I have the 3.6l 24v version so 33.4mm intake valves (x2) and cams are spec at .1mm they are about 250deg at 1mm lift. That's at the valve, zero lash due to hydro. I have vvt but don't use it for idle stability at all. Any movement and its worse (more overlap).
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
earlier today I google VR6 cams and found this quite funny but for a 2V I'm pretty sure
"298° DRAG RACE Hydraulic camshaft set. These cams the most power of the hydraulic cams we sell. Be aware, lifter life will be short (but glorious)."
I'd have to double check but I'm remembering mine add about 5 degrees @1mm so very similar.
What do you see for a MAP value?
I'm seeing that the Australian dollar is in the toilet so an M150 with the basic software from Oz is a little cheaper than to maxxeuc pro. The motec comes kind of crippled at that price of course but would run the engine just fine but for sure no traction control or logging so probably $3k to make it functional.
Duration is compared at .050 (or 1mm I guess) for two reasons, there's usually a start ramp on the lobe that is fairly low lift rate so the valvetrain can close up the lash before it lobs the valve open, and meaningful flow doesn't really start until about then anyway.
Old timey cams meant to be kind to valvesprings and valvetrain might have had a 50 degree difference between "advertised" duration and duration at .050".
Those 298 12v cams make the beans, finally cracked 300whp on a customer car on them. Still didn't rev for E36 M3 😅
idle map is around 45kpa (near sea level) at 950rpm
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:Those 298 12v cams make the beans, finally cracked 300whp on a customer car on them. Still didn't rev for E36 M3 😅
idle map is around 45kpa (near sea level) at 950rpm
That's a hp healthy number! RPM is about flow...something must be stopping it up I guess.
45, same as mine. Does MAP behave ok as the throttle opens? I've never had timing map but love the idea and just wondering as the MS forum is was I got the basic circuit for the multiMAP and I'm wondering why they need it?
It goes up very fast! I did some testing on the original multimap on a 4cyl and it didn't seem to work any better than using a single or merged map with itbs. I feel like it was trying to solve a not problem. There is a decently wide fueling for best tq in those ranges so mixture being a little off isn't world ending.
fwiw it took every trick in the book for that 300whp and it ate itself quickly. My 24v one made 354 on a stock bottom.
Can you give details on the 354whp 24V VR6??
SpeedAddict502 said:Can you give details on the 354whp 24V VR6??
Sure. Stock atlas 3.6 bottom end, arp rod bolts, block filler. Ported head (by me), catcams valve springs and 203 cams. Dg 60mm itbs. 2.25-3.5" downpipe. Vp m5 methanol. Ms3 pro evo management. Has trapped 129 at 2100lbs so it probably makes 265-270 on a dynojet. Was well over 300whp 6-8k but took a hard turn down at 8200. Its still on stock exhaust manifolds which likely isnt helping
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:It goes up very fast! I did some testing on the original multimap on a 4cyl and it didn't seem to work any better than using a single or merged map with itbs. I feel like it was trying to solve a not problem. There is a decently wide fueling for best tq in those ranges so mixture being a little off isn't world ending.
Interesting. Mine is really linear with throttle....maybe its a 12 cyl thing more than a 4cyl thing?...but I remember seeing so graphs from a motorcycle engine(?) where the signal was significantly better. I'm thinking it was a old thread but I remember not understanding why sample timing wouldn't have the same effect.....unless they use a fixed sample time rather than a time v rpm table because the right sample time has to be a function of rpm I'd think.
Today I'd mostly talked myself into trying a rusefi...the last couple nights I worked out a setup that I think would be fine with the thought that at least I'd be running again and if I hate it I could save for something else.....and tonight I got an email from the owner of enginelab responding to my from a couple weeks ago and asking what the problem is and if they could help me get it fixed....getting it fixed would make me happy.
another possible ECU option, ECU master Pro-16
https://ecumasterusa.com/collections/emu-pro/products/copy-of-emu-pro-16
Full disclosure, I know very little about it other than Tony Angelo is installing one on a Ashton Martin V12 in a Mustang.
ejs262 said:another possible ECU option, ECU master Pro-16
https://ecumasterusa.com/collections/emu-pro/products/copy-of-emu-pro-16
Thanks. Someone else suggested it as well so its generally on the list. Its got things I like and I'm PRETTY sure I could make it work but at the same price point I liked the maxxecu pro better....the ecumaster has fixed size 17x17 tables which while better than fixed size 16x16 tables just are not dynamic sized 32x32 tables so for me that kind of bump the ecumaster down into the MS and rusefi grouping. In that group I like that it has USB stick logging and I like the interface, its definitely better than TunerStudio MS and rusefi use. MS gets kicked because 12/12 support isn't on the feature list so it would be 2 ecus or I'm told the FW can do it if I could find HW somewhere....but why bother when rufefi has the HW and is 1/2 the MS price, 1/3 the ecumaster price which makes me happier about the interface. So ecumaster got cut from the final list.
Then there is Haltech, motec up in the bigger money group and its honestly not a competition, the Haltech is better at everything I'm interested in. If I throw a LOT of money at motec options it beats the haltech spec wise, but haltech has a better, easier to use interface, and in the $3500-$5000 price range easily wins feature wise.
So the final list is:
rusEFI huge - $825
maxxECU pro - $2600
Hlatech nexus5 - $4500 (could be $3500 by shopping globally)
My recently agreed toy budget is $250/mon and a deal is a deal as sad as it now makes me. I have $148.82 available. Dec1 that becomes $398.82. I do have a really nice vacuum pump list on ebay if somebody wants to add a tool to there shop while supporting my ECU purchase 
. I can ASK for an advance but even if granted it means repaying it so money for things like fixing the oil leak and steering comes in Feb2025 for rusefi, or Oct2025 for the maxx or maybe May 2026 for the haltech. With that reality, I kind of decided I should try the rusefi because I know I can make the engine run again and probably run well and have everything fixed and ready to go for spring. To drive or not to drive, that is the question kind of deal.
....or maybe engienlab will come through with a low cost fix. I'm kind of back to waiting now that I've heard from them
The MaxxECU Pro Premium can be had for less, though if you spend that much you get pretty much everything you'd want to come with the ECU
If it were me and I was planning on swapping ECU and therefore redoing wiring anyway, I'd gravitate towards the Nexus R5 as it would allow me to remove lots of fuse box and relay from the vehicle with the built-in PDM. With current holiday pricing it can be had for ~$3800 direct from Haltech.
Parker with too many Projects said:The MaxxECU Pro Premium can be had for less, though if you spend that much you get pretty much everything you'd want to come with the ECU
I've not found that source 
$2450+$160 for the connector/pin set.
The R5 is on sale for $3869, but with connector set its $4048. The best I found globally was 3100, $50 to ship, plus connectors (the with connector option is "sold out" on a several Oz sites). Then it needs direct 1g battery connections...another $100 for the cable? It is nice though. The only thing I didn't really like is there is no MAP/Baro load choice....to get it I'd need to add a 4D baro axis to the lambda table which is kind of a pain to tune (guesstimate).
Motec appears to price everything in dollars....USD in the US, AUD in Oz, but the same numbers so ordering from OZ it 1/3 cheaper and M150+GPR package+logging+shipping for like $3000 USD
Short update. I did find a place that says they can probably repair my ecu so that remains an option but is plan B.
Plan a is I've agreed to be a beta tester for these guys TinyEFI because I think what they are trying to do sounds awesome....an ECU that will do a V12 with I/O to spare for under $500. Aphla unit is running a car, beta build being laid out now and should be in my hands and a few others in a month or 2. Its using the rusefi open software but they are open to cleaning it up and are looking for suggestions and feedback for improvements so it should get more friendly.
That means I really do need to get on with wheel wells and oil leak work.
And for when too much is just about right.....oh yes there is staged injection even on 12 cylinder engines. Way back I really wanted this but only the uber expensive motec M190 could do it.....now it's going into the $500 ECU and it will still have outputs left for other needs. This is going to be EPIC :)
And 32x32 main tables just replaced the 16x16.....its so nice to have requests heard. Next up is make them dynamic so the user can resize them as needed hopefully because while I'd rather have too much than too little its really nice to have right size tables.
I'm kind of running out of things to even ask for.
Hopefully it works better than my rusefi experience. Was like 3wk of clearing errors 😅
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:Hopefully it works better than my rusefi experience. Was like 3wk of clearing errors 😅
How long ago did you try it?
I've been kind of watching the project for a while but it feels like the last few years they have kind of past a critical mass kind of thing and it looks like you can buy hw and it will work. The guys I'm working with are thinking hw preloaded with tested code and an "install this" TunerStudio package that has a project reconfigured and tested so open TS, plug in the usb wire to the ECU and it should work with 0 drama. That is the promise anyway and I have seen it work so I know its possible. Even the stuff in the rusefi shop at this point has a download folder and inside is a TS config the should work....not so much wild west as it was even a few years ago.
What I'm finding is just bizarre names for stuff and very little explanation anywhere (I'm trying to help them with that). I kind of know what I'm looking for but struggle to find it and pieces of 1 function maybe on several TS tabs or menus which is frustrating. The forum has gotten pretty quiet with discord being what seems preferred and generally will get a response. A lot of stuff looks designed to save system ram which was a huge problem on the older/cheaper processors. The news chips are just better and way few limits but legacy stuff......a list is being made though and if the code needs a forked instead of a branch I'm hearing that is what will happen.
I figure worst that happens is I end up sending the old unit for repair or spring is bonus season so there is a better chance of spending approval but I'm pretty hopeful this path will work out and the features/$$ make it worth a little extra effort to me.
Thinking a year ago, maybe a little more. I've tuned hundreds of cars and never been more frustrated, even on old ones w no documentation saved. As long as they made the transition from programming experiment to making it actually use-able it should be good.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
Oh....not sure how much has changed in the past year. :(
What I sense is a strong "not invented here" kind of vibe about a lot of things. A lot of thought and work clearly went into everything, but some of that went into making them hard to use and confusing. Like there are 3 versions of IAT/CLT bias, all there are hard to use, all 3 do exactly the same thing and all 3 appear kind of bad compared to a simple load v rpm table. Best I can tell its all about the ram limit of the older chips and its everywhere.
Other stuff is very good though so my plan is to be happy with the good stuff and keep poking at the less good stuff and hope it gets resolved. In the meantime I'm trying to help out with a rough user manual that steps through all the settings so at least there is "try this" reference.
I think a lot of it was just odd/unresolved settings issues and no good way to clear them without starting over. Some of it was likely I was remote tuning and was working the file offline to try and speed the process up instead if being connected to it all the time. Hopefully it goes better for you!
You'll need to log in to post.
