Conical intakes BEWARE! TTP tunes a 2009 Ralliart with fueling problems from intake!
Jul 22, 2009, 10:34 AM
#31
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Smallville, KS
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So which is it? Are the intake systems manufactured for the Evolution X and the Ralliart by Ultimate Racing completely different parts or not? This is how rumors are started on this forum...when you freely use probably, maybe, perhaps, or similar adverbs there is no certainty there. It might be a good idea to be 100% sure before making bold claims. This thread reads like..."The Ultimate Racing intake kit (and all intakes that alter the MAF) is junk and will eventually lead to a blown motor from a dangerously lean condition."
Jul 22, 2009, 11:43 AM
#33
It appears that it's an Ultimate Racing Intake Filter and adapter, which apparently flows so well over the stock piece on a Ralliart that it leans the car out too far.
I haven't seen the Ralliart stock intake in detail but the stock Evo X has a ~2.8" housing while many intake upgrades use a 3" housing. While the change is sigificant it usually ends up being between .5 and 1.0 AFR leaner which on a stock Evo X will push you from high 9's to high 10's and is USUALLY safe without a tune. The stock timing advance tables are pretty aggressive so getting a tune is still what I would recommend, especially if other parts are thrown in and you are increasing boost levels.
Probably the only way around the maxxed out 7.4 values in the fuel tables would be to use injector scaling. Either reduce the size you are reporting to the ecu to make everything richer or get larger injectors and don't report them as being as large. Sounds like that Intake was leaning things out like crazy, are you sure there weren't intake or boost leaks anywhere?
I haven't seen the Ralliart stock intake in detail but the stock Evo X has a ~2.8" housing while many intake upgrades use a 3" housing. While the change is sigificant it usually ends up being between .5 and 1.0 AFR leaner which on a stock Evo X will push you from high 9's to high 10's and is USUALLY safe without a tune. The stock timing advance tables are pretty aggressive so getting a tune is still what I would recommend, especially if other parts are thrown in and you are increasing boost levels.
Probably the only way around the maxxed out 7.4 values in the fuel tables would be to use injector scaling. Either reduce the size you are reporting to the ecu to make everything richer or get larger injectors and don't report them as being as large. Sounds like that Intake was leaning things out like crazy, are you sure there weren't intake or boost leaks anywhere?
If you do that then the short term fuel trims will be incorrect.
Jul 22, 2009, 03:17 PM
#34
Thanks Eric
. That clears up alot. The only reason I asked what I did was simply because the idea conveyed in the opening of the thread said to stop buying intakes to lean out the car. When I read "we've been saying it from the beginning" I was under the assumption the thread pertained to both the Ralliart and X. I also think that it's a bit abrasive to go bashing people through a thread, you need a hobby. I will admit I'm a noob to these things and I'm still learning about engine management esp. when it comes to this car. I just don't see the need for calling people out. TTP , I always respect your opinion on finds when it comes to the X, you guys do excellent work. Sorry if you thought I was trying to start something, I assure you I wasn't. I simply was trying to understand the nature of the problem.
. That clears up alot. The only reason I asked what I did was simply because the idea conveyed in the opening of the thread said to stop buying intakes to lean out the car. When I read "we've been saying it from the beginning" I was under the assumption the thread pertained to both the Ralliart and X. I also think that it's a bit abrasive to go bashing people through a thread, you need a hobby. I will admit I'm a noob to these things and I'm still learning about engine management esp. when it comes to this car. I just don't see the need for calling people out. TTP , I always respect your opinion on finds when it comes to the X, you guys do excellent work. Sorry if you thought I was trying to start something, I assure you I wasn't. I simply was trying to understand the nature of the problem.
Jul 23, 2009, 08:47 AM
#36
Hey guys,
I really can't explain why this particular customer had problems with our product.
We don't blindly manufacture intakes and release them to public. All of our testing in-house had determined a very safe and reliable air/fuel ratio. By safe, I'm talking air/fuel ratios in the 11:1's. We have never encountered a problem like this on our own, or any customer car we've had here. In fact, we supply two Canadian Mitsubishi dealerships with this product and have not had any negative issues reported. I'm not passing the blame on anyone though. I would like to know why this happened, and if there is anything we can do to help this customer out and put this issue to rest.
As for the comment about our short ram intake sucking in hot engine bay air, we are not going to dispute that. But, we have never seen a cold air intake provide any more power or significantly cooler air over a short ram on a front mount intercooled engine. The temps just don't get any lower than near ambient. Intake air temps post intercooler have always been, for the most part, identical.
Darryl
www.ultimate-racing.com
I really can't explain why this particular customer had problems with our product.
We don't blindly manufacture intakes and release them to public. All of our testing in-house had determined a very safe and reliable air/fuel ratio. By safe, I'm talking air/fuel ratios in the 11:1's. We have never encountered a problem like this on our own, or any customer car we've had here. In fact, we supply two Canadian Mitsubishi dealerships with this product and have not had any negative issues reported. I'm not passing the blame on anyone though. I would like to know why this happened, and if there is anything we can do to help this customer out and put this issue to rest.
As for the comment about our short ram intake sucking in hot engine bay air, we are not going to dispute that. But, we have never seen a cold air intake provide any more power or significantly cooler air over a short ram on a front mount intercooled engine. The temps just don't get any lower than near ambient. Intake air temps post intercooler have always been, for the most part, identical.
Darryl
www.ultimate-racing.com
Jul 23, 2009, 09:25 AM
#38
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: west coast
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is correct about intakes for a turboed cars...... hot air?? cold air??? at the end its get compress but the hot turbo... around 500+ degrees and the intercooler is what cools it down... so even if you suck in engine temp air which is around 350 its still gonna get heated way up there till it hits the FMIC to bring it back down near ambient air... soo if want to cool it down more... drop a front mount NOS dry intercooler spray.... and that will cool it a bit below ambient air temp.... but is way cooler...
now for me why i went with INJEN because just brings out the spooling sound to the outside of the car.... i just like to make noise lol.... but is it works well
now for me why i went with INJEN because just brings out the spooling sound to the outside of the car.... i just like to make noise lol.... but is it works well
Jul 23, 2009, 01:54 PM
#41
Probably the only way around the maxxed out 7.4 values in the fuel tables would be to use injector scaling. Either reduce the size you are reporting to the ecu to make everything richer or get larger injectors and don't report them as being as large. Sounds like that Intake was leaning things out like crazy, are you sure there weren't intake or boost leaks anywhere?
You can fix this by either adjusting the scaling or the latency. I prefer the latter since it does not alter the AFR readings at WOT. I logged an Evo X with an AEM intake that had +11.9% LTFT. With 0.15ms adjustment to certain section of the latency table I was able to get the LTFT into +5%. Then I tuned the AFR and it was steady as a rock.
I just finished tuning another X with an AEM but the LTFT stayed at or below +5% so I did not adjust the latency to fix the problem. Each Evo X reacts differently to the same intake since there are other variables involved in changing the LTFT. But generally speaking, the intakes (AEM, Injen, HKS, HKS drop-in) that I have logged on the Evo X have made the LTFT positive. The ECU was seeing a lean fuel mixture at cruise and asking the injectors for more fuel to maintain the AFR at 14.7:1. This keeps the CAT happy and the emissions low. But too much on the postive LTFT (above +5%) will make the AFR richer than the target AFR in the fuel map during WOT operation.
The best way to fix this though is to adjust the MAF scaling table like I do when I tune Subarus, but we do not have the table in ECUflash just yet. Hopefully we will have it in there soon.
This can be fixed w/o having to go ultra rich on the fuel map either by adjusting the scaling or the latency.
Last edited by nj1266; Jul 23, 2009 at 02:49 PM.
Jul 23, 2009, 02:14 PM
#44
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: west coast
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea i know now i am worried.... i dont have a AFR meter yet if someone out there have the INJEN for the RALLIART please help out and post a AFR or i really dont wanna blow it up lol
Jul 23, 2009, 02:33 PM
#45
that is correct about intakes for a turboed cars...... hot air?? cold air??? at the end its get compress but the hot turbo... around 500+ degrees and the intercooler is what cools it down... so even if you suck in engine temp air which is around 350 its still gonna get heated way up there till it hits the FMIC to bring it back down near ambient air... soo if want to cool it down more... drop a front mount NOS dry intercooler spray.... and that will cool it a bit below ambient air temp.... but is way cooler...
now for me why i went with INJEN because just brings out the spooling sound to the outside of the car.... i just like to make noise lol.... but is it works well
now for me why i went with INJEN because just brings out the spooling sound to the outside of the car.... i just like to make noise lol.... but is it works well
And the temps at the intake manifold are NOT near ambient, far from it. Generally speaking, I have found the temps (you can log them on the X) at the intake are 15-20* lower than they are at the intake manifold. So starting with lower intakee temps will give you lower intake manifold temps.
I have logged the Injen intake on an Evo X and it is really good at keeping IATs low, not as low as stock, but better than the AEM where the IATs do not change from the start to the end of a 4th gear WOT run on the road.
Last edited by nj1266; Jul 23, 2009 at 02:35 PM.