Ohhh my GOD!! Megasquirt goodness...

green_comet · Postby **green_comet** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:13 am

http://www.megasquirtpnp.com/

Around $700us for a full stand alone, plug and play ecu... :shock:

Fatty · Postby **Fatty** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:22 am

sweeeeeet.
i'd still prefer to save a few hundred and do it myself, but this is a good option for people that don't have the time or skills to build it for themselves.
great price for a full standalone plug and play too, really good.

green_comet · Postby **green_comet** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:48 am

but this is a good option for people that don't have the time or skills to build it for themselves.

No skills...sounds like me.. :mrgreen:

Im getting the 94-95 pnp Squirt as soon as it becomes available.. $700 for a full standalone, plug and play ecu. :shock:

With the base 1.6 tune its makes 10rwhp more than the link pnp ecu, and its half the price..

You can get rid of your afm, and use the built in map sensor.. I was thinking of going emanage ultimate, but not any more..

I think its great..

DOYLMX5 · Postby **DOYLMX5** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:38 am

Looks loverly and ever so enticing...
I think I may have to just keep the mex if I can get my cheap little hands on one of these

The Pupat · Postby **The Pupat** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:45 pm

Sweet 900 buck plus postage when you can spend 150 bucks more than get a microtech with local support and knowledge and more resolution. So where's the value in this again?

jules · Postby **jules** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:50 pm

The cost of building it yourself I would presume. That would bring the cost right down.

To quote Sabz.

\"Tonight I ordered the rest of my MegaSquirt stuff, which came to a total of US$248.75 including shipping and insurance. If you include the MegaStim (and shipping), the total amount I've spent on this so far is US$300.75. Pretty good value considering it's a standalone ECU that controls both ignition and fuel, plus other features like boost control, launch control, water injection control etc.

My order:
MegaSquirt-I PCB 3.0 unassembled kit with black case
IAC mod kit
DB9 cable
Component lead bending tool
\"

Jules

The Pupat · Postby **The Pupat** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:46 pm

depends how you value your time I suppose or how good you are with a soldering iron.

Brad · Postby **Brad** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:13 pm

lil_mike wrote:sorry guys, but those dyno results are fake.

your torque and power curves should always meet at precisely 5252rpm, regardless of any factors. so really, all four of the graphs should cross at the exact same point. the one with the stock ecu is fine, but the megasquirt one is rigged. they've modified the dyno formula and given it a higher figure on purpose.

i wouldnt trust them if they cant provide an accurate dyno reading. for all you know, it could hinder the performance of your car.

thats just my warning. you never know, it could be a good product.

That's assuming the power and torque figures are working off the same scaled Y coordinate value though.

green_comet · Postby **green_comet** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:18 pm

The Pupat wrote:Sweet 900 buck plus postage when you can spend 150 bucks more than get a microtech with local support and knowledge and more resolution. So where's the value in this again?

The microtech is not plug and play. You go ahead and pay $1050 for a ecu that you will then have to wire up, and tune $$$. I would rather just plug this in and have it startup from the get go running a good base map.

Bevan · Postby **Bevan** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:17 pm

lil_mike wrote:your torque and power curves should always meet at precisely 5252rpm, regardless of any factors.

Huh? Why?

Brad · Postby **Brad** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:23 pm

Bevan wrote:
lil_mike wrote:your torque and power curves should always meet at precisely 5252rpm, regardless of any factors.
Huh? Why?

It's true only if the power and torque vales are of the same scale and you are using kW and N/m.

Rob E · Postby **Rob E** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:29 pm

Brad wrote:
Bevan wrote:
lil_mike wrote:your torque and power curves should always meet at precisely 5252rpm, regardless of any factors.
Huh? Why?

It's true only if the power and torque vales are of the same scale and you are using kW and N/m.

Yep, and as expected those yanks are using Hp and ft lbs......who woulda thort!

Brad · Postby **Brad** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:31 pm

Rob E wrote:
Brad wrote:
Bevan wrote:
lil_mike wrote:your torque and power curves should always meet at precisely 5252rpm, regardless of any factors.
Huh? Why?

It's true only if the power and torque vales are of the same scale and you are using kW and N/m.

Yep, and as expected those yanks are using Hp and ft lbs......who woulda thort!

Not sure of my imperial conversions, but I think HP is derived from ft/lbs to it might still be relevant.

BTW I'm not making judgement on the graph either way.

jules · Postby **jules** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:41 pm

Isn't it more important that an ECU can control all the various fuel and spark systems etc?

Wouldn't the dyno result be the same if 2 different ECU's were set up the same map wise?

Jules

adamjp · Postby **adamjp** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:18 pm

HP is a calculated figure with no basis in reality.

It is calculated by torque (measured) multiplied by rpm (measured) divided by the magic number.

The magic number is 5252.

Sir James Watt came up with the idea when horses were horses, etc.

A primer from the fine research library of Google.
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html