Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you say matrix you mean interpolation.. i.e averaging surrounding cells?

Tim Possingham was/is a wizard with the Microtechs, BUT I do remember he mentioned it can be tuned for the absolute best economy but slight response does suffer. Its just a limitation of the limited load and rpm points. Interpolation can only 'guess' so good.

i ran my PFC with closed loop off for a few months (extensive work on the fuel maps however)

getting around 400k's to tank, sometimes slightly under

with it on it was consistent over 400k's to a tank

so its not the be-all and end all, but it is a good feature to have

if the fuel maps havent been tuned properly (lots of time/labour) then economy will suck without working closed loop.

so does the microtech have closed loop now ?

theres a couple of 33 pfcs on ebay and even a 34 one for 1350$

still cheap in comparison to what else is out there , just dont think about the old price a couple of months ago

That 34 PFC on Ebay is currently on its way to me now :laugh: Paid too much for it but I don't care, at least I was able to get one finally.

Maybe a little clarification might help.

The SAFC/SITC combo sits between the AFM & CAS and the standard ECU. So they modify the signals that the standard ECU receives, tricking it into using the load points on the fuel and ignition maps that give you the desired A/F ratio and ignition timing.

AFM --> SAFC --> standard ECU

CAS --> SITC --> standard ECU

The Jaycar DFA kit achieves the same thing

AFM --> DFA --> standard ECU

The DFA is obviously quite cheap (~$80 plus $70 for the Controller). SAFC’s are readily available, new and used but SITC’s are hard to find as they have been out of production for some time.

The big advantage is you can fit them yourself, set them on zero correction and then drive around just as you would if they weren’t there. Or drive to the dyno for tuning. The SAFC (& DFA) will enable you to stretch the standard AFM as far as it can go before it maxes out. The standard ECU protection stuff (knock and limp home for example) still function.

These are easy to tune, 20 minutes max on a dyno for SAFC/DFA, less than that for the SITC. They have been around for years, so plenty of tuners have experience, even if they don’t, it only takes a few minutes to get familiar

They don’t disable the 180 kph speed limiter, so if you are doing any track work you will need something like a HKS SLD (Speed Limit Defeater/Defender)

The EManage sits between the standard ECU and injectors and the coil ignitors. So it modifies the signals that the standard ECU sends, using the load points on the EManage fuel and ignition maps to give you the desired A/F ratio and ignition timing.

Standard ECU --> EManage --> Injectors

Standard ECU --> Emanage --> Ignitors

The main problems with EManage in the past was its inability to run R33/34 ignitors. A few guys seem to have had success lately so maybe the problem has been overcome. If it has, then they are not a bad choice. No SLD required as the EManage intercepts the speed signal before it gets to the ECU. Since the EManage controls the spark there is no ignition retard on gear changes in autos, so the gear changes are a bit harsher and the gearbox will wear out a little bit faster. The ignition cut on full throttle gear changes seems to still work (limited testing) so it isn't as bad as using an aftermarket ECU with an auto.

The HKS FCon in its various generations is pretty much like an EManage. Except the tuning software is only available to HKS approved (royalty paying) workshops. Last time I checked that was only one in Australia, BD4’s in Sydney

In theory the EManage should enable you to drive the car to the dyno, but this hasn’t been the case in many instances. They are not as popular, so not as much experience out their in tuner land. Be careful of the add ons, the base price may seem attractive, but the options soon add up.

That covers the major piggy backs, ECU observations another day.

:blink: cheers :P

Apexi Power FC has to be the best value for money ECU for Skylines if you can get your hands on one. However it too has limitations due to MAF/AFM prerequesit. A MAP sensor based ECU will handle higher power levels with more accuracy from what i have read.

I personally dont like the idea of an interceptor type aka piggy back systems cause your only fudging the signals that the ECU recieves.

So for stand-alone ECU's my research has lead me to the conclusion that the following would be my order of preference due to cost Vs value:

1. Apexi PFC (Plug & Play) - AFM

2. Haltech E11v2 (Plug & Play) - MAP Sensor

3. EMS 8860 (Wire in) - MAP Sensor

4. Autronic (Plug & Play) - MAP Sensor

5. Motech (Wire in) - MAP Sensor

Cheers

However it too has limitations due to MAF/AFM prerequesit. A MAP sensor based ECU will handle higher power levels with more accuracy from what i have read.

this is inaccurate, covered in the powerfc faq in great detail

d jetro vs l jetro for both powerfc and other mainstream ecu's

you should read it

its not a limitation, in fact map gives you less load points making it having less accuracy

Yea your right with that paul, i heard that MAP sensor based ECU usually have poorer fuel economy compared to AFM based ECU's due to more load points...

Thanks for clearing that up!

Cheers

Fcon pro v for the win!

still am yet to get mine tuned but when i do its going to be an animal and my fuel is going to last a wee bit longer one would think!

will get it over to bd4's soon

this is inaccurate, covered in the powerfc faq in great detail

d jetro vs l jetro for both powerfc and other mainstream ecu's

you should read it

its not a limitation, in fact map gives you less load points making it having less accuracy

is this only really comparing power fc d jetro to l jetro tho?

well the topic is around the powerfc as its in the powerfc faq.

but the same principal of ljetro (airflow meter) vs djetro (map sensor) still applies. very interesting read. the only reason you woud have poorer fuel economy would be the tune and the time spent on it.

there is no reason both cannot have the same fuel economy and power from either afm or map sensor. map sensor will probably take longer to tune and run sinle axis style once target boost is reached (generalisation)

well the topic is around the powerfc as its in the powerfc faq.

but the same principal of ljetro (airflow meter) vs djetro (map sensor) still applies. very interesting read. the only reason you woud have poorer fuel economy would be the tune and the time spent on it.

there is no reason both cannot have the same fuel economy and power from either afm or map sensor. map sensor will probably take longer to tune and run sinle axis style once target boost is reached (generalisation)

There's a guy somewhere down under.

Bikirom- Made for SR's, KA's, VG's etc.

It opens up your stock ECU so you can do anything the computer does.

Currently it doesn't work for the RB's, but it we send him some emails maybe he'll be interested in adapting his product for us.

www.Bikirom.com

i ran my PFC with closed loop off for a few months (extensive work on the fuel maps however)

getting around 400k's to tank, sometimes slightly under

with it on it was consistent over 400k's to a tank

so its not the be-all and end all, but it is a good feature to have

if the fuel maps havent been tuned properly (lots of time/labour) then economy will suck without working closed loop.

no its not but as you said it costs $$$ to tune for cruizing and modify that end of the map which most people dont do , particularly microtech buyers down the bottom end of the scale

and with closed loop the ecu is automatically tuning itself for optimum economy

so its a win situation

defiently not the end of everything , particularly in race type setups where its mostly WOT but its still a good thing to have and if microtechs had it 90% of the cars runing them would get better fuel usage

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...