to clarify your data....and you still haven't commented on the guage reading, why would the gauge read 26lbs, i do understand you point of the inaccuracies of the datalogger as far as intake PSI, even though the boost side does agree with the guage, but no vacumn, the guage does read vacumn, and reads the same boost as the datalogger...

I will do more testing, and try and find a "better" wideband o2 than i used before, one with datalogging capapbilities and as i said before i also am looking into a better datalogger, i want a continous recording not a every two second snapshot, any recomandations that won't break me...

 

Sure, I'll be happy to explain (although macncheese already did it above). Your O2 sensor data shows voltages from 0.00 to 0.88 volts. According to the chart you posted, that ranges from very rich to very lean. See, the X-Axis of your voltage graph is the fuel mixture. The Y-axis is the voltage from the sensor. So, take a voltage, let's say, 0.08 volts, find where that is on the Y-Axis (that's the axis that is on the left side). Then, trace over to see where that puts you on the curve. Now, look down from that spot on the curve to see what the value is on the X-Axis (that's the axis that is lying down). 0.08 volts corresponds to an air/fuel of about 16.19. If you wanted to make a statement that your data shows you never going lean, then voltages should never drop below 0.2 volts. But, as you can see, they do.

I'm not sure why you said this:Unless you didn't read what I posted:I'll reiterate, just so I can make sure that you read it. I have no idea if your car does or doesn't run lean, but you haven't posted any relevant evidence to support your claim.

I think you are misunderstanding my line of questioning (or my "arguing point" if you prefer). I am not contesting the usefulness of a 19% pulley. I am pointing out that the evidence you are presenting is very confusing to say the least. If you had just said "Here are some 19% pulleys, come buy them" then nobody would question your post. When you try to back up claims with data that is at best confusing and misleading, your bluff is going to be called.

You said your datalogging showed 25 psi, but it didn't, it showed 13 psi. You said your datalogging showed you never running lean, but it didn't, it showed you running lean as well as rich. You said that the amount of air increases exponentially with pressure, but it doesn't, PV=nRT. When I see false statements made, and the person who makes them is purporting to be knowledgeable in that area (3 engineering degrees?) I will correct them. Sorry, that's just the way I am.

Now, your boost gauge definitely shows 25-ish psi, which is very impressive. I don't have a problem with that. I'm curious to know how that is possible, but I haven't tried a 19% pulley yet and for all I know, that may be normal behavior.

Here's a wideband A/F logger:

http://www.innovatemotorsports.com

 

OK for once i do see your point, but i never reached those numbers with the wideband i used, my mistake for posting the carchips data as mancheese stated you should never go by the O2, by posting the carchip i was,

Now as far as my original post it was for a group buy not a merit of 19% pulley thread, i just listed the prices, quanities to get certian prices, and deadline...

everyone else jumped aboard.....this the effect.. my mistake on trying to answer quickly, with not reliable info due to not having any written results of my true testing(handwritten notes were taken but would not make a very clean presentation), only the results of the stupid carchip, which i posted with out really looking at(shot myself in the foot obviously) thinking it would correlate with my actual findings, Agreed stupid move on my behalf, as far as the power increase i did admit my mistake on the bar explination, but the power increase is not linear for 15% makes 20ish hp and a 19% makes 35ish Hp the extra 4% almost doubles the power, now it may be due to the leaning as well getting closer to the correct af ratio and maximizing the power of the fuel but thats what its all about in trying to make more power

TO EVERYONE, my apaolgies on posting info that was misleading and confusing, the actual testing results are showing values not running lean, but the table i posted did for any of those out there carful with a carchip(not so accurate) next time i will post my actual notes (ill just have to break down and type them in, insetad of looking for an easier way out)

 

Also another note needed to be mentioned is how an ecu works on tuning by the o2 sensor....helps explain the inaccurcies of the carchip data

once a ecu is in closed loop(reading off O2), it is consantly searching for the ideal ratio, it uses maps to get a "start" point then it fine tunes from there by "bouncing" from lean to rich because all ECU's overcompensate while tuning, if you were to watch a a/f guage while driving, it constantly moves, only onder acceleration and deceleration does it slows down this bouncing(due to going to the map for fuel amount data which), obiovosly accerration going rich due to ecu dumping fuel to gain power, and lean from ecu droping fuel to lose power, this doesnt mean the engine is running rich or lean just means the O2 sensor is seeing rich or lean,once again agreeing with Andy and Cheese why you dont tune off an O2, as in my table you are looking at a bunch of accelerations and decclerations(it was a race), so O2 sensor is going into overdrive in doing its job, but from the snapshots of the carchip you cannot tell if im accelerating or decelerating so the O2 values are useless(one again my mistake).....

Also needed to be explained is how the maps work, which is just a preset amount of fuel to add per RPM and Maninfold air pressure, these number are set, the ecu modifing is done by inputs of other sensors such as throttle position, air temp, coolant temp,O2, etc,etc. Most ECUs are only capable of modifying these values +/- 15 to 20%

there are also many other aspects of fuel injection that could be discussed but per this conversation not completely relevant, only thing close is the closed loop to open loop fact at full throttle, which is the Ecu dumping all the fuel it can, which should give a rich reading all through the rpm band otherwise you have undersized injectors or to much air aka overboosting.......

Hopefully this will explain the inaccuracies carchip info, due to the snapshot it does you cant tell what the driver is doing to see the conditions the engine is under, the carchip is capable of doing this but limits itself to only three sensors to watch and the snapshot, if it could watch throttle position, o2, timing, air temp, manifold pressure, and coolant temp at the same time continously it would tell a much better tale of whats going on.......

I really do wish i could put my commander950 off my GTA onto the mini, to tune and watch all these variables, but the ecu in the min controlls to many other things as well which would go hay wire, one is however going on the WRC car but all the other functions in the MINI are gone for it is a full stripped race car, no dsc, no ac, no antilock, no cruise, etc etc...

hope this help clear some of the confusing air in my post and once again, i apologies for the confusing info, now that i have had a chance and stop and look back i realize how misleading it is, and i was using the wrong info to try and prove my point, but hopefulley this explains the carchips data telling us really nuthing at all, and my unawareness of looking at it in that way just assuming it followed suit on the test info i actually did

 

"only thing close is the closed loop to open loop fact at full throttle, which is the Ecu dumping all the fuel it can, which should give a rich reading all through the rpm band otherwise you have undersized injectors or to much air aka overboosting....... "

sort of; at WOT the ECU is not servo-ing off the O2 sensor reading of A/F ratio (it is running "open loop:&quot. Instead it is reading from a fixed list of injector pulse values, called the "fuel map". One of the the things a chip tuner does is re-do this list. In general, this is the list that causes the stock MINI S to run rich and the pullied car to still run rich. Even though the extra boost is adding more air, it isn't enough to bring the A/F to 11.5/1 or 12:1 (recommended values at WOT with boost, compared to 14:1 ideal, for mid trottle ranges). the extra richness is a safety factor at the expense of power. Many of us are willing to push closer to get more power.