Chads MPI vs. Magna MPI, worth the extra $?

[83starpower]

ok, i wasnt going to say anything further on this subject.  But seeing how someones car caught fire after installing chads manifold, ill say my opinion.  Whether its the installers or the designers fault.  First off, im not in anyway trying to put down chad, hes a great guy, but these are the FACTS as i see them.  I purchased chads manifold.  This was brand new and NOT a prototype.  When i recieved the manifold, i was very dissapointed.  There were many areas on the manifold were i was not happy with the quality, workmanship ETC.  But im not a very picky person, as long as its functional and has decent quality, im happy.  but the manifold was not functional.  The holes were the injectors o-ring seat on were still a rough casting.  They would need to be smoothened and polished beofre the o-rings would ever have a chance of sealing.  The injector rail he sent was not the same one he had posted on his website.  Its was NOT straight and the holes like the manifold were not smooth.  Furthermore the enite rail would only be secured by one bolt and nut(not a good idea).  to put it plainly, if i would have slapped it together it would have leaked, no doubt.  So i sent the manifold back, and a few months later after not hearing from chad i called him, and he told me he had fixed the problems but that he had pressured tested it after i sent it back and had found a leak somewhere in a cooling passage.  After that i told him to keep the manifold and to give me my money back.  the desingn of the manifold is solid, but he needs to work on quality.   Not bashing him at all, its the truth and sometimes the truth hurts ,sorry chad.

 

taki

[Joel]

 

And I am correct in stating that a WELL DONE SYSTEM WILL see no pressure loss, or gains no matter what is being run engine wise.

 

<insert buzzer noise here>.. I know I will likely be included in the argument now, but you are wrong. a "Well Done System" Will see no changes in FLOW via pressure changes. In order to do so (keep the flow the same) on a boosted car, you MUST increase the pressure relational to PSIA, but the real thing is the pressure DIFFERENTIAL (i.e. the rail pressure vs. intake pressure) is kept CONSTANT. That means, for every pound of boost in the intake manifold, you MUST rise 1lb at the rail. The reason for this is so you can actually MAP the fuel values, otherwise your ramp rates in the lookup tables would not be consistant over the pressure/air flow values.

 

 

I have seen many a turbo (25-27 PSI) system with nothing but a good chip to control the fuel ratio. And the last one I saw was running (in Va Beach) for over 3 years and had absolutely no problems.

 

If you ran 20psi+ on a fuel system like that, you would need 1200cc+ injectors to support the fuel requirements. Thing of it as a differential value, not a PSIA (absolute) value. If you run 20psi of boost, and 27 psi of fuel pressure, you have 20lbs of pressure sitting behind the injector, meaning your fuel injector flow rates are very similar to that of running 7psi rail pressures under vacuum.

 

The quote you pulled from whereever stating that boost will effect fuel delivery, is true.. to a point. yes it hinders some of the feeding pressure, which that will effect the spray, however, a good chip will both open the injector earlier, and for a longer time to compensate.

 

A "Proper" setup would not require you to run 1200+ cc/min injectors on a street car. The "Spray" pattern is not what you care about when increasing the pressure in relation to boost, it's all about flow. Spray pattern is nice and all, but that is at most secondary to flow rates.

 

The most common solution, as I stated earlier is first, to program a chip. Second, to add an FMU. This will increase the fuel rail pressure in whatever ratio disk is installed. This can be troublesome in tuning as it varies a otherwise constant value in the equation. That why I perfer to deal with the problem in chip tuning first. Second is a FMU with a very small ratio disk, like a 1-1 or a 1.5-1 at most.

 

And if you don't use a 1:1 boost compensating fuel reg. the "tuning" problem is EXACTLY the same, but the issue is... if you leave it constant, your essentially reversing your "FMU" solution. Imagine your running a turbo car at 10psi, and you DECREASE the fuel pressure as boost comes up... Thats what you do if you don't change the fuel pressure with boost.

 

So nothing I said earlier is wrong. It all depends on how you want to deal with the problem. I always see more then 1 option. Afterall there always has to be at least 2 options.

 

I am dropping this. As it seems that no one can know better then you. Granted, I probly don't have the "on car" experiance on the 'quest, as I have not messed around with it much, but I do nkow both turbo systems, and fuel systems that they require.

Continue to argue with yourself.

 

No, it seem you MUST be right, and can't listen to Chip. But what do I know, I don't know anything about tuning cars, building them... or anything like that... Chip doesn't either

 

Joel

[chiplee]

God I was hoping someone would get my back with this joker.  Talking about making the chip compensate and then adding an FMU, basically nullifying all his chip work.  I didn't know where to start.  Thanks Joel.

[scotty]

Im going to run a 19c turbo, is chads intake worth the extra money? what horse power numbers can i expect to get with the magna and 19c? chads intake flows more than the magna, but how much?  I went to the magna site, and most of it is under construction. thanks

quote:83starpower

 

 

sunny vale CA  Re: Chads MPI vs. Magna MPI, worth the extra $?

« Reply #125 on: 06/02/03 at 6:44pm » Report this post to moderator(s)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok, i wasnt going to say anything further on this subject.  But seeing how someones car caught fire after installing chads manifold, ill say my opinion.  Whether its the installers or the designers fault.  First off, im not in anyway trying to put down chad, hes a great guy, but these are the FACTS as i see them.  I purchased chads manifold.  This was brand new and NOT a prototype.  When i recieved the manifold, i was very dissapointed.  There were many areas on the manifold were i was not happy with the quality, workmanship ETC.  But im not a very picky person, as long as its functional and has decent quality, im happy.  but the manifold was not functional.  The holes were the injectors o-ring seat on were still a rough casting.  They would need to be smoothened and polished beofre the o-rings would ever have a chance of sealing.  The injector rail he sent was not the same one he had posted on his website.  Its was NOT straight and the holes like the manifold were not smooth.  Furthermore the enite rail would only be secured by one bolt and nut(not a good idea).  to put it plainly, if i would have slapped it together it would have leaked, no doubt.  So i sent the manifold back, and a few months later after not hearing from chad i called him, and he told me he had fixed the problems but that he had pressured tested it after i sent it back and had found a leak somewhere in a cooling passage.  After that i told him to keep the manifold and to give me my money back.  the desingn of the manifold is solid, but he needs to work on quality.   Not bashing him at all, its the truth and sometimes the truth hurts ,sorry chad.

 

taki  

 

 

 

 

well Taki I think you have answered your own question . Thanks, ( and it only took 9 months)

[chiplee]

I hope I didn't just see what I think I saw.  I would have sworn I read a post from Scotty asking if Taki felt the original question of this entire thread had been answered.  Then it was gone.  I don't think Scotty would have deleted it, as he seems to have posted a more clear version of the same question.  Or at least his opinion of the answer.  If the question was not allowed today, then why was it allowed on 09/30/02?  People who could easily start considering making posts that sound alot like "I told you so" are being very mature about this.  So let's not jump the gun about what we delete.  Even if someone wanted to quote me where I said the following 7 months ago, it shouldn't be deleted.    Â 

If, God forbid, there turns out to be a major design flaw with Chad's manifold, I am 100% confident that it will have been inadvertant.  That Chad honestly felt he was providing the best product for the money.  Unfortunately, and I mean no offense to anyone, it's just standard practice to ensure, rather than hope, that you are providing a quality product before you sell it.  These things aren't done on hunches or on theoretical calculations, they're done on the street, on the dyno, and if we're lucky on the flow bench.

It's only a reminder that we could have seen this coming had we not had our heads so far up Chad's a**.  

Take it however you want to.  The request for testing was a reasonable one.  No one was being a d*** and one of our own has had a fire that probably could have been avoided had there been a bit more effort put into that part of the manifold, and had we not been so concerned about defending Chad as a person or so concerned that his feelings might be hurt.   So to protect those things, we've allowed a potentially dangerous situation to develop.  I think it calls for a recall of every manifold you sold Chad, and that is not a personal attack.  I've told you in the past this was not personal but you seem to be taking it that way as far as I can tell since you never answered my PM'd explanation of my position.  I'll even go so far as to say that perhaps it wasn't probable that the fire could have been avoided, perhaps it was just possible.  Isn't that enough?  Poor Dan was faced with the dreadful decision of whether to pull that damn manifold back off or to try to make it work.  So by being crunched for time, and trying to make it work he's screwed because no one can be at fault but him for modifying the intake.  

 

That's cool, if that's how we treat one of our own I don't want to be part of it.  As a token of our compassion for Dan's situation, and at the recommendation of another member, I'm going to ask that the GP members for the next Magna manifold add $10 or $20 to their total to buy dan a Magna Intake so he can get his car on the road.  If anyone would like to donate please email me at turbo12@cox.net.  If this is deleted I'll know the level of corruption and political BS that goes on here.  So feel free to adjust the public opinion any way you see fit mods.  You certainly have that right, here.

[Dcrasta]

Again. I don't see your problem. ??????

 

And I am correct in stating that a WELL DONE SYSTEM WILL see no pressure loss, or gains no matter what is being run engine wise.

 

I have seen many a turbo (25-27 PSI) system with nothing but a good chip to control the fuel ratio. And the last one I saw was running (in Va Beach) for over 3 years and had absolutely no problems.

 

The quote you pulled from whereever stating that boost will effect fuel delivery, is true.. to a point. yes it hinders some of the feeding pressure, which that will effect the spray, however, a good chip will both open the injector earlier, and for a longer time to compensate.

 

The most common solution, as I stated earlier is first, to program a chip. Second, to add an FMU. This will increase the fuel rail pressure in whatever ratio disk is installed. This can be troublesome in tuning as it varies a otherwise constant value in the equation. That why I perfer to deal with the problem in chip tuning first. Second is a FMU with a very small ratio disk, like a 1-1 or a 1.5-1 at most.

 

So nothing I said earlier is wrong. It all depends on how you want to deal with the problem. I always see more then 1 option. Afterall there always has to be at least 2 options.

 

I am dropping this. As it seems that no one can know better then you. Granted, I probly don't have the "on car" experiance on the 'quest, as I have not messed around with it much, but I do nkow both turbo systems, and fuel systems that they require.

Continue to argue with yourself.

 

http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/bsflag.gif

 

Dude.. I think you dont really have an understanding of how the A/F ratio is controlled on our cars.  Its done by increasing the fuel pressure proportionally with the boost.  MOST if not all forced induction cars (turbo/supercharged) use this sytem along with injector pulse modulation to control the a/f ratio.  but if you wa

[89onaquest]

Dude.. I think you dont really have an understanding of how the A/F ratio is controlled on our cars.  Its done by increasing the fuel pressure proportionally with the boost.  MOST if not all forced induction cars (turbo/supercharged) use this sytem along with injector pulse modulation to control the a/f ratio.  but if you wa

And I think that if you go back and read some of my posts you will see that I will freely admit that I have not worked on the 'Quests...

But I have worked on 13Bs', 3800 IIs' 3800 GNXs', SVO 2.3s' and they have all have a modified fuel system, that as I stated above, had specific modified chips that were wide tuned at low boost (10PSI). When those were done, then a FMU was added at 1:1 and redone to 15 PSI. If holes still exsisted, the disk was replaced with a 1:1.25, ect, ect, each time the disk would be replaced it would be replaced with a custom CNC'd dish that only did .25 increase.

And this went on until the goals of the owned were reached as far as Boost PSI.

 

Also, I consider Pressure, and flow to be the same alot of times. Yes I know they are both seperate things, I consider that they will match if the rail(s) and lines see no loss in pressure. Whick makes sense, if pressure never drops, flow will remain constant.

 

And chiplee, that big long speak you put out, gee looked familiar. maybe cause I said basically the same thing earlier.

[chiplee]

And chiplee, that big long speak you put out, gee looked familiar. maybe cause I said basically the same thing earlier.

 

Are you for real? "big long speak?"  What on God's green earth would possess you to address me directly, AGAIN?!?  Do you think I'll sit idly by and let you talk down to me like you're not a worthless POS that showed up here thinking he knew a little something and had the gall to try to rebut statements made by such starquest Gods as Mike C?  Here's a thought:  Close your ignorant mouth and open your ears for a few years before you start throwing around weight you don't have.  You still won't admit that you might possibly have been wrong about something.  You're not making a very good reputation for yourself.  You sound like CHC who just left.  Full of criticism but not receptive to it.  

 

As for your BS about me having said exactly what you said, you must be out of your damn mind.  I quoted myself, get it?  I quoted something I said 7 months ago.  That's the only thing that sounds similar to something you said "before" me in my "long speak"  So I said it first.  My God I can't believe I'm even qualifying this with a response it's so ridiculous.  I don't want to be a party to it, but I can't stop myself from telling you about yourself.  Get a clue, you weren't even registered when this debate started.  Hell you just registered last week, and you feel ok about even pretending you're capable of an original thought.  I've never witnessed such utter disregard for one's position in my life.  You have literally blown my mind with your obnoxious, uncouth (look that one up) nature.  Please just shut the hell up for a while before you make yourself a complete laughing stock.

[Joel]

Don’t worry too much about it Chip. Obviously the guy is trying to stretch things out to be smart on the Internet.

 

We all know he's full of it when he talks about a "Modified chip" ALL of which these chips have been used on your selection of 13Bs, 3800 IIs, 3800 GNXs, SVO 2.3s, in which they all had the same "tune" for 10psi. First, I'd like to see this. I hate to call people out, but I hate having my ear (or eyes) filled with smelly brown dirt. Why would you tune a chip to only 10psi, and then move the boost up? Who (please list specifically WHO) makes chips for 13B's, 3800's, and SVO's.

 

Next, he talks about using a 1:1 NOW, when earlier "That wasn't necessary"... He also speaks as if he knows what he's talking about as if 1:1 was "the standard FMU" setting he used. BS.

 

This one stumped me... I feel like beating my head against a large stone with a pointy edge..."Which makes sense, if pressure never drops, flow will remain constant"... He still doesn't get it; the pressure never drops, but its NOT constant pressure, it goes up! Conceptually, this isn't that hard to understand. Theoretically, it makes sense.

 

Then we go on about how he "I will freely admit that I have not worked on the 'Quests". Oh boy, the quest is THAT much different? Aside from TBI injection (which, by the way, isn't THAT huge of a difference when talking about how a fuel injected turbo car works) there isn't much difference from say... a DSM, or an SVO. If you know anything about turbo cars, this wouldn't even be an argument at all. We are NOT discussion how you would "Circumvent a fuel system" in the event that larger injectors were not available. We are talking about a full and properly fuel injected MPI that has enough injector to take on the power goals.

 

Then last, we single out Chip, because chip said "Hey, your wrong". Then Chip attempts to explain himself several times. Then we say something like " I always see more then 1 option" when in fact you live in a damn box. You believe everything is right if you and that knowledge are inside your "box". Inside-the-box style thought processing usually leads you to the Antonymous meaning to the phrase "I always see more then 1 option".  Then since we can't win with Chip on technical topics, we attack him for the very topic at hand, which is about Chad's Intake Manifold. Chip did not "repeat" you.

 

Likewise, I do find statements like "This was to settle any possible issues still floating around" bothersome. You are assuming you are right, and were doomed for an argument the moment you learned how to get on the Internet and post messages. I've had friends similar to you, where you think you can walk and talk about how your ideas make sense to you, so therefore they also make sense to everyone else. Another prime example of blind in the box style thought processing. Your in your own world dude, and no one is going to ever see it you way all the way. You will likely have a heart attack or a stroke before the age of 45. Calm down, this is the United States; we are all full of opinions, before raising your blood pressure, understand there are thousands of people like you, whom believe everyone else should believe what they believe in and they are of the opposing opinion to you.

 

Joel

[scotty]

Mista Lee !  me likey longa speek ! anyhoo, I hope we hear back from Dan soon .

[Quest4Power]

i can kind of see what he is saying with the pressure not rising but staying constant.  the pressure is rising to compensate for the longer "on" time of the injectors.  the injectors are basically pressure relief valves on the fuel rail.  you have your pressure built up, and when you open an injector that releases a small amount of pressure.  now if you open those injectors longer you will release more pressure thus dropping pressure in the rail.  now if you had ideal conditions you'd be keeping a static 40psi in the rail although the injectors are opening longer because you'd be raising pressure to keep up with the higher demand for fuel but just enough to keep the same pressure in the rail.  but AFPR's don't really adjust that finely and wouldn't be able to compensate for different sized injectors/etc.

 

maybe here's an easier way to see it.  you blow into a straw with 4 pinholes in it covered with your fingers.  with all of the holes covered you keep a constant pressure of air in the straw.  now move one of your fingers off of a hole.  now you have to blow harder to keep the same amount of pressure in the straw there was before.  now remove another finger and so on.  you will continually have to blow harder to keep a constant pressure thus the need for a rising rate of any kind.  so basically you "could" tune a fuel system to keep a static pressure but using some kind of nonexisting AFPR that can account for very fine changes, but a little extra pressure never hurt to help atomization so there's not a need to try to be so precise with it.  as long as you don't see a drop in pressure all is basically well.

 

 

did any of that make sense? ???

[Joel]

ST61,

 

That isn't relavent. I have a very expensive digital fuel test kit which is supposed to be very accurate. If I hook it up on my 75lb MPI rail, you don't see those fluctuations. there of coarse would HAVE to be some pressure drop, but not enough to see.  

 

If your injectors are to large for the fuel rail and feed lines, you would see this as an issue. If you on very large injectors, and sequential fuel injection you may require a pulsation dampner or reduce the frequency via batch mode.

 

If your fuel pump is inadequit, again you would see this issue. Fluids don't compress well at all as they are already near max denisty. That is one of the prime reasons you don't see the fluctuations at the rail, as the volume in the rail, and the pressure are more proportional to the amount of flow on the feed side of the rail.

 

Joel

[MidNiteRide89]

I hope I didn't just see what I think I saw.  I would have sworn I read a post from Scotty asking if Taki felt the original question of this entire thread had been answered.  Then it was gone.  I don't think Scotty would have deleted it, as he seems to have posted a more clear version of the same question.  Or at least his opinion of the answer.  If the question was not allowed today, then why was it allowed on 09/30/02?  People who could easily start considering making posts that sound alot like "I told you so" are being very mature about this.  So let's not jump the gun about what we delete.  Even if someone wanted to quote me where I said the following 7 months ago, it shouldn't be deleted.     

It's only a reminder that we could have seen this coming had we not had our heads so far up Chad's a**.  

Take it however you want to.  The request for testing was a reasonable one.  No one was being a d*** and one of our own has had a fire that probably could have been avoided had there been a bit more effort put into that part of the manifold, and had we not been so concerned about defending Chad as a person or so concerned that his feelings might be hurt.   So to protect those things, we've allowed a potentially dangerous situation to develop.  I think it calls for a recall of every manifold you sold Chad, and that is not a personal attack.  I've told you in the past this was not personal but you seem to be taking it that way as far as I can tell since you never answered my PM'd explanation of my position.  I'll even go so far as to say that perhaps it wasn't probable that the fire could have been avoided, perhaps it was just possible.  Isn't that enough?  Poor Dan was faced with the dreadful decision of whether to pull that damn manifold back off or to try to make it work.  So by being crunched for time, and trying to make it work he's screwed because no one can be at fault but him for modifying the intake.  

 

That's cool, if that's how we treat one of our own I don't want to be part of it.  As a token of our compassion for Dan's situation, and at the recommendation of another member, I'm going to ask that the GP members for the next Magna manifold add $10 or $20 to their total to buy dan a Magna Intake so he can get his car on the road.  If anyone would like to donate please email me at turbo12@cox.net.  If this is deleted I'll know the level of corruption and political BS that goes on here.  So feel free to adjust the public opinion any way you see fit mods.  You certainly have that right, here.

 

I deleted scotty's post for the simple reason that the question was already answered. (Taki asked for his money back, hence, Chad's header was not worth it to him.) So what is the point, three letters, Y..E..S?

Chip, you rag on this site so much, no one is forcing you to stay, and I can't imagine why you do when you have so many negative things to say.

[83starpower]

actually scotty, i bought chads manifold  not too long after i posted the question.  I just didint want to say anything, seeing how chad was cool about giving my money back.  But chip is right, he shouldnt take it personally, businees is business, and if your product is not good, then people are going to be unhappy.    :'(

 

Taki

[Quest4Power]

ST61,

 

That isn't relavent. I have a very expensive digital fuel test kit which is supposed to be very accurate. If I hook it up on my 75lb MPI rail, you don't see those fluctuations. there of coarse would HAVE to be some pressure drop, but not enough to see.  

 

If your injectors are to large for the fuel rail and feed lines, you would see this as an issue. If you on very large injectors, and sequential fuel injection you may require a pulsation dampner or reduce the frequency via batch mode.

 

If your fuel pump is inadequit, again you would see this issue. Fluids don't compress well at all as they are already near max denisty. That is one of the prime reasons you don't see the fluctuations at the rail, as the volume in the rail, and the pressure are more proportional to the amount of flow on the feed side of the rail.

 

Joel

 

i understand it's irrelevant and that's not how things work, i was just trying to see how they came up with that idea.

[chiplee]

I deleted scotty's post for the simple reason that the question was already answered. (Taki asked for his money back, hence, Chad's header was not worth it to him.) So what is the point, three letters, Y..E..S?

Chip, you rag on this site so much, no one is forcing you to stay, and I can't imagine why you do when you have so many negative things to say.

 

again with the assumptions from you man.  I guess you'll say this was there in black and white too.  Taki said he asked for his money back, you assumed that meant it wasn't worth the extra money to him.  Scotty wanted to hear the words. "This manifold is NOT worth the extra money"  those words had not been written.   Isn't it you who would say "taki, if you meant the header wasn't worth the extra money, why didn't you say that?   You just said you asked for your money back."

 

I love the site, I rag on punk a** moves like biased moderators deleting posts that might make their friends look bad.   Stuff like Dan's fire is what can happen when you manipulate the facts IMO, and I don't think any of us should stand for it.  Like it or leave it I'm staying and my opinionated posts on matters like this come with me.  I'm sure you'd love it if I left so there'd be one less guy around to rock the boat when you try to help your buddy come out smelling like roses after he makes a mistake.  Nope, sorry.  Ban me if that's what you want.  If you can honestly tell me that you made the choice to delete that post with no ill will toward scotty and the fact that he's been digging for the facts that you'd rather not let come out, then I'll be thoroughly impressed.  I think that if you dig down you'll see you did it out of spite, and perhaps another member would have gotten away with it, or you would have replied to it and said that you think Taki asking for his money back was answer enough.  

[chiplee]

the more I think about it the more it pisses me off that you deleted scotty's post Mark ( do you spell that with a "c" I forget sorry )  you and I can get along in a world that doesn't include this manifold.

 

I would like to make a formal request that this thread be moderated by an impartial individual.  The power to remove content one deems objectionable should not rest with an individual with personal interest in the matter.  I honestly can't believe your only excuse for taking that question down is that it had already been answered.  That is a cop out and you know it, God I hope you know it.  So why don't you head over to virtual mechanic and delete posts where guys ask why they get a momentary stumble at 3500rpm.  Tell them, "that's already been answered.  Do a search.  We don't tolerate repetative posts around here."

[89onaquest]

i can kind of see what he is saying with the pressure not rising but staying constant.  the pressure is rising to compensate for the longer "on" time of the injectors.  the injectors are basically pressure relief valves on the fuel rail.  you have your pressure built up, and when you open an injector that releases a small amount of pressure.  now if you open those injectors longer you will release more pressure thus dropping pressure in the rail.  now if you had ideal conditions you'd be keeping a static 40psi in the rail although the injectors are opening longer because you'd be raising pressure to keep up with the higher demand for fuel but just enough to keep the same pressure in the rail.  but AFPR's don't really adjust that finely and wouldn't be able to compensate for different sized injectors/etc.

 

maybe here's an easier way to see it.  you blow into a straw with 4 pinholes in it covered with your fingers.  with all of the holes covered you keep a constant pressure of air in the straw.  now move one of your fingers off of a hole.  now you have to blow harder to keep the same amount of pressure in the straw there was before.  now remove another finger and so on.  you will continually have to blow harder to keep a constant pressure thus the need for a rising rate of any kind.  so basically you "could" tune a fuel system to keep a static pressure but using some kind of nonexisting AFPR that can account for very fine changes, but a little extra pressure never hurt to help atomization so there's not a need to try to be so precise with it.  as long as you don't see a drop in pressure all is basically well.

 

 

did any of that make sense? ???

 

At least someone got what I was tring to say...

 

I am not here to prove anything.

It does seem that some here do have something to prove.

If you go and read the posts I done, they are all consistant.

Tuning involves(when availible)

1. CHIP ...YES TUNED AT LOW BOOST/or the highest AND safest you can run...Then you tune it the best you can.

2. IF more fuel is needed, you add an FMU, NOT AN AFPR(Adjustable Fuel Pressure Regulator) They are a very poor descion in most cases, fork out the extra $40 and get the real thing.

3. You go back to the chip and tune more.

4. You go back to the fuel pressure

And you keep going back and forth until both are ballanced. And you are satisfied.

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

Simply adding higher fuel pressure will not neccesarily get you the best results. You may end up going pig rich, and foul plugs, then you ruin your head and pistons cause your plugs can't fire propperly.

 

Just cause you have a turbo does not mean you NEED 75 PSI of fuel pressure. Thats an excellent way to ruin injectors. implode them, go ahead, cause you think you know it all, and need the almighty PRESSURE, when in fact, you may not. You need the coresponding chip, to control the fuel, not the pressure.

 

Hell nearly all the systems I have seen only run around 37 PSI, and peak at 57. And the 57 was a hella GN motor pumping close to 900 Hp.

 

Do I know about these specific cars? Meaning the Starion and Conquest? I ALREADY SAID NO, WHAT THE HELL ELSE YOU WANT?

 

But I know turbo fuel systems. At least MPI ones... these damn TBI things are a joke!

 

If you have a problem with what I am saying? oh well. It's falling on deaf ears. If you can see the validity, praise be, you CAN see light.

 

I am done talking about his, it's pointless. you see it one way, I see it another.

[Quest4Power]

this thread has pretty much gone to crap...

 

i'm just gonna bow out of this one for a while.  assuming it isn't locked or deleted anytime soon i will not come back without empirical data to show what this intake is/isn't capable of.

 

au revior  

[Joel]

Well, I'm going to have to agree with ST61. I'm gonna have to can this. Obviously certain people can't read, or chooses to do so via precise selection. The last response from one of the selective readers was it for me, similar to speaking to a peice of drywall.

 

I don't have anything to add to the main topic of discussion here, as we (Darrell and I) are a long way from attempting to install the dual fuel railed manifold by Chad. I already can "see" leaks, which either means it will be replaced by a magna or it'll have to be fixed. I have a magna, and I'm happy with its basic (and "aftermarket") functionality.. And I could afford it.

 

Joel

[artinist]

you said it.

[KO]

I agree with Tim C., let the guys who actually bought the intake and put it on their running car do the talking, they can speak for themselves. If there is a more negative then positive response by those who have ran the intake in the end then so be it, but we don't need to keep putting in our .02 cents to sway peoples opinions one way or the other, I'm all for "just the facts", can't go wrong there.

This post has really stirred up a bees nest and I think people have taken digs at others they would normally get along with.

[chiplee]

Chip & Scotty: Can we chill out a little with being so harsh about it? .

 

Tim I'll be the first guy to tell you this is not even close to being my business.  I don't have a part in it and for that people could easily be bashing me for running off at the mouth about it.  I did post with that in mind if it's any consolation.  You probably read.  I've heard from Chad and alot of what he's saying makes good sense, and sheds new light on the subject.  My biggest fear was posting something I couldn't take back if I was wrong.  I'm not sure but I don't think I did that.  I imagine you read what I said above about how this "will be settled by the parties involved" and "I recognize this is not my issue."  Well now I recognize that I probably didn't exactly behave that way by writing what I did.  So yeah, I'll chill out for a while.  I do hope Dan and Chad will chose to make public whatever resolution they arrive at.   And if Chad decides it's not his issue any more than it is mine, which it sounds like he might be correct in deciding, then I hope there will be more details about how the design flaw (if one exists) will be repaired.  I'd still like to see pics of Dan's intake and the damage just out of curiosity.  

 

Oh and Joel, man I'm right there with you.  I can't take it any more with that guy.  I keep coming back thinking ok, that'll be enough.  He'll realize he was just confused and beg forgiveness... And we, being the loving soles we are will grant it. Simple mistake, no harm no foul right?  Fuel pressure is certainly constant relative to manifold pressure, so he just missed the "relative to manifold pressure" part in school that day, and thought fuel pressure was simply constant.  But nope, no G-Damn way, not this cat.  That's alright.  You win some you lose some.  Guess we lost.  So I have some changes to make to my fuel system.  Joel, do you figure I'll have enough pulse width left to stay rich at 20psi with a 44psi baseline fuel pressure?  I figure with 10in of vacuum at idle that's really 30psi of extra pressure over idle, making my effective fuel pressure 14psi at full boost, assuming I can follow this new system well enough to make my system a, what was it, "well done system".  This is gonna be tricky.  but when I get it close I'll throw an FMU on there and d*** with that for a while.  I sure wish either you or I had actually installed or tuned a standalone computer before.  In fact if you had actually done it 3 or 4 times we might actually be able to get some kinda reasonable understanding of how this stuff goes together.  Good thing for us they're are guys like 89onatrip to pop in and set us straight from time to time or we'd never make 300whp.  

[Mitsumark]

Chip,I really havent posted on these boards over the last few years because of debates turning bad and people like this showing up.Even though it was much worse back then.I just wanted to let you know I look forward to reading your replies everyday. I must say,you are very entertaining.May I ask if your a lawyer?If not,you should consider becoming one..You have such a way with words.When you make your point,its much like a closing statement in a court case..Keep it comin....

[scotty]

I agree 100% these past few posts have been some of the best Chip's ever written .

The facts of the matter have made it painfully obvious what the truth is and that theres been neglect, Im glad for one that members like Chip stand up for people like Dan and ask the questions that need to be asked un-intimidated. I rarley speak my mind as it needs moderation and even if it does not it gets it anyway, Chip's able to suggest that a un-informed "new kid " should take the cotton out of his ears and put it in his mouth come from knowledge on the subject not out of sheer meanness, In fact theres not much that Chip wouldnt do to help you Just Ask .