Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday March 28, 2024
Home Forums Images WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Engine Management & Tuning

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-03-2007, 12:22 PM   #201
AruisDante
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 122365
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX STI Limited
Ice Silver

Default

Some very interesting discussion going on here. I'm interested to see what happens when some of the people gathering this data get access to a dyno to test their results and see what actually makes power.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
AruisDante is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 03-03-2007, 02:19 PM   #202
west_minist
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 53451
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Caribbean
Vehicle:
2000 JDM Impreza SRX
w/ AVCS Silver

Default

The more the Mass Air Flow, the the higher the possibility of more power.
west_minist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2007, 08:24 PM   #203
west_minist
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 53451
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Caribbean
Vehicle:
2000 JDM Impreza SRX
w/ AVCS Silver

Default

Guys,

I have a wicked stg 2.5 to try out on this Subaru.

I will keep everyone posted. It would take a couple of months.

http://socob.bb/forum/viewtopic.php?t=315

Hint, I will betesting from 0-52
west_minist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2007, 01:53 PM   #204
moswald80
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 96620
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Tucson, AZ
Vehicle:
2005 WRX STi
White

Default

Subscribed. This is one of the most informative threads I've seen on any forum. I will try to collect some more data to contribute when I can find some free time.
moswald80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 01:22 PM   #205
Master2192
RIP 10/12/83 to 02/10/08
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 83254
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Roy, Washington
Vehicle:
98 2.5 RS
04 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by west_minist
The more the Mass Air Flow, the the higher the possibility of more power.
I am not so sure about that. But I think I know of a way to test it.

The whole point of tuning the AVCS is to trap as much clean air into the cylinder as we can without pumping it into the exhaust. When tuning the stock ECU, set AVCS to Zero and scale the MAF so Actual AFR matches mapped AFR. Airboy showed that adding AVCS increased cylinder load, but what about AFR.

The ECU calculates the fuel based on MAF flow, if the flow goes up the AFR should stay the same as mapped since your MAF scale shouldn't change. If you start seeing leaner AFR, then you are pumping fresh air into the exhaust. But is pumping alittle bit of air into the exhaust to get a fresh cylinder charge optimal? Maybe only at lower manifold pressures, once boost goes up I'd like to trap as much of that air in the cylinder.

It is too bad the AVCS turbo engines don't also have a AVLS system as well. It would be nice even if the AVLS was only on the intake side, at higher rpm it would be beneficial to have a longer duration and even close the valve further after BDC to cram as much air into the cylinder under boost.

Writing this post gives me ideas for custom cam grinds....
Master2192 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 05:11 PM   #206
AruisDante
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 122365
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX STI Limited
Ice Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master2192 View Post
I am not so sure about that. But I think I know of a way to test it.

The whole point of tuning the AVCS is to trap as much clean air into the cylinder as we can without pumping it into the exhaust. When tuning the stock ECU, set AVCS to Zero and scale the MAF so Actual AFR matches mapped AFR. Airboy showed that adding AVCS increased cylinder load, but what about AFR.

The ECU calculates the fuel based on MAF flow, if the flow goes up the AFR should stay the same as mapped since your MAF scale shouldn't change. If you start seeing leaner AFR, then you are pumping fresh air into the exhaust. But is pumping alittle bit of air into the exhaust to get a fresh cylinder charge optimal? Maybe only at lower manifold pressures, once boost goes up I'd like to trap as much of that air in the cylinder.

It is too bad the AVCS turbo engines don't also have a AVLS system as well. It would be nice even if the AVLS was only on the intake side, at higher rpm it would be beneficial to have a longer duration and even close the valve further after BDC to cram as much air into the cylinder under boost.

Writing this post gives me ideas for custom cam grinds....
It would also be usefull if there was an AVCS on the exhaust side, then under low loads you could open the exhaust valve before BDC in order to use some of the explosion force to spool the turbo, and to create moving air currents that would suck in more fresh air into the cylinder.

And I definitely agree that more MAF doesn't necessarily mean more power, because MAF is exactly that, Mass Air Flow. It doesn't know where the flow is going, just that it's going past the MAF sensor.
AruisDante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 05:24 PM   #207
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master2192 View Post
I am not so sure about that. But I think I know of a way to test it.
i'm pretty certain that more air = more power. air (well, oxygen really) is ALWAYS the dearest thing in an engine.. fuel is a cakewalk compared to oxygen, and spark can happen essentially any time we want it to.

as far as "wasting" clean charge air out the exhaust port, i don't think that's too much of a concern... perhaps in an NA build to a greater extent, but not here. the reason is that exhaust gas backpressure is higher than boost pressure the entire time that the engine is really making power. the only effect that will cause the charge air to push out exhaust air is due to momentum/inertia. i would gladly give up a little bit of charge air that is "first" in the chamber since it will be highly diluted with exhaust gasses anyway.

jm2c
ken
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 05:27 PM   #208
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AruisDante View Post
And I definitely agree that more MAF doesn't necessarily mean more power, because MAF is exactly that, Mass Air Flow. It doesn't know where the flow is going, just that it's going past the MAF sensor.
well, where is it "going?"

exhaust gas backpressure is always higher than boost pressure, often higher than 2x boost pressure, and sometimes with overspun and/or inefficient turbos higher than 3x boost pressure.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 05:32 PM   #209
Master2192
RIP 10/12/83 to 02/10/08
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 83254
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Roy, Washington
Vehicle:
98 2.5 RS
04 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride5000
well, where is it "going?"

exhaust gas backpressure is always higher than boost pressure, often higher than 2x boost pressure, and sometimes with overspun and/or inefficient turbos higher than 3x boost pressure.
I am betting on exhaust velocity still out doing pressure and creating a suction on the cylinder at the end of the exhaust stroke. (at high rpm)
Master2192 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 05:37 PM   #210
Master2192
RIP 10/12/83 to 02/10/08
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 83254
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Roy, Washington
Vehicle:
98 2.5 RS
04 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride5000
i'm pretty certain that more air = more power. air (well, oxygen really) is ALWAYS the dearest thing in an engine.. fuel is a cakewalk compared to oxygen, and spark can happen essentially any time we want it to.

as far as "wasting" clean charge air out the exhaust port, i don't think that's too much of a concern... perhaps in an NA build to a greater extent, but not here. the reason is that exhaust gas backpressure is higher than boost pressure the entire time that the engine is really making power. the only effect that will cause the charge air to push out exhaust air is due to momentum/inertia. i would gladly give up a little bit of charge air that is "first" in the chamber since it will be highly diluted with exhaust gasses anyway.

jm2c
ken
The problem is when you advance the cam and possibly put some of that fresh air into the exhaust, you net a lower end cylinder pressure since the intake valve also closes earlier as well.
Master2192 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 06:13 PM   #211
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master2192 View Post
I am betting on exhaust velocity still out doing pressure and creating a suction on the cylinder at the end of the exhaust stroke. (at high rpm)
for a VERY brief time, yes, i completely agree, but i do not see how this is bad at all.

look at the big power high rpm cams... huge duration. how do they make power? by taking advantage of these inertial effects to pump air in and push air out. their NA VE goes up. by your reasoning they are throwing away power because they're wasting clean charge air. when have you EVER heard of VE being a "bad thing?"

Quote:
The problem is when you advance the cam and possibly put some of that fresh air into the exhaust, you net a lower end cylinder pressure since the intake valve also closes earlier as well.
i have never heard of anyone say "there's too much exhaust gas scavenging going on." there are ALWAYS some leftover gasses in the chamber, and the ideal is for there to be NONE.

my stance: you move more air through the engine and you have set the stage to make more power. every bit of reading i've ever done wrt tuning engines is focused on maximizing VE. if MAF goes up for a given MAP, MAT and RPM then you have just increased VE.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 08:10 PM   #212
Master2192
RIP 10/12/83 to 02/10/08
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 83254
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Roy, Washington
Vehicle:
98 2.5 RS
04 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride5000
for a VERY brief time, yes, i completely agree, but i do not see how this is bad at all.

look at the big power high rpm cams... huge duration. how do they make power? by taking advantage of these inertial effects to pump air in and push air out. their NA VE goes up. by your reasoning they are throwing away power because they're wasting clean charge air. when have you EVER heard of VE being a "bad thing?"



i have never heard of anyone say "there's too much exhaust gas scavenging going on." there are ALWAYS some leftover gasses in the chamber, and the ideal is for there to be NONE.

my stance: you move more air through the engine and you have set the stage to make more power. every bit of reading i've ever done wrt tuning engines is focused on maximizing VE. if MAF goes up for a given MAP, MAT and RPM then you have just increased VE.
The problem is by advancing the cam at high rpm you are reducing VE. VE is not about air flow, it is the Efficiency of filling a Volume (the cylinder). 100% VE would mean you filled the entire swept volume of the cylinder with fresh air to atmospheric pressure.

You keep trying to compare a N/A engine to a Forced Induction one, I never said exhaust scavenging is a bad thing. BUT, without an increased duration to compensate for air lost scavenging you are going to lose VE. Even in a boosted engine you are going to need a bigger duration at high rpm which is why it would be nice if subaru added AVLS to the turbo engines.

My Stance: Adding AVCS at high rpm will net lower power even if tuned for.
Master2192 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 09:32 PM   #213
AruisDante
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 122365
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX STI Limited
Ice Silver

Default

Exactly. If the air is going out the exhaust port, it isn't going into the cylinder. If you have a finite amount of time to pump air into the cylinder, then if air is going out the exhaust port it's that much less air that stays in the cylinder. As Master says, if you could also increase duration to compensate for this so you wound up with the same net amount of time pump air into a cylinder with a closed exhaust port (so you're actually pumping air into it, not through it), then maximum scavenging would be a good thing, because it would give you the highest VE. Unfortunately, we can't change duration, so we can't compensate for the wasted air that's pushed out the exhaust port. Therefor, at high RPM's, where there's a lot of air velocity, it's more efficient to rely on that to clear exhaust out of the cylinder rather then overlap. At low RPM's, it is not. Hence why Subaru put AVCS on the car in the first place.
AruisDante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2007, 10:49 PM   #214
TMessick
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 882
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Wagon
very blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMessick View Post
I'm not convinced that additional airflow necessarilly corresponds to additional flywheel torque in this case. Under high overlap with moderate/low backpressure and boost, it's possible to over-scavenge the engine...
FWIW, I looked at some dyno data at work and I'm back on the "more airflow = more torque potential" bandwagon. I did see conditions where MAP > exhaust backpressure which lead to overscavenging and negative pumping work, but it is only in transient conditions (tip-out form high boost) and not steady-state.

Bottom line, more airflow is more power potential. Unless you screw up the spark and/or fueling significantly, you're gonna make more power...
TMessick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 05:39 AM   #215
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMessick View Post
Bottom line, more airflow is more power potential. Unless you screw up the spark and/or fueling significantly, you're gonna make more power...
thank you for bringing some data to the discussion.

ken
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 01:48 PM   #216
AZScoobie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8785
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Vehicle:
02 c_turner@ix.
netcom.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master2192 View Post
The problem is by advancing the cam at high rpm you are reducing VE. VE is not about air flow, it is the Efficiency of filling a Volume (the cylinder). 100% VE would mean you filled the entire swept volume of the cylinder with fresh air to atmospheric pressure.

You keep trying to compare a N/A engine to a Forced Induction one, I never said exhaust scavenging is a bad thing. BUT, without an increased duration to compensate for air lost scavenging you are going to lose VE. Even in a boosted engine you are going to need a bigger duration at high rpm which is why it would be nice if subaru added AVLS to the turbo engines.

My Stance: Adding AVCS at high rpm will net lower power even if tuned for.

THe problem is that your stance is not correct. I really hate to see someone make such a huge mistake in blanket statements. Its like you worked this out in your head and confirmed to yourself you where right and now thats Gospel.

C
AZScoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 02:09 PM   #217
AruisDante
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 122365
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX STI Limited
Ice Silver

Default

What's wrong with his statement? You'll certainly never drop below 100***37; VE, but you will still loose a bit of VE. Of course it also depends on how you measure VE as well.

Again, we really need someone to put up some dyno graphs comparing various AVCS advance's power curves to really be sure of what is going on.
AruisDante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 02:17 PM   #218
AZScoobie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8785
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Vehicle:
02 c_turner@ix.
netcom.com

Default

THe fault with his statement is that its theory.

C
AZScoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 03:04 PM   #219
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AruisDante View Post
What's wrong with his statement? You'll certainly never drop below 100% VE, but you will still loose a bit of VE. Of course it also depends on how you measure VE as well.
dude, VE is measured the same way, each time.

tell me how you would even MEASURE how much clean charge air is "lost" out the exhaust port during the incredibly short duration of valve overlap?

you can't. nobody can.

so how on earth would you expect to even have an issue with the "definition of VE" if after 100+ years of ICE engineering, testing, and development, there's only one way to measure it?

there is no question here. VE is, was, and will be how much air IS going into the engine vs. how much air SHOULD BE going into the engine.

you don't have to listen to me. clark is here telling you you're flat out smoking crack, and he's got an infinite amount more experience tuning avcs than i do.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 03:11 PM   #220
Freon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 88322
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Vehicle:
2009 BMW 135i

Default

I've done some more AVCS testing at the drag strip this past week. I need to do some more testing, but I think I've at least come up with an efficient way to test for real results (i.e. trap times in addition to airflow/map/VE calculations previously discussed).

I will actually post my results as soon as I can reasonably convince myself of the effects rather than just tell people they're wrong...

Last edited by Freon; 04-26-2007 at 03:17 PM.
Freon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 04:19 PM   #221
AruisDante
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 122365
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX STI Limited
Ice Silver

Default

Of course VE is the amount of air that is in they cylinder vs what should be. But you can measure that based off the intake, off the ambient air pressure, off the intake but based on the density of what air is at 20*c rather then what it actually is at that moment, etc. All of which give you different VE's, and one of which gives you a VE that actually changes with boost. That was what I meant when I said "depending on how you measure VE"

Also, quite obviously either the amount of air being lost out the exhaust port, or the fact that it sucks out some of the charge fuel, at high RPMs actually matters, otherwise running large amounts of advance at high RPM's would be a good thing, which obviously it isn't based on data presented throughout this thread. I'm not saying that no advance is best, that's obviously not true, but I'm saying that it's probably only a small amount just to give that little boost to scavenging, because otherwise you start loosing too much air or too much fuel.

Last edited by AruisDante; 04-26-2007 at 04:30 PM.
AruisDante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 04:38 PM   #222
Freon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 88322
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Vehicle:
2009 BMW 135i

Default

You can measure net VE if your MAF scaling table is accurate. Even if it isn't that great you can still calculate relative changes to VE before and after changes to your AVCS map. It's certainly a valid method, even if it won't be the only thing you'll want to look at.

This will not tell you if you are getting reversion or if you're passing clean air through to the exhaust side. You'll have to watch knock activity, WG duty, EGT, etc. to make better guesses on those.

Even a road dyno isn't a bad technique. Again, it may not necessarily be accurate, but as long as it is repeatable and consistent, you can note if you have gains or losses.
Freon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 08:31 PM   #223
west_minist
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 53451
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Caribbean
Vehicle:
2000 JDM Impreza SRX
w/ AVCS Silver

Default

Good conversation everyone. Nice

Freon, I cannot wait to see the results.

One of my client will do it himself again with my help and we will have fresh data.
west_minist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2007, 04:49 PM   #224
shvrdavid
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 86078
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Pa.
Vehicle:
2005 Sti
4094R Twin Scroll

Default

For what it is worth, you can measure how much is blown thru on overlap...

There are a ton of variables, but it all boils down to a reduction in exhaust temp, and an increase in torque...

The air that gets blow thru, will be a lot cooler, reducing the exhaust temp...

I did an experiment on mine for a 200-300 degree temp drop as a guide...

My advance map now tapers off from boost onset, following a curve, to about 6k...

I found that there is a direct relation to the Boost level and VE of the engine to get what I would call the right amount of blow thru...

I did all of these tests on the road in, 4th gear, with a logger, and a g-force meter to confirm when acceleration dropped off from to much blow thru...

I discovered real quick, that too much blow thru is a bad thing... I obviously lost power with too much blow-thru...

I would be curious to see if what I did shows a difference on a dyno, it did show that it accelerated faster, but that might not show on a dyno with a different acceleration rate...
shvrdavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2007, 05:03 PM   #225
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shvrdavid View Post
For what it is worth, you can measure how much is blown thru on overlap...

There are a ton of variables, but it all boils down to a reduction in exhaust temp, and an increase in torque...

The air that gets blow thru, will be a lot cooler, reducing the exhaust temp...

I did an experiment on mine for a 200-300 degree temp drop as a guide...

My advance map now tapers off from boost onset, following a curve, to about 6k...

I found that there is a direct relation to the Boost level and VE of the engine to get what I would call the right amount of blow thru...

I did all of these tests on the road in, 4th gear, with a logger, and a g-force meter to confirm when acceleration dropped off from to much blow thru...

I discovered real quick, that too much blow thru is a bad thing... I obviously lost power with too much blow-thru...

I would be curious to see if what I did shows a difference on a dyno, it did show that it accelerated faster, but that might not show on a dyno with a different acceleration rate...
david, do you have copies of the datalogs from those test pulls by any chance?

i'd love to see a situation in which more MAF is measured, everything else stays the same, yet the rate of acceleration decreases.

i also wonder how it comes to be that the egts go down. certainly the uncombusted charge air is obviously a hell of a cooler than once it's fired-off, but it also has a nice ripe AFR as it has already been fueled yet not ignited. i would imagine that air fuel mix would be more than willing to combust once it hits the fiery environment of the exhaust manifold.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Let's talk hybrid economy / performance tuning Bad Noodle Open Source Reflashes 17 04-29-2012 09:30 PM
Let's talk flywheels WRXThis Transmission (AT/MT) & Driveline 9 04-17-2002 02:04 PM
Let's talk about when to change out the rods. Andrew Normally Aspirated with bolt-on Forced Induction Powertrain 10 03-04-2002 11:44 AM
Let's talk amps.... Teh Legacy Car Audio, Video & Security 15 10-19-2001 02:09 AM
Let's talk about the Rimmer Supercharger rao General Forum Archive 88 09-21-2000 07:56 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2024 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission
Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.