Well, my knees are shaking as I sit here typing this.
I put in a 8,200 rpm pill in module 2 and a 8,000 rpm pill module 1.
I made this mistake of doing this inside my garage :Kill1:
Well, it boosted 17.5 psi at 6,500 rpm before I let off. The whole garage lit up (FIRE) and I got scared. The noise was frightening :crying:
I'm not sure if it would have boosted any higher if I wrapped it out to 8,000 rpm. Any ideas? :)
What 2 step system are you using? I've been looking into getting one, but I wasn't sure what direction to go.
That's seriously awesome man, congrats on getting it to work.
Well, my knees are shaking as I sit here typing this.
I put in a 8,200 rpm pill in module 2 and a 8,000 rpm pill module 1.
I made this mistake of doing this inside my garage :Kill1:
Well, it boosted 17.5 psi at 6,500 rpm before I let off. The whole garage lit up (FIRE) and I got scared. The noise was frightening :crying:
I'm not sure if it would have boosted any higher if I wrapped it out to 8,000 rpm. Any ideas? :) It's time to stop fucking around in your garage and take that shit to the track and bring home a 9 sec time slip!:)
It's time to stop fucking around in your garage and take that shit to the track and bring home a 9 sec time slip!:) I'm scared.... :crying: :)
I'm scared.... :crying: :) Of what?
Soiling your underware!:)
So when is the track date?
Of what?
Soiling your underware!:)
So when is the track date? Yeah!
Added the linelock also so I need to bleed my brakes on tuesday and get my bumper painted next week also. Probably two weeks and I'll be able to hit the track. (Hopefully)
Did you ever get to the point of overpowering your Et Streets with the 2 step? If so, at what psi?
I demand a video!
yea, thats what i was going to say. I would love to see a video of the 2 step in action.
Very nice! What exactly does your 2 step do? I heard of retarding your timing but not cutting it completely off.
Anthony
Very nice! What exactly does your 2 step do? I heard of retarding your timing but not cutting it completely off.
Anthony
I've got a MSD 6AL and a $50 MSD 2 step box. I wired up relays to shut my trailing coils off completely while the 2 step is engaged. I'm using my clutch switch to activate them.
Crispeed told me to do it this way since my ECu doesn't support it.
I was suprised how much it boosted, I only thought I would get around 8-10 psi. :icon_tup:
I've got a MSD 6AL and a $50 MSD 2 step box. I wired up relays to shut my trailing coils off completely while the 2 step is engaged. I'm using my clutch switch to activate them.
Crispeed told me to do it this way since my ECu doesn't support it.
I was suprised how much it boosted, I only thought I would get around 8-10 psi. :icon_tup: '
Have any info on how to do this? I've searched through the 3rd gen section all over the place about 2 steps and there is limited info. I'm sure a lot of people would love more details on this.
'
Have any info on how to do this? I've searched through the 3rd gen section all over the place about 2 steps and there is limited info. I'm sure a lot of people would love more details on this. I'm going to do a write up this week and post it here. :)
I'm going to do a write up this week and post it here. :) Nice!
Let me see.
Nice!!!! get some video!!! I had been thinking the same thing about using a MSD box for 2 step, now that I'm running a PFC.
here is video of my old setup.
1 bar of boost using the haltech antilag
http://rx7.cyberosity.com/87GTR/pics...3/MOV01992.MPG
I got between 20 to 25psi depending on the two-step setting which was never below 9K rpm. :)
I know of people who have got as much as they run just on the two-step alone meaning 35 to 40psi plus.
Hey Eric.
A couple of cars on the two step.
A classic from Adam Saruwatari-----
http://videos.streetfire.net/categor...3913572524.htm
Some friends of mine Japtrix racing Turbo FC. ---
http://videos.streetfire.net/categor...FEC239BBF7.htm
This car is pretty close to yours Lupe, weight and power wise. They normally used the two step around 7k rpm. They have ran in the 9.40's before with a good launch.
Hey Eric.
A couple of cars on the two step.
A classic from Adam Saruwatari-----
http://videos.streetfire.net/categor...3913572524.htm
Some friends of mine Japtrix racing Turbo FC. ---
http://videos.streetfire.net/categor...FEC239BBF7.htm
This car is pretty close to yours Lupe, weight and power wise. They normally used the two step around 7k rpm. They have ran in the 9.40's before with a good launch. Damn, nobody is yanking the tires........... I want to put that sucker up in the air !!! :wallbash:
Damn, nobody is yanking the tires........... I want to put that sucker up in the air !!! :wallbash:
With the rear suspension you have it's going to happen.:)
With the rear suspension you have it's going to happen.:) Damn, I hope so....... Oh, that's right. You're running a 4 link too right?
Damn, I hope so....... Oh, that's right. You're running a 4 link too right? No.
Ladder bar.
No.
Ladder bar. Damn, even more impressive ! :shocking:
Has anyone had success with the Power FC Pro Launch control?
What's the Pro Launch control? I was using the 2step built into the datalogit....is this what you mean? If so, there are a lot of problems with the built in 2 step freezing up the power fc and you have to manually short it out to fix it.
Lupe....what suspension are you running? What has to happen to pull the front tires off the ground? I too would like to know at what point do the Street ET's not hold even with a 2nd gear (180 degree) burnout?

All,
From everything I've researched, there are 2 ways that the MS-II can be set up to control the stock leading & trailing ignition on the 2nd gen RX-7. To summarize, option 1 involves using 2 VR input circuits (i.e., need to add 1 more VR input circuit to the MS-II) OR option 2, which needs just the existing one VR input circuit on the MS-II, but requires you need to mod the stock CAS by grinding off 2 opposing teeth from the 24 tooth wheel.
What I have not been able to find is a comprehensive discussion of which implementation is "better". I realize that some of the pros & cons for each method are subjective, based on personal preferences (i.e., some guys might just be more comfortable modding a CAS than adding electronic circuitry to the MS-II). What I'd like to instigate is a discussion on what are the pros & cons of each method are, in terms of: (a) Performance capabilities & limitations of each implementation; (b) Ease/difficulty in tuning the completed system.
Cheers,
Pete
I doubt there's a difference when it comes to "ease" of tuning. The ecu gets position information either way. Running dual VR should have a higher tolerance to interference because of having two positional inpuits opposed to one.
I'm running dual VR on my daily driven TII and have not had any issues.
Personally, I mod the crank angle sensors instead of building the circuit. I have had absolutely NO problems with this whatsoever, and modding the CAS is soo simple and straight-forward, as well as setting the CAS. As with building the VR circuit, I personally don't know of any benefits. However, I am open to learning anything beneficial from using the vr circuit as opposed to modding the CAS.
Brian
I doubt there's a difference when it comes to "ease" of tuning. The ecu gets position information either way. Running dual VR should have a higher tolerance to interference because of having two positional inpuits opposed to one. These are exactly the kinds of performance issues I'd like to explore.... Obviously the dual VR implementation is how Mazda ended up doing it -- doesn't necessarily mean it's better, but there must be some good reasons for doing it that way. They could have just as easily designed a CAS with the missing teeth from the get go, and it probably would have saved them some production costs to boot.
I'm running dual VR on my daily driven TII and have not had any issues. That's good to hear, I'll be starting my '89T2 MS-II project after the holidays. How did you end up implementing your 2nd VR circuit? I was planning on doing mine on the proto area of the v3.00 board using the write-up on this thread:

I fit my 2nd vr circuit completely on the proto area of the v3 board, its not hard to do. From what i've seen, the 2-trigger (stock CAS, 2nd VR circuit) setups are more reliable and less prone to interferance than the 1-trigger (ground CAS teeth), but either can be made to work.
This would be a good thread to illustrate the different spark settings for each type of code (ms2 vs. ms1Extra) as well as stock cas/ dual vr circuits vs. modded cas w/ single, if anyone has this info. The FAQ really could use a "freshening up"when it comes to this stuff. Lots of good info on settings for stock cas, but very little for modded cas. I would provide some input of my own, but my laptop took a dive on me. Not at all happy about that.
On ms2/extra, the "dual wheel" setup could potentially have more accurate timing and dwell control than the missing tooth setup because it uses every tooth on the wheel to schedule dwell and spark timing. When you remove a tooth, any even that would've been scheduled from the tooth that's now gone has to be scheduled from the tooth before... at low revs, a quick change in rpm could result in later start of dwell or later spark than ideal.
It's also a lot easier for the code to sync with the dual wheel, and therefore the dual wheel can be less prone to noise issues.
Ken
They could have just as easily designed a CAS with the missing teeth from the get go, and it probably would have saved them some production costs to boot. Mazda did not design it, Denso did. That same configuration is used in other vehicles. Mazda simply adopted it in the design of their engine management. They very well could have adopted or designed otherwise, but sourcing from outside manufacturers significantly cuts down on costs.
That's good to hear, I'll be starting my '89T2 MS-II project after the holidays. How did you end up implementing your 2nd VR circuit? I was planning on doing mine on the proto area of the v3.00 board using the write-up on this thread:
That's exactly how I did mine.
On ms2/extra, the "dual wheel" setup could potentially have more accurate timing and dwell control than the missing tooth setup because it uses every tooth on the wheel to schedule dwell and spark timing. When you remove a tooth, any even that would've been scheduled from the tooth that's now gone has to be scheduled from the tooth before... at low revs, a quick change in rpm could result in later start of dwell or later spark than ideal.
It's also a lot easier for the code to sync with the dual wheel, and therefore the dual wheel can be less prone to noise issues.
Ken Ken - This makes perfect sense from a mathematical perspective. With a missing tooth, you're basically increasing the uncertainty of the measurement, and at low revs that uncertainty would be greater. At low RPM's the CAS shaft takes more time to rotate between teeth than it would at high revs, thus the timing error/uncertainty of any event the code is trying to schedule between teeth would have to increase.
Well I think I'm sold on the dual VR implementation based on this alone. Does the current extended MS-II code support the "dual wheel" setup?
Yep, also, as far as syncing goes, the missing tooth decoder does everything it can to find the missing tooth (fairly involved in itself), which means it waits until 1 tooth after the missing before it fully syncs (I wrote that code this way mostly for V8's with high compression... the engine speed changes dramatically while cranking, which can throw off more simple sync code). This means it syncs slower.
With the dual wheel, it's not looking for a missing tooth, it's just looking for the second trigger. As soon as it sees a second trigger, it resets the primary trigger count, and declares sync.
MS2/extra 1.0.2 is working great for rotary guys as of right now.
I have a couple of bugs to fix to make it work right for the 2.0 betas... but a fix will be in the next beta.
Ken

i know there have been questions after questions regarding the wheel offsets and what will fit the FD and so on but my question is a little different.
I posted this in another thread but am hoping this thread will get looked at sooner because I want to purchase some wheels over the weekend and need some thoughts.
i must be missing something. I did an oil change on my FD today and thought id take a look at my wheel offset, sizes and such and noticed that in front i have 17X8 +34 offset with 1"spacer...in the rear i have 17X9 +38 offset with a 1/2"spacer and the wheels fit fine with no rubbing on the fenders.
this is confusing to me because if i did my math right (i suck at math so if im wrong then please forgive me) that would mean that my front wheels would (with spacers) be at 17X8 +9 offset and the rear would be 17X9 +26 offset. Technically this is what my wheels are sitting at right? this is because i am using spacers so the point where my wheels mount are at +9 and +26 offset (im looking at it like the spacer is part of the wheel giving it the offset) am i completely wrong?
i am confused because i thought the factory offset was +50...which would mean that my current setup would not fit at all.....but it does and without any problems. any thoughts on this?
you are correct, factory offset is 50P with an 8" wide rim.
as for not rubbing on the fenders there are many other factors to consider....
how low is your car?
what alignment figures do you have? (more neg camber will increase clearence)
what size tyres do you have?
do you have aftermarket fenders?
you are correct with your thinking of spacers changing the offsets.
i have 40P wheels which are 8" wide but i do get rub on the front due to being extremely low

Obviously I forgot how to search because I can't find a basic wiring diagram and installation instructions.
I'm going to start some wiring today and want to make sure everything was originally hooked up right. The previous owner was a raging alcoholic so there's no telling what I'll find. :lol2:
Obviously I forgot how to search because I can't find a basic wiring diagram and installation instructions.

I'm going to start some wiring today and want to make sure everything was originally hooked up right. The previous owner was a raging alcoholic so there's no telling what I'll find. :lol2: http://www.haltech.com/downloads.htm
http://www.hitman.hm/installation.htm
http://bdc.cyberosity.com/v/Technical/Haltech/
B
Thanks dudes !
It seems my wire colors don't match the Haltech diagram. Well, atleast the injector wiring colors.