cpe stand back users and meth

[phillyb]

i want to know how sb users are doing this

[subparpunk03]

I was going to ditch my aquamist system and go for something homegrown. The pro fuel controller is a pretty neat little box and at $150 or whatever its a helluva lot cheaper than most water injection controllers out there. With that, you can just order a basic kit that comes with a tank and a pump and a nozzle and be set. Sometimes its cheaper to order a basic kit with a boost activated switch instead of the parts individually. Its a really simple hookup, like 4 wires...

[phillyb]

i've thought about going the fuel controller route, but i doubt i will go that route.

[boosted3]

Wel i got the cpe standback,and the meth is getting installed next week im just got set it and 4 get it.And see how that works.I really duno much about meth yet either still trying to learn

[subparpunk03]

Originally Posted by phillyb i've thought about going the fuel controller route, but i doubt i will go that route.

Are you planning on running just water, or water and meth?

If you are just going to run water for knock prevention and heat deterrence, just get the most basic boost activated kit out there. It'll do the trick. If you are going to run meth you are going to want some slightly more precise control over the system otherwise your AFRs will be all over the place.

If you run a bunch of meth through the engine without tuning for it, you'll lose a buttload of power. I switched to a 50/50 mix from just water for a dyno day and cranked up the boost, but the PCM still knows how much air is entering the engine and how much fuel to inject, the meth is just extra fuel and you'll run SUPER rich. Running with the meth NOT spraying netted me about 40 horsepower. If you run meth, you really should pull fuel. Maybe the ecu would have adjusted for the extra fuel if I had let it settle... I'm not sure there, I could be wrong.

The advantage of the proFuel controller is that you can adjust the amount of meth you are spraying and the amount of fuel you are pulling in EXACTLY the same way. If you run a progressive boost activated system its going to take a lot more futzing to get it dialed in. Its very doable, but its more effort.

If I were to do things again, I'd go out and buy the cheapest most basic DO kit out there and be happy just running water.

[phillyb]

very interesting. i was definitely planning on running a 50/50 mix

[boosted3]

IM GONA BE RUNNING NEGATIVE 35 WINSHILED WASHER FLUID.i THINK THAT SHOULD DO THE JOB I HOPE.i HAVE THE PROGRESSIVE KIT

[subparpunk03]

Just an FYI... I clogged up a water jet with WWF. The aquamist jets are a little different from DO and labonte Nozzles tho. Some people are fine running it. I wasn't.

I do like the dye in it b/c I can see air bubbles in the system very easily (my lines are clear) but all the other crap some people put in there is no good. Some brands are better about it than others.

I would run Heet + water before I ran WWF.

[gdg]

I actually just picked up the profuel controller because I needed a bit more control over the lower RPM range than the labonte kit gave me. I tried adding fuel with the standback to richen up my AFR's from 2500-3100 and it's just not quite were I want it. After talking with CP-E I think dumping a bit more meth on the low end will help me even the AFR's out the way I want them to be.

Just have to figure out how to integrate it all now, Frankly I would have been better going with a cheaper kit at this point if I knew I was going to use the profuel/pump driver over the labonte controller :/

-GG

[subparpunk03]

Originally Posted by gdg I actually just picked up the profuel controller because I needed a bit more control over the lower RPM range than the labonte kit gave me. I tried adding fuel with the standback to richen up my AFR's from 2500-3100 and it's just not quite were I want it. After talking with CP-E I think dumping a bit more meth on the low end will help me even the AFR's out the way I want them to be. Just have to figure out how to integrate it all now, Frankly I would have been better going with a cheaper kit at this point if I knew I was going to use the profuel/pump driver over the labonte controller :/ -GG

<disclaimer>
I apologize in advance if I sound like a dick here... but what you are attempting to do is dangerous and goes against 100% of my understanding of how the car works. If you are already aware of everything I'm about to say and have a good reason for doing this then please rebuke this post. Otherwise... stop before you break something.
</disclaimer>

Why on EARTH are you doing this?! IMHO This is a bad idea. Baaaaaaad bad idea. Why did CP-E tell you to do this? It makes no sense! Your ecu is just going to adjust itself right around any meth you are injecting so you aren't going to run ANY richer, all you're going to do is throw your fuel trims WAYYYYYYYY off after the ecu adjusts (couple miles.) Then if for some reason your system fails, the car is going to run EXTREMELY lean because its pulling TONS of fuel to compensate for the meth being injected down low.

Why would you even want to run meth in this range? There really isn't much load or stress on the engine down here... you're going to lose power in this range if you run significantly richer... assuming you are able to keep adjusting the controller around the adjustments the stock PCM makes.

Are you worried about part throttle knock? Are you trying to make the open-closed loop transition smoother?

No offense man, but this has fail written all over it... I highly suggest you do some research into the way piggyback controllers work, and how open and closed loop engine control works... and if ANY of it doesn't make sense to you, then don't mess with it.

The fact that someone at CP-E said "yeah! good idea!" makes me very nervous...

[gdg]

<disclaimer>

There are so many things I could say here but they would probably all be personal attacks against you so generally speaking I'll simply say, if you want more details just ask, I'd be happy to discuss/elaborate on my comments and choices with you or anyone else on the forum.

</disclaimer>



I'm doing this primarily because I have a corksport FMIC including the semi-ramair function.



When I roll on the throttle and hit open loop, I'm dumping nearly 9.5 % of fuel to try and get my afr's down. This is not as exaggerated of a problem with my cpe nano installed so I'm fairly sure that some amount of the pronounced lean condition in my situation is caused by the corksport intake.



Rather than dumping as much fuel and dealing with maf performance cels I think a good alternate solution is to dump a little bit of fuel in this range .. say 2-5% and dump a bit more meth then I can with my labonte controller. As my labonte controller works off of boost and idc, it doesn't really start spraying until my turbo gets up to my starting point of 6lbs. I don't want to move my starting point down because I'll needlessly be spraying meth without a bit more granular control - enter profuel controller.



So basically,



a) it's all open loop adjustments I'm making - although it is about as close to transition as I can get it

b) I think I can actually pull a bit more power or at least smooth the power transition out if I can get my afr's down a touch sooner in this range

c) I've done a good bit of research before I've attempted to go this route, I'm pretty optimistic about it working the way I want it to



If you have any other questions please let me know,

-GG

[subparpunk03]

Lets try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum...

What TPS voltage and RPM are you making your adjustments at?

You say you're "dumping nearly 9.5 % of fuel to try and get my afr's down" are you making that adjustment with the standback or is that a fuel trim you are reading?

What is your target AFR for this range?

[gdg]

I tune based off of rpm vs MAF volts personally, my afr's seem to be much more predictable via this method vs using TPS


Generally speaking I start adding fuel when my MAF volts are tipping 2.9-3.0.

If i'm running 2500-2700 rpm and go for a 3k 4gear pull my AFR's do not settle to my desired 11.5-12.0 range until a little after 3100-3200 rpm. I'm fairly confident that if I can start adding a touch of meth earlier - 2800-3k MAF volts 2.9-3.0+ and still be well within open loop. I should be able to drop the afr's as desired 100-300 rpm sooner.

More importantly, even if meth were fail on me - aiming for 11.5ish should give me enough of a buffer that I'm still not running my afr's over a 12.0 - 12.5 range as I will be using a combination of fuel added in MAF and Meth added at the same time.

to answer you other question - up to 9.5 on the standback maf table in this range, maf performance cels seem to pop if I ramp the added fuel up too quickly and there's very little room for me to work in this range due to keeping my adjustments out of closed loop. -- MAF voltage below 2.6-2.8. Keep in mind I'm not saying that open loop/closed loop is triggered by maf voltage, that just seems to be the range the MAF voltage is running on pulls where I've transitioned out of closed loop due to load "L" on the dashhawk.

-GG

[subparpunk03]

As long as you are keeping your adjustments out of closed loop it should work... the reason I got all uppity was b/c I don't think i've ever seen my car go into open loop in the RPM range you specified. I usually don't floor it below 3k rpms which could be why...

As long as we're in agreement that tuning in closed loop is pointless then its all good.

I have noticed a lean spike in my AFRs during the closed to open loop transition... for me this was a combination of loose IC hose clamps and a leaky bypass valve (missing an O-ring, didn't seal correctly) When I fixed those issues, the lean spot was significantly reduced.

I'm not sure what kind of mix you are planning on using but also keep in mind that meth has a different stoichiometric ratio than gasoline... its 6.5 instead of 14.7. So it requires less air to burn completely. That means you should be just fine if you give yourself a little bit of a buffer and aren't running too strong of a mix. You won't lean out like crazy in case of a failure.

Sorry for jumping all over your shit, from the info you provided in the first port seemed like a bad idea.

The open-closed loop transition isn't only related to MAF voltage, but it does play a part in the overall load calculation and thus the open-closed loop transition.

[gdg]

Well, Thanks for straighting me out. I feel much better about my origional plan.

:/