KPower Industries K24 swap

[Ebush]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Shouldn’t the TPS to AFR map be the same regardless? The difference with DBW is a person could modify the throttle position to be different than the accelerator position in a way where they are not 1:1. Like a cable system would be linked to the accelerator in a 1:1 ratio, but airflow through the throttle body wouldn’t be 1:1 because of the nature of airflow being greater in the middle and less towards the end of throttle opening, but DBW can be set up to deliver a linear feeling to airflow through the throttle body, and that requires a more exponential input curve for throttle body opening relative to the linear accelerator input. Regardless, AFR at 80% throttle should always be the same, right?

Were you altering the map or just looking at an identical map with a different value? Sorry, I haven’t dug into the software yet, or I would look myself. Still fabricating.

We do not have a cable throttle body, so we don’t have a cable tps. We do have Dbw tps though. Any map that had cable tps as the reference, it would stay at 0 the entire time since it’s non existent.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by captain awesome

Before I plugged in the Trac Box it seemed to be as invasive as it was stock in all of the various settings. Didn’t drive that many miles before the box though and I have it set to pedal dance mode at all times.

Stability control saved my life onetime, so I like that more than traction control. I had the airbag light on for a steering angle position failure and drove around without any nannies on, and it was more enjoyable and better mannered, but when you really need it, stability control is excellent.

[captain awesome]

Originally Posted by Ebush

We do not have a cable throttle body, so we don’t have a cable tps. We do have Dbw tps though. Any map that had cable tps as the reference, it would stay at 0 the entire time since it’s non existent.

I don't know the difference between the two but I could see the table move just fine under both cable or DBW when revving at a stand still. Haven't driven since changing though.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Ebush

We do not have a cable throttle body, so we don’t have a cable tps. We do have Dbw tps though. Any map that had cable tps as the reference, it would stay at 0 the entire time since it’s non existent.

A TPS is a TPS, which is different than a throttle actuator, right? TPS should read a value if there is a change in throttle position. Are you saying you have had no change in throttle position, or that your AFR was running constant all the time, or are you saying the TPS is value has been zero, but the algorithm is using other maps/data and throwing out this outlier?

[Ebush]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

A TPS is a TPS, which is different than a throttle actuator, right? TPS should read a value if there is a change in throttle position. Are you saying you have had no change in throttle position, or that your AFR was running constant all the time, or are you saying the TPS is value has been zero, but the algorithm is using other maps/data and throwing out this outlier?

Car won’t run without the Dbw pedal and throttle body being calibrated. What I’m saying is that the AFR map was referencing a tps that was non existent. Cable tps and drive by wire tps aren’t the same. The AFR map uses rpm and throttle position to determine the correct AFR. With it set to the cable tps the way kpower had it, the table saying in the 0% column and just moved up and down with rpm. Never left that section. The column does have some fluctuations in the AFR based on rpm, but it’s not at all relative to what it should be with the correct tps selected.

And on your note about stability control saving you one time, that’s good I guess. But for me, stability control on the 86 caused me to wreck. Car barely got sideways, went to correct, the car also corrected, therefore sending me into an instant 360 flying off the road with no way to regain control. If it hadn’t stepped in and did whatever it did, the car would have just straightened out and been fine. For that reason the car now has no abs, traction control, or stability control. I am the driver, I should be in control.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Ebush

Car won’t run without the Dbw pedal and throttle body being calibrated. What I’m saying is that the AFR map was referencing a tps that was non existent. Cable tps and drive by wire tps aren’t the same. The AFR map uses rpm and throttle position to determine the correct AFR. With it set to the cable tps the way kpower had it, the table saying in the 0% column and just moved up and down with rpm. Never left that section. The column does have some fluctuations in the AFR based on rpm, but it’s not at all relative to what it should be with the correct tps selected.

And on your note about stability control saving you one time, that’s good I guess. But for me, stability control on the 86 caused me to wreck. Car barely got sideways, went to correct, the car also corrected, therefore sending me into an instant 360 flying off the road with no way to regain control. If it hadn’t stepped in and did whatever it did, the car would have just straightened out and been fine. For that reason the car now has no abs, traction control, or stability control. I am the driver, I should be in control.

https://support.haltech.com/portal/e...-by-wire-elite

Info. I’m just trying to reconcile what you have said before that the tune was fine and felt strong such that you didn’t need a tune, but now you are saying the AFR is virtually flat to redline because a AFR map was calibrated against a cable TPS, which is 0. Sounds like there is a lot of room for improvement in reliability and/or power of the car if all this is the case.

The stability control system does things that a driver could not; it can brake individual wheels. In my case, my car broke loose at 75 in wet conditions, and I started going sideways with zero traction. The right rear brake was applied aggressively by the system, which caused the car to straighten out and overshoot, and then the left front engaged gently, and the car straightened out. I was pointed straight at the barrier at one point, so had the car gained traction at that point under my control then it would have gone into the wall. The obvious disadvantage of the system is that the system is designed to straighten the car on the trajectory the inertial/g sensors determine the car is headed, and I don’t think it will override driver inputs, so braking or steering may nullify the system like in your case. In my case, I allowed the system to just make corrections, so within a few seconds I was back in my lane and heading straight again. It reacted faster and recognized the problem faster than I could. It obviously isn’t good for racing or drifting applications, and I don’t like it for low speeds in dry conditions, but moderate to high speeds in wet and high speeds in dry, I prefer to have it, especially for a 400whp 2800lb car. If this doesn’t have it then it is what it is.

[Irace86.2.0]

I took a chance on the Russian lift spacers for the strut bar. 15mm would probably be ideal, but 20 mm is what I got instead of the 10mm, and it should clear. Says they will come in February.

[Ebush]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://support.haltech.com/portal/e...-by-wire-elite

Info. I’m just trying to reconcile what you have said before that the tune was fine and felt strong such that you didn’t need a tune, but now you are saying the AFR is virtually flat to redline because a AFR map was calibrated against a cable TPS, which is 0. Sounds like there is a lot of room for improvement in reliability and/or power of the car if all this is the case.

The stability control system does things that a driver could not; it can brake individual wheels. In my case, my car broke loose at 75 in wet conditions, and I started going sideways with zero traction. The right rear brake was applied aggressively by the system, which caused the car to straighten out and overshoot, and then the left front engaged gently, and the car straightened out. I was pointed straight at the barrier at one point, so had the car gained traction at that point under my control then it would have gone into the wall. The obvious disadvantage of the system is that the system is designed to straighten the car on the trajectory the inertial/g sensors determine the car is headed, and I don’t think it will override driver inputs, so braking or steering may nullify the system like in your case. In my case, I allowed the system to just make corrections, so within a few seconds I was back in my lane and heading straight again. It reacted faster and recognized the problem faster than I could. It obviously isn’t good for racing or drifting applications, and I don’t like it for low speeds in dry conditions, but moderate to high speeds in wet and high speeds in dry, I prefer to have it, especially for a 400whp 2800lb car. If this doesn’t have it then it is what it is.

Car felt healthy and AFR was mostly good. But I hadn’t done any 4th gear pulls from like 2k-8k until a few days ago. The AFR map was adjusting the target AFR slightly, but only based on rpm. So it was something like 14.7 up to 3k, and maybe 12.9 from 3-10k. So it wasn’t horrible, but was able to be much better and precise with correct sensor selected.

The stability control is definitely meant for someone to just sit back when they “lose control”. But I’m not that person, therefore it caused some damage to my car. Was only doing 35mph around a corner and it just barely lost traction in the wet. Was a smooth corner with tons of room. I barely reacted to it because of how mild it was, but my input plus the cars input put me into a 360 or maybe even a couple. It may save someones life, but could have cost me mine all because I was aware of what was happening and reacted. Due to that situation I’ll continue to drive unsafe 90’s shitboxes for the rest of my life. Plus my 86 with everything deleted. Just sucks that we live in a world where everyone is either so clueless or distracted that the cars need to be able to brake, turn, and drive for us.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Ebush

Car felt healthy and AFR was mostly good. But I hadn’t done any 4th gear pulls from like 2k-8k until a few days ago. The AFR map was adjusting the target AFR slightly, but only based on rpm. So it was something like 14.7 up to 3k, and maybe 12.9 from 3-10k. So it wasn’t horrible, but was able to be much better and precise with correct sensor selected.

The stability control is definitely meant for someone to just sit back when they “lose control”. But I’m not that person, therefore it caused some damage to my car. Was only doing 35mph around a corner and it just barely lost traction in the wet. Was a smooth corner with tons of room. I barely reacted to it because of how mild it was, but my input plus the cars input put me into a 360 or maybe even a couple. It may save someones life, but could have cost me mine all because I was aware of what was happening and reacted. Due to that situation I’ll continue to drive unsafe 90’s shitboxes for the rest of my life. Plus my 86 with everything deleted. Just sucks that we live in a world where everyone is either so clueless or distracted that the cars need to be able to brake, turn, and drive for us.

I don’t think people have changed all that much. There are more distractions, but cars are also taller, heavier/lumbering, and we drive far faster than people did in the past. Most economy cars have more horsepower and are faster than sports cars of the past.

I personally like an analog experience, which is why I drive manuals, and I like my mechanical aids like the LSD or would prefer aero over electronic aids like a DCT or electronic traction aids—to a point. Most electronic aids are intrusive, but not all, and although many factory aids get turned off at the track, there is a reason why racing teams use aids like ABS, TC, DSC, wheelie control, automatic systems for shifting, clutch release, boost control, launch control, injection control or whatever or why some motorsports ban aids—they work. They aren’t superfluous that are just for those that lack skill is all I am saying, and I suppose a driver with any aid would need to know how to work with it than against it, which is a skillset in itself I suppose, or just a knowledge set like knowing not to pulse brakes when driving a car with ABS.

I see that Haltech offers several aids. What I would like is to engage DSC if it had it in some automatic way at speeds in excess of 55 or something.

I like this video because a competent driver tries to fight the spin with DSC, and then he allows DSC to fix things, and then does nothing to show a raw spin. I would have liked to see a version with it off and with him trying to control the spin, even though he knows it is coming. My guess is DSC would still be better.

[Four_wheel_drifts]

That system put me into the trees after what would/should have been a fixable moment - one that I’ve saved countless times before in other cars. So it’s beastronix or tracbox 100% of the time for me.

Even on snow and ice, with blizzaks, I’m much better at controlling my FRS than the crappy ‘13 traction/stability control system.

Kswap content: read on FB forum that Gerald’s tracbox works with the kpower haltech kit.

P.S. I’ve driven a ‘17 with the performance package on Pacific Raceways. The OE system is quite good. Didn’t take it to the limit or past since it wasn't my car, so I don’t know how it performs when lives matter.

[ML]

I did this last year, and its all manual and has a front/rear bias. Its not scary at all, and takes quite a bit to actually lock them up.

[Ebush]

Originally Posted by ML

I did this last year, and its all manual and has a front/rear bias. Its not scary at all, and takes quite a bit to actually lock them up.

I’m still on the stock pedal assembly and booster, I just deleted the abs unit and made all new lines for the engine bay with an adjustable proportioning valve. So far everything’s great for me. I am able to lock up fairly easy, but I’m running carbotech xp10’s and all seasons with cold pavement. I’m sure I’d be fine if I had stock pads, or if it was summer and I was running a stickier tire. Haven’t locked them up in normal conditions yet though, only if I actually slam on the brakes.

[ML]

Originally Posted by Ebush

I’m still on the stock pedal assembly and booster, I just deleted the abs unit and made all new lines for the engine bay with an adjustable proportioning valve. So far everything’s great for me. I am able to lock up fairly easy, but I’m running carbotech xp10’s and all seasons with cold pavement. I’m sure I’d be fine if I had stock pads, or if it was summer and I was running a stickier tire. Haven’t locked them up in normal conditions yet though, only if I actually slam on the brakes.

Have you seen the chase bays new 6:1 brake booster delete? Seems like it may be a good option for you.

[Ebush]

Originally Posted by ML

Have you seen the chase bays new 6:1 brake booster delete? Seems like it may be a good option for you.

I may have went that route had they came out a year ago. The next upgrade on my civic is planned to be a larger type r booster/master with new lines, so maybe I’ll give that chase bays part a try instead. Another company makes a booster delete for the civic that gives it a higher ratio as well, but maintains single piston and people seem to love it. I like the added benefit of separating the front/rear.