Buschur Racing turbo kits & dyno numbers
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Originally posted by MalibuJack
For what its worth, if you want to stay with the stock ECU (Flashed) and eliminate the MAF restriction, there's two options out there that I'm aware of that will allow you to remove the MAF sensor and use a pressure (MAP) sensor instead. Neither is cheap since the cost of one of the products is approaching that of a standalone. (MAP-ECU) Basically the products I know of function like the old HKS VPC.. Essentially in function, you hook it up like an S-AFC, it intercepts the stock MAF values, then once its programmed, you remove the MAF sensor and it uses MAP and RPM reference to supply a squarewave (Karmann) value to the stock ECU..
I **WOULD** Like to try this.. basically it would in the end remove a potential restriction, it would more or less function like a S-AFC (with little or no compensation curve so you have room to do tuning) and you can run the flash on a stock ECU without a MAF..
For what its worth, if you want to stay with the stock ECU (Flashed) and eliminate the MAF restriction, there's two options out there that I'm aware of that will allow you to remove the MAF sensor and use a pressure (MAP) sensor instead. Neither is cheap since the cost of one of the products is approaching that of a standalone. (MAP-ECU) Basically the products I know of function like the old HKS VPC.. Essentially in function, you hook it up like an S-AFC, it intercepts the stock MAF values, then once its programmed, you remove the MAF sensor and it uses MAP and RPM reference to supply a squarewave (Karmann) value to the stock ECU..
I **WOULD** Like to try this.. basically it would in the end remove a potential restriction, it would more or less function like a S-AFC (with little or no compensation curve so you have room to do tuning) and you can run the flash on a stock ECU without a MAF..
Last edited by RichJ; Feb 1, 2004 at 10:51 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Originally posted by RichJ
What about just running a bigger MAF like a universal unit from Pro-M and using an SAFC (or equivalent) to adjust the signal to simulate a stock MAF output? Seems a lot easier than simulating a MAF signal with a MAP sensor and also a lot more accurate at adjusting for different conditions.
What about just running a bigger MAF like a universal unit from Pro-M and using an SAFC (or equivalent) to adjust the signal to simulate a stock MAF output? Seems a lot easier than simulating a MAF signal with a MAP sensor and also a lot more accurate at adjusting for different conditions.
Nathan
masterevo,
Yes, we will have the AEM tuned and ready to drop in for all of the packages.
Actually for those of you that don't want the "hassle" of the stand alone I want to point something out. We can install the tune at the shop for our stages. From there it is a very straight forward install. Other than installing the MAP sensor and the temp sensor there is nothing to it. We have SS temp sensor fittins already made to install for customers. We also are going to make a simple bolt on MAP sensor adapter to use.
As for making 400 whp for $4-5,000. You can't get it all for that amount.
IF we can get the flash or AFC to work well enough with the turbo kit(haven't tried yet but will) then the minimum investment would be $6500. Our Stage 4 kit is $3995 and the turbo kit is going to be around $2500.
lilgsx,
We are running the car on speed density now. The MAS is sitting in a pile of dust
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Yes, we will have the AEM tuned and ready to drop in for all of the packages.
Actually for those of you that don't want the "hassle" of the stand alone I want to point something out. We can install the tune at the shop for our stages. From there it is a very straight forward install. Other than installing the MAP sensor and the temp sensor there is nothing to it. We have SS temp sensor fittins already made to install for customers. We also are going to make a simple bolt on MAP sensor adapter to use.
As for making 400 whp for $4-5,000. You can't get it all for that amount.
IF we can get the flash or AFC to work well enough with the turbo kit(haven't tried yet but will) then the minimum investment would be $6500. Our Stage 4 kit is $3995 and the turbo kit is going to be around $2500.
lilgsx,
We are running the car on speed density now. The MAS is sitting in a pile of dust
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
David... I'm sure you will be able to deliver quite a tune on the OE ECU if you chose to do so... being that you greatly improved on Al's flash, who already had done wonders with the OE ECU and his HKS set up (apples and oranges I know). The AEM EMS is also less desirable to many due to expense, not just the "hassle" factor (fact that it is less than likely ever going to be able to deliver a completely "OE" drive)... Don't think for a second I can't see both sides of the coin. There is the camp who will be quite excited with the pre programed EMS... probably those looking for more than the upper end of the OE air meter. Those who also just can't say no to more, and then a little more. However, there are those who won't.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
From: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Originally posted by Zeus
Of course the "MASS air" is going to come in to play here... and it seems to be "tapped out" around the "450whp" realm. I'm sure all of us would like to have a car that would lay down 500hp or more. However, having a standalone installed is going to be "the line drawn in the dirt" for the majority. Most will either not want the headache, or be able/want to afford the expense of one.
Of course the "MASS air" is going to come in to play here... and it seems to be "tapped out" around the "450whp" realm. I'm sure all of us would like to have a car that would lay down 500hp or more. However, having a standalone installed is going to be "the line drawn in the dirt" for the majority. Most will either not want the headache, or be able/want to afford the expense of one.
My 2c,
Shiv
Originally posted by davidbuschur
masterevo,
Yes, we will have the AEM tuned and ready to drop in for all of the packages.
Actually for those of you that don't want the "hassle" of the stand alone I want to point something out. We can install the tune at the shop for our stages. From there it is a very straight forward install. Other than installing the MAP sensor and the temp sensor there is nothing to it. We have SS temp sensor fittins already made to install for customers. We also are going to make a simple bolt on MAP sensor adapter to use.
As for making 400 whp for $4-5,000. You can't get it all for that amount.
IF we can get the flash or AFC to work well enough with the turbo kit(haven't tried yet but will) then the minimum investment would be $6500. Our Stage 4 kit is $3995 and the turbo kit is going to be around $2500.
lilgsx,
We are running the car on speed density now. The MAS is sitting in a pile of dust
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
masterevo,
Yes, we will have the AEM tuned and ready to drop in for all of the packages.
Actually for those of you that don't want the "hassle" of the stand alone I want to point something out. We can install the tune at the shop for our stages. From there it is a very straight forward install. Other than installing the MAP sensor and the temp sensor there is nothing to it. We have SS temp sensor fittins already made to install for customers. We also are going to make a simple bolt on MAP sensor adapter to use.
As for making 400 whp for $4-5,000. You can't get it all for that amount.
IF we can get the flash or AFC to work well enough with the turbo kit(haven't tried yet but will) then the minimum investment would be $6500. Our Stage 4 kit is $3995 and the turbo kit is going to be around $2500.
lilgsx,
We are running the car on speed density now. The MAS is sitting in a pile of dust
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Also, how much would you charge for a clutch install, cams install, and sheet metal intake install?
Thanks,
Keith
PS: Feel free to e-mail or PM if you don't want to discuss prices of part/install on list
Originally posted by shiv@vishnu
The MAF itself takes more than 450whp to tap it out as far as max reading goes. As I see it, the two real issues involved are: 1) increasing MAF sensor nonlinearities towards the upper end of airflow (not a big deal as far as tuning goes) and, more importantly, 2) the factory tables for spark advance and fuel are only mapped up to 1.6-1.7bar of boost (depending on the mass airflow of the system since boost is calculated by comparing MAF to RPM). This means that if you run more boost/MAF than the Y-axis on the table allows, you'll "tap it out". Above which point, you hope that the upper most load row in your tables are still mapped appropriately for the higher-than-readable boost levels you are running.
My 2c,
Shiv
The MAF itself takes more than 450whp to tap it out as far as max reading goes. As I see it, the two real issues involved are: 1) increasing MAF sensor nonlinearities towards the upper end of airflow (not a big deal as far as tuning goes) and, more importantly, 2) the factory tables for spark advance and fuel are only mapped up to 1.6-1.7bar of boost (depending on the mass airflow of the system since boost is calculated by comparing MAF to RPM). This means that if you run more boost/MAF than the Y-axis on the table allows, you'll "tap it out". Above which point, you hope that the upper most load row in your tables are still mapped appropriately for the higher-than-readable boost levels you are running.
My 2c,
Shiv
2) I doubt that any rational individuals will exceed 1.6 - 1.7 bars of boost on pump gas. With that said 1.6 to 1.7 bars of boost will equal vastly differnt air flows and maf signals (load) depending on the rest of the engine set up and modifications
My take on the limits of reflash capability is that they are about equal to the limits of pump gas capability on 2.0 l 4 cyl engines
I am anxious of course to test all these theories out on the Buschur turbo set up
However - let me remind you - I have already produced many dyno sheets over 500 whp on race fuel with the reflash on the stock ecu. My thoughts on the limits of the stock ecu are not based upon theory and speculation - but rather my own experiences on the dyno and track.
Its my opinion - hardly unbiased - but based upon experience that for a daily driver car you intend to use every day a reflash is the most sensable, cost effective and driveable option for someone running a turbo upgrade. Stand alones like the AEM will provide better power and more flexability at a greater cost in the wallet and less driveability - IMHO they are best suited to cars that see mostly track use or are 2nd or 3rd cars.
Of course a master like Dave Buchur who has had a long reputation for tweaking stock ecus to mega whp and record time slips on 4g63 is going to have all the bases covered with any option the end user needs.
In Timeout
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Originally posted by shiv@vishnu
The MAF itself takes more than 450whp to tap it out as far as max reading goes. As I see it, the two real issues involved are: 1) increasing MAF sensor nonlinearities towards the upper end of airflow (not a big deal as far as tuning goes) and, more importantly, 2) the factory tables for spark advance and fuel are only mapped up to 1.6-1.7bar of boost (depending on the mass airflow of the system since boost is calculated by comparing MAF to RPM). This means that if you run more boost/MAF than the Y-axis on the table allows, you'll "tap it out". Above which point, you hope that the upper most load row in your tables are still mapped appropriately for the higher-than-readable boost levels you are running.
My 2c,
Shiv
The MAF itself takes more than 450whp to tap it out as far as max reading goes. As I see it, the two real issues involved are: 1) increasing MAF sensor nonlinearities towards the upper end of airflow (not a big deal as far as tuning goes) and, more importantly, 2) the factory tables for spark advance and fuel are only mapped up to 1.6-1.7bar of boost (depending on the mass airflow of the system since boost is calculated by comparing MAF to RPM). This means that if you run more boost/MAF than the Y-axis on the table allows, you'll "tap it out". Above which point, you hope that the upper most load row in your tables are still mapped appropriately for the higher-than-readable boost levels you are running.
My 2c,
Shiv
Post edited due to inflamitory comments not contributing to the thread
Last edited by timzcat; Feb 1, 2004 at 08:19 PM.
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
Its my opinion - hardly unbiased - but based upon experience that for a daily driver car you intend to use every day a reflash is the most sensable, cost effective and driveable option for someone running a turbo upgrade. Stand alones like the AEM will provide better power and more flexability at a greater cost in the wallet and less driveability - IMHO they are best suited to cars that see mostly track use or are 2nd or 3rd cars.
Its my opinion - hardly unbiased - but based upon experience that for a daily driver car you intend to use every day a reflash is the most sensable, cost effective and driveable option for someone running a turbo upgrade. Stand alones like the AEM will provide better power and more flexability at a greater cost in the wallet and less driveability - IMHO they are best suited to cars that see mostly track use or are 2nd or 3rd cars.
Ditto on the Shiv leave! I'll throw a "Please" in there to make it a civil request...
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 101
From: NR Reading PA
Originally posted by MalibuJack
Basically the products I know of function like the old HKS VPC.. Essentially in function, you hook it up like an S-AFC, it intercepts the stock MAF values, then once its programmed, you remove the MAF sensor and it uses MAP and RPM reference to supply a squarewave (Karmann) value to the stock ECU..
I **WOULD** Like to try this.. basically it would in the end remove a potential restriction, it would more or less function like a S-AFC (with little or no compensation curve so you have room to do tuning) and you can run the flash on a stock ECU without a MAF..
Basically the products I know of function like the old HKS VPC.. Essentially in function, you hook it up like an S-AFC, it intercepts the stock MAF values, then once its programmed, you remove the MAF sensor and it uses MAP and RPM reference to supply a squarewave (Karmann) value to the stock ECU..
I **WOULD** Like to try this.. basically it would in the end remove a potential restriction, it would more or less function like a S-AFC (with little or no compensation curve so you have room to do tuning) and you can run the flash on a stock ECU without a MAF..
Speedlimit...
In Timeout
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Speedlimit
Be careful with the VPC route as the drivability takes a nose dive. I had a VPC on my 93 TSI Talon and the idle sucked.
Be careful with the VPC route as the drivability takes a nose dive. I had a VPC on my 93 TSI Talon and the idle sucked.
Shiv please stay out is that better?
Originally posted by shiv@vishnu
The MAF itself takes more than 450whp to tap it out as far as max reading goes. As I see it, the two real issues involved are: 1) increasing MAF sensor nonlinearities towards the upper end of airflow (not a big deal as far as tuning goes) and, more importantly, 2) the factory tables for spark advance and fuel are only mapped up to 1.6-1.7bar of boost (depending on the mass airflow of the system since boost is calculated by comparing MAF to RPM). This means that if you run more boost/MAF than the Y-axis on the table allows, you'll "tap it out". Above which point, you hope that the upper most load row in your tables are still mapped appropriately for the higher-than-readable boost levels you are running.
My 2c,
Shiv
The MAF itself takes more than 450whp to tap it out as far as max reading goes. As I see it, the two real issues involved are: 1) increasing MAF sensor nonlinearities towards the upper end of airflow (not a big deal as far as tuning goes) and, more importantly, 2) the factory tables for spark advance and fuel are only mapped up to 1.6-1.7bar of boost (depending on the mass airflow of the system since boost is calculated by comparing MAF to RPM). This means that if you run more boost/MAF than the Y-axis on the table allows, you'll "tap it out". Above which point, you hope that the upper most load row in your tables are still mapped appropriately for the higher-than-readable boost levels you are running.
My 2c,
Shiv
In my previous car, '94 S4 (Frankensteined to all hell before I gave up on it and got an Evo), we could only make the ECU hit 22psi on the stock 2.5 bar MAP. Once we converted to the 3.0 bar Bosch MAP, we could run 27psi all day long as long as the turbo, block and MAF could handle it. Running a T04E 57 trim, we ripped the stock MAF hotwire out of the housing with the airflow we were pushing and then went to a Sport Quattro/M5 MAF and did okay.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: NC
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
Its my opinion - hardly unbiased - but based upon experience that for a daily driver car you intend to use every day a reflash is the most sensable, cost effective and driveable option for someone running a turbo upgrade. Stand alones like the AEM will provide better power and more flexability at a greater cost in the wallet and less driveability - IMHO they are best suited to cars that see mostly track use or are 2nd or 3rd cars.
Its my opinion - hardly unbiased - but based upon experience that for a daily driver car you intend to use every day a reflash is the most sensable, cost effective and driveable option for someone running a turbo upgrade. Stand alones like the AEM will provide better power and more flexability at a greater cost in the wallet and less driveability - IMHO they are best suited to cars that see mostly track use or are 2nd or 3rd cars.
ill say it again... as i have in many other threads... if ANY car tuned with a standalone looses ANY drivability it is completly the tuners fault. on all the cars i have done the owners report BETTER drivability than they had with the stock ecu. we are not talking mega modified cars here. im talking civics with cams, dsm's with minor turbo upgrades, a nearly stock evo. the more modified you get the better the flexability of a standlone shines. i have done a civic with over 550hp that drove like it was stock. stock idle, 25mpg. i did a fully race built b20vtec in a 97 civic, it got over 30mpg, idled and ran better than stock.
yes it costs more, but in the end the results of a standalone and a good tuner are WELL worth it.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,858
Likes: 0
From: Work - New York, Alaska, Mexico or the Caribbean. -Home - Tx Hill Country
Why can't people just respect others and let them have their input without all the silly name calling and child ness. I think Al and Shiv would do fine on these forums if all the attacks didn't start any time they tried to voice an opinion.
I personally value both their input (don't have products on my car from either) and think they add value to this and most other threads. And guess what, if I didn't, I wouldn't have to post some silly attack. I could just skip over the post.
It started with Shiv on this thread and soon the Al haters will be out. Both added value to the discussion. Neither was insulting, though they expressed slightly different views. You may not agree with one or the other and that is your prerogative. Put forth something that is both researched and intelligent to back up your points and the forum will be the better for it. Al’s post is a perfect example of this.
It seems that there is a small group that is so insecure that they must attack anyone they don’t agree with. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do any of us any good and lowers the quality of the forums because diversity of opinion is discouraged.
Sorry for the rant, but I tire of these immature, unprovoked attacks.
I personally value both their input (don't have products on my car from either) and think they add value to this and most other threads. And guess what, if I didn't, I wouldn't have to post some silly attack. I could just skip over the post.
It started with Shiv on this thread and soon the Al haters will be out. Both added value to the discussion. Neither was insulting, though they expressed slightly different views. You may not agree with one or the other and that is your prerogative. Put forth something that is both researched and intelligent to back up your points and the forum will be the better for it. Al’s post is a perfect example of this.
It seems that there is a small group that is so insecure that they must attack anyone they don’t agree with. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do any of us any good and lowers the quality of the forums because diversity of opinion is discouraged.
Sorry for the rant, but I tire of these immature, unprovoked attacks.