How to make the move to an aftermarket ECU

J.G.
By J.G. Pasterjak
Sep 21, 2022 | Shop Work, ECU, Buyer's Guide, GRM+ | Posted in Shop Work , Electronics & Electrical Systems , Buyer's Guides | From the Nov. 2021 issue | Never miss an article

Photography Credit: Kevin Adolf

In less than a generation–so, in little more than a couple of decades–the image of an engine tuning expert has shifted completely. It used to be a guy in greasy overalls armed with a set of vacuum gauges and a great ear. Now it’s someone–maybe not even in the same room or state as the machine they’re tuning–hovering over a laptop that’s linked to a car’s onboard engine control computer. 

With the proliferation of computer-controlled powerplants, tuning is no longer done with a wrench and screwdriver, but with the adjustment of parameters controlled by the ECU.

But as the technology progressed, our desire to modify our engines with upgraded hard parts didn’t wane. Early computer engine controls–essentially glorified hardwired logic circuits with limited processing power–had some flexibility to adjust engine parameters to compensate for upgraded hard parts. However, many needed additional “piggyback” controllers wired into the circuit. A piggyback would alter the signal it received from a sensor before passing it along to the stock computer. It could also work in reverse, altering the signal from the stock computer before sending it to the sensors. 

Subsequent generations of factory engine controls added processing power and the ability to interact with the engine in real time. Where early computer controls were based heavily on tables predefined by factory engineers, later OEM ECUs could monitor engine data–like intake and exhaust temperature, engine temperature, throttle position and more–to make decisions on the fly. How much fuel and spark? When to fire that spark? The answers were based on how best to serve the driver’s wishes. 

All through the development of ECUs equipped by factories, a war with the aftermarket raged. When a manufacturer released a new car, it challenged the aftermarket to “crack” the ECU–to reprogram it to operate outside its typical envelope–allowing the use of aftermarket hard parts. 

And for a while, this system worked for enthusiasts. Many popular cars had, and continue to be equipped with, ECUs that can be “reflashed” or reprogrammed. For a lot of folks–those who simply want to add a performance exhaust, optimize their tune for high-octane fuel, or add a bit of boost to a turbocharged car–flash tunes in factory ECUs remain a solid choice.

But what if a build is more complex or more singularly dedicated? What if the owner simply wants more direct control over the 1s and 0s controlling their engine? That’s where aftermarket ECUs come in. 

These days, builders have numerous options for standalone engine management, and they’re easier than ever to install, tune and afford. From open-source software running on easily found hardware to military-grade solutions designed to endure the rigors of motorsport, the choices are endless. We’re here to help guide you on that journey.

Why Do You Need an Aftermarket ECU?

Got an engine in your car that it didn’t come with originally? Aftermarket ECU to the rescue.

Need to control or compensate for power adders that your car never came with, like turbos or superchargers or hog-ass cams? Hello, standalone.

Want deeper and more granular adjustability than reflashing your factory ECU gives you? An aftermarket ECU is in your future.

Does your car’s stock computer have very limited adjustability? (We’re looking at you, Honda and Acura and early Mazda Miatas.) Guess what? There’s an ECU for that.

“You know it’s time to consider upgrading your race car to a standalone ECU when what is controlling your engine and power adders is no longer effective,” explains Lawson Mollica at AEM Performance Electronics, a longtime supplier of standalone systems. 

He sees three typical scenarios that spur the jump to a standalone ECU. The first on his list: “The ’alphabet soup’ approach, where various controllers are added to a vehicle as it’s upgraded–air-fuel controller, boost controller, ignition controller, flashed ECU, etc.–and the user is left with a host of electronics that all need to be programmed independently of one another and do not speak with each other.” The frequent result, he notes, is major engine failure.

Two important pieces of the standalone recipe: a laptop and someone to use it. Photography Credit: Kevin Adolf

The next situation: “When a reflash or open-source tuning strategy exceeds the ability to control the power level of an engine.”

The last scenario is the outlier, he says, but can yield the greatest returns: “When someone has a longterm plan and invests in a standalone from the outset, they will never have to upgrade their electronics as they make upgrades to their vehicle. This rare breed of racer has the ability to learn the system while the vehicle is still being developed, making each upgrade easier to tune for.”

Why Don’t You Need an Aftermarket ECU?

Because they seem overwhelming? Okay, aside from that, there are legit reasons to not integrate some modern electronics into your build. 

For one, many newer cars have heavily integrated computer systems. A central computer provides not only ECU functions, but body control module functions as well. Having more power is cool, but not if your air conditioner no longer works or your factory alarm is always going off. 

And some modern cars integrate chassis management functions–like stability and traction control strategies–into their ECUs. This can complicate facilitation of a standalone ECU.

Ed Senf has been tuning race cars for decades–GRM first worked with him 20-plus years ago. For more involved projects–like BimmerWorld’s Bergsteiger BMW–Ed stresses the importance of the longterm relationship. Photography Credit: Kevin Adlf

“Owning a car equipped with a standalone ECU is a bit like having a child: There is a responsibility dynamic that most people aren’t initially aware of,” explains Shane Benson of AIM Tuning, a firm that specializes in remote tuning of the NA- and NB-chassis Miata. 

“OEMs spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars developing calibrations that will run on every version of that car in every conceivable condition. With a standalone ECU, it’s just us working on one specific car, probably when we have a few extra hours to mess around with it.”

Shane also notes that, with a standalone, you don’t have the advantage of starting with a factory tune. “Because of this,” he explains, “nailing down all the little details that make everyday drivability a pleasure can be a much greater challenge. Things like cranking and cold starts, after-start enrichments and warmup can take time because we really only get one or two shots at most per day. Closed-loop idle, acceleration enrichments, electrical loads, heat-soaked starting, EGO compensations, a/c idle up, etc., all need to be calibrated for our own specific vehicle.”

Long story short, consult the manufacturer of your proposed ECU before you start cutting wires. Chances are its engineers have experience with your intended application and can guide you toward the right answer.

How Much ECU Do You Need?

Here’s where things get tricky. The options are numerous and broad, and while you want to future-proof your build to some extent, there may be features in some high-end systems that you’ll simply never need.

So when ECU shopping, here are a few questions to consider about your application:

Can you use any of your existing sensors and wiring harness? Many companies offer plug-and-play options that leverage existing computer-controlled infrastructure and simply replace your computer with a more programmable one. Or will you need to run a dedicated harness and account for specific sensors that the computer needs to monitor?

What type of environment will your car be used in? As you climb the ladder from consumer-friendly systems to more motorsport-based solutions, one of the most visible improvements is the ruggedness of the actual equipment. 

Motorsport-grade ECUs live in weather- and shock-proof cases and are connected to the harness via military-style sealed connectors; the price will reflect that. Many high-end or motorsport ECUs also feature the ability to store multiple tuning maps that can be switched on the fly without needing a reboot of the computer. 

Want to add or reduce power at the flick of a switch, or change the way your engine delivers that power–say, for an unexpected, traction-reducing shower during a track session? No problem, provided you’re willing to buy the gear and properly program it.

How many things are you trying to control and monitor? At its most basic, an engine control computer is controlling fuel flow into the cylinders as well as the spark lighting that combustible mixture. But the number of inputs it considers when deciding how to adjust those fuel and spark settings can scale wildly. 

From the basic functions it needs to perform the most rudimentary aspects of its job—like monitoring crank position, intake temperature and throttle position–to more advanced feedback loops, an ECU can monitor nearly anything. 

A big question when considering a stand-alone system: Use the OE harness or wire the car from scratch? Photography Credit: Chris Tropea

Can you tune each cylinder individually? Sure, but you’ll need the proper hardware to monitor the parameters of that cylinder.

“The needs of each cylinder are unique due to multiple variables, but most commonly due to airflow and/or injector variances,” explains Jerry Hoffmann, founder of DIYAutoTune.com. 

“If you tune your turbo engine out to what you think to be a safe air-fuel ratio of 11:1 on gasoline, but you’re only looking at the average, that could mean one cylinder is running overly rich at 9.5:1 and washing down the cylinders while also down a bit on power and another cylinder is at 12.5:1, ready to melt down. In that scenario, you not only left a lot of power on the table, but you had the ability to make that power safely with a proper control system. Yet you chose not to.”

Can you limit boost based on which gear the transmission is in?  Of course you can, but the computer will need to know which gear the transmission is in. 

Traction control? That, too, but you’ll need a way to feed wheel speed data to the ECU so it knows when to cut power. 

All of these advanced scenarios are attainable with readily available hardware, but they require the proper sensor packaging and knowledgeable programming to facilitate their use.

Wait, I Have to Program It?

Well, yeah, and that’s the final bit of complication. Integrating an aftermarket ECU into your build may be physically simple, but getting it to run could be a more difficult proposition. 

The good news: Making power is probably one of the easiest functions to learn for someone with little tuning experience. Find the ideal air-fuel ratio for your chosen fuel type and go from there. 

But max power at full throttle is only part of the equation. “How many times have you heard the story about the guy who took his standalone-equipped car to the dyno and came back with a tune that made great numbers but started and drove like crap in any situation other than wide-open throttle?” asks Shane Benson of AIM Tuning. 

Interfaces and usability matter, too, since the system will need to be programmed. Before making a purchase, ensure that the system’s interface is a fit for your skill set. Photography Credits: J.G. Pasterjak

“It’s no fun fighting a car that doesn’t drive smoothly under all conditions,” he continues. “Learning and trial and error are part of the process, but it is well worth the effort. It’s hard to beat the satisfaction provided when the tune–your tune–purrs like a kitten simply cruising around town, and plasters a big ol’ grin across your face as you nail the throttle and are rewarded with instant performance gratification.”

Tuning a car for a broad torque band, drivability in a variety of conditions, cold starts and more takes a bit more finesse at the laptop. OEMs have many years and many millions of dollars to devote to these specific scenarios. You tuning a car in your garage has maybe two shots a day at getting a cold-start tune worked out.

Also remember that the point of an aftermarket ECU is to give the tuner complete control over engine function parameters–and that control must be exercised judiciously. Just as you can easily microwave a burrito so hot that it explodes, you can cause damage with improper ECU programming.

Expert Advice: Seek It

Ultimately, we don’t want to scare you off from taking the plunge on an aftermarket ECU. Fortunately, there’s an entire knowledge base out there waiting to help. 

And really, consulting those experts and the community wisdom for these products may be the best place to start. When installing a popular ECU in a popular car, you can typically find a base or “startup” tune online from a trusted source–sometimes even the ECU manufacturer itself. And with modern internet connectivity, not even geography prevents an expert from directly tuning your car.

Photography Credit: Chris Tropea

Ultimately, our best advice is, unless you’re an expert at these applications, don’t try and reinvent the wheel. Your first experience with an aftermarket ECU should not be the first time anyone has ever installed the system you want to install on the application you intend to install it on. Lean on the existing knowledge base as much as possible and get some suggestions from this gear guide. Happy tuning.

Case Study: Swapping our Corvette to a Standalone ECU

After deciding to LS-swap our already LS-powered Corvette, we had to figure out how to control our new engine. “But you LS-swapped a car that already had an LS engine,” you say, “which isn’t even technically a swap.”

Bringing Our LS3-Powered C5 Corvette to Life | Project C5 Corvette Z06

Yes, we hear you. Swapping one LS for another might seem seamless from a physical fitment perspective, but various generations of LS engines have some key differences that complicate the matter. For example, our original LS6 powerplant, which is considered the Gen III evolution of the Small-Block Chevy engine, came fitted with a 24-tooth reluctor wheel attached to the crank. This reluctor wheel sends positional data to the ECU for timing purposes. 

Our replacement engine, the Gen IV LS3, uses a 58-tooth wheel. The LS3 also has some repositioned sensors and connectors. Plus, it uses a drive-by-wire throttle body that hinges in the opposite direction.

Now, you absolutely can run a more modern LS3 off the factory C5 Corvette Z06 ECU if you want to. Lingenfelter Performance makes a magic box that converts the reluctor wheel signal to a usable format, and adapters and extensions are available to get the stock harness to interface properly. The throttle body issue can be overcome by using one from an LS2-powered GTO, although those are becoming increasingly harder to find.

If we were building this car for daily driver use, retaining the factory ECU might be a solid option. We’d end up with no conflicts between the engine control and body control functions of the factory ECU, and we’d have a fully functional factory gauge cluster still in place. 

While upgrading our Corvette to LS3 power, we also moved to a fully programmable ECU from Holley. We started with the Terminator X Max before switching to the more weatherproof Dominator. Both use the same harness connections. 

But we’d also need to live by the restrictions of the factory ECU regarding performance and tuning. Yes, the factory ECU tune can be overwritten, but the process can involve a clunky interface. Rewrites can also take a while to upload to the ECU and limit options regarding power adders, too. 

Since our Corvette is a track car, moving to a dedicated ECU was an easy decision. We ordered up a Holley Terminator X Max ECU, which combines a budget-friendly price–less than $1400–with plug-and-play simplicity thanks to Holley’s LS3-specific wiring harness. 

The ECU also features a 3.5-inch handheld touchscreen that allows direct access to many common tuning functions without the need to connect a laptop. The Holley harness doesn’t interface with the older C5 throttle, however, so we had to add a drive-by-wire throttle pedal from a late-model GM SUV. That was the only tricky part. 

The harness was truly plug-and-play, with the Holley replacing the stock ECU–which we left in place to control some body functions like lighting, power windows, central locking, the fuel gauge and a few other accessories. The two harnesses merge at the radiator fans, however; the stock ECU controls the fans, but the Holley needs to know when they’re operating. 

Getting the Corvette running on the Holley ECU wasn’t much of a challenge. It comes programmed with startup maps for many common engine choices, although we used a map already developed by Redline Tuning Services, our tuner on this project. The engine fired after only a few cranks, with only minimal changes needed once on the dyno. 

The downside of an aftermarket ECU like our Holley Terminator is the loss of functioning gauges; those receive data from the stock ECU, which, in our case, was no longer listening to the engine. 

This downside has an upside, however: We could now connect the Holley ECU to one of the company’s display units for full and easy monitoring. We used the 6.86-inch Pro Dash, which runs a little more than a thousand dollars. It perfectly fit in the center console, right in the space vacated by our stereo. Just a slight modification was needed to the single-DIN bezel that had been wrapped around our aftermarket head unit. The result: a Holley Dash that looks almost factory and fits very cleanly.

And that dash is more than simply a dash. The interface is fully customizable, right from the touch-sensitive dash panel itself. This allowed us to set up custom gauge configurations, which came in handy during the break-in of our new engine. Now we can have separate gauge setups for autocross, track time and testing, each based on the parameters we most want to monitor at that moment. 

We eventually upgraded to Holley’s Dominator ECU–depending on options, about $2400. This one features even more inputs and capabilities, and it’s seriously weatherproof–a huge plus for us since we mounted the ECU inside the driver-side fender. The fully sealed and potted Dominator has moisture-proof connectors, and we also sealed off the unused connectors with blank plugs filled with blanking pins and silicone. 

We mounted our Dominator ECU behind the driver-side fender, so we plugged the unused ports with silicone-filled blanks for additional weatherproofing. Our display features just the important readouts–like customized out-of-range warning lights–plus a switch for the cooling fans. We found Holley’s ECU menus intuitive and easy to tweak.

In use, both Holley ECUs really opened up our options for changing engine parameters while also dramatically cutting down on the time needed to do so. ECU rewrites take place in seconds, and the interface is one of the more intuitive ones we’ve used. 

We also love the variety of conditional trigger options built right into many of the control functions. In addition to easily building custom gauges, we can add custom switches to control various functions. 

For example, we wanted to add a manual fan override switch to the Holley Pro Dash. We were able to tell the Holley ECU when to turn the fans on and off using simple, predefined conditional terms like “or,” “if,” and “and,” along with several other common scenario definitions. This allowed us to string together a trigger system that turns on the fans once the coolant temperature reaches a certain range.

We could also program a digital switch on the display itself to operate the fans only if the engine is running or if engine temps cross a certain threshold. Those commands were all available through well-designed dropdown menus.

One of our favorite functions of the Holley ECU, though, involves the throttle response curves. Honestly, it’s one of the best arguments for moving to a drive-by-wire setup. How pedal position corresponds to throttle opening is a key element of driver interface, and while that function won’t gain us any more power, it will absolutely affect the way the car is driven. 

We now have specific throttle curves for both autocross and track use; the autocross curve is a bit less aggressive, since too much throttle too soon in a lower gear could seriously upset chassis balance with all that torque on tap. Switching back and forth–or even custom-tweaking the setting for either–takes just a few seconds. 

Did the aftermarket ECU help us make more power? That’s hard to answer, since a base tune for our setup doesn’t really exist. However, our current dyno sheets back up the ones that came from our engine builder. 

So, the big advantage of a standalone in our situation? Having the ability to access every engine function easily and quickly with just a few keystrokes. We can now make tuning and setup changes between sessions or even between autocross runs, all without ever leaving the driver’s seat.

Join Free Join our community to easily find more Shop Work, ECU, Buyer's Guide and GRM+ articles.
Comments
View comments on the GRM forums
Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter)
Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
10/22/21 7:12 a.m.

It might just be me, but I'm getting the "oops, we're lost" page

BA5
BA5 GRM+ Memberand Reader
10/22/21 8:44 a.m.

This article came at a good time.  I'm looking into the what/why/how for the ECU for my project.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
10/22/21 4:43 p.m.

Been remote tuning a car in the UK and another in Alaska this week. Both from the comfort of my lab in Pa. 

Junghole
Junghole SuperDork
10/22/21 11:51 p.m.

Or do like me:  step 1) buy aftermarket ECU. 
 

Step 2) ask GRM for help  

step3) sell Ecu to a cringey kid on Facebook. 

Cactus
Cactus HalfDork
10/23/21 12:04 p.m.

In reply to Junghole :

Or what I did 1) buy a megasquirt for a turbo project

2) lose interest

3) most recent 5 vehicle purchases are all diesel or carbureted

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
10/23/21 1:33 p.m.

Did I miss the elephant in the room? Any car newer than a quarter century runs OBD-II. No aftermarket ECU supports it. This can limit your ability to register the car and your resale market. It may also mean that your supplier may not be around to support you in the future if they are run out of business for selling emissions bypass parts. 
 

Buying an ECU from a supplier that has deep experience in your specific application is far better than relying on forums. Forums are populated by hundreds of people with experience on one car. A specialist like AIM has experience with hundreds of examples. It makes a massive difference in the quality of the base map, especially since most individuals just accept driveability problems because it's hard. Think about all the test drive reports you've seen of a car with an aftermarket ecu where it's acknowledged that the tune "isn't finished". 

Aftermarket ECUs definitely have their place. I have them on a couple of my cars. I would much rather work with an ECU than a carb because I can ask it questions :) But it's a bigger step than a lot of people make it out to be. 

MrFancypants
MrFancypants Reader
10/23/21 1:45 p.m.
Keith Tanner said:

I would much rather work with an ECU than a carb because I can ask it questions :) But it's a bigger step than a lot of people make it out to be. 

That's funny. Reminds of of every conversation I've had with older enthusiasts who look at my car and say it's too complicated to deal with when something breaks, then I show them the scan tool tied to my phone that tells me precisely what's wrong with the car when I have a problem. Every time my car has failed me I've been able to diagnose the problem perfectly on the first try, and I'm a complete amateur.

 

 

Run_Away
Run_Away Dork
10/23/21 1:46 p.m.

In reply to BA5 :

I vote FuelTech for your Lude!

BA5
BA5 GRM+ Memberand Reader
10/23/21 8:14 p.m.
Run_Away said:

In reply to BA5 :

I vote FuelTech for your Lude!

Might be a little rich for my build. I'm looking at MS.

Plus they're the only one I've looked at so far that even suggest they support the Honda J series crank trigger, which is apparently a kind of oddball setup.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
10/24/21 6:33 a.m.

FT is workable for guys that hit the gas, then pull the chute. It annoys me for much else. 
 

The j trigger is supported by a few but def not common. We have done two on ms3 pro so far one na and one boosted. 

fidelity101 (Forum Supporter)
fidelity101 (Forum Supporter) UberDork
1/18/22 11:05 a.m.
Cactus said:

In reply to Junghole :

Or what I did 1) buy a megasquirt for a turbo project

2) lose interest

3) most recent 5 vehicle purchases are all diesel or carbureted

Step 1. buy megasquirt

step 2. give up and carb it

step 3. try megasquirt again

step 4. giveup and go haltech

step 5. everything is fine

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/18/22 1:34 p.m.
fidelity101 (Forum Supporter) said:

Step 1. buy megasquirt

...

step 5. everything is fine

Even in 2002 this is how it went for me. More than a few installed over the ensuing decades. It's not hard.

frenchyd
frenchyd UltimaDork
1/18/22 6:12 p.m.

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

1. Buy a car with a new-in the box Megasquirt. 
 2.   Go on their Jaguar web site and no one explains where to start or has actually got a Jaguar V12  running.  But oh boy can they debate.   Apparently everything in the ECU is analog rather than Digital   which makes  it like speaking Chinese.  
3. Visit Jaguar forums, GRM, U Tube  etc etc and slowly some things sort of make sense.  
 4. Give up and buy Six  1 &1/2"  SU carbs.  Lay out the carbs and realize  the intake path is terrible.   
5.  Steal 3 and buy a 4th 2" SU's  to run with SVRA group 6  attend 2 of their events only to find no one to explain rules.  Text questions to tech inspector, E-mail questions to tech inspector, go on their web site and ask for help. 
 6.  Give up on running group 6, accept I'll be running in group 10.  Still no response. 
7.  Watch every UTube I can about Megasquirt. Finally see a couple of V12's running on Megasquirt. 
8.  Learn that Megasquirt is self learning. Means if properly hooked up. It will start without having to learn computer programming. First real piece of joy.  
 
 

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/19/22 6:59 a.m.
frenchyd said:

8.  Learn that Megasquirt is self learning. Means if properly hooked up. It will start without having to learn computer programming. First real piece of joy.  
 

Sort of. The 'self learning' assumes you have everything setup reasonably correctly to begin with and it's only helpful sometimes. I don't (usually) use it at idle or high loads, but it works nicely on steady state and mild transients. The initial setup usually isn't too bad unless there is an odd trigger arrangement being used, or some strange hardware, or unknown injector properties, etc. Things usually have a wide range of acceptability and still be startable, once you have verified all inputs and outputs and synced timing.

frenchyd
frenchyd UltimaDork
1/19/22 8:17 a.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

You spelled it out perfectly.  However every engine builder knows that joy when the engine first roars to life.   
 I completely understand the limits of "self learning".  Plus the massive difference between what the Megasquirt will produce and what the factory programs produce. 
   For the street it would be very hard to improve on the factories program.  Luckily I'm focused on Racing and a stumble or flat spot  in low RPM ranges won't earn any time from me.  All my focus will be from 3500rpm to 8000

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/19/22 10:12 a.m.

Depends a lot if its a "factory program" from 1978 or 2022.  laugh It's nice to have the additional degrees of freedom a race car provides in the calibration in any case.

yupididit
yupididit GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/19/22 10:58 a.m.

In reply to fidelity101 (Forum Supporter) :

Big differences between haltech and MS for you? 

mke
mke Dork
1/19/22 11:03 a.m.

I didn't see it in the article but a big plus for aftermarket ECU is they are also data-loggers.  The one I have will log about 500 channels at 1khz, I don't use anywhere near that but all the engine parameters, wheel speeds, and such.

 

For a budget friendly option you might also want to have a look at:

rusEFI

I've never used one but kind of follow the forum and they have up to 12 cylinder options and its open source so you could in theory add any feature you want and many do.  They are very willing to add any trigger pattern any user many need, if you actually have one of their ECUs and an engine you just need to ask, they respond a lot slower (as in never) to hypothetical setups but watching the forum I've never seen them say no to supporting an actual existing setup.


I've had great luck with Haltech and AEM, and have friends that swear by link as good fully tech supported options for those that are less electronics gifted.

For the experienced types I just love the   enginelab    I have in the frankenferrari....not sure I could go back to anything else but it does require more, like a lot more upfront work/knowledge to create a "model" to tell the ecu what exactly you are wanting it to do...this is baked in and locked in other ECUs.  The AEM infinity is actually made by enginelab and is running AEM's model but you can clear it and run the full enginelab software, that is what I did, used a cheapish AEM on ebay, load the new SW.  

I keep finding new things to let the ECU do for me...it runs my gauges that needed with NLA sending units, it corrects for out of sync ITBs...I just love it.

OBDII - With an ECU like rusEFI or enginelab that allows you to make changes....you can set the CAN buss to output whatever signal you please so if you wanted to send signals to the OBDII port for...ummm...."diagnostic purposes",  you certainly could, just sayin wink

mke
mke Dork
1/19/22 11:11 a.m.
yupididit said:

In reply to fidelity101 (Forum Supporter) :

Big differences between haltech and MS for you? 

SUPPORT!!!!

Haltech sells a finished product that they fully tech support, you call/email with a question,  they give you the answer.   They also are real enclosures, very rugged.

MS is forum supported for the most part and stuff like a case is optional, real sealed locking connectors are optional, the tuning software is 3rd party and requires a subscription to access the nicer features....this is why they cost less up front but not necessarily in the longer run.  Its a fine option for a lot of people, but you do generally get what you pay for. 

yupididit
yupididit GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/19/22 11:23 a.m.

In reply to mke :

Okay. I do have a current TunersStudio subscription. I'm looking to run itb's on my Mercedes 190e. It's currently ke-jet and my initial go-to is MS but I certainly know nothing of tuning itb's etc. This will be a jump in the deep end for me lol

mke
mke Dork
1/19/22 11:32 a.m.

In reply to yupididit :

Have a look at rusEFI too.....it also used tunerstudio and may be more bang for you buck.  Again, I've not used it but spec and cost wise it looks better.

also have a look at

quadramap

It looks like the same thing as the multiMAP I had designed and use.....personally I think something like this is just flat re3quired for ITBs on the street.  On the track  you can just use alpha-n and move on but if you want it to idle and cruise nice, speed-density is much better and needs a good MAP signal like you get for one of these devices.  

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/19/22 9:59 p.m.
yupididit said:

In reply to mke :

Okay. I do have a current TunersStudio subscription. I'm looking to run itb's on my Mercedes 190e. It's currently ke-jet and my initial go-to is MS but I certainly know nothing of tuning itb's etc. This will be a jump in the deep end for me lol

I do systems for these types on itb conversions all the time. Shoot me a pm or email me from the site. 
Street use just blending map/tps works pretty well don't need anything crazy. 

yupididit
yupididit GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/20/22 3:04 a.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

I'll def send you a message. I may have found a shop out of England that does itb kits for this engine. I'm no stranger to busting knuckles but the less work for me the better. Time! 

Captdownshift (Forum Supporter)
Captdownshift (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/20/22 6:30 a.m.

In reply to yupididit :

You're soon going to be localish to Paul as well...

yupididit
yupididit GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/20/22 9:09 a.m.

In reply to Captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :

I'm already here! 

mke
mke Dork
1/20/22 11:39 a.m.
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I do systems for these types on itb conversions all the time. Shoot me a pm or email me from the site. 
Street use just blending map/tps works pretty well don't need anything crazy. 

I tried that once and know 3 or 4 other who have as well, all were disappointed and moved on to other options.   I do I suspect that what is a "street setup"  has many different meanings but what I've seen on this path were much more race car than cruiser with great results near WOT but all kinds of stumbles and such at low throttle. All were fairly modified engines so no idea what would happen on a stockish engines but getting a good MAP signal solved 90% of the issues on the ones I'm aware of...."bad data is worse than no data" or "garage in, garbage out" kind of thing.  Getting a good MAP signal from ITBs is not hard and really helps.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/20/22 2:59 p.m.

I have tried software tweaks as well as hardware like the syncromap and it really makes no difference. Big thing is getting a *repeatable* signal from either a vac log or individual sensors, one cylinder sampling just doesn't cut it but that's what many do. The big thing for tuning a blended ITB setup is the switchpoints between tps and map blending and it's easy to get wrong and chase your tail.

frenchyd
frenchyd UltimaDork
1/20/22 4:43 p.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Regarding batch injections.  When I test injectors I use a stethoscope on each injector to confirm they are not only firing ( clicking) but I can hear a dirty injector because instead of a sharp click  I get what I call a mushy click.  
      I was under the impression each injector "fired" at a different time.   Am I wrong?   With batch fired do they all just fire at once or is there something that signals  which to fire and when?   
  I understand sequential And Jaguar didn't use that. 

mke
mke Dork
1/20/22 5:09 p.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Blending is so popular that most ECUs don't offer it. ...just sayin wink

Vac logs by definition significantly degrade the signal because for everey 1 cylinder pulling vacuum there are 3 that are vacuum leaks so throttle closed it doesn't look to bad, but just crack the throttle and the signal is all but gone and unusable. ...some you're stuck with TPS.  Years ago I saw a post on the syncromap but didn't realize any were built or sold, I've never seen one but it was on that threat I saw a sketch for a simple diode ciruit which I borrowed for the multiMAP and I assume is what is in the QuardraMAP thing because they says they will be offering more than 4 and that gets complicated with the syncromap design.

My engine with 12 54mm ITBs and pretty big cams is idling at around 35-38kPA and 2k rpm is like 45kpa, 3k is like 50kpa....it acts just like any manifold eninge MAP signal wise, smooth, clean linear signal.  Nothing to fuss with, no tuning 2 load methods, no cross-over  to try to blend....I'm not saying you can't make other setups work but this way is so easy and you can't even tell your working with ITBs.

Robbie (Forum Supporter)
Robbie (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/20/22 5:17 p.m.

In reply to mke :

How are you getting your MAP signal? Sorry if I missed it.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/20/22 6:22 p.m.
mke said:

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Blending is so popular that most ECUs don't offer it. ...just sayin wink

Vac logs by definition significantly degrade the signal because for everey 1 cylinder pulling vacuum there are 3 that are vacuum leaks so throttle closed it doesn't look to bad, but just crack the throttle and the signal is all but gone and unusable. ...some you're stuck with TPS.  Years ago I saw a post on the syncromap but didn't realize any were built or sold, I've never seen one but it was on that threat I saw a sketch for a simple diode ciruit which I borrowed for the multiMAP and I assume is what is in the QuardraMAP thing because they says they will be offering more than 4 and that gets complicated with the syncromap design.

My engine with 12 54mm ITBs and pretty big cams is idling at around 35-38kPA and 2k rpm is like 45kpa, 3k is like 50kpa....it acts just like any manifold eninge MAP signal wise, smooth, clean linear signal.  Nothing to fuss with, no tuning 2 load methods, no cross-over  to try to blend....I'm not saying you can't make other setups work but this way is so easy and you can't even tell your working with ITBs.

If I am reading this right, you are using a system of 12 MAP sensors, right?  For the V12 Ferrari?

Since the quadramap is a $125 for the 4, that's a big cost vs. doing the blending.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/20/22 8:29 p.m.
mke said:
yupididit said:

In reply to fidelity101 (Forum Supporter) :

Big differences between haltech and MS for you? 

SUPPORT!!!!

Haltech sells a finished product that they fully tech support, you call/email with a question,  they give you the answer.   They also are real enclosures, very rugged.

MS is forum supported for the most part and stuff like a case is optional, real sealed locking connectors are optional, the tuning software is 3rd party and requires a subscription to access the nicer features....this is why they cost less up front but not necessarily in the longer run.  Its a fine option for a lot of people, but you do generally get what you pay for. 

The MS that I just bought came with a waterproof case, proper sealed cavity connectors, and a Tuner Studio license.  (Which is redundant, as I already have one)

Things have come a long way from Bowling & Grippo solder-it-yourself kits, where you had to twiddle trim pots to try to get a noise free crank signal.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/20/22 8:42 p.m.

In reply to mke :

This is my car on MS2.  It is a bridge ported 13B so it idles at around 70-80kpa and has four 42mm throttle bodies, one per intake port, no plenum except for the channel that feeds the MAP sensor.  I'm running speed density, not TPS.  It is a complete Bob Costascat to drive.  It does not have nearly the amount of part throttle stutters that bridge ports are known for.  To be sure it has SOME, but you'll have that, no amount of tuning will entirely cover for having 100-150 degrees or so of overlap period.

Ignore the shifter manhandling... with the crazy amount of lash the locker diff has, and the 100% rod end rear suspension, my brain kept sliding into "dog box" mode.

Or this video, the reason for the 9":  driving with a welded diff and a broken axle, in the rain, while towing a trailer, which is more or less where you would really really REALLY want smooth drivability:

 

Point is, having poor part throttle drivability isn't generally an ECU fault, it's a tuner fault.  Most people who "tune" only care about getting it to run well at WOT, sort-of idle, and part throttle is a shrugfest as long as you may proceed to WOT from there.  It takes a lot of time to get part throttle and especially tip-in from idle to work really well.  I've had tuned OE PCMs that were horrible for part throttle and off-idle drivability because the tuner didn't care much about it.

mke
mke Dork
1/20/22 9:35 p.m.
alfadriver said:

If I am reading this right, you are using a system of 12 MAP sensors, right?  For the V12 Ferrari?

Since the quadramap is a $125 for the 4, that's a big cost vs. doing the blending.

Doing nothing and living with the issues is usually cheaper, that doesn't make it comparable to fixing the issues wink

For cost, 4 is enough for a good signal so 4, 8, 12 could use a signal quardamap  and a 6 could you 3 I guess and still have a decent result I would think. The more cylinders you read the less smoothing you need to do to the signal so you get a stronger signal and faster response but a low power which is where this helps lag is fine. 

The multiMAP I use with 12 sensors cost about the same iirc but I had to built it..it was like $20 for the board, $10/sensor and another $20 for diodes and resistors.  It could be done on a breadboard to save the $20 but less neat that way.

Then there is what else can be done.  In my setup I adjust the signal smoothing based on load and rpm to minimize lag.  I also read all 12 sensor and use them adjust fuel to each cylinder so it doesn't really matter very much if the TBs are not in perfect or even very good sync.....its easy to get used to an ECU that lets you do whatever the heck pops into you mind on any give day cheeky

mke
mke Dork
1/20/22 10:06 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to mke :

Point is, having poor part throttle drivability isn't generally an ECU fault, it's a tuner fault.  Most people who "tune" only care about getting it to run well at WOT, sort-of idle, and part throttle is a shrugfest as long as you may proceed to WOT from there.  It takes a lot of time to get part throttle and especially tip-in from idle to work really well.  I've had tuned OE PCMs that were horrible for part throttle and off-idle drivability because the tuner didn't care much about it.

I guess my point is you can't polish a turd. 

I'm not dissing any ECU or setup  and I agree that many things can be make to work but starting with a solid foundation has a much better chance of producing a good result in the end.  Starting with good signals is usually better than starting with poor signals, using shielded wire for analog stuff is usually better than using unshield, using a more powerful ECU with more options is usually better than starting with bare minimum spec HW....at each setup there is a chance things won't work quite right and the more opportunity you give things to go wrong the more likely they will and the less likely you'll be able to correct it.  But if it works it work big smiles, but when its not working and the hair pulling begins, you end up replacing stuff you learn it would have been WAY cheaper to do it right the 1st time blush

yupididit
yupididit GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/20/22 10:18 p.m.

Discussion is starting to go over my head lol

mke
mke Dork
1/20/22 10:29 p.m.

In reply to yupididit :

Nah, right now it seems mostly headed to what do you need vs what do you want.  Save money and hope it all works out fine and you're happy or spend more and know it will be fine.  Different issues happen on different setups and bother different people different amounts....I think that is all the last page or so says.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 6:53 a.m.

In reply to mke :

Oh, no doubt there are "issues".  Scope tracing the electrical noise on a MS install vs. an OE install is eye opening.  But I also can't say that this is strictly an MS problem, as the OE systems do have the benefit of having more engineering and manufacturing dollars thrown at them, to be amortized over millions of products.  I have seen similar problems with other, much "better" hardware.  More expensive and well-advertised hardware, at least.

I DID vote with my dollars, after all.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 7:09 a.m.

In reply to mke :

You are assuming that a good alpha-n calibration can't be done.  It can.  And when you factor the drive difference, cost then becomes a big deal.  

Just because you apparently think one can't calibrate a good alpha-n system doesn't mean it's really impossible- Alfa Romeo was able to do that with a mechanical computer 50 years ago.  And it drives great.  Replicating that with an MS is very possible.

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 8:09 a.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to mke :

You are assuming that a good alpha-n calibration can't be done.  It can. 

No, no, of course you can get a decent alpha-n tune.  I'll bet 99% of ITB setups are done that way.  a-N (with baro correction) is by far the preferred setup for track use because it has by far the highest resolution near WOT.  On a setup like mine with BIG ITBs there is not a lot of change in air flow from 90% throttle to 100% so even with a multiMAP setup the signal would be like 98kpa to 100kp or a 2% change, but the TPS will see a 10% change giving the tuner better control where it matters most, at least on the track.

On the street though things reverse. on my engine with with big ITBs going from idle at 1000-1200rpm to 3000rmp ia 2-3% TPS change.  I say 2-3% because its not always the same, it kind ot depends on how the linkage settles.  But that is about a 10kPa change so here by far the preferred setup is a good MAP signal because it give the best tune where the engine is used most.

Blending schemes seem like the best of both worlds but I've personally never had good luck with it and the tune ends up basically 100% a-N because I had a poor MAP signal to work with that was only usable at idle, but I'm sure with smaller TBs and maybe less cam it would work better so I not really even saying anything bad about that path.  I've also tried telling the ECU the MAP is a Baro for the a-N and that worked better, at least on the setup I was playing with. 

I'm not in anyway saying there is a right or wrong path, I'm saying that if you pick the path that is strongest where you care the most you'll probably be happier with the end results.

Lots of options, pick your poison.  To me personally, an additional $120 to let me use S-D instead of a-N on a street setup is well worth it because I'm more than a little OCD and having to raise the revs to avoid stumbling away from a stop light makes me insane, but to your point, that really is the whole difference between a good a-N tune and a good S-N tune on the street.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 8:15 a.m.

In reply to mke :

Maybe you have too big of throttles...  all of your issues seem to point that way.  It's a pretty common thing for Alfa drivers to put on 45mm Webers only to find out they drive like crap and really don't improve power unless you have a full race set up- and part throttle driving doesn't happen.

 

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 8:21 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to mke :

Scope tracing the electrical noise on a MS install vs. an OE install is eye opening. .....  More expensive and well-advertised hardware, at least.

I DID vote with my dollars, after all.

I have nothing at all against anything MS..well,  personally I like to see 25-40 rpm points on the fuel tables depending on the cams, but other than that nothing.

What I was saying was if at very choice of better/cheaper you pick cheaper then you can all but be certain performance has suffered...maybe not is ways you care about or can't deal with but maybe is ways that leaving you tearing your hair out and the fact that you ordered your MS2 with a sealed case and proper connectors tells me you've come to about the same place wink

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 8:28 a.m.

In reply to mke :

Oh no, the WRX is getting an MS3Pro Evo.  A little more money than the MS2 smiley But I want the higher processor speed, CAN capabilities, variable cam timing control capabilities, enhanced map switching/blending, and onboard data logging so I can log without having a laptop bouncing around in the car.

The ability to do drive by wire with an external controller is also interesting, but I want to wait for that to mature more and get integrated further with the antilag.

  I had been considering a Link that could do DBW and on board wide band control, but it's the devil I know and I have done several MS3Pro installs with good success.  And have been running MS/MS2 on the RX-7 since 2009 or so.

whittlebeast
whittlebeast New Reader
1/21/22 8:57 a.m.

If you are fighting EFI, look up my name in YouTube.  Having enough IO and having a useable  user interface are the two big issues when using any stand alone EFI.  Understand electrical noise and keeping things dry with high quality connections is huge on any install.  Data logging capability is way under rated when purchasing and stand alone until you find out that the one you chose was designed for drag racing and you are hosed in the long run of road racing.

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 9:25 a.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to mke :

Maybe you have too big of throttles...  all of your issues seem to point that way.  It's a pretty common thing for Alfa drivers to put on 45mm Webers only to find out they drive like crap and really don't improve power unless you have a full race set up- and part throttle driving doesn't happen.

 

Too big a TB for what?  Remember this is an engine that goes to 11 cheeky

The point about not helping unless its "full race" is right....if the engine can't flow the air then there is only downside to larger TBs.  The 54mm size for my engine was chosen on the flow bench and confirmed with Dynomation engine modeling software, they are a pretty good match.  The basic rule is if you can see it on the flow bench you'll see it on the dyno and these cost about 1% flow iirc but were the largest I could find at a reasonable price so 54mm it is. Also as the size goes up the software was saying the waves became less helpful so the flowbench and software predictions started to diverge with the software saying that last 1% was an illusion.   These were the factory TBs on a race engine with a 375cc cylinder and street engine with a 500cc cylinder, I'm 458cc so closer to the street setup than race and clearly in the factory window.  So flow bench says they are about right, the software likes them, ducati says they are about right displacement/intent wise....I think they are about right.

This is the beauty of TBs and EFI vs carb...carb rules about street vs race size just don't apply.  With Webers if you want full hp at 9k then it not going to run much below 3k, its just not,  so as you said for the street you have no choice but to downsize knowing its costing ...15% on top vs the race carb.  EFI TB with no jets or idle junk sticking into the flow stream let the throttle be a little smaller for the same flow, but more importantly the fuel flow does not depend on air velocity so the correct mixture can be achieved for basically any cylinder/TB combination.

But yes, just putting on smaller TBs and saying heck with the hp would make tuning WAY easier....but where is the run in that?  This is why I chose an ECU that allows me to make literally whatever setup or tuning change I please and all the things I've added (like the multiMAP) are focused on sorting low throttle issues caused by big TBs that are needed for full hp.   

A lesser EFI setup (not dissing any ECU, I mean the whole setup and how all the pieces work together as a system) lets you run a street engine on the street just fine but a fancier EFI setup lets you run what 20 years ago was a race-only engine happily on the street.  This  is maybe the better way top look at it?  

 

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/21/22 9:29 a.m.

I'll have to pull up my individual MAP data, it definitely doesn't sound like your experience at all. I was thinking it was the cyl count being different but your thoughts around being able to use 4/12 would debunk that. Time to dive in again laugh my next setup is 60mm throttles but it only has to idle and WOT and the middle doesn't matter at all.

On throttle sizing I have seen many with them too small, more often than too large. We see power gains on ITB over plenum setups only when the ITB are "pretty big" ie 45mm+ on 0.5L /cyl even with inefficient cylinder heads.

Pete, we have been doing a lot of the MS3 Pro / DBWX2 combos lately on the newer VW and BMW and it really works well. All integrated over CAN and the DBWX2 has been really robust once we helped get some of the little sw bugs worked out. 

I also am puzzled by onboard WB because most of the time I don't use it due to needing a 2nd and wanting to match, or use a NGK sensor that's not supported, or using 1 per cyl...

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 10:12 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to mke :

Oh no, the WRX is getting an MS3Pro Evo. 

They are nice but as you say no longer cheap and there are many options in the MS3pro price range.  I paid $1000 for mine (new but opened box on ebay) that has about double of everything on your list....double the processor speed(actually about 6 times i think when you take 16 vs 32 bit into account), 2 CAN channels, 500logging channel at 1hhz or about a 1000 at 10hz, and yes, 2 built in DBW channels, built in WBO2 controllers, 24 analog in, etc......but it requires creating a model which is more work than most would want to do.  

Pick your poison right?

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 10:18 a.m.

In reply to mke :

For what?  Real use.  It's one thing to make sure the correct fuel is being delivered.  It's another where your right foot has enough control.  If your drive cycle is truly binary, then the mid-throttle control isn't that important.  But having been a calibrator for just about 30 years now, the hardest part of making a car move well is slow, parking lot stuff.  WOT is easy, stuff to WOT is easy.  Driving in a parking lot where the passenger isn't a threat to throw up is a challenge.  It's one of my pet peeved about our ETC- where there's a steep torque demand right off of zero- making slow moves much more difficult.

My example of the Alfa is also a 500cc cylinder.  Not 4V perhaps.  45 DCOEs are marginal on the street, and bigger is a waste of time when you have to park.

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 10:38 a.m.
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I'll have to pull up my individual MAP data, it definitely doesn't sound like your experience at all. I was thinking it was the cyl count being different but your thoughts around being able to use 4/12 would debunk that. Time to dive in again laugh my next setup is 60mm throttles but it only has to idle and WOT and the middle doesn't matter at all.

On throttle sizing I have seen many with them too small, more often than too large. We see power gains on ITB over plenum setups only when the ITB are "pretty big" ie 45mm+ on 0.5L /cyl even with inefficient cylinder heads.

hmmm...I have not done a 4 personally, that result I saw on the MS forum, it was a bike enigne iirc and what lead me to head down this path.  I have done 8 and 12 and the result was what you'd expect, on the 8 you see wider, long humps on the raw single than on the 12 so more smoothing/filtering needed on the 8.

The board I had designed can literally be sawed to make it  2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 MAP+ a baro capable but will work with any number of sensors installed or connected.   When my engine goes back into the car in a couple week I'll try to unplug some hoses and see what happens, I could log  2, 3, 4, 6, 12 I guess and see how they compare with all other things basically equal.

As a reference its full ported 4V/cyl with 242/246 @ .050 cams, peak ho should be 9000-9500 with the lobe centers and headers it has, the software says changing those 2 items would add another 8% more hp but push the peak to 10500-11000...but that scares me.

Same on the TB sizing....TBs selected from carb size formulas are always much too small to make good hp and make less than the plenum that came off....but they look cool and are relatively easy to make run good so that makes a lot of people happy I suppose 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 11:14 a.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

The onboard wide band was one of the things I really liked about the FAST XFI.  The computer could hold desired lambda so tightly that you could tune by looking at the real-time correction factor in the data log.

I also have had.... issues... with getting my AEM and my MS2 to give the same reading.  Am hoping wideband over CAN gets me most of the way to where I want to be.

For DBW, I want to be able to hold the throttle to a fixed percentage when antilag is active, I didn't see a way to do that, unless the controller can convert idle counts to a large throttle position.  Want to keep the turbo spooled while braking into a corner.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 11:35 a.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) and Paul_VR6 :

Can you guys clarify what the issue for on board WB is?  Seems like a very good thing to me- especially the non stoich control part.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 11:43 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

MS does not have it, must use external controller.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 12:08 p.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

That, I knew.  Is there no chance that it will ever go on?  Seems like it would be a natural board extension.  

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 12:21 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to mke :

For what?  Real use.  It's one thing to make sure the correct fuel is being delivered.  It's another where your right foot has enough control.  If your drive cycle is truly binary, then the mid-throttle control isn't that important.  But having been a calibrator for just about 30 years now, the hardest part of making a car move well is slow, parking lot stuff.  WOT is easy, stuff to WOT is easy.  Driving in a parking lot where the passenger isn't a threat to throw up is a challenge.  It's one of my pet peeved about our ETC- where there's a steep torque demand right off of zero- making slow moves much more difficult.

My example of the Alfa is also a 500cc cylinder.  Not 4V perhaps.  45 DCOEs are marginal on the street, and bigger is a waste of time when you have to park.

I do hear what you are saying and I agree with nearly all of it.  The only place we diverge is comparing weber sizing to EFI TB sizing...the webers MUST be smaller then EFI TBs need to be.

But yeah, getting ti to come off idle and roll around a parking lot looking for a spot smoothly is hard, really hard.  That is why I am so adamant about getting a good MAP signal, I've just never been able to make it work the way I expect it to work with just TPS, at least not with decent size TBs. 

On my setup I also use a table to translate pedal position to desired TPS, so I can set say the first 20% pedal travel to be only 5% throttle movement or what even % I want, just change the numbers in the table.  This is like progressive mechanical linkage but a lot easier to adjust.

Last  I read all 12 MAP sensors and compare them to the global MAP signal then trim each cylinder's fuel accordingly so linkage related errors cylinder to cylinder don't bugger up the mixtures and the engine runs smooth at all throttle positions.  This could be done with cylinder O2 too and that was my original plan but this neater and uses sensors I already have and seems to work pretty well so far but it's still only had limited testing.

A bonus of the cylinder MAPs is I have a TB sync screen on the PC....The actuator is attached to cylinder 12 so on the sync screen I see the 5 MAP error of every cylinder compared to 12 so adjusting the other 11 TBs to match is a 5 minute job.....lots of things can be done when more data is available.

 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 12:29 p.m.

In reply to mke :

Can I say it's amusing that you have a system to sync the 12 cylinders?  I hope you are not using any cables anywhere- the struggle to get two cable throttles to open at the same time was an adventure when we got the first V12 put into an Aston Martin.  And it didn't take a lot of heat to mess that sync up.  The result of that would be one bank that would go into idle or fuel shut off totally differently, and caused a lot of stalls when the other bank couldn't deal with it.

The end result was to force the two modules to sync up- which was not trivial since it was before CAN existed.

The next car (the Vanquish) fixed that by improving the communication and being electronic throttle.

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 1:11 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to mke :

Can I say it's amusing that you have a system to sync the 12 cylinders? 

why?  It runs smoother when the TBs are in sync.

I have motorcylce TBs so they are setup like a motorcyle.  A single electronic actuator drives all 12 (replacing the original pedal cable setup), but its is connected to #12 with a rod connecting to #1 on the other bank.  7-12 and 1-6  are motorcylce style, one shaft drives the next with a spring loaded adjuster. Look at the screen, adjust 12 thru 7, 1 to 12, 1 thru 6 and its done.  Cheap and simple.

But then it doesn't matter that they stay anything like in perfect sync because each cylinder fuel matched the MAP reading for that cylinder....when I first fired it up they were +/- 30% on the MAP readings and it ran fine (once I fixed my coding error so it was error removing instead of error doubling, Doh!).  I adjust them to +/-5% and call it done.  I do have it setup to light a malfunction light when they are out more than 10% just to let me know its time to re-sync them but that's just a nice to have.

I agree the things you're describing are problems, but a well designed control system solves them in short order.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/21/22 2:12 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) and Paul_VR6 :

Can you guys clarify what the issue for on board WB is?  Seems like a very good thing to me- especially the non stoich control part.

I have used the onboard O2 all of ONCE in the 36 installs I just counted where it was an option in the ECU. Most of those needed 2 channel wb so for consistency used two external controllers anyway. The next batch were using NGK sensors with either the old AFX or AFR500 controllers (from 1-4) and none of the ECUs chosen supported the NGK natively (Bosch chip). The next few were using 4-or more more O2 over CAN anyway for per cylinder readings. 

Even with all the MS ecu's I sell, I rarely need to include a WB as the owner already has one in the car so why use a second sensor or add a display just for that.

So it seems like the onboard O2 is so far down the list I usually don't pay it any mind. Maybe it's different for mild builds/turbo conversions, etc. 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 2:37 p.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Not onboard O2, but onboard WB.  Is there anyone putting a WB controller directly attached to a MS system?

It's been almost 20 years since I've worked with a car that just used the basic O2 sensor, so I'd require a WB as part of the MS system.  IIRC, there were a handful of WB kits that were the basic board that theoretically would fit inside a controller box.  Just a matter of integrating that circuits into the whole box.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 2:42 p.m.

In reply to mke :

funny in the way that it reminded me of the struggles we had with the two cable throttles.  Since they were on the opposite sides of the engine, a mechanical linkage would have been, well.. almost impossible.  So there was a common crank that then change the pedal input to the two cables to the throttles.

The issue wasn't a/f from bank to bank, it was synchronising the transition from decel to idle.  Before CAN, the modules didn't have an easy way to talk to each other.  

frenchyd
frenchyd UltimaDork
1/21/22 2:43 p.m.

Should we ask to have this set up as a seperate site?  
I for one would love to have one site to go to for all EFI questions and I'm getting the idea I'm not alone. 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/21/22 3:23 p.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

My experience has been the opposite, I have used the onboard wideband in 100% of the installs that used it (lots of FAST, one Hydra something or other for a Subaru)

I really like the NTK sensor.  It handles leaded fuel just fine.  Most of the cars I had a FAST on were fed a steady diet of C16.

mke
mke Dork
1/21/22 5:16 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to mke :

 Since they were on the opposite sides of the engine, a mechanical linkage would have been, well.. almost impossible. 

My problem was the opposite, finding enough room to physically fit 2 rows of TBs... I ended up moving the ports in the head to make them fit surprise

 

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/22/22 7:27 a.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Not onboard O2, but onboard WB.  Is there anyone putting a WB controller directly attached to a MS system?

It's been almost 20 years since I've worked with a car that just used the basic O2 sensor, so I'd require a WB as part of the MS system.  IIRC, there were a handful of WB kits that were the basic board that theoretically would fit inside a controller box.  Just a matter of integrating that circuits into the whole box.

Sorry I wasn't clear I meant onboard wideband when I was saying o2 (havent used a narrowband for anything in a long, long time as well).  I did put an SLC-oem controller inside a ms case once but all it did was eat up all the spares pins and need an added connector for the spark outs and additional i/o. I couldn't find any advantage other than a slight packaging gain which in most installs isn't an issue. 

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 9:18 a.m.

I guess an ECU that comes with a built-in WBO2 controller or 2 is a cost advantage but if you have to add it as an extra cost option and it takes pins from other stuff then not so much an advantage.  I do like having to mount less "stuff" though so even for extra cost  might consider it.  My ECU has 2 which I am using on the 2 banks like a normal person so when I bought it I liked that it had them and considered it a selling feature.  

....then I added 4 NBO2  in the quadrant collectors (its a street car intended to live most of its life at or near stoich so they seemed good enough to be useful working on low power issues) but I keep thinking of replacing then with WB and that would make the 2 I have redundant and the internal controllers wasted since I'd want the 4 to match.....but everything you need to buy adds up my wife keeps explaining to me 'Hon, I need to order an $80.....fine, I don't really NEED that right now I guess......"

Only considering the big ticket items is one my best tools for talking myself into really stupid projects "wait, I can buy a V12 for $4k?  I'm was going to spend more than that on the new blower setup so it would be basically free to switch to a V12!". .....yeah, not so much blush 

That's maybe an extreme example (but sadly it's true) but taking the time to plan out the project a little before starting is the the best way to pick out an ECU and not need to replace it or add a ton of upgrades and extra stuff later to make up for a poor choice you made based only on cost at the start of the project.  In all my years I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "Man!,  I wish I'd bought an ECU with less features!", its always people wishing they'd bought the more feature full unit when it was only another $100 or 2. Something always come up, something you forgot, or something not working how you'd hoped...something..... and its way cheaper to be prepared with an ECU that has extra I/O pins and features.  I get budget but "pennywise and pound foolish" comes to mind when I here talk of the lowest cost options.

 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 10:03 a.m.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

So then other question of adding pins to compensate for the extra board is not really a question, then.  

Which brings up a different question- are there WB systems out there that the MS can tell to turn on?  So there is communication between the two systems?  I'm very much out of the loop for aftermarket WB systems- last time I bought any was 1998 or so- and those ECM units are still being made.  

Sorry about the tangent.

My "fantasy" MS project could be influenced by which one of I can have some control over the WB module.

(Not that anyone cares- but my "fantasy" project is to EFI my SPICA Alfa, and add a catalyst.  Right now, the simple MicroSquirt fits my requirements, but it's still only in my mind.  Things can change)

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 10:15 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

Most/all stand alone wideband controllers can output an analog 0-5v signal, this gets fed to the narrowband O2 input and the firmware is configured to interpret that correctly as lambda.

Some controllers, such as my AEM, can communicate via CAN, and MS3 can read this data.  (MS2 apparently only has enough computing power to broadcast, which I discovered AFTER I bought the AEM)  This eliminates a couple layers of digital to analog and back conversion and the errors that get picked up along the way.

Microsquirt is MS2 based, if I remember right.

 

I like having everything in one module, no separate devices to have to find homes for and run wiring to.  Part of the WRX plan involves using two of those nifty looking 70mm CAN-based gauges just so I don't have to run extra sending units or (gack!) mechanical capillary tubes.  Will be monitoring oil pressure with the MS3 for datalogging purposes so that is already going to the computer.  Basically the only additional gauge I will need is a fuel level gauge, which I really could probably set up for the computer to read and control, but at some point it's just doing something for the sake of doing it smiley

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 11:26 a.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

So I take it that the CAN based A/F meters are not really capable of taking instructions via CAN?  Having done a lot of work on when you can fire up a O2 sensor heater, I have a pretty good idea of the time needed to minimize the water droplets in the exhaust.  I guess one can use a MS output to control a relay to power the a/f meter.  But it would be cool to tell it to turn on.

 

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 11:55 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

I like having everything in one module, no separate devices to have to find homes for and run wiring to.  Part of the WRX plan involves using two of those nifty looking 70mm CAN-based gauges just so I don't have to run extra sending units or (gack!) mechanical capillary tubes.  Will be monitoring oil pressure with the MS3 for datalogging purposes so that is already going to the computer.  Basically the only additional gauge I will need is a fuel level gauge, which I really could probably set up for the computer to read and control, but at some point it's just doing something for the sake of doing it smiley

As another option, I'm now running all my original analog dash gauges (CLT, Oil Pres, Oil Temp) using PWM outputs on the ECU and it seems to be working fine, but obviously eats ECU output unless you use a CAN expander and at that point CAN gauge are probably easier unless you want the dash to look stock which is what I was going for.

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 12:07 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

So I take it that the CAN based A/F meters are not really capable of taking instructions via CAN?  Having done a lot of work on when you can fire up a O2 sensor heater, I have a pretty good idea of the time needed to minimize the water droplets in the exhaust.  I guess one can use a MS output to control a relay to power the a/f meter.  But it would be cool to tell it to turn on.

 

I think the most common setup is controller on when ignition is on?  That is how I've always done it and then the controller ramps the heater to bring the sensor up to temp slowly over about 30 seconds? Something like that but jsut follow the instructions that come with it and you should be fine.  Burning a GPIO out to turn it on when you want it on is certainly an option thought and is "communicating" via a digial signal right ? smiley   All the controllers I've seen other than MoTec (I think, they are all in on CAN everything) have an 0-5V output you just connect to an analog input on the ECU, even the CAN capable unit also have the analog out, at least the ones I've seen.

 

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 12:32 p.m.
alfadriver said:

My "fantasy" MS project could be influenced by which one of I can have some control over the WB module.

(Not that anyone cares- but my "fantasy" project is to EFI my SPICA Alfa, and add a catalyst.  Right now, the simple MicroSquirt fits my requirements, but it's still only in my mind.  Things can change)

just my opinion, so take it for what little its worth, waste spark is fine but I just  wouldn't bother doing a new install without sequential fuel....its just a lot easier to get the low power stuff sorted and smooth when you can say adjust the idle mixture in each cylinder.  So if MS is your must have ECU then a 2 or 3 is where I'd suggest looking.....but are also LOTS of other options and most if not all use better processors then the MS lineup.

I mentioned rusEFI...the 4cyl unit with 4 fuel, 4spark, DBW, CAN, and quite a lot of I/O  is $320 in a sealed case with sealed connectors.  All possible because it has a fast modern processor....it just seems way more bang for the buck.  It might be worth a look....

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 1:17 p.m.

In reply to mke :

The problem with just turning them on with the ignition is that you risk breaking the heater.  Especially at lower temps.  We turn on our UEGO's almost immediately after crank, but at 20 F, there's a delay of about 20 seconds at the exhaust temp passes through the condensation temp.  And that's to avoid getting a drop of water hitting the sensor, which can easily break the heater.

Not sure how many recalls we've issued for broken sensors- both the front main one  and the catalyst monitor sensor.  

On the other hand, for instrumentation UEGO's, I've still not managed to break one.  So it could be worth the risk.

Personally, WRT the warm up, I'd want to find the fastest one I can find.  Waiting for 45 seconds to get it working sucks.  We are currently down to 8 seconds in production, and will be working down to ~5 seconds over the next few years.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 1:21 p.m.

Sequential fuel is practically a must when you have short intake runners.  I have tried batch fire on a BGN engine with its tiny length runners and it was bad.  Some cylinders got fuel, some spat it back up into the plenum instead, where the other cylinders thereby got too much.  Literally running on four cylinders until I switched over to sequential.

I note that every batch fire system I am aware of had very long runners between the plenum and injector location. Reversion won't push it back into the plenum.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 2:05 p.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

I think you are illustrating the difference between OE and aftermarket. For the aftermarket, having a fully self-contained WB controller that fires up with ignition works just fine 99.9% of the time. When you have an install base in the hundreds or at most low thousands, that's not a problem. When you add another couple of orders of magnitude and 100k mile warranty coverage, well, that 0.1% is significant.  So there is little or no call for a WB controller that takes instruction.

JoeTR6
JoeTR6 Dork
1/22/22 2:10 p.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

With MS3 (not sure about MS2), you could set up a custom medium current output to power a relay that turns on your WB controller.  This could be based upon coolant/exhaust temp, and there may be a way to make it work from time since start.  I thought about doing this with the TR6, but just went with key on to better tune warmup.  We'll see how long the Bosch sensor lasts.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 2:20 p.m.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Probably.  As I've mentioned before, I've still not broken one of my instrumentation UEGO's after a few decades of testing.  And recently, I've taken to turning on the on board sensor before even cranking to replicate newer sensors, and I've still not broken one of those, either.

The two times I have damaged a sensor- the first was on a race truck that ran leaded fuel, and the second was a test where the exhaust extractor failed on full blast- pulling oil through the turbos and killing my exhaust.

Add to that- the last time I drove my Alfa below freezing was when we bought it and drove it home from Columbus in 1996.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 2:31 p.m.

My LC1 (LSU4.2)  heated in about five seconds.  The LSU4.9 systems seem to take a lot longer.  Maybe they are being more delicate with the sensor?

I do like that the AEM utilizes the calibration resistor. Innovates require a fresh air recalibration with a new sensor, they ignore the calibration resistor.

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 3:20 p.m.

There is a heating applied voltage vs time curve for the 4.9 sensor in the data sheet and its not crazy fast....but I guess why would you need it to be?  OEMs need to meet tight emissions specs so I can see how they might work hard to figure out just how fast they can start getting O2 data, and I imagine try different sensor location and lots of different warmup curves.  I'm not sure what the value on a race car or hotrod of that would be though vs taking a conservative approach and knowing you aren't damaging the sensor?

I've not played with LSU ADv sensors, I guess the read faster but not idea if you can heat them up faster without fear...but still it would seem a conservative approach to heating on a custom install is mostly upside.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 4:02 p.m.

In reply to mke :

Being closed loop ASAP is better than not.   Trying to calculate the lost fuel estimate on a cold engine in a consistent manner takes a very long time and a whole lot of starts.  Even if it's conservative, it doesn't take much of a mistake to be a problem.  And for my "fantasy" application, I will add a catalyst- so making sure I have no misfires by being closed loop is a high priority.

Yes, emissions are much more robust, but one rule I've learned- if the a/f control makes really good emissions, it also drives really well. 

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 4:03 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

My LC1 (LSU4.2)  heated in about five seconds.  The LSU4.9 systems seem to take a lot longer.  Maybe they are being more delicate with the sensor?

I do like that the AEM utilizes the calibration resistor. Innovates require a fresh air recalibration with a new sensor, they ignore the calibration resistor.

That would be odd- the larger the number, the newer the part- and the newer the part, the faster we have been pushing them to use.

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 4:05 p.m.

And just to kind of restate, for people that like to mess with stuff like how and when the WBO2 sensor heats up enginelab might be for you.  The AEM infinity HW is 0, 1, 2 onboard controllers in the 3, 5, 7 HW respectively and the enginelab software can be loaded at no cost, just register the HW on the enginelab site and then the world is yours. 

Right click, add if-else, and select the things you want to happen before the heater starts

Right click add table and define whatever fuel control you can dream up. or add 12 tables or 20 tables.  Everything I've been able to dream up hasn't used even 1/2 the available memory space I don't think.

Right click, add CAN packet, define the packet

No actual C programming, its a menu driven logic level, so If yo can say, I need to read the MAP sensor then smooth the reading, then convert from voltage to kPa,  then you can probably do it.   No compiling and you can change the model on the fly in the ECU.  There is also a scripting language for those that understand how to use it, which does not include me so I use the menu stuff.  Writing a whole model is a lot of work, but I'm happy to share mine with anyone who wants it as a starting point....its pretty frikin cool once you get the hang of it.

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 4:08 p.m.
alfadriver said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

My LC1 (LSU4.2)  heated in about five seconds.  The LSU4.9 systems seem to take a lot longer.  Maybe they are being more delicate with the sensor?

I do like that the AEM utilizes the calibration resistor. Innovates require a fresh air recalibration with a new sensor, they ignore the calibration resistor.

That would be odd- the larger the number, the newer the part- and the newer the part, the faster we have been pushing them to use.

The innovate brand controllers are kind of know for frying sensors so  maybe not a surprise.

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 4:20 p.m.

In reply to alfadriver :

Funny, I almost never use closed loop on anything....just 1 more thing to go wrong.  I just err on the rich side during warm up and it always drives nice.  I have used closed loop under cruise conditions but it seemed more trouble than it was worth.  I love the idea, at least for lower power,  just not the work to really make it work well.

I'm not sure what other ECUs also have it these days, but there is misfire detection capability in enginelab.  I've kind of got it working but just haven't spent enough time to really get it right.  It shows me when all it well and an occasional misfire, but once things are misfiring all the time it kind of stops seeing them, but at that point lambda shows it clearly, at least in open loop.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 4:25 p.m.

Closed loop makes it much easier not to go wrong. It is the key to everything. You just have to make sure the ECU is getting good data.

alfadriver
alfadriver GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 4:33 p.m.

In reply to mke :

You should try closed loop.  It was a pretty amazing revolution for OEM's to have non-stoich closed loop- make more power and at the same time keep the exhaust cool enough with less fuel.  We almost have closed loop exhaust temp control with that.  My experience with that is why I want closed loop ASAP and all of the time.  Adding the ease of calibration just makes it better.

Sensors only fail when the heater cracks and when the surface is poisoned, other than that, they work really well and are incredibly reliable.  

And it's kind of ironic you worry about one more sensor going wrong when you have 12 MAP sensors.  Just pointing that out.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/22/22 5:40 p.m.
Keith Tanner said:

Closed loop makes it much easier not to go wrong. It is the key to everything. You just have to make sure the ECU is getting good data.

And that is why I like the FAST, it is closed loop all the time and VERY good at keeping to desired lambda.

At least it works well for single O2 applications like turbo Buicks.

mke
mke Dork
1/22/22 5:44 p.m.
alfadriver said:

In reply to mke :

You should try closed loop. 

As I said, I have used it in the past but just just never found it to add value.  Once the calibration was done, it was making +/- a couple %...mostly to pull out the fuel is just added vice versa so it was much more stable with it off than on.   I do have a closed loop lambda roughed into my model so if a need arises I can finish it up and give it a try, but I'll wait until I see a need but for now I'm just logging lambda error to speed up calibration work.  Its not that have anything against letting the ECU change things, I do have the ECU trimming the cylinder fuel based on MAP.....and that seems enough for now.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/23/22 8:24 a.m.
alfadriver said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

My LC1 (LSU4.2)  heated in about five seconds.  The LSU4.9 systems seem to take a lot longer.  Maybe they are being more delicate with the sensor?

I do like that the AEM utilizes the calibration resistor. Innovates require a fresh air recalibration with a new sensor, they ignore the calibration resistor.

That would be odd- the larger the number, the newer the part- and the newer the part, the faster we have been pushing them to use.

My neanderthal brain sees that the 4.9 sensors are smaller and more expensive, which equates to "more fragile" to me.    Certainly I never had any problems with the 4.2 sensors from cold shock, since it was SOP for me to turn the ignition on, wait for the sensor to warm up and start reading, and THEN start the car, so I could see what it was doing on a cold start.  The only thing that would kill the sensor was rapid and flamboyantly spectacular ingestion of a half quart or so of engine oil when I'd let the oil level get too high, the sensors don't like that very much.  Then again neither did the local mosquito population, or the other people on the road... even coal rollers would be all "Dude WTF".

 

#wankelissues

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter)
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
1/23/22 10:34 p.m.
mke said:
alfadriver said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

My LC1 (LSU4.2)  heated in about five seconds.  The LSU4.9 systems seem to take a lot longer.  Maybe they are being more delicate with the sensor?

I do like that the AEM utilizes the calibration resistor. Innovates require a fresh air recalibration with a new sensor, they ignore the calibration resistor.

That would be odd- the larger the number, the newer the part- and the newer the part, the faster we have been pushing them to use.

The innovate brand controllers are kind of know for frying sensors so  maybe not a surprise.

Because innovate is too cheap to use the bosch control chip. 

To go with alfa's q a few pages back I have an odd control strategy on mine that works for me. I use a separate relay, and turn it on at rpm > 500 or tps >90 so if I want to calibrate it I can just floor it with the car off. On ms3 likely you can define a custom loop with coolant temp vs time as well to define the output logic. I would have to think a little on how to implement but it should be do-able. 

Agreed on the i/o and features always nice to have spares available. 

mke
mke Dork
1/24/22 1:10 p.m.
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

On ms3 likely you can define a custom loop with coolant temp vs time as well to define the output logic. I would have to think a little on how to implement but it should be do-able.

I can't help myself, I'm going to show you how easy custom can be

Target>Add Channel>NoOperatioon>

 

 

TRhe winow opens and you give it a name, I called it WBO2_Sensor_Delay_Time and in the inial value I set 5 for 5 seconds

Then Target>Add Channel> If-Else Condition> RunTime>WBO2_Sensor_Delay_Time ( You don't type the variables, you just select from the menu)

Then Target>Add Channel>Hardware IO> select the if-else you just added, select the driver you want to use

Now the ECU is literally reprogrammed

 If you want to see the new variable and be able to set abjust in on the tuning software,  

Right click on the page and select  whatever tuner page you want to add it to, select Text, selected WBO2_Sensor_Delay_Time for the menu and that's done.  You can set the display up however you want.  Its REALLY easy to get used to having the ECU do whatever please

Our Preferred Partners
F2Qw3SE4NFRuvvT9EzD61VViFibE07VdnFQYQ0R7vrxydzc8hI2Cqqyrxqyvpzfd