Anyone using the ARC intake with the UTEC
Originally posted by ErnieT
After asking my tuner, I was informed I was wrong....I've never had to deal with mass air before. Total different ballgame than speed density, which is what Im used to with my RX7. I found out, yes your intake can and will make a difference with your airfuel ratios, depending all on how the mass air sensor is interpretting signals, airflow, etc......So your right, Im wrong!!
lol......good to know before I spend $300 for a HKS intake when I can probably just put a drop in K&N to accomplish the same if not better results. Can't wait to get my Power FC.
After asking my tuner, I was informed I was wrong....I've never had to deal with mass air before. Total different ballgame than speed density, which is what Im used to with my RX7. I found out, yes your intake can and will make a difference with your airfuel ratios, depending all on how the mass air sensor is interpretting signals, airflow, etc......So your right, Im wrong!!
lol......good to know before I spend $300 for a HKS intake when I can probably just put a drop in K&N to accomplish the same if not better results. Can't wait to get my Power FC.
jeremy
Im the customer that Mick is talking about btw. After doing a lot of reading and data logging the biggest reason I would stick with a stock intake is because the MAF doesnt properly read the air with a different intake on. This may not be true for all intakes but for the ARC and a few others it is. You can easily see this by comparing the MAF numbers from the ARC and the stock intake. With the stock installed you will get predictable pretty much linear graphs but with the ARC installed you will get a very unpredictable jumpy graph that is not consistent between runs. This was true for the 5 comparison runs I did so I dont know how anyone, regardless of experiance, could tune this. No matter what your settings the reported air from the MAF will be different (extremely) so you are always running a risk of failure and unconsistent power. THere is a way around this though if you really need an after market intake. Go to a MAP senser.
Something I am really starting to take to heart on this subject is what someone stated on these boards awhile back:
"Mitsubishi spent a lot of time developing a lot of the parts used in the car and they are designed in a specific way for a very specific reason. Anytime you change one of these parts you are most likely effecting more things then you realize."
Something I am really starting to take to heart on this subject is what someone stated on these boards awhile back:
"Mitsubishi spent a lot of time developing a lot of the parts used in the car and they are designed in a specific way for a very specific reason. Anytime you change one of these parts you are most likely effecting more things then you realize."
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Hi PDXEvo - The reason I started this thread was to gauge if many others are using the ARC intake. If they were we would invest in refining the map we started with you. So far this does not seem to be the case.
With the existing EVO UTEC firmware even using a MAP sensor reading will not solve this problem. The EVO ecu is still doing the fueling based on the MAF readings thus the fueling and timing will still be offset with the ARC intake.
Even with the next EVO UTEC firmware release this will still be an issue I suspect. I have been told that it contains UTEC open loop fueling just like the WRX UTEC but as it is MAF based as, it has to be, then the UTEC fueling will be offset by the ARC intake as well.
Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.
We see issues like this in the WRX world as well. Specific intakes through off the MAF readings. These can be tuned out much easier in the world of the WRX. I expect that it is because of the differences in the MAF sensor itself. The WRX one is of the hot wire type. Air flows past two little wires. The amount of air flowing cools the wires and you get a MAF reading. It seems to react a little slower and is not quite as badly effected by turbulence.
The EVO one does not seem to be like this. I know one of my other associates has researched the EVO MAF but I have not come up to speed on it. It is not a hot wire type I have been told. This is good as it is more accurate, but bad that it reacts very quickly and is very badly effected by turbulence in the air flow.
More to come when we go deeper. Interesting stuff though
With the existing EVO UTEC firmware even using a MAP sensor reading will not solve this problem. The EVO ecu is still doing the fueling based on the MAF readings thus the fueling and timing will still be offset with the ARC intake.
Even with the next EVO UTEC firmware release this will still be an issue I suspect. I have been told that it contains UTEC open loop fueling just like the WRX UTEC but as it is MAF based as, it has to be, then the UTEC fueling will be offset by the ARC intake as well.
Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.
We see issues like this in the WRX world as well. Specific intakes through off the MAF readings. These can be tuned out much easier in the world of the WRX. I expect that it is because of the differences in the MAF sensor itself. The WRX one is of the hot wire type. Air flows past two little wires. The amount of air flowing cools the wires and you get a MAF reading. It seems to react a little slower and is not quite as badly effected by turbulence.
The EVO one does not seem to be like this. I know one of my other associates has researched the EVO MAF but I have not come up to speed on it. It is not a hot wire type I have been told. This is good as it is more accurate, but bad that it reacts very quickly and is very badly effected by turbulence in the air flow.
More to come when we go deeper. Interesting stuff though
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FS[Canadian]: Brand New ARC Evo X Intake Box
initial_d2k
For Sale - Engine / Drivetrain / Power
2
Jan 16, 2016 02:04 PM