Nope. The reason you dont tune with a narrowband O2 sensor is because of the range of the sensor. If you look at the O2 voltage in the diagram you'll notice that he majority of the range from 0-1v is taken up by 14.7. The stock sensor is a 'switching type' sensor meaning it measure rich/stoich/lean and the actual numeric values are pretty useless. Thats why its called "narrowband" versus "wideband" which has a much more linear output. Hope that helps.




--
Cheese

 

Caddman,

I'm very impressed with your response and appreciate your candor. I hope I was able to convey my point that posting no "scientific evidence" is better than posting dubious evidence that does not back up your claims.

 

"no "scientific evidence" is better than posting dubious evidence that does not back up your claims."

But Andy, it works for the Bush administration!

 

>>"no "scientific evidence" is better than posting dubious evidence that does not back up your claims."
>>
>>But Andy, it works for the Bush administration!
>>

Ohhh no, bringing politics into this post is a sure way to send it rolling down hilll... Dubious evidence will fool 90% of the people....No further comment.

 

Cheese and JLM i know the details just trying to keep it in simple terms, and as well showing why te data from my carchip is incorrect, not particurally having a detail discussion of how and ecu works, just a simplified brief point, on how the carchip, was not the best way for me to prove my case, and also for those others reading this thread some "explination" for my inaccurate post, any why i was aruging it the way i was, Yes the car does NOT run lean due to my wideband testing, but Yes the carchips datalogging is incorrect in what it is showing, for it showing what it is seeing, not what is actually happening, and the synopsis was to clarify how those results were formed, and why they are inaccurate.....

Cheese, did you read my explination? that is totally based on a narrowband, and why it is inaccurate and why the computer overcompensates, due to the switching a narrowband does, and as well gives explination for the wide range of results the carchip sees.....

Andy as i have stated before, i do not believe in pissing contest, and you did show why the post i posted were inacurate( as well as mentioned that it didnt mean what i was sayig was wrong, just the data posted is) I ASSUMED the carchip would agree with my wideband testing, i was wrong in the assumption, Thank you for pointing the inaccuracies in the datalogger, i did metion i felt it wasnt the best tool in the world, now i feel its even worse, the only reason i bought it in teh first place was to reset the check engine light and fault codes in testing my check engine light eliminator, as well to monitor intake temps, while driving under diffrent conditions....

 

Now back to what this thread is supposed to be about,

Would everyone be agreeable in saying the significant reason for the extra power of a 19% vs 15% is not only because of the extra boost, but causing the motor to run leaner,(but not lean) therfore making it more effcient by being closer to the correct AF mixture?

 

>>Now back to what this thread is supposed to be about,
>>
>>Would everyone be agreeable in saying the significant reason for the extra power of a 19% vs 15% is not only because of the extra boost, but causing the motor to run leaner,(but not lean) therfore making it more effcient by being closer to the correct AF mixture?
>>
Right! So if I could maybe recap, the most cost effective way to get 30+ hp is the 19% pulley and stock ECU while the 15% pulley and Tuned ECU will give you very nearly as much hp and.... perhaps a little peace of mind that you wont be winding your supercharger up to redline quite so readily.

Is that anywhere close to accurate?

Chuck

 

>>>>Now back to what this thread is supposed to be about,
>>>>
>>>>Would everyone be agreeable in saying the significant reason for the extra power of a 19% vs 15% is not only because of the extra boost, but causing the motor to run leaner,(but not lean) therfore making it more effcient by being closer to the correct AF mixture?

 

lol yes, I would agree, Ecu tuning helps, but it would be less inpactful with a 19% then a 15%, but the closer the maps are the better performance you would have, for there would be less "tuning" the ecu would have to do regardles of which pulley you use, the 19% via stock ecu, would be closer than a 15% with stock ecu due to how rich the factory ecu is set up at, Some testing would have to be done to merit the ecu on a 19%, my car has the evotech with the 19% and it is almost perfect, but i have not done a lot of testing with a 19% with the stock ecu to know how much difference it makes, for example stock ecu could be closer and not having to adjust much, whereas in my situation the ecu could be riching the mixture up a bit all the time, really hard to know this unless you are able to see the maps and the enrichment factor, i do not have the capabilities on the mini to access that info, not sure who does other than BMW, some of the ECU tuners may have,not sure...I have experiance with this on my Trans Am which is completly aftermarket ECU, therefore i control my own maps, and see the ernrichment or leaning factor the +/- 20% facor i was talking about earlier, i dont trust the carchips data on long term and short term fuel enrichment data to be accurate, but i will run it monitoring those values and see what its coming up with,by the way im not posting this data due to it could be very inaccurate

 

Caddman,

Just to verify... You posted comparison Dyno charts of the 15% pulley and the 19% pulley, was that with the EVOTech ECU or Stock ECU?

I have to sit back and laugh just a little at this post with regard to lean and rich conditions it seems we are really talking such minor difference especially when compared to the adjustablility of lean/Rich conditions in Carburator equipped car... Man, have we come along way from changing jets that affected half or all of the power range to analizing a chart with hundereds of points an nit picking each point on whether it's a little too lean or a little too rich.... Used to be when the engine didn't run right it was too lean or too rich, back off the screw or screw it in a little more until it sounds good. Air/Fuel ratio is good when the engine runs good.

 

Degrees or no, I'm afraid Caddman has a pretty vague grasp of the issues that he has brought up. Moreover, Helix has these pulleys for $100, with no group buy. No offense to Caddman, I wish him the best, but I think that I'll stick with the tried and true.

 

Did anybody know that the Promini, Blue Thunder is running the 19% pulley.
http://www.promini.com/projectcar/BlueThunder.pdf

 

I've known this for a little while and actually spoke with Chris today as I ordered their boost & oil pressure gauge set-up. Blue thunder is getting 243hp with the 19% reduction pulley. I might add that this is with a full Supersprint exhaust system, and water-to-air IC via dry ice, I believe.

I believe the same type of mods accompanying a 15% would be in 230 to 240 range as well, at least from what I recall...

Chris shared that on this MCS and the turbo'd one near 300 hp, they have not done anything to strengthen the tranny. The cars have been driven hard he said. I find that very encouraging!

_________________
2003 IB MCS

 

The dyno post was a stock ecu, but was a custumers car so therefore did not ge to do all the "testing" with a/f rations like i would have liked to have done, but i did get to to the A/f testing on my car which has the EvoTech Ecu, but since my car did not run lean with testing, i dont foree a problem with the stock ecu running lean since it runs richer than most aftermarket ecus, but as stated before if i could only see the enrichment tables of the ecu to see which its doing adding or subtracting fuel, or pretty much right, its hard to say which set up is closer to teh correct fuel ration, but im pretty sure its gonna be the evotech over stock but until i verify i really dont want to push that idea, i have a 19% install later this week and hopefully i can get my hand on my friends wideband to try and do some more testing on it to see.......

Blackdogmini, if i am not mistaken helix is doing a 17% not a 19%, but i want to call them in the next coulpe of days anyways to find out about it, as i asked them before, i would like to try one of theirs out, since it is compression fit,(easier to install) and if it works ill see about carrying theirs,i have no problem with that, actually would make my life alot easier, as far as production and installation.

Mobygjc I mentioned that fact several times in my previous thread........

 

Helix has both. They have already installed several of each. In another thread Eric @ Helix mentions that they have been running and now sell both the 17 and 19% pulley although there could be some issues with heat with the 19% in the summer particularly in a MINI used for racing.

 

like i said i wasn't sure, but as i had posted many times for very advid race use i would recommend a larger intercooler or water to air to help the heat issue, dailiy driver i feel heat is not going to be issue and also the occasional racer, but once agian depends of type of racer, auto x, drag, road course, etc, etc. As well i really feel the 19% is the limit with the m45, another supercharger which has better efficency at higher boost aka whipple or something, i would have to do some research fo find which ones but being more efficent at higher boost helps in maintaining lower heat, it all in the design of the supercharger....

 

I'm secretly waiting to see what M7's twin screw will have to offer. As I recall, with less boost, 240 or so hp is achievable. There would be much upside from there, where as now we are talking about 240 or so being the max (ie, Blue Thunder at 243 with plenty of additional goodies). Exciting times!

 

Replacement SC! now that is something that you can take home to meet Momma!!!

 

oh, Yeah once thats figuered out the door creeps way wider open, as in my WRC car we used a modded supercharger and look at the results on my thread, we are already talking about changing it out and probably could get in the neighbor hood of 350hp with some reliability, if we can find a higher effcient sc with much lower temps, also starts to be a volume of air issue, so it starts leaning toward a m65 vs 45.....

 

Doesn't the MINI's SC run the WP off the back? If so would this be an easy mod on an aftermarket SC?

_________________
Rodney
'03 IB/W MC w/ 1,2,3 HID, Auto Wipes, Promini Intake and rear/side sunshades

 

nope a very difficult mod, you would have to change the cooling setup, on the WRC car im building we changed to an electric waterpump... and much work to get it all worked out...

 

Hey don't tell me this thread is over with! I look forward to new posts all day long!!!

 

LOL i will post one for just to keep your hopes up, but i do believe the soap opera is over, we are all seeing somewhat eye to eye now, so whats there discuss unless you post a question........

 

It will be interesting when actual testing is done with 15%, 17%, and 19% pulleys on the same car with dyno results, wideband A/F logs, etc.

 

I just dont understand the arguing points anymore.

--
Cheese


_________________

THIS SPACE FOR RENT