Review On E68

[Zrun]

Wah, really can't believe a $100+ gadget can create such heated controversy.

 

If a $100 gadget can make one happy, then it's money well spent irrespective if someone else says otherwise. If LTA not even complaining about it, why should anyone ?

 

End of day it's about feeling isn't it ? I "feel" pickup improved after installing E68 and "feel" $120 well spent. Funny how come nobody argue about spending thousands on bodykit which doesn't improve performance as much ?

 

Like it or not, our emotion usually rules over rational thinking as car owners.

 

Cheers.

 

If your family member spent $100 on a bag of potato chips because he/she feels good after eating it. Will you comment about it?

 

On the other hand, if he/she spent $100 on sharkfin soup, which has no nutritious value whatsoever, it is not something to debate about.

 

In the same way, this product (e68) is "punch a hole in your PCV valve" mod. You don't need to spend $100 to punch a hole. But you will not have this fancy steel thing.

[Zrun]

You lost me on this post.

 

Anyway, you can increase air without upsetting stoich ratio. But vacuum leak will upset the ratio even on the most advance car, also the most modern ecu will not indicate CEL unless the ratio is seriously off. So, you maybe running rich or lean and you will not know about it.

[Hattee]

Looks like you are side-tracking to eating potato and sharkfin soup.

 

Also, can't follow you understanding of vacuum in air manifold, induction air supply, fuel-air mix, ECU control during acceleration and steady driving. If you think using airmax is just like punching a hole, really there is nothing worth discussing further.

 

Cheers!

[Zrun]

I was refering to e68 and that was in reply to another person's post.

 

I'll restate my concern on this mod. If you don't understand any part below let me know.

 

1. During idle => high vacuum (this is a well known fact)

2. High vacuum => high natural suction => e68 will induce most air because of high suction

 

During idle, engine pumps x amount of fuel, expecting y (small) portion of air to enter. However, now y and z (airmax air) enters the engine. At this time, air fuel ratio leans out a certain amount. This causes ECU to adapts and adds say 10% of fuel to long term fuel trim, and you get a stable idle.

 

When you go to high load => low vacuum => low suction => less air enters through airmax. This is when people feels extra throttle response and acceleration. Why? At high load, engine expects Y amount of air to enter, and truth is Y + Z enters. At this point, Z is very small and Y is large. Air fuel ratio does not change much. However, the 10% increase in fuel still applies, and you get extra rich acceleration.

[Hattee]

You are getting closer. Unlike theory of ideal gas, it takes alot more air to reduce the induction vacuum in internal combustion.

 

During throttling, it's the 50%-200% increase in Y that causes the 30%-60% fall in vacuum and 5%-15% from Z hardly affects the vacuum. And ECU has no clue of Z, by-passing airflow sensor and TPS (primary determinant of extra fuel), leaving only lamdar sensor which is not a fast detector during short acceleration.

 

If Z is capped at less than 10% of Y, you usually get slightly better pickup, hence FC. But its crusing benefit is less significant when ECU might able to compensate eventually.

 

10% because newer cars already tuned closer to 13.

[Zrun]

Well, at low load, Z will affect vacuum more significantly than high load. Does it concern you that if you drive a long time at low load, which most people do, the ECU will compensate alot of fuel to reach stoich, by way of slow responding O2 sensor.

 

When you go into high load, the affect of Z is less significant, but the ECU compensation is still there, causing instant richness.

 

Also, if you reduce Z such that the effect is less in low load, you are reducing effect of Z at high load at a bigger scale, then there's almost no reason to use it.

 

I will agree that if you turn up Z, your car will have better response, but due to running rich. The logical result is worse economy. If by freak of nature you have better FC, that's good for you, but the tendency and logic it is not.

[Wolverine]

MC Well sucks

[Tann]

Can I view your car, cos I'm also a OPTRA 1.6A driver too.

[Tann]

Hi have try or heard about the Air Injet its work on all car. It work on my OPTRA

Edited August 26, 2005 by Tann

[Tann]

My OPTRA 1.6A MOD liao and test by SA - Good

[Optra]

Brother, I did not install it. I just talk only

[Hattee]

Maybe you got the logic mixed up. And vacuum inside the intake manifold rapidly induced by the pistons is not going to be so easily changed by 5%-10% increase of air from Airmax.

 

I think current ECU is not fast in control during short acceleration. Results is the different in FC between cruise and irregular driving.

 

During short acceleration, that's probably how Z can bring OEM rich tuning closer to 14.7 for better pickup. When Z greater than 15%-20%, there will be no improvement when engine runs alot hotter as the ratio exceeds 16. And FC actually got worst as reported by those who had excessively open up their airmax.

 

During cruise, I guess ECU will compensate the delta from Z with more fuel when airmax will not be of great help.

 

Well, at low load, Z will affect vacuum more significantly than high load. Does it concern you that if you drive a long time at low load, which most people do, the ECU will compensate alot of fuel to reach stoich, by way of slow responding O2 sensor.

 

When you go into high load, the affect of Z is less significant, but the ECU compensation is still there, causing instant richness.

 

Also, if you reduce Z such that the effect is less in low load, you are reducing effect of Z at high load at a bigger scale, then there's almost no reason to use it.

 

I will agree that if you turn up Z, your car will have better response, but due to running rich. The logical result is worse economy. If by freak of nature you have better FC, that's good for you, but the tendency and logic it is not.