Question for you guys - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


MEGAsquirt A place to collectively sort out this megasquirt gizmo

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

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-03-2007, 06:34 PM   #1
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Duluth, GA 30097
Posts: 798
Total Cats: 0
Default 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?
FoundSoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 06:49 PM   #2
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (10)
 
Reverant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,441
Total Cats: 198
Default

4bar + baro for only $25? Like you have to ask!

Jim
Reverant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 06:50 PM   #3
:(
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nowhere
Posts: 8,281
Total Cats: 2
Default

As fun as 22 psi would be 44 would ensure you never run out of head room. + the barocorrection is a super nice feature. for 25$ i would ship my Ms to you guys for a 4 bar sensor.
magnamx-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 06:53 PM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (24)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 4,481
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnamx-5 View Post
As fun as 22 psi would be 44 would ensure you never run out of head room. + the barocorrection is a super nice feature. for 25$ i would ship my Ms to you guys for a 4 bar sensor.
+1
UrbanSoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 07:17 PM   #5
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Duluth, GA 30097
Posts: 798
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnamx-5 View Post
As fun as 22 psi would be 44 would ensure you never run out of head room. + the barocorrection is a super nice feature. for 25$ i would ship my Ms to you guys for a 4 bar sensor.
Unfortunately this wouldn't be the same as a $25 upgrade option for standard MegaSquirts and whatnot-- this is specifically for the upcoming MSPNP release and would change the retail price to something like $725 with the new features. Basically I'd be saving a bit by not installing the 2.5 sensor, and then making almost nothing on the upgraded map sensor with baro, in hopes that it's a feature people would want.

We have the same solution for non-MSPNP MegaSquirts on our website-- the MapDaddy.
FoundSoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 07:59 PM   #6
Ben
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
 
Ben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,689
Total Cats: 99
Default

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.
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 08:01 PM   #7
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,892
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

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.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 09:12 PM   #8
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

I'd pay $25 for that. Still the cheapest game in town.


PS how newer model?

PPS what guinea pigs?
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 10:10 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Knoxville
Posts: 1,168
Total Cats: 0
Default

wouldn't a 2.5 bar sensor have better resolution though? i would say .0001% of your buyers would run more than 22psi.... the baro correction would be nice though, but not a must have.
Al Hounos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 11:09 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: PA/DC
Posts: 468
Total Cats: 0
Default

Dear DIYAUTOTUNE,

Any timeframe yet on a MSPNP version for the 1.8L miata??? IMO 22psi SHOULD be enough for the majority but for 25$ with the baro...heh... DO IT!
Snowsurfer03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2007, 11:24 PM   #11
Ben
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
 
Ben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,689
Total Cats: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Hounos View Post
wouldn't a 2.5 bar sensor have better resolution though?
I have never understood this argument. The computer can do math.
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 01:01 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ridgecrest, Ca
Posts: 308
Total Cats: 0
Default

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.
arga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 01:14 AM   #13
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
 
cjernigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 8,147
Total Cats: 6
Default

I plan to add the mapdaddy to mine just for the barocorrection. At a $25 increase for PnP users it would be more than worth it. That is less than a tank of premium for hecks sake.
cjernigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 01:45 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 457
Total Cats: 0
Default

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
LunaticDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 03:03 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 473
Total Cats: 0
Default

could there be and upgrade for the current 1.6?
Rage_Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 03:07 AM   #16
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
 
cjernigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 8,147
Total Cats: 6
Default

I think they already upgrade the 1.6 MSPNP if you request it.
cjernigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 07:51 AM   #17
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
akaryrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,526
Total Cats: 0
Default

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.
akaryrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 10:09 AM   #18
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Duluth, GA 30097
Posts: 798
Total Cats: 0
Default

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.
FoundSoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 07:06 PM   #19
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (10)
 
Reverant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,441
Total Cats: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundSoul View Post
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
That's my current setup, dual GM 1bar sensors. No ITBs though.

Jim
Reverant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2007, 08:33 PM   #20
Elite Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,614
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundSoul View Post
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 didnt here the timeframe question answered!!! lol
Cmon, weeks maybe???
TonyV is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 59 Today 09:00 PM
Noob to Miataturbo from MA JxPhan Meet and Greet 3 10-02-2015 03:17 AM
Time to start learning and play with tuning The Gleas MEGAsquirt 3 10-01-2015 10:30 AM
Low oil pressure after 1.8 swap and new turbo setup JesseTheNoob DIY Turbo Discussion 15 09-30-2015 03:44 PM
WTB HPDE miata - Texas Voltwings Cars for sale/trade 0 09-27-2015 07:40 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 PM.