View Poll Results: For the next MSPNP, 2.5bar map or 4bar with baro correction?
Standard 2.5 bar is fine
3
10.71%
4 Bar Map and Baro Correction for me please!
25
89.29%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll
Question for you guys
07-03-2007, 05:34 PM
#1
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Duluth, GA 30097
Posts: 803
Total Cats: 0
Question for you guys
So... just hypothetically speaking, let's say we were working on a new MSPNP for slightly newer model Miata. And we had a choice to make, keep building them with the standard 2.5bar Map sensor, without baro correction... or start building them with 4bar MAP sensors including realtime barometric correction at a small cost increase, probably on the order of $25. It's been costing us more to custom build them with 4-bar's for one-off requests, but I think if we mass produced them we could get the cost down in this range.
Which way would you guys like to see it go?
Which way would you guys like to see it go?
__________________
Jerry a.k.a. 'FoundSoul'
DIYAutoTune.com
'91 Miata BEGi S3 GT2560 w/ MSPNP - 14.1psi - 253whp, 232wtq
'95 Miata n/a
A few other cars....
Jerry a.k.a. 'FoundSoul'
DIYAutoTune.com
'91 Miata BEGi S3 GT2560 w/ MSPNP - 14.1psi - 253whp, 232wtq
'95 Miata n/a
A few other cars....
Reply
0
0
07-03-2007, 06:17 PM
#5
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Duluth, GA 30097
Posts: 803
Total Cats: 0
We have the same solution for non-MSPNP MegaSquirts on our website-- the MapDaddy.
__________________
Jerry a.k.a. 'FoundSoul'
DIYAutoTune.com
'91 Miata BEGi S3 GT2560 w/ MSPNP - 14.1psi - 253whp, 232wtq
'95 Miata n/a
A few other cars....
Jerry a.k.a. 'FoundSoul'
DIYAutoTune.com
'91 Miata BEGi S3 GT2560 w/ MSPNP - 14.1psi - 253whp, 232wtq
'95 Miata n/a
A few other cars....
Reply
0
0
07-03-2007, 06:59 PM
#6
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
Anyone who drives from Tellico Plains, TN to Robbinsville, NC once a year like I do would be silly to NOT want Baro correction. Trip starts at 2000 ft and ends at 5000 ft. Or 94kpa atmo pressure to 85kpa (difference is appx 1.5 psi)
Not to mention changing weather can also make (small) changes in atmo pressure while driving.
Stability FTW. $25 = no brainer
Plus it's a feature not typically found at anywhere near the same price point.
Not to mention changing weather can also make (small) changes in atmo pressure while driving.
Stability FTW. $25 = no brainer
Plus it's a feature not typically found at anywhere near the same price point.
Reply
0
0
07-03-2007, 07:01 PM
#7
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Can you not make it an option? Or an upgrade possibility in the future without voiding the warrenty? Might be the best marketing path to keep costs low...but for an extra $25, it's a nice feature to pedal around town.
Reply
0
0
DO IT!
07-04-2007, 12:01 AM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ridgecrest, Ca
Posts: 306
Total Cats: 0
Adding a separate baro was a huge improvement for me for consistency. I used a GM 1 bar that I already had but I still think I'll go back at some point and add the MAP daddy just to clean up some of the mess I've made of my harness.
Reply
0
0
07-04-2007, 12:45 AM
#14
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 457
Total Cats: 0
4 bar + baro FTW if you live on the west coast... ******* hills and **** over here. If i go home and then drive back to college i start at 800ish feet above then end up like 400-500 feet above... and if i wanna go to the beach i start off at one of those and end up at sea level not before going from like 800-1500-400-2000-sea level.... Turbo + that drive + heat = kaboom
Reply
0
0
07-04-2007, 06:51 AM
#17
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,543
Total Cats: 4
How about two 2.5 bar sensors and an optional $(insert price here) 4bar sensor for those who want? I would never personally see the need to go that high and that extra $25 would just give me a little more reason to think twice. Just my opinion and I think it is still a stellar deal compared to other ECU options.
Reply
0
0
07-04-2007, 09:09 AM
#18
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Duluth, GA 30097
Posts: 803
Total Cats: 0
Though there is a small reduction in overall resolution with a larger MAP sensor it's really miniscule and overall immaterial from our testing and the testing of others in the business. If you have a noisy map signal from your manifold it's sometimes more apparent when using a 4 bar sensor, but that's nothing that a little inline filter can't take care of for $2-3 in the vacuum line.
I've (just yesterday) done back to back tests with 2.5 bar and 4 bar sensors in identical conditions and overlayed the datalogged results and you almost couldn't tell a difference. These were WOT runs with the probably the highest likelyhood for instability in the MAP signal. I did move the MAP source we were using on the 95 car back to the middle of the plenum instead of the cruise port as that seems to be a noisier source. I had suspected that, and confirmed it yesterday on the 95 car.
As for upgrades for previous MSPNP users-- that has been an option, and still is. The cost is different right now, but at the moment I'm still weighing out the cost on doing this going forward on new units.
Which model 1.8 cars currently in the works? 94/95s
As for options (different map sensors and such) we'll most likely stick with one or the other. I'd like to go the dual sensor route with baro and 4 bar map... more features for almost no more cost sounds like a winner to me. I've not yet found any real drawback to the 4 bar sensor especially for cars that are boosted. The one argument I've heard that makes some sense to me is for purely N/A cars, particularly cars running ITBs. They have a decent argument for a dual 1bar sensor solution since they'll never see boost, and ITBs can be a pain to tune with very slight throttle inputs making a big and quick difference in MAP, so having all the resolution they can possibly have could only be a good thing. I'm still not sure it's really needed or just theoretical argument though-- I've got a local guy running ITBs that wants to run an MSPNP, maybe when he sets his up I'll get a chance to test out the theory.
I've (just yesterday) done back to back tests with 2.5 bar and 4 bar sensors in identical conditions and overlayed the datalogged results and you almost couldn't tell a difference. These were WOT runs with the probably the highest likelyhood for instability in the MAP signal. I did move the MAP source we were using on the 95 car back to the middle of the plenum instead of the cruise port as that seems to be a noisier source. I had suspected that, and confirmed it yesterday on the 95 car.
As for upgrades for previous MSPNP users-- that has been an option, and still is. The cost is different right now, but at the moment I'm still weighing out the cost on doing this going forward on new units.
Which model 1.8 cars currently in the works? 94/95s
As for options (different map sensors and such) we'll most likely stick with one or the other. I'd like to go the dual sensor route with baro and 4 bar map... more features for almost no more cost sounds like a winner to me. I've not yet found any real drawback to the 4 bar sensor especially for cars that are boosted. The one argument I've heard that makes some sense to me is for purely N/A cars, particularly cars running ITBs. They have a decent argument for a dual 1bar sensor solution since they'll never see boost, and ITBs can be a pain to tune with very slight throttle inputs making a big and quick difference in MAP, so having all the resolution they can possibly have could only be a good thing. I'm still not sure it's really needed or just theoretical argument though-- I've got a local guy running ITBs that wants to run an MSPNP, maybe when he sets his up I'll get a chance to test out the theory.
__________________
Jerry a.k.a. 'FoundSoul'
DIYAutoTune.com
'91 Miata BEGi S3 GT2560 w/ MSPNP - 14.1psi - 253whp, 232wtq
'95 Miata n/a
A few other cars....
Jerry a.k.a. 'FoundSoul'
DIYAutoTune.com
'91 Miata BEGi S3 GT2560 w/ MSPNP - 14.1psi - 253whp, 232wtq
'95 Miata n/a
A few other cars....
Reply
0
0
07-04-2007, 07:33 PM
#20
Though there is a small reduction in overall resolution with a larger MAP sensor it's really miniscule and overall immaterial from our testing and the testing of others in the business. If you have a noisy map signal from your manifold it's sometimes more apparent when using a 4 bar sensor, but that's nothing that a little inline filter can't take care of for $2-3 in the vacuum line.
I've (just yesterday) done back to back tests with 2.5 bar and 4 bar sensors in identical conditions and overlayed the datalogged results and you almost couldn't tell a difference. These were WOT runs with the probably the highest likelyhood for instability in the MAP signal. I did move the MAP source we were using on the 95 car back to the middle of the plenum instead of the cruise port as that seems to be a noisier source. I had suspected that, and confirmed it yesterday on the 95 car.
As for upgrades for previous MSPNP users-- that has been an option, and still is. The cost is different right now, but at the moment I'm still weighing out the cost on doing this going forward on new units.
Which model 1.8 cars currently in the works? 94/95s
As for options (different map sensors and such) we'll most likely stick with one or the other. I'd like to go the dual sensor route with baro and 4 bar map... more features for almost no more cost sounds like a winner to me. I've not yet found any real drawback to the 4 bar sensor especially for cars that are boosted. The one argument I've heard that makes some sense to me is for purely N/A cars, particularly cars running ITBs. They have a decent argument for a dual 1bar sensor solution since they'll never see boost, and ITBs can be a pain to tune with very slight throttle inputs making a big and quick difference in MAP, so having all the resolution they can possibly have could only be a good thing. I'm still not sure it's really needed or just theoretical argument though-- I've got a local guy running ITBs that wants to run an MSPNP, maybe when he sets his up I'll get a chance to test out the theory.
I've (just yesterday) done back to back tests with 2.5 bar and 4 bar sensors in identical conditions and overlayed the datalogged results and you almost couldn't tell a difference. These were WOT runs with the probably the highest likelyhood for instability in the MAP signal. I did move the MAP source we were using on the 95 car back to the middle of the plenum instead of the cruise port as that seems to be a noisier source. I had suspected that, and confirmed it yesterday on the 95 car.
As for upgrades for previous MSPNP users-- that has been an option, and still is. The cost is different right now, but at the moment I'm still weighing out the cost on doing this going forward on new units.
Which model 1.8 cars currently in the works? 94/95s
As for options (different map sensors and such) we'll most likely stick with one or the other. I'd like to go the dual sensor route with baro and 4 bar map... more features for almost no more cost sounds like a winner to me. I've not yet found any real drawback to the 4 bar sensor especially for cars that are boosted. The one argument I've heard that makes some sense to me is for purely N/A cars, particularly cars running ITBs. They have a decent argument for a dual 1bar sensor solution since they'll never see boost, and ITBs can be a pain to tune with very slight throttle inputs making a big and quick difference in MAP, so having all the resolution they can possibly have could only be a good thing. I'm still not sure it's really needed or just theoretical argument though-- I've got a local guy running ITBs that wants to run an MSPNP, maybe when he sets his up I'll get a chance to test out the theory.
Cmon, weeks maybe???
Reply
0
0
