Increase Bhp through Temperature Sensor?

[Muffler]

Hi, I read with great interest on this topic as recently one of my friends actually bought this tiny gadget and bypassed his air temp sensor. He claimed that there was a performance increase - good enough to be "butt-felt" but we were quite sceptical though. Subsequently, he managed to borrow a g-meter and did several 0-100 runs for both with and without-meter confirmed g-force increase for every gear change. Then we borrowed a g-tech pro and re-runned several tests (under same test conditions) - also confirmed performance up by ard 10-15%.

 

As we were quite interested in this finding, we monitored the fuel consumption with and without for ard 2 mths each and now after ard 4mths later, we can confirm that there is no increase in consumption at all! So thats why I am puzzled as I also expected to see an increase in consumption.

 

Any idea why? Thanks.

[Maded]

That looks like a magnetic reed switch.... or am i just wrong?

[Muffler]

Errh....dunno who posted the long metal thingy pic?? My frd's item looks like this:

[Thumbs]

OK, I will bite. What were the tests, and how where they done? What are the test conditions?

[Hattee]

Not exactly sure the measure of the range of cars you have tried when saying "They screw your car up." Suggesting a 500ohm series definitely messes up every car on planet earth; 5 deg drop is so great that no ECUs will have the latitude to correct for the higher lamdar voltage; and the "lowered" IAT will totally have no influence on the ignition timing for potential benefit of the often higher than required octane.

 

Perhaps, vast difference between the well and sky.

[Genie47]

You just answered your question. These mods screw up the car when the intake air temperature is not what it seems to be. Its not 5 deg C difference. Its -20 or more degrees difference. These mods trick the IAT to think you are in Alaska instead of Singapore. Who is in the well now?

 

FYI, we are talking about IAT hacks from eBay.

 

All these eBay IAT hacks only richen to the max. You want to tune? I have already posted the solution with the diagrams. Maybe richen or lean out by a bit. You got the time to do that? No? You got an exhaust gas analyzer to fine tune it? No? Then complete doofus buyers will then be attracted to the "plug and play" that these eBay sellers tout. They don't sell acclimatized versions to Singapore. They are looking for a quick buck from complete doofus buyers.

 

Then again, even if you finally lean it out or richen it, how about the ever changing car conditions? WOT? Highway cruising? Congestion? Engine operating conditions are dynamic. What the IAT hack does is make it seem like static. Its not a real world solution to a real world situation. Screw it up? You bet. Finally, you put this thing in our newer cars, the ECU senses something wrong. CEL and that is screwing. IAT hack users report CEL on newer cars. The electronics are more intelligent and fooling them requires higher levels of sophistication.

 

You pay for what you get. Better off with an SAFC.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Genie47

[Hattee]

might have to disagree ... probably not so simple again that every SAFC users are sure happier folks.

 

Enuf.

[Genie47]

Even I won't be happy with SAFC. The gains in relation to the cost for something so sophisticated is not attractive to me. Nice dash ornament though.

[Muffler]

Hi, there were 2 sets of tests done:

1)with the chip in place;

2)without the chip.

Both instances, the ecu wass resetted by a)disconnection of batt and b)removal of ecu fuse.

Both sets of tests were done along a same stretch of straight road, from stand-still till abt 110-120 using the automatic gear switching (so as to maintain same upshift points). The accelerator was floored and maintained there for all tests.

 

So we try to cover as many angles as possible. But the puzzling part is the consumption remains the same (now its into the 8 full tank and still the same) despite the cons of such mods. I am happy for him but need some explanation from the gurus here on the possibility of such outcomes.

 

Thank you.

[Thumbs]

You mentioned performance is "up by 10-15%"... what were the actual numbers? For what it's worth, a 0-100 km/h test is not very reflective of true performance... it is better to do in-gear acceleration tests e.g. stay in 3 gear, time from 30-50 km/h, 40-60 km/h, 50-80 km/h, for each gear.

[Muffler]

Hi,

 

Firstly, the sole objective of the tests done was to see if there were any increase in performance on the whole and not to truly test and compare the performance of the said vehicle before and after. Hence the only way to eliminate human error or inconsistency is to floor the accel right from start and hold all the way to the target speed (launching would be the rite way to go for a true test of the vehicle's capability but heavily dependant on the driver), apart from making sure all other conditions remain as constant as possible.

 

Secondly, a total of 8 similar runs were done (4 with and 4 without the chip) over a period of about 2hr and the results were varied by ard +-5% thereby we concluded that the performance difference was ard 10-15%.

 

Anyway, I believe the common understanding is that this type of "mod" is known to give an increase in performance but the point or question is the usual contra-indication is the increase in fuel consumption - something that we are not seeing in the case ( although my frd is silently happy but I am very puzzled and would like to find out more). Maybe the bros who had commented on the consumption could lend a pen and shed some light?

[Thumbs]

Firstly, the sole objective of the tests done was to see if there were any increase in performance on the whole and not to truly test and compare the performance of the said vehicle before and after. Hence the only way to eliminate human error or inconsistency is to floor the accel right from start and hold all the way to the target speed (launching would be the rite way to go for a true test of the vehicle's capability but heavily dependant on the driver), apart from making sure all other conditions remain as constant as possible.

 

Sorry I don't quite follow.

 

How do you know if there's any "increase in performance on the whole" if you do not "truly test and compare the performance of the said vehicle before and after"? That is to say, how do you know if there's an improvement if you have no baseline to work with? I disagree that the "only way to eliminate human error or inconsistency is to floor the accel right from start and hold all the way to the target speed". The method I proposed in the earlier post is a better way since you already have access to the G-tech which will show you the in-gear acceleration figures.

 

How does a variation in +-5% result in a performance difference of 10-15%?

 

Lastly, why would an "increase in performance" necessarily result in "higher fuel consumption"?

Edited March 9, 2006 by Thumbs

[Muffler]

Sorry but what I meant was that we just wanna confirm if the performance (as a whole) of the car improves with the use of the chip by comparing the difference in g-forces and 0-100 timing. And not really looking for the best performance figures per say. My frd would go perform a dyno for the more accurate figures.

 

And as for the flooring of the accel, I meant that it is "one of the simpliest method" and not the "only way" (typo error). Moreover, both of us are really novice in this field of testing so we chose the simpliest method to us.

 

The readings yielded for the 2 sample groups had a rough difference of +-5% (within each group). For example 4 test run readings for "without chip" had a variance of 5% and similar for the 4 test run readings for "with chip".

 

The "increase in consumption by manipulating the temp feedback" idea is derived from the numerous posting in this thread. So thats why I wonder if everyone seem to agree that such act would most likely increase consumption, then why my frd's car is not affected so? Or is there any other factor that we might have left out?

Edited March 10, 2006 by Muffler

[Thumbs]

Sorry but what I meant was that we just wanna confirm if the performance (as a whole) of the car improves with the use of the chip by comparing the difference in g-forces and 0-100 timing. And not really looking for the best performance figures per say. My frd would go perform a dyno for the more accurate figures.

 

G-forces and 0-100 timing are not very accurate. Even dyno numbers can vary between runs.

 

And as for the flooring of the accel, I meant that it is "one of the simpliest method" and not the "only way" (typo error). Moreover, both of us are really novice in this field of testing so we chose the simpliest method to us.

 

OK fair enough. Next time use the method described earlier. More consistent since wheel spin is minimized.

 

The readings yielded for the 2 sample groups had a rough difference of +-5% (within each group). For example 4 test run readings for "without chip" had a variance of 5% and similar for the 4 test run readings for "with chip".

 

+-5% of what? 0-100 km/h timing? So what you're saying is for example, without this device, the car can do 8 seconds to the century sprint. Assuming an error of +-5%, that means it can be doing between 7.6 to 8.4 seconds. Isn't that a huge margin of error?

 

The "increase in consumption by manipulating the temp feedback" idea is derived from the numerous posting in this thread. So thats why I wonder if everyone seem to agree that such act would most likely increase consumption, then why my frd's car is not affected so? Or is there any other factor that we might have left out?

 

There's a possibility that the car was safely rich and making it slightly leaner using this device might have yielded some power. Personally I wouldn't do this since there's not much control or monitoring over what the device is actually doing.