83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

I don’t think that anyone ever said that the stock maf will not flow enough. A ported stock maf will flow just under 700 cfm, which is enough to support over 500hp (or much more then that if you’re running a supercharger and blowing through the maf). But it won’t measure anywhere near that airflow. The more you hog the maf out (which results in lower readings) the more HP it will be able to meter for, but the fact is that you’ll never be able to meter more then 300-350hp with it, if that.

Messing with the PE is fine for a 400hp car, I’d bet that 95% of people will never know that there is a small spot where it is going rich, but it gets pretty marginal much above that, since you are basically dealing with a normal fuel curve till you hit 255 and then you pretty much go full rich.

If however (especially in that boosted application) you could get it to linearly add fuel in PE, even if you’re not matching it to a specific airflow you could probably get it to work fairly well for even very high hp levels…

Kingtal0n

since the MAF goes by how "hard" it is to keep the little wire at a certain tempeurture... wouldnt it be possible to trick the wire into getting hotter (add voltage or amps) to keep the wire hotter after it goes "Static" that way you can begin to measure voltage ( i think its 0-5V?) after the point you max out?

or better yet, how about when the maf hits 5V we have a switch or relay cut it in half and double the voltage at the wire so we now have a linear 2.5-5V at half the resolution from before?

does ANY of that make sense? do you even get what im saying?

edit: ok research has happened.. it wont work because the ECU only reads 0-5V so when the change occured it would lean out because youve tuned your maf table for 0-255G/s,

so if our limit is 0-5V how about a little box that automatically cuts the voltage going from the MAF to the ECU in HALF...

you would always have half the resolution but you would be able to control twice the airflow based on your new tables...

that would work, if everything ive read is true.

Damon

SkiDownIt....

Yes- that's it exactly. That's exactly my expereince. It takes a CRAPLOAD of power to really max things out and start going lean, at least in my very limited expereince.

Our 400 HP motor had a very flat A/F ratio reading from the dyno's O2 sensors- even as we were getting in the upper RPMs near the 255 limit. Very little ramping up or down. We were within .2 A/F at all points in the run.

I don't claim any expertise in this area at all. Certainly not in chip programming. I just know that it got the job done without any "trickery" or super-special chip programming. It was a "bolt-it-together and run" kinda situation.

I think that the issue of "losing resolution" or whatever you want to call it is really over-hyped unless you're making big power. Even when you get near the limit or go slightly past it you really don't go too far wrong. Yeah, you might start going lean but only by a little bit for a very small RPM range. It's not like the injectors just "shut off" or cut their flow in half if you max out the MAF. There's still the chip's hard-coded fuel maps. The ECM seems to use the fuel maps and then TRIM the final pulse width based on the MAF readings. It's not like it's a "wall" or anything drastic like that.

OK, now I AM way over my head. That's my expereince with MAF, for what it's worth.

ski_dwn_it

Damon,

Actually you have everything Correct, But not many cars if any will go past 255 limit, without being in PE. As I explained when that happens you actually have an overly rich state, NOT lean. You see you are adding the amount of fuel needed for WOT (more air) but since your not quite to WOT (less air) but the WOT amount of fuel, you wind up being rich.

BUt your are Absolutely right about it being over hyped. I have shown AFR, dyno results, etc etc. From my setup, yet people still say it can't be possible. My AFR does EXACTLY whatever I want it to at WOT, and for what its worth I could care less about being a little rich in an area I spend about 2% of my time in while driving.

You say your a novice, but trust me, I have been here a long while you get more than people that have been here from "The begining. As I think you said earlier. They did not get the results they wanted so they blaim it on the MAF, yet even after the SD swap, where are the results. Proof of dramitic change? That is right. There are NONE.

Kudo to you and your quick assesment of things! :hail:

TRAXION

Just wanted to note a couple things ...

1) Newbies please keep in mind that if you don't see 255 on your scanner that does NOT mean that you are not maxing the electronics. The ECM has a table which limits the max g/s vs. RPM. You need to set this table to the 255 max in order to REALLY determine at what RPM you are maxing the MAF
2) As pointed out - the MAF can flow a lot of air. You MUST port the MAF if you want to reach high levels of power.
3) The AFR is easily controlled at WOT via the Power Enrichment tables.

It's all about air and fuel. The MAF can flow the air when ported. The ECM can supply the necessary fuel when in Power Enrichment mode.

Tim

camarojoe

Wow, there finally seems to be some closure to this whole MAF ordeal. Good job, guys on explaining how the MAF interaction w/ the ECM works. I've read many MAF/SD articles on the DIY boards and I really didn't feel like putting some of you guys' hard work and tuning efforts into my own words to explain how MAF is usually not the problem when hp levels are short.

So, B4Ctom, have you gotten anywhere w/ your car yet, as far as figuring out where some of your hp went? I'm looking foward to knowing how much you gain from tuning your chip.

B4Ctom1

Nope I keep buying stuff that dont work in an effort to get my ECM to communicate to my newer laptop. I found a PCMCIA serial card that looks promising. Im using moates program and cable. I made the cable work on my pals antique 75 Mhz processor with an extension cord but he needed it back. When I hit "1" data starts coming from the cable but there is some sort of setting problem that I am not knowledgable enough to resolve.

I have made very extensive post about my efforts here:

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=194677

coolcorkvette1

hey i just found this thread it is all to funny but my car went a 10.94 today at 1000 ft da

camarojoe

Wow, you ran a 10.94 eh? That's darn impressive. Don't you have the exact same setup as Ski? You know that guy that never knows what he's talking about..*sarcasm*

coolcorkvette1

YEP ME AND SKI HAVE THE EXACT SAME MOTOR COMBO HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF INSTALLING A LITTLE MORE CONVERTER TO BRING IT UP TO THE SAME SPEC CONVERTER THATS IN MY CAR AND THE CARS SHOULD BE WITH IN HUNDRUDS OR THOSANDTHS APART THEN

coolcorkvette1

hey camaro joe i noticed you had a 383 combo going togather
i am redoing another vette with a 383 over the winter iam going to make it the same exact combo as mine and skis except for the cubes now mine and skis are box stock 190 cfm heads and the guy with the 383 has 195s which we are going to send out for the comp port job done to them so i think the little better heads will offset our cubic inch advantage so i think it should run identicle with less cubes well we will see ill keep you posted

ski_dwn_it

Coolcork....

After your done with the motor, and I with the tune on old Jim's car.

Hell we will have to make sure we have the "jumper cables" ready for Jim when he comes back after rippin off a low 11s pass.

383 crankin off low 11s should be pretty impressive in full trim....

Camarojoe, I would follow our lead on this one... the only downfall is some here will call you a COPY CAT But they won't be able to say much more. :lala:

camarojoe

Good luck with that 383 Corky. I do think that it will be down on tq compared to yours and Ski's, cause of the bigger int. runners and smaller bore, but like you said it will probably make more hp, which will equal similart 1/4 times. I think the secret or better yet reason you guys' vettes run so well is because of your solid rollers. I'd love to run one, but I have a good set of hyd lifters I don't want to waste, a rev kit, and a zzx cam that is going to be straightened out so I can run it. If I can keep the valves from floating there's no reason I should make less than 400rwhp. Since I have the ported 210's, I don't really see whey I should go back to the SR even though I liked it. Also I'll be running the MR so you guys won't be able to call me a copycat!

coolcorkvette1

camaro joe i am not trying to sway you in any way i am just informing you on what i am trying to achieve my thoughts on a street strip car like we are building the stroke of that torque matters more than the bore does and that is why i am saying the 383 will be closer than people think hell i said for a long time that i would rather have the 396 stroker than these 406 motors ill bet they will out run them this is my opinion you can take it or leave it

87_TA

B4CTOM , Don't sweat the dyno #'s so much..
Besides on a stock prom thats not even that bad I don't think.

Also you seem to have a pretty nice combo there, The cam may be a little on the "too big" side especially because your intake cannot support the rpm that cam will want to pull.
I think you will be ok with the Pro heads as well, a 200cc runner is not going to hurt a large cube engine that much - but it also wants a higher RPM intake.
I also see things in this thread stating - "That 412 should be"
like its a huge stroker - its just a .060 over 400 thats all.
So if that block were under my combo it may make 7 more assuming 1.2 HP per cube best case scenario...........

Do I think you should be in the 10's easy - heck no!!
I am very happy to report last sunday my car ran 11.2 @ 122 three times in a row.... Through single exhaust, on dot tire,on pump gas
through a Mini ram and with a 3000 stall converter.
Ohh yeah and I drive it 1 hr to and from track..
Does the combo have more left in it - You bet! If I were not scared to sacrifice the great (street manners) I would put in a 3800-4000 stall and very well run 10.9-11.0.

Was it easy for me to get the car there - no way man! my first pass of the year was 12.6 ouch!
Keep your combo and work with it - sometimes people make it sound so easy, just follow the recipe - - not so.
Some people were fortunate enough to follow someone elses combo that took him along time to optimize.. (Not putting anybody down for that either) its a good thing.
I wish I had that when I started.

As for the Dyno results , if you saw the ones I just got from a porta mustang dyno you would probably laugh.

87_TA

In my opinion there are Pro's and cons to a solid roller, you lose the parastitic drag of hyd rollers always having some pressure on the cam - but with a solid running higher RPM like me and you Joe we must run high spring pressure to not float valves.
Currently my springs are 490lbs over the nose, over winter I'm going to put in .050 offset locks to try and cut down some of that
excessive pressure and hopefully free up some HP.
But anyway the hyd roller I just removed from my car worked pretty good for me - I trapped 120 with that cam and that was before I put long tubes on, So i'm pretty confident that I would still have trapped 122mph where I am now with that cam.

camarojoe

B4Ctom, what dyno did you get those #'s from?

87_TA, what were your dyno #'s on that crappy mustang dyno?
Now as for springs, I'm going to run the same zzx hyd roller. I did though just found out that Lethalracer had installed solid roller springs in my car before I bought it, and used them with the zzx cam!! What an idiot! These springs measured 226lbs of seat pressure closed. The max for a hyd roller spring is 140lbs. The came lobes appear like they've been gouged from the roller lifter, it looks like it dug in from all of that pressure. Luckily you can't feel an indentation and the cam is fine. The bad thing is that my $300 roller lifters, may not have much life in them because of this. I don't see why the guy didn't just put in a solid roller if he wanted to rev to 6700rpms. Most of the lifters checked out okay, but one felt like it sand in the roller, which means that the metal's been crused some. I think it will work, but it may go soon.

The springs I went with are Comp springs, with 132lbs of pressure when closed at 1.9" lift. 87_ta, what springs did you runwith your hyd roller?

87_TA

Joe my car dynoed 350 HP @ 6000 / 349 @ 4750
My springs were 132 @ 1.920 340 @ .550 lift.
I don't think you need to worry about the rollers but the bladder
is what would get damaged.
You know that you can use solid lifters with a hyd cam , I see Solids on Ebay for $100 from scat. Then you could keep those springs and run the RPM with no problem. But you have to set the lash tight .012 or less hot.

Kingtal0n

<b>You know that you can use solid lifters with a hyd cam , I see Solids on Ebay for $100 from scat. Then you could keep those springs and run the RPM with no problem. But you have to set the lash tight .012 or less hot.</b>


Are you serious? I have solid roller lifters.. but i was gonna go all out solid roller...

but if i can use these on a hyd. cam... well i would save $200 at the very least...

how come no one else has mentioned this?!!

camarojoe

87, Wow that dyno must figure 40% drivetrain loss. Yeah the bladders are fine, they don't give any when you push down on the roller, that is the other part I was told to check for when checking roller lifters. It sounds like your springs were similar to the ones I'm going to run. I have the Comp # 950-1 springs. I'm trying to find the other specs for them, but I can't find the info. You said I can run solid lifters, what do you mean? I'm running a hydraulic roller, and you are not supposed to run solid roller springs.

B4Ctom1

Dynojet with brand new software. Im a dynojet believer.

87_TA

Yep totally serious,
Why no one mentioned is probably because everybody assumes - I guess I like to push the envelope a little - its a small block Chevy, everything is the same.

You can Joe,
You are not supposed to run solid roller springs with a HYD lifter.
If you call comp they will confirm if you get a good tech.
Thats like alot of people think you can not use a late cam in a early block because of the nose on the cam. But all you have to do is run a thrust washer.
If you run a solid lifter all you lose is the steep ramps of a solid cam.

The Only reason

ski_dwn_it

87_TA,

Do you mean by this statement solid cam? or solid roller cam?


Also Cork said he saw you car this past weekend and said that you did not have the seats in it....how much did they weight? A buddy of our has his out of this car and we were trying to figure out the weight of his car.....also...How the hell you getting away with not having a roll bar and safety stuff in that car? First time I broke sub 11.5s they were on me like flyies on crap.

We should be there this weekend if you can make it...

camarojoe

I'm not trying to really argue here, but I talked to a race shop, they told me 140lbs seat pressure is the max for a hyd. roller cam, period. Then then called their own exp. tech. guy at Comp and he confirmed this. You are NOT supposed to run solid roller springs, if they're as strong as mine were, with a hydraulic roller cam. It will ruin the lifters, and possible wear on the cam lobes, my cam shows signs of this. Sorry If I made this confusing above.

87_TA

Joe your race shop is right Re-read my post!
I said you can run "SOLID ROLLER LIFTERS" on a hyd ROLLER cam
I did not say run solid springs with HYD lifters!
I had been looking into running solid lifters on my old HYD cam,
I called comp and he said I could but you have to run the lash tight to not lose the lift and duration the cam was designed for...................

SKI, I was saying that a solid roller has more aggresive ramps than a HYD roller - They are made that way to not float the heavy lifters and light spring pressure.
As for the seats SKI, The one passenger and the 2 rears only weighed 60 lbs all together. The passenger seat weighed 39lbs.
As for the cage..... Shhhh
Well I want to get back there but it is not looking like work is going to permit - but I have one vacation day left so we will see.
Plus I really want to get my 82 back again.

camarojoe

87_TA, thanks for pointing out my stupidity, or I mean tiredness. I though you meant solid lifter (springs). But I clearly see that I misread your post. Man, I gotta start sleeping more, I'm doing this too often lately (misreading). I won't doubt you again brotha.

Grumpy

Lets see the MAF system loses being able to calculate the air flow at 255 gm/sec. and the rpm steps for correcting the timing and fuel stop at 4,800 rpm.

MAP fully scales to 100% of the load / air flow possible, and the rpm corrections for timing and fuel go to 5,600.

And Mark Jackson picked up .2 and 4 MPH with the same ecm but switching code to go from MAF to MAP. But, that's just a 9.4 car.

ski_dwn_it

Gumpy,

That is all fine and dandy, but how many people have stall converters above 4800 RPM here? You know as well as I do, in nearly every application it nearly always is best to have all your timing come in at the same as your stall speed......so timing control above that is really pointless. Also cruising around town streets etc at 4800+ RPM is a little out of the norm as well. SO please....

As for the fully scaled to 100%, well I guess that is infact again true, but I go back to my simple scenerio of power, throttle position, and PE. If you can't understand that its really all irrelevant, then I guess its pointless to keep pointing out the obvious to someone that just doesn't care to agree to disagree.

Great for Mark Jackson....now lets put into perspective what you just said and realize that anyone can point out other setup, I just saw a car two weeks ago , mustang (yuck) that went 8.7s with a SC the size of my engine...running thru a maf meter. So there are always other setups that are quicker....lets get back to the point though. Mark picked up .2 sec so your telling me he ran 9.6 through a MAF meter....right? So then why the F would someone with a 13 sec car need to convert to SD.....*** you just can't seem to put the logical 2+2 together...you yourself just said that MAF supported 9.6 sec car!

Yeah I know you never said it couldn't support big power....then why point out that he picked up .2 sec?

The bottom line is 95% of the guys here, including yourself wouldn't know the difference in feel/power between your perfect ideal tune you always talk of, so why over complicate matters. Sure SD has more bells and whistles, and 90% of the people tuning here don't fully understand the parameters they already have, or car to adjust them.

If you have SD then fine.....if you have MAF then fine.....but don't kid yourself into thinking the above things you pointed out are really all that great of advantages....because in REALITY they really do not matter.....unless of course you can tell me truthfully that you continually need spark control above 4800RPM, that the default value can't give you, which means driving for extended periods of time above that RPM....Even through the 1/4 mile your onlt there for a breif period of time...which again I go back to stall converter techniques..Controlling air above 4800RPM....again how often does that happen, and if it does your not in PE? and if so, how much power do you think that kills (maybe 5-8 hp) on a 350rwhp car (big whoop).

And claims about other cars that you haven't a thing to do with,,,,well that is like me taking credit for John Force's wins this season...I can talk all I want.....but it really doesn't hold too much weight.

OMINOUS_87

Grumpy

I am looking to swap from MAF to SD. Most likely the 165 to 730 swap is the way I will go, if I can find a 730. But what about the code swapping or what not, I have no idea what is possible with the 165, can you shed some light?

Also here is a killer article from PH this month. Talks a whole bunch about compression and cylinder temps. Kinda off topic but I bet alot of people here would be interested.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tec...power_squeeze/

SATURN5

Well other than writing the MAP code for it... But your not interested in such things as rewriting code, and test benches.

But whatever....

BW

B4Ctom1

Good news, I finally got a laptop that scans (3rd try i$ the charm). After about a minute or two of scanning tpi_roc is checking it out and decides my knock counts are a little too high. Well the block drains were damaged on this block so I mounted the ESC sensor on a bolt with a short fitting and screwed it into the front of the head. All of the valvetrain noise had it up to 155 knock counts in like 1 minute. I quickly relocated it to the block and knock counts are now between 1 and 15 over a long duration of time. The moral of this story is that the timing was so far retarded it was overheating my engine and stealing all of my power.

With some help from tpi_roc I had a base chip for the ride that was so close that this beast is straining the motor mounts hard enough to make the SLP exhaust touch the underside of the car. This is a whole other beast already and the fun is just beginning.

Shaneo

What exactly is the 255 gm/sec limitation stemming from. From 0 to 255 is 256 unique values, which coincidently is the the exact size of 1 byte of information (8 bits in a byte, two possible values for each bit, so 2 to the power 8 gives 256 possible values in one byte of info).

Forgive me if this has been covered before somewhere. But is this 1 byte limitation then something to do with the hardware of the ecm (ie: 1 byte registers) or is it just a consequence of the programming in the ecm (ie: something that a little assembler programming can fix, and now you see where I'm going with this).

I'd like to look into this, if someone can give me some info, it would be much appreciated. thanks

B4Ctom1

I would completely suggest that you cut and paste a few key parts of this thread as a "quote" and make a new thread in the "DIY prom" board here so that they could give you a definitive answer.

OMINOUS_87

You will find extensive info on this subject over in the DIY PROM board. However you have basically hit the nail on the head. The sensor will run out of resolution at 255 gps, however when PE is envoked it doesnt really matter BC fueling will be controlled by your PE fuel add tables.

In a nutshell your ECM will be limited to fueling with accuracy ~350 HP in open loop, around there 255 will be reached and resolution runs out.

Shaneo

k, thanks for the info, and the quick reply. I'll head over there and start reading.

camarojoe

Thanks for the update B4C, I was still wondering from time to time if you had found out what was causing you to lose hp. You'll probably gain around 100hp without even touching the chip. I'm surprised the car even ran, Geez. Can't wait to see the new dyno readings.

B4Ctom1

we'll see, not 100 yet, the old a s s dyno tells me that much. but, there is definitely more to come and it has already made a huge jump.

gta324

Any news yet, Would love to hear the results. My 415 will be ready within a few weeks then its tuning time.........

/N.

B4Ctom1

nothing as of yet, just running a whole better all the time. Knock counts went from maxed out at 255 to 8 or 9 now (more normal) I am actually contemplating taking it to the track tomorrow (bandemere 5800 feet) for a test and tune if work time allows. What cam are you running?

B4Ctom1

went to the one today instead of yesterday. After three passes they closed up for the day 3 hours early due to wind. I guess it is ok because it was actually raining little pebbles on my car from the wind picking them up and dropping them. the gusts were blowing the 55 gal drums accross the pits.

the pics and movies can be seen here (not dialup friendly)

http://outlawperformance.com/images/...4-18test-tune/

Summary:

I ran

13.637 @ 99.82
13.763 @ 100.43
13.672 @ 101.01

altitude corrected per http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html to Bandemere Speedway in Denver's 5800 feet:

12.825@105.44
12.944@106.84
12.858@106.69

if you look at the top of the time slips you can see the Baro pressure.

I have barely tuned this thing. I have finally got a laptop that scans and I am beginning to grasp the software but I have a ways to go until it is tuned. I am including the scans of my first and third runs and my current tune on my 730 bin in that file above if anyone cares to look at it (why I don't know except to laugh!)

OMINOUS_87

Rock on brotha!

Stay away from the big-cube Pizza Box clan!!!

I had my SR 385 out to the track for the first time also on FRI.

All the details:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=236033

The essentials:
R/T____________.846
60'____________1.943
330'___________5.282
1/8_____8.079@87.91
1000'_________10.489
1/4___12.527@113.55

gta324

I will be running NX276 with 1.6 RR retarded 5 deg, i think..

/N.

B4Ctom1

using just his 1/4 mile time (corrected) on a site with a hp to weight calculation I came up with:

http://www.campbellenterprises.com/R...o%20calculator

"The camaro weighs 3625 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in 12.825 seconds. That means that you've got an estimated 339.64 HP at the wheels, and an estimated 441.54 HP at the flywheel."

or

http://www.mustangworks.com/analyzer.html

HORSEPOWER CALCULATOR RESULTS
Peak Horsepower: 339
Average Horsepower: 331


I would be the first to say the math would be starting to get pretty stretched out for accuracy. But the mere Idea that a partially tuned, over cammed, under intaked, and under compressioned small block is making at least close to 1 hp per cube at the engine. If this is the case then the project for my cruiser show car could be considered a success. Any comments?

I am interested in hearing any other mathematical solutions.

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

I'm seeing about 325-330hp at the crank based on your corrected time, about 280-285 uncorrected. I have no idea how they're getting to the numbers that you listed, but I wouldn't be surprised if you saw around 270-275hp at the wheels on a chassis dyno (they give corrected numbers). Maybe a little more… something's not quite right with those numbers. Were you running out of gear at the top of the run? Where were you shifting/crossing the line? What where your 60's like (from the numbers I'm guessing they were good an traction was good)

beroc

I wish I could be so pleased with my car if I got the power you
think you got after almost a year of tuning........but hey if you think it is success good for you!

B4Ctom1

how odd, the thing dynoed at 286 RW corrected before any tuning. as to the 60 ft the 1.90 range for a road race suspension and ET streets so burned out one went flat (see link to pictures) wasnt what I would say was bad. it wasnt running out of gear but it feels a little weak in the upper RPM range. its just the stock 3.23's and 26" tires on a 700R4 finishing in 3rd gear. you can see what RPM I was shifting at in the scans in the same link above from the track day.

I havent been tuning for a year. the tuning has only just begun due to a lack of tuning ability and tools. Sadly it has been running very rich in the 108 BLM area for most of the driving and racing. when they called it quits at the track due to vicious winds I was starting to see 110 finally in more areas. but I still have a ways to go.

87_TA

WOW, That calculator has my car dynoed 655 HP @ flywheel.....
Thats cool, lets make that one the standard! J/K

B4C, I wish I could say I am glad you are happy - but I don't believe you are.. These things take time to tune and learn a new combination, If you are happy it will never get better.. If you are willing to work a little to make youself happy thats when it will start to shine..

The tools are there, you compression is fine and so is your cam - maybe a little big but workable. Heads are decent for good power.
You should swap on the intake from the JYD once you get that thing tuned and running near peak..
So keep it up, keep it at the track and make it happen.
Atleast you are taking you car to the track instaed of telling everybody it has 500+ and runs 10's but never been to track.

B4Ctom1

I dont own the JYD anymore and that intake was like the one holley is selling now. They are very restrictive due to a huge protrusion for the injectors near the port opening closes off about 1/3 of the port on the force/holley/haltech/JYD intake. I would consider the stealth ram, but its supposed to go on the 91 and I dont want to destroy it by welding and porting it to match the **** poor oddball port sizing on the 200cc aluminum pro toplines.

Based on what I am seeing and the overall picture developing about my combo from members helping me see past my own automotive insanity here I am starting to get an idea:

I posted it here https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...54#post1796354

B4Ctom1

Im thinking this: https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...23#post1821323

OMINOUS_87

How much you gonna spray at it?

What are you running for an exhasut setup?