Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

so, thanks again paul. I un ticked all the settings and now parameters are shown in the commander.

regards.

the only problem is that now it starts but after 1 or 2 seconds i t dies :ermm:

After any change it was running good.

But, if i crank it and keep pressing and depressing the gas very quickly, it stays at 4000 RPM. It runs very weird ant extremely rich. And as soon as i stop pressing the gas it dies.

could it be beacause of the unlock i did?

thanks.

i would do this

save your tune

make sure you have a copy of it

make sure you have a backup of the copy

DATA INIT the EVO PFC

restart the car

do a READ ALL in datalogit and save the stock maps

then compare those to what you have, it might be something simple

i would do this

save your tune

make sure you have a copy of it

make sure you have a backup of the copy

DATA INIT the EVO PFC

restart the car

do a READ ALL in datalogit and save the stock maps

then compare those to what you have, it might be something simple

doing a data init would save the MAP sensor settings?

BTW, is it possible that the problem i'm having is due to a ECU issue?

Thanks.

no, when you do a DATA INIT, it will erase the entire tune back to defaults

the default map will be what apexi set the standard map on the EVO PFC to

hmmm....

so i'll have to use the map calibration saved in the map.

Thanks a lot paul, i'll try this and let you know if i get any good result.

BTW, what is that about a Tuner String???

Edited by chip

send us your saved datalogit tune, ill check it vs the stock evo maps

the tuner is string is from apexi fc pro and datalogit

its used to tag features in datalogit, ie anti lag and other junk

ignore it

send us your saved datalogit tune, ill check it vs the stock evo maps

the tuner is string is from apexi fc pro and datalogit

its used to tag features in datalogit, ie anti lag and other junk

ignore it

here's the tune.

http://rapidshare.com/files/379241498/evo_VII.dat.html

So this is a power fc PRO???

Thanks.

no, the term FC Pro is misleading by apexi. its covered in the powerfc faq in my sig

FC Pro is software apexi use to tune powerfc's.

the 1st generation of powerfcs were only tunable by the hand controller

the 2nd generation of powerfcs were plastered with silver "FC PRO" stickers on the side of the case and were tunable by the hand controller and software apexi made (and later sold to the public). the software is apexi fc pro and it lets you connect it to your computer / laptop.

the common misconception is that any powerfc that has the original silver "FC Pro" sticker on the side of the case meant that is an Apexi PowerFC Pro unit. this meant it contained 0km/h launch control and spark cut instead of fuel cut. The silver "FC pro" sticker acctually indiciates that you can connect it to the apexi's FC Pro software

no, the term FC Pro is misleading by apexi. its covered in the powerfc faq in my sig

FC Pro is software apexi use to tune powerfc's.

the 1st generation of powerfcs were only tunable by the hand controller

the 2nd generation of powerfcs were plastered with silver "FC PRO" stickers on the side of the case and were tunable by the hand controller and software apexi made (and later sold to the public). the software is apexi fc pro and it lets you connect it to your computer / laptop.

the common misconception is that any powerfc that has the original silver "FC Pro" sticker on the side of the case meant that is an Apexi PowerFC Pro unit. this meant it contained 0km/h launch control and spark cut instead of fuel cut. The silver "FC pro" sticker acctually indiciates that you can connect it to the apexi's FC Pro software

Paul, thank you VERY MUCH mate.

I did the data init and it started great. It tooked some time for idle to settle down but it's runing great.

Map sensor scaling seems to be working fine.

No i just need to tune it.

Once again, thank you indeed.

PS: If i need more help i'll contact you :)

now that the car is working etc, you should be able to open your old tune in datalogit and do a WRITE ALL

to put the tune back to its previous unlocked state

it may be a datalogit bug where unlocking certain tunes mangles stuff

but the tune itself is OK, so if you save it, DATA INIT, write the tune back its all OK

if you have unstable idle read the PFC FAQ For self install

theres a 30 min self idle you are supposed to do when you do DATA INIT

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...