Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

would change AFRs aka just dump in more fuel making the car richer.

that's that i would guess for $12.

Exactly. Tricks the car into thinking it's colder, therefore dumping more fuel into the engine. Will it work? Marginally. Is it terrible for your engine? Well...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344550-what-is-this/#findComment-5553410
Share on other sites

It changes the signal for the coolant temp sensor not the air temp.

But yeah...cant see it doing anything other than washing all the oil off the bores and ass raping your engine with a pineapple attached to a jousting stick.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344550-what-is-this/#findComment-5553795
Share on other sites

It will modify any standard ECU by telling the ECU that the incoming air in the intake system is cold

description makes it sound like it's for a air intake temp sensor.

you could essentially just unplug your coolant temp sensor though. will have the same effect. the thing is though, on long trips it may really affect fuel economy if the resisitor in the little box (that's all they are) made the ecu think the engine temp was so low that it ignored the o2 sensor and just ran on the cold start enrichment maps.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344550-what-is-this/#findComment-5554012
Share on other sites

also won't work on rb20 or rb25 powered cars as they don't have an intake air temp sensor.

i'd also like to know how adding in more fuel (which they say happens in the explanation) equals better fuel economy, lol

I knocked my temp sensor off one day to the ECU, car wasn't too happy about it once warmed up.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344550-what-is-this/#findComment-5554024
Share on other sites

It could and has worked before.. you just gotta know what it actually tries to do so you don't expect too much.

Generally these resistor/chip/box mods will tap into the coolant temp sensor and lower/raise the resistance value fed into the ecu (depending on the type of sensor you have - some go higher when hotter whereas some go lower when hotter), then once the ecu picks up that the car is supposedly running in a cool environment, it will advance the ignition timing to suit equaling more power.

The main thing it depends on is your OEM ecu having ignition timing advance for colder situations - if the ecu has that and you install this crap correctly, then it will work to an extent.. much like driving some bog stock normal car in 10degree night weather vs a hot summer day (taking into account the air is less o2 rich during your testing the device vs driving during a really cold night and also heatsoak).

You can potentially save fuel by having to be on the gas a little less going up hills or maintaining speed etc as your car will have slightly more torque so you do not need to depress the throttle as much as before the 'mod'.

Long as you have basic electronics understanding, how car systems/ecu works etc, you can do this for a couple of bucks (buy a pot to see which resistance value gives best results then buy a simple resistor in that value).

While it may seem like i'm giving this a good rep.. nope not at all (not saying it won't work either because done right it will as long as your ecu has timing advance for colder running situations, a coolant temp sensor and a conservative factory tune). But it's sometimes nice to know the theory behind things.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344550-what-is-this/#findComment-5563746
Share on other sites

most ecu's add more fuel when cold, as well as possibly adding more timing, so when at full throttle you will use more fuel, and when cruising you may simply use the same amount of fuel. all in all though, you would normally see worse fuel economy with something like this. i've had cars with dodgy thermostats making the car run cooler and fuel economy was better once the thermostat was replaced.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344550-what-is-this/#findComment-5563937
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...