MR2 Owners Club Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
381 - 389 of 389 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
MicaCeli said:
build a MegaSquirt in the Stock ECU case.
I've looked into this as well, mostly because there is no other options i'm aware of. The more and more I research it, the less it seems beneficial. You have to keep the afm, and I don't know if there's really much to be gained. I'd love to be proven wrong though! :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
rocwandrer said:
If you knew a car is faster without an LSD, all else equal, and a certain balance is fastest, all else equal, then wouldn't you do whatever you could that doesn't hurt total grip to shift grip to the inside rear, then shift overall grip back towards the front with other measures?

Well... yes. I did this on my DSP car. I added front roll stiffness, and lowered the rear roll center, until the inside rear hooked up. But then its a somewhat low powered car.

The DP car must use a limited slip to put down power. The LSD completely changes the handling balance of the car. It takes a lot more mechanical grip to keep the rear end from stepping out under power. This is because the LSD will break both rears loose under power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
verno-dub said:
Why would you keep the AFM? One of the benefits of going to megasquirt is the elimination of the AFM.

I can't copy pdfs on my phone, but rule 14.10 c says that all emissions and engine management components in the air intake must not be removed or replaced and must maintain their function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,930 Posts
runmk1run said:
I can't copy pdfs on my phone, but rule 14.10 c says that all emissions and engine management components in the air intake must not be removed or replaced and must maintain their function.
Not pointing fingers, but please take this discussion elsewhere, as it does not pertain to this thread. Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
591 Posts
Steve, don't know if you saw it (I'm just getting around to reading the issue) but Part 1 of this discussion got quoted in Racecar Engineering magazine, page 27 of the April 2011 issue! LOL. I could shoot you a .pdf of the article but I don't want to post it publicly as I think that would probably violate the terms/conditions of my digital subscription.
 

·
Zack's smirking revenge
Joined
·
1,573 Posts
Mulry said:
Steve, don't know if you saw it (I'm just getting around to reading the issue) but Part 1 of this discussion got quoted in Racecar Engineering magazine, page 27 of the April 2011 issue! LOL. I could shoot you a .pdf of the article but I don't want to post it publicly as I think that would probably violate the terms/conditions of my digital subscription.

It also appeared in the Mark Ortiz automotive chassis Newsletter...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
Dave, thanks for the note. I hadn't seen the RCE article yet but I had seen Mark Otiz's newsletter. I used to subscribe and have had discussions with Mark, although not on this exact subject, on several occasions previously.

I was disappointed because the question miss-represented my opinion and thus the answer isn't on point. The point of this thread was to have a discussion, in layman's terms, of a very complex issue. I never guessed the circulation this thread would ultimately have or I would have spent more time up front grounding the ideas in established engineering principles.

To be sure, _some_ of my harshest critiques are "engineers". I don't have a traditional engineering background. I have studied all of the same principles but without having gone through traditional engineering schools and therefore that indoctrination. Degreed engineers are not known for thinking "outside the box" and thus dismiss my more radical ideas without due consideration.

It doesn't bother me, I have made my career being a "black sheep" and am used to the skeptics. I let my success speak for itself.

I would like to see the RCE article. I may have to look it up.

-Steve
 
381 - 389 of 389 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top