2010+ Mazdaspeed 3, I recommend to monitor your fuel pumps closely

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by xsilent13x I think when the ECU sees the fuel pressure goes down it adds more fuel to protect itself explaining the richness. I think I read this somewhere.....I'll try and dig it up again.

Yes I've read that also. What confuses me is that it added a bunch fuel before the fp drop.

[Nataphen]

Try changing your load table AFRs and see if that helps. I haven't had this problem, so I wonder if the boost tune is still leaning on the load tables somewhat. I have raised my load AFRs, and I haven't encountered a problem. Since the ECU is designed around load tuning, it may be contradicting your OL fueling table targets. I changed mine from ~1.40 calculated load to 12.00 to match my OL fueling targets. Be safe, but give it a shot and see what happens.

EDIT: Sorry about seeming redundant there. I'd had a few beers last night and I was trying to make sure that I got my point across. Now that I look at it today, it looks like I'm trying to explain something to a down's syndrome kid.

[rfinkle2]

I think that Nate may be right on target here. I have seen a big spike in afr (turns ultra rich totally ignoring the max enrichment table) when my calculated load differs from my load in the throttle required - x gear normal bat tables.


I know I am like a broken record, but they are supposed to be within .05 what is seen in atr in your logs.

FWIW, I've been adjusting my wgdc tables, and nearing the load targets (more boost) seen in atr in my logs.

Mine is / was way worse than yours probably is @indianryan , btw.

The boost on the stage 2 tune comes in way sooner than a stage 1 tune, and imo, my wgdc's are way off. It could be that I am still running the stock airbox that compounds the problem, although it is a stage 2 tune for the stock airbox.

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Try changing your load table AFRs and see if that helps. I haven't had this problem, so I wonder if the boost tune is still leaning on the load tables somewhat. I have raised my load AFRs, and I haven't encountered a problem. Since the ECU is designed around load tuning, it may be contradicting your OL fueling table targets. I changed mine from ~1.40 calculated load to 12.00 to match my OL fueling targets. Be safe, but give it a shot and see what happens. EDIT: Sorry about seeming redundant there. I'd had a few beers last night and I was trying to make sure that I got my point across. Now that I look at it today, it looks like I'm trying to explain something to a down's syndrome kid.

Alright thanks. I appreciate the help. I'll try changing the load AFR's and see what happens.

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I think that Nate may be right on target here. I have seen a big spike in afr (turns ultra rich totally ignoring the max enrichment table) when my calculated load differs from my load in the throttle required - x gear normal bat tables. I know I am like a broken record, but they are supposed to be within .05 what is seen in atr in your logs. FWIW, I've been adjusting my wgdc tables, and nearing the load targets (more boost) seen in atr in my logs. Mine is / was way worse than yours probably is @indianryan , btw. The boost on the stage 2 tune comes in way sooner than a stage 1 tune, and imo, my wgdc's are way off. It could be that I am still running the stock airbox that compounds the problem, although it is a stage 2 tune for the stock airbox.

Thanks. I'll take a look at the load tables and see if they're far off. I don't what to do if they're off lol, but I'll look into it. You know, it seems like when the fuel pressure drops, it's when I'm going up an on-ramp or uphill. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

[ms3j]

i just installed autotech internal, i have a cobb tih sri
my noob question is can i run a stage 2 map with out a dp
thanks for the help

[TriO]

Think you need atleast a test pipe before running stage 2.

[Bucker]

[Illusion]

well the way i see it $350 for an upgraded fuel pump is a pretty good deal it also gives you peace of mind that you know you can mod it safely to your hearts content.

[Erich]

Discuss here:
http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...closely-69969/

[dizzydtrain]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 When we first looked @ this (dizzy, Indian Ryan etc.), although I didn't want to jump to conclusions, I was afraid this was going to happen. Did you mention to CP-E that others are running the same map, with Autotech Internals, and maintaining good pressure? I had a feeling that when Christian didn't reply to the second request on the specific log (datalog #4), that their was an issue that somehow needs resolving.

I did mention it but I have not received a response regarding that yet. I guess this leaves me somewhat stranded for the time being until I can somehow get a replacement or upgrade my medium pressure fuel pump with some autotech internals...

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by dizzydtrain I did mention it but I have not received a response regarding that yet. I guess this leaves me somewhat stranded for the time being until I can somehow get a replacement or upgrade my medium pressure fuel pump with some autotech internals...

What really sucks is I sent my pump in with 2,000 miles on it, shining and new, and have a "medium pressure" , lets say greater than 2,000 mile fuel pump.

You go on the record as coining the phrase "medium pressure fuel pump". LOL!

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 When we first looked @ this (dizzy, Indian Ryan etc.), although I didn't want to jump to conclusions, I was afraid this was going to happen. Did you mention to CP-E that others are running the same map, with Autotech Internals, and maintaining good pressure? I had a feeling that when Christian didn't reply to the second request on the specific log (datalog #4), that their was an issue that somehow needs resolving.

I'm a fan of CP-E because they put out quality products. What I don't understand is what makes their pump any better than the stock pump in this situation, and why can't they back their product when it obviously isn't doing what it was meant for?

I assume there are others that have had no issues with the CP-E HPFP, so maybe there is a valid explanation for it not holding the fp above 1600 psi in Dizzy's situation. But I don't think it's fair for CP-E to only guarantee that it will keep the fp above 1600 psi ONLY for a stock tune.

I guess it is possible that there is a problem with Cobb's map. I'll stay tuned and hope that either CP-E or Cobb comes up with an answer.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by indianaryan I'm a fan of CP-E because they put out quality products. What I don't understand is what makes their pump any better than the stock pump in this situation, and why can't they back their product when it obviously isn't doing what it was meant for? I assume there are others that have had no issues with the CP-E HPFP, so maybe there is a valid explanation for it not holding the fp above 1600 psi in Dizzy's situation. But I don't think it's fair for CP-E to only guarantee that it will keep the fp above 1600 psi ONLY for a stock tune. I guess it is possible that there is a problem with Cobb's map. I'll stay tuned and hope that either CP-E or Cobb comes up with an answer.

Indianryan, I am just shooting my opinions out there...

I don't know what flashing to the stock map does in CP-E's favor, given CP-E knows why we purchased these pumps, and that certainly was not to run the stock map.

CP-E, Cobb and Ecutek are the only companies yet to crack this ECU (or bother), and surely they know the ECU's behavior @ stock and more agressive tuning levels.

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Indianryan, I am just shooting my opinions out there... I don't know what flashing to the stock map does in CP-E's favor, given CP-E knows why we purchased these pumps, and that certainly was not to run the stock map. CP-E, Cobb and Ecutek are the only companies yet to crack this ECU (or bother), and surely they know the ECU's behavior @ stock and more agressive tuning levels.

Agreed.

The stage1 is hardly an aggressive tune, which makes me wonder how far the CP-E pump was actually designed to go...

It's hard not to jump to conclusions at this point, but maybe there's more to this than what we know now.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by indianaryan Agreed. The stage1 is hardly an aggressive tune, which makes me wonder how far the CP-E pump was actually designed to go... It's hard not to jump to conclusions at this point, but maybe there's more to this than what we know now.

What bugs me is the willingness of Christian to alter the tune (@ least offer suggestive help), and the perception I get of Cp-e's answer to Dizzy.

The first thing Christian / Cobb wants to do is help correct the problem, where as the first thing Cp-e does is blame Cobb (albeit indirectly).

[dizzydtrain]

Originally Posted by indianaryan Agreed. The stage1 is hardly an aggressive tune, which makes me wonder how far the CP-E pump was actually designed to go... It's hard not to jump to conclusions at this point, but maybe there's more to this than what we know now.

I agree, I have not been able to find any other instances of fuel pressure dropping with the cp-e pump which really puts me in a bind. It's actually ironic at this point because the reliability and quality of this product makes it very tough to proof any faults (if in fact there are any).

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by dizzydtrain I agree, I have not been able to find any other instances of fuel pressure dropping with the cp-e pump which really puts me in a bind. It's actually ironic at this point because the reliability and quality of this product makes it very tough to proof any faults (if in fact there are any).

Sorry to double post, but the ability of the pump to maintain the target psi is just as important as not dropping into the 1400's.

I am interested in how the ecu acts, what the effects on afr targets are etc. if the pump falls below the ap's targets Christian posted in the last page of this thread. (very close to the ~1700 range @ all points wot. )