Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm having a similar issue by the looks of it.

take off from low revs and can watch the timing jump 10 degrees and as it does this I can feel it come alive and it pulls away. Feels doughy down low but because of this. Same tune as my old power FC so not sure why its an issue with the brand new one I have now

Might play with my TPS, think its at 0.44v at closed throttle

Edited by 89CAL
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

How low is your timing going before it jumps back up?

Also has yours done it since new Ecu or all of a sudden?

Its noticeable now, not sure if it was doing it on the old one, but seemed alot smoother.

Jumps from 18-20 Degrees to 30 degrees.

Have adjusted my TPS to .45v closed throttle - 4.15 open throttle and seems to have improved it. I have the Decel cut at 1300rpm which might have something to do with it as well, so might try lowering this later and see if it makes a difference.

I'm wondering if I need to do a data init to relearn idle after changing cam timing significantly. All the times I took of yesterday it wasn't at full temp so maybe the enrichment or timing corrections helped whereas on the way home the first time it was nearly at full temp and following times was at 81 degrees.

I've already got my ign and inj maps recorded on paper so ill copy down other settings then wipe it and start again

Its noticeable now, not sure if it was doing it on the old one, but seemed alot smoother.

Jumps from 18-20 Degrees to 30 degrees.

Have adjusted my TPS to .45v closed throttle - 4.15 open throttle and seems to have improved it. I have the Decel cut at 1300rpm which might have something to do with it as well, so might try lowering this later and see if it makes a difference.

Mine jumped from 8 to 18ish

I can't remember now what those speeds all represent now but I've got 1400,1450,900,950

Working my way back through the FAQ to relearn

Actually it says 1400 off, 1450 on, 900 off, 950 on

Edited by t_revz

I'm wondering if I need to do a data init to relearn idle after changing cam timing significantly. All the times I took of yesterday it wasn't at full temp so maybe the enrichment or timing corrections helped whereas on the way home the first time it was nearly at full temp and following times was at 81 degrees.

I've already got my ign and inj maps recorded on paper so ill copy down other settings then wipe it and start again

why are you writing them down? just save your old map, do data init and then reload the map and do the idle learn. Or do you not have FC Edit + an interface?

as for the idle settings, they are really car dependant, I just noticed mine improved alot when I raised the decel cut from about 1100 to 1300, it returned to idle alot nicer. This may be part of my problem now but I will experiment with it later on. The new Power FC is alot quicker to respond and is much quicker to input/read data so I'm pretty happy with it at the moment :)

I have no other way to save it but paper

My idle and decel is fine just only when applying load at idle. Who knows maybe it won't do it again

realized that halfway through that that was probably the reason :)

Mine is still 10 degree's retarded at lower RPM, seems to occur on low rev gear changes. Bit strange as its above the fuel cut (decel) revs so not sure what causes the Power FC to cut timing at this point.

Perhaps its something that has been picked up going from an older Power FC to a brand new one. Not to sure, but maybe one of the guru's here can shed some light :)

Ok here is a graphical demonstration of what Mine is up to

Apologies if I'm Hijacking now but maybe the issue is similar to what others are having or may help

Red Circle is a gear change where it looks like its going back to closed loop idle map then jumps up to normal timing.

Blue Circle is normal, no timing drop and doing what it should be doing

White Circle is another gear change where it is dropping timing then jumping up

TimingEdit.jpg

Any ideas from the guru's here?

TPS was re-set yesturday at 0.45v closed and 4.15v at WOT

Have put the idle and decel cut right down and doesnt seem to make any difference. Next step will be to up the TPS some more but I will get to a point where it just wont go into the idle map which will be just as bad

Edited by 89CAL

Its noticeable. Feels doughy until it goes back to normal timing and you feel it pull harder.

Its got me I've looked at everything I can in monitor and sensor check and everything looks normal bar the timing. Have tried playing with the idle settings, disconnected the boost control kit and adjusting the tps. The only way I can get it to work is to hold a slight amount of throttle on between gear changes

So after a gearchange there is a hesitation once the throttle is re-applied?

And on take off?

Does it happen at all rpms?

Maybe they're using the same chipset Haltech are using? Check coil output from the ECU with a scope and check coil charge times.

Is there an option for coil charge time in the new firmware Cal?

So after a gearchange there is a hesitation once the throttle is re-applied?

And on take off?

Does it happen at all rpms?

It appears to happen at all RPM, Its just not as noticeable when your pushing it harder becasue I'm already in an RPM range where the timing is around 20 degrees anyway, so its not as noticeable.

I think I'm just going to do a data init and go for a drive under low load and see what it does. I think it might have inhereited something it doesn't like from the old Power FC. I've emailed Apexi about it anyway. Hopefully someone on here has an Idea but

Maybe they're using the same chipset Haltech are using? Check coil output from the ECU with a scope and check coil charge times.

Is there an option for coil charge time in the new firmware Cal?

Closest thing I can see is IGN Dwell vs RPM, but its no different to the settings I had on the old one

Have had a play this morning and data init does nothing, driving on the base tune with only the injectors and AFM settings changed weilded the same results. Plug the old Power FC in with the new HC to eliminate that and it works perfect

However I have just noticed that when I load an old tune into FC edit now it is missing TPS vs IGN data. This data is non existant in the old power FC's it seems so I think I will try setting everything to zero in here

At the moment the values are all set to do nothing to the timing at any voltage of the TPS but this might be where the problem lies. If anyone has an older version of FC edit (pre 2.130k) and can confirm that this TPS vs IGN section is missing then please let me know as this might be what the problem is

Just went for a quick drive to see if I could notice anything else.

I've got 18 in the top left 3x3 boxes. .44tps.

Idles at 15 fine. Once at full temp I cruised in 3rd at 1500rpm. Every time I came off the throttle it held at 10 for a few seconds( possibly normal and I couldn't feel anything)

Every time I stopped it would idle at 10deg for 10 seconds then slowly raise up a degree every couple seconds til it was back to 15

When taking off again it wasn't quite as bad as the other day and it would hang around 10-12 degrees but once went down to 2deg and stalled.

If I do a data init without my air con hooked up will it do an idle learn properly? Can I do 10 min idle then 10 with demister and lights and should be sweet?

Also are all settings changeable with the hand controller as I've got it all written on paper and don't wanna get stuck if I can't re-enter it all after

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...