More e-bay stuff

[SergntMac]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14932&item=5738833577&rd=1

What say you all...

[NAVCHAP]

Mac, respectfully, the Snake Oil of 2005. -kjs-

[Bradley G]

Skepticks,

If you read the ad,I will agree with what they claim,"You will enjoy the same high performance level as you did before installing the module" It claims it will do nothing to your car
Bradley G _____

[TechHeavy]

Skepticks,

If you read the ad,I will agree with what they claim,"You will enjoy the same high performance level as you did before installing the module" It claims it will do nothing to your car
Bradley G _____If you could wire it all the way into the front it would be pimpin'! The ho's would dig turnin' the knob yo! :P :puke: :banana:

[TripleTransAm]

It's the classic 'timing tricker' that had the F-body world all abuzz a few years back when the LS1 came out.

You fool the computer into thinking there is more or less oxygen actually present in the intake air and the actual temperature. It seems part of the computer's management of timing and fuel delivery is based on the Intake Air Temperature (IAT) sensor, along with values from the MAF. I suppose this gives the computer an idea of the car's propensity to begin knocking, and it'll preadjust timing and fuel accordingly. What is done here is that you're fooling the computer by giving it a false temperature reading, and the computer acts accordingly.

Whether this actually helped performance or not has been hotly debated in F-body (LS1) circles for years, and I lost track of what the score is currently. 22 rwhp? Holy cow, I think not. But then again, I have no clue how out-to-lunch the factory tables are to begin with (ie. are they so conservative that you actually gain 22 rwhp just by telling it that it's a bit cooler outside than it really is?)

$50 US? I don't think so. If I was to invest in this type of experiment, I'd be using $0.50 resistors instead. Simple case of measuring the resistance at the sensor at some temperatures and then choosing a manual resistance.

[jgc61sr2002]

The seller has 100% positive feedback. I wonder if he sold any of these. IOM they are :bs:

[duhtroll]

Careful. Adding this much power can void your warranty, despite what the guarantee says.

(Insert long diatribe here about your own friggin' fault for everything failing cuz YOU, yes YOU, modified your car. You moron.) :blah:

-A :P

[Bigdogjim]

These guys were selling a bridge not long ago?..:lol:

[Ross]

Darn! The bidding has ended and I missed out! :puke:

[RF Overlord]

Just like the $10 "CHIPS" the same people sell that are nothing more than .69¢ resistors...and work just like TooManyTransAms said: fooling the PCM into thinking the intake air is cooler than it is...

only this one is now a VARIABLE resistor that costs well over a dollar...

I guess too many people caught on to the first scam... :rolleyes:

[Marauder386]

amen RF Overlord ! Gonna go dig around in my junk box and find one...will try it out on my '91 Tempo GLS and see what happens...I gotta see what happens !!!


:cool:

[RCSignals]

Someone should come up with AC ducting to the airbox. :)

[DEFYANT]

:thinker:
Someone should come up with AC ducting to the airbox. :):thinker:

Thats a great idea!

[MitchB]

Someone should come up with AC ducting to the airbox. :)


On the surface, this sounds like a great idea, right? But you will not make any additional power. Besides, this proposal violates the second law of thermodynamics. If it would work, it would have been done by now.

Mitch

[SergntMac]

Theoretically speaking...IMHO, sensors deliver their message to the EEC by adjusting voltage, so, if you could manipulate that specific voltage, could you fool the EEC into reacting? As an example, if you change the voltage of an O2 sensor to show a lean condition, would the EEC respond with more fuel? Just wondering...

[TripleTransAm]

The concept is sound, but the O2 sensors don't output a steady signal but rather a wildly fluctuating range of voltages from 0 to 1 volt (not quite but close enough). Actually, if the PCM receives a steady voltage from the O2 sensor it either assumes the sensor is cold and sticks to open loop or if the driving parameters are right, it'll throw a code for a faulty O2 sensor (ie. car has been driven x minutes, engine temp is y degrees, O2 sensor still hasn't woken up => PANIC!).

The O2 sensor voltage of .5 volts corresponds to the "ideal" 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio (fuel / air ratio in my '78 T/A ;) ) and the window of +/- .5 V corresponds to a very small window of deviation from that 14.7:1 center point (with narrowband O2 sensors). The PCM will determine how often the O2 sensor signal spends its time on one side of the center point, and will adjust the fuel delivery accordingly, in order to keep that 14.7 ratio.

If one was to bias the O2 sensor voltages externally (say, to move the 'center' point to something higher or lower), the PCM would automatically try to adjust the fuel delivery until it got to that center point. With narrowband O2 sensors I don't know if there would be any appreciable amount of shift before the voltage 'pegged'. I've never played with wideband sensors personally, so I don't have any hands-on feel for how they behave, so it might be possible to tweak the fuel delivery... I dunno.

However, there is one thing I'm thinking might make this an undesirable approach, besides the fact of risking a dangerous a/f ratio in some particular operating situation : I think PCMs don't look at O2 sensors during WOT conditions but rather take an approximation based on how the trim parameters were looking just before going WOT. So I'm thinking that playing with O2 sensor voltage is too far removed from an accurate fuel delivery result, and it might be quicker and definitely safer to do it via programming in the end.

[MitchB]

If one was to bias the O2 sensor voltages externally (say, to move the 'center' point to something higher or lower), the PCM would automatically try to adjust the fuel delivery until it got to that center point. With narrowband O2 sensors I don't know if there would be any appreciable amount of shift before the voltage 'pegged'. I've never played with wideband sensors personally, so I don't have any hands-on feel for how they behave, so it might be possible to tweak the fuel delivery... I dunno.

The way this works is the EEC reads the MAF, goes to the commanded A/F table, delivers what it thinks should be the 'right' amount of fuel, and then looks at the O2s. Any corrections necessary to get to 14.7:1 are made in an adaptive table that makes corrections to the desired A/F command. If you go to +/- 25% correction and are still not able to achieve 14.7:1, you get a check engine light.


However, there is one thing I'm thinking might make this an undesirable approach, besides the fact of risking a dangerous a/f ratio in some particular operating situation : I think PCMs don't look at O2 sensors during WOT conditions but rather take an approximation based on how the trim parameters were looking just before going WOT. So I'm thinking that playing with O2 sensor voltage is too far removed from an accurate fuel delivery result, and it might be quicker and definitely safer to do it via programming in the end.

Actually, the adaptive correction called for in the last adaptive cell you were in just before going WOT will be applied to all subsequent WOT fuel calculations.

Mitch

[Hawaii 5-0]

I'm buying 5, I should get more than 400 hp....:cool: