Home Tuning Vipec And Link G4 Skyline Plug In Ecus Thread .

[Dale FZ1]

Not an apples-for-apples comparison, but my 30DET with 265/8.9mm lift cams is not happy with a stoichiometric idle AFR, running on petrol. I found it needs to be fat to be happy. Stock 25DET with the 3076 0.87 A/R turbo did not demand anything really rich to idle nicely, but it was still happiest on about 14.0:1 - again on petrol. The required numbers on ethanol might be different, but it's not unreasonable to think the trend might be similar.

Tune to whatever method you are comfortable with, but perhaps making some coarse (ie larger scale) AFR adjustments and you would soon see what's needed to get that happy spot for driveability and consumption. You'll never know what your EGT Is doing without a pyrometer however, so it really should be on your "must buy" list. It was one of the very early additions to my R33, likewise with a range of vehicles over the years both spark and compression ignition turbocharged. Not a big leap to have the thermocouple feeding as a loggable input into your ECU.

If your closed loop lock-out parameters are set so low, it stands to reason that the ECU is not necessarily hitting the target AFR under anything than virtually steady state running. Are you sure the main fuel map is within a bull's roar of the strategy you are trialling? If you're not, or it's not, do you know how you will get it close?

Guilt Toy's thread is probably a good resource, but I'd suggest the Vipec forum could yield some pearls. You may have to run on an assumption that any multivalve turbo engine eg Evo, GT4 Celica, Supra, Silvia will respond generally the same/similar, so people posting on that forum may have good information to share that is applicable to an RB25. The added benefit is that forum is focused to specific Vipec/Link attributes and how people are looking to get the best from that ECU.

The issues of light load response and driveability vs AFR and EGT has been round and round now, so how much extra ignition timing is being used, and what actual AFR are you seeing compared to 10 days ago?

[discopotato03]

No I'm well aware that not all four valve engines are created equally , too many other variables . GTs RB30 was using standard turbo cams in the early period of that thread .

I don't like making big changes to fuel or ignition tables because I find it harder to correct the correction tables .

My engine I had idling at around 0.93/94 Lambda but its now more like 0.90/91 which is more stable and seems to have lost the odd low intensity miss or pop .

Those lockout settings are more like 5 and 7 now which gives a more constant steady state AFR , I use Garys Whiteline Bilstein suspension and it's sometimes hard to keep the throttle steady over uneven surfaces . At 2 and 2 the correction would have been switching in and out far too often

AFRs I'm trying to keep in the 0.98 to 1.01 in light or cruise loads but jumping pretty quickly to 0.85 as the pressure goes positive .

The original tune was done by Insight using their 02 probe system and the Vipecs auto tune software so I had a good basis to start from , and I only do the off boost sections anyway .

Yep pyro probe would be a good thing and may fit well in a T3 spacer lined up with the manifolds central divider .

A .

[wolverine]

We need Guilt Toy back in Oz !

Cheers A .

Pretty sure he is back at the moment.

[discopotato03]

Good to know , I'd like for him to have a fiddle with my tune if available .

Latest , I've been into the timing and fuel IAT corrections trying to get some balance because inlet temps affect drivability with lean AFRs and traffic driving in warm weather hauls the temps up .

Cold starts are a bit more interesting with lean mapping . It always fires up easily hot or cold but likes some enrichment virtually to running temp

A .

Edited December 16, 2013 by discopotato03

[rev210]

Hi Disco , just had a read over the issues you mentioned. As people have pointed at the cam timing already, just wanted to flag that as one of those tuning areas where work is always needed.

* Modeled cam profile vs engine build blueprint/spec : to select cams before build - tick

- Off the shelf Cam designs are based on a specific engine config give or take a bit. Work less well on configs that are different.

* Degree/dial cams at build - tick

* Tune cam timing on dyno after run in - tick

E85 might like slightly different cam timing . I would guess maybe less advance (slightly more retard) on the exhaust side to 98.

Edited December 16, 2013 by rev210

[Dale FZ1]

Trawling through Guilt Toy's thread, at page 50 post 996 there was some useful comments between Dirtgarage/Swiper and 180or200 regarding full load AFR and ignition timing. Suggests full load of Lambda 0.80, 0.85 at the leanest; ie about 11.8-12.4 on your target AFR in the Vipec table. And ignition timing adding around 5 degrees over a "typical" petrol-specific ignition map.

Also somewhere early in there I found GT had trialled very very lean cruise AFR up to Lambda 1.29 (Vipec target 19.0) with various degrees of success. Mainly fuel economy related, with lean pops maybe suggesting it wasn't that happy?? And at the same timeframe, adding bulk timing in the ignition mapping with somewhere like 44-48 degrees for the light load/cruise. I haven't seen any other valuable bits other than the NOx emissions were reduced as he added richness into the light load/cruise area of the map.

Mostly people have covered the increased engine output by changing to E85, and lots on availability and fuel system requirements. Nobody else has really addressed driveability with lean/light load conditions.

The Vipec tutorial menu recommends against using closed loop lambda (CLL) as a substitute for good tuning. Global trimming (whole of map, not individual cells) is applied, so if you have various cells that were tuned by your shop at targets that are wide of your current trials, the trimming might not get things where you want/expect. Lends some weight to assertions that the fuel map should conform reasonably well to the targeted AFR, and then when CLL is enabled, its corrections tend to be smaller and "hone" the tune.

In suggesting making coarse changes to either fuel or ignition, it's from the perspective of giving pretty quick assessment of whether the engine is happy or not. Coarse change to me would equate to an AFR target change of 1.0 or Lambda 0.07. Coarse ignition change would be in lots of 3 degrees, but decide in advance what ceiling you're going to apply. GT's values would be in the ballpark, I'd think maybe even a touch lower at 42-44.

Adrian did you play with start enrichment, or warmup ECT corrections once it's running?

Also would you care to post up your ignition map?

It will be interesting to see how GT goes with your car if you get him to look at it. Might be a good learning experience.

[discopotato03]

I suppose I can go higher with light load timing but I think you're referring to highway type running conditions may be 80-90 plus , I can't see it liking those sorts of numbers in the 18-2400 rev area .

Yes warm up when running/driving , usually it gets about a minute to have all the fluids circulating then it's driven sedately till it get some heat into it . Obviously the lappy is online from pre start because the temperature climbs too quickly to add/remove fuel - and you only get one crack at it per day . I didn't find the crank settings too hard to sort .

CLL , as I said earlier you can see clearly how much this adds or subtracts and hitting the space bar goes to the active cell on the map so homing in for less correction is easy enough . Can become a bit erratic if the target number is out for what the engine wants .

Gotta run family stuff , later A .

[Dale FZ1]

In the 40-80kPa MAP range and from 2000rpm upwards, try winding in those ignition values as GT had. Maybe massage the column preceding 2000 so the jump isn't massive as you drive into that rev range.

2000rpm in 4th gear is roughly 60km/h and you may find it gives the flexibility from more efficient burn. Interested to hear if you think it brings a noticeable change to either engine feel or fuel consumption.

Any luck getting hold of GT?

[discopotato03]

I can't post my current timing map because it isn't saved to this lappy , only the computer itself . It now has more light load advance like 42 degrees in some areas

Can't bitch anymore because I managed to scrape 435 km out of this last tank of E70 and that was from neck to stumbles . The fuel light came on at 394 and I kept driving till it had the one stumble and the AFRs started leaning out . I had 10L in a container just in case . Actually that 10-11 L only got the needle back up to the empty line so R33 gauges are hardly accurate .

I'll try posting that map tomorrow , cheers A .

[discopotato03]

Dale wanted to see my current ignition map .

Timing is being increased as I get the chance to experiment .

A .

[Dale FZ1]

What's it driving like now? And fuel economy?

Try highlighting that map from 2000-4500 and 40-120kPa and add +2 degrees.

Run that for a few hundred km, and then highlight the same area on the map and take away -4 degrees.

The difference should be immediately apparent for your light load / part throttle running.

[discopotato03]

I decided yesterday I'd had a gutfull of shitfull E70 fuel consumption so I did what I swore I wouldn't again - start blending non pump brews .

Got thy trusty Casio out and crunched numbers to see how much PULP is needed to drop the ethanol percentage . My calcs are based on an R33 having a 60L tank because when you can squeeze , at a servo , 58 litres in it obviously doesn't have a 55 litre gut .

Close as I can work it every 4.25 L of ULP you toss into a tank topped off with E70 drops the E% five points . So with a nearly full tank and a 10L container I put in 8.5L of Ultimate 98 and added E70 to the neck . This in theory makes E60 .

Rather than spend ages editing my fuel table I went to the Vipec fuel setup and changed the master fuel trim to -6% . Quick easy and worked surprisingly well . After this tankfull and a bit off trimming I'll try adding 17L of Ultimate and (E50) and pull a bit more fuel out with that trim setting .

Everything I read suggests that most of the benefit of Ethanol is in the first 40 or so percent and I doubt my engine would melt with 50-60% in a reasonably tame state of tune .

The tricky part is going to be keeping the ratio accurate and the best way to know would be with an ethanol content tester . Either that or mixing drum by drum in 20L batches - messy .

A .

[Anz32GTR]

Hey fellas Sorry iv been trying to install my vipec into my 32 Gtr, the problem I have is when I connect the ecu, the laptop knows it's connected so that's a good sign that there is power. The problem i have is the vipec won't go online!! It stays off line. It's saying firm wear problem. My mechanic has downloaded the new updates which is 4.9 something. I also didn't get the ecu brand new. Apparently it was just plugged in and then sold off to me. I'm just wondering if anyone has had this problem. And if anyone can help. Thanks.

[blackrex]

I had this issue with a Link G4, I had installed the software for a G4+ leading to the firmware errors and the unit staying offline, make sure that you have the correct software package installed.

[Anz32GTR]

Yeh that sounds about right. How do I know what softwear version I need??

[discopotato03]

Latest update though it's really a Vipec and ethanol blend thing .

ATM I'm running a 3 to 1 mix of Caltex E70 and their 98 PULP . I moved to -9 on the master fuel trim . That got in the ball park but I was having slight momentary lean outs from closed throttle that extra accel load increases did not fix . Also the transitions from idle timing to active timing table was causing some drivability issues . The answer is going to the setup sections and editing the parameters that control switchover . These can be road speed MAP and TPS related and in my case going down to 1% TP or less had a big say in making some of these transitions activate quickly . Once these are close the light on off throttle tuning is much easier and gets me repeatable results .

Just on idle mixtures mine now seems to like about 0.90 to 0.91 L , this is obviously going to vary with fuel content .

Sometimes IAT readings get up a bit and I wonder if having the temp sensor in the cast crossover pipe right above the engine is a good idea .

With the fuel I'm noticing a bit smoother running and a bit more very light load torque at car park speeds . I think this means that purely light load running ULP works better because there's not much fuel going in so the ethanol doesn't do anything for you . I don't think this is an AFR equivalency issue either as I tried all kinds of AFRs with E70 and it didn't achieve the same thing .

Also Dale yes I remember reading Guilt toys findings with very lean highway mixtures and I reckon he would have gotten better results with a better computer than the PFC he was using at the time . There are too many important parameters you can't do anything about with Datalogit software , with the Vipec and wideband wired in he could easily have had those very lean cruise mixtures whilst having full control of accell volume and transition phases . No feedback or target correction on PFC .

In a street car it's more important to have good responsive transitions with not what I call rich mixture transients , I'm now running around the burbs and seldom see anything richer than 0.91 L unless I boot it around . BTW the current fuel blend is ~ E52 by mixing 3:1 Caltex E70 and 98 ULP . PITA procedure of four jerries with 15L E70 and 5 PULP in each . Too hard trying to blend in the tank and get any kind of consistency .

The next try with be same but using 91 ULP because I want to see if the lower petrol octane has any effect on my cars state of tune . I'm only making one 20L Jerry of this so it's not much to get through if the engine doesn't like it .

Ultimately the easiest in tank mix is going to be 50:50 E70 and petrol because you can vary the amount you add to suit fuel levels and maintain the same ratio . Off the top of my head that's close to E35 and right in the middle (30-40%) of where people stateside reckon is the optimum amount of ethanol to see most of the improvement it gives in a daily driver . Note this is different to maximum effort race or drag fuel where very harsh combustion conditions demand higher octane and max evaporative cooling by injecting a higher volume of lower heat output fuel ie methanol or ethanol .

At E35 I would start with 98 PULP before 91 ULP just to see if the effective octane causes detonation issues for me .

Always understand that I run in a reasonably tame state of tune with the GTRS and I reckon the only reason it went 271 wheel wasps was because E70 allowed it to run a bit more boost and timing up in the rev range . Had it been tuned on say BP Ultimate the number should have been more like 240 wasps and reflecting the exhaust flow limits of that turbo . My instincts tell me that when the 52T 3076R (0.82) goes on the numbers should be back round the 270-80 but naturally more free spinning . With E70 getting to the 300 benchmark shouldn't be hard but I want better all round fuel consumption because I don't intend to drive flat out too often .

E35 50:50 may just be good enough but there's only one way to find out , cheers A .

Edited January 20, 2014 by discopotato03

[Dale FZ1]

Different blends is interesting but only if you can achieve it quickly and easily without moving from bowser to bowser - convenience with a daily driver is quite important IMO. Estimating how much is in the tank, then dropping in X litres of petrol and then adding Y litres of E70 to your desired final ratio all spells lost time and perhaps some frustration to other people in the queues when you're heading to/from work. To each their own.

In some respects I can see the value of fuel companies offering E85 as the "high performance" blend, and say E35 as a "premium eco-blend" much as they do with the 91/95/98 petrol brews. Market acceptance and supply infrastructure are probably two hurdles in the whole situation.

IAT sensor in that crossover pipe should be no problem provided its installed with good penetration into the airstream. If there is heat soak into the pipe affecting inlet charge temps, the ECU needs to know about it.

Spend a few days swapping over the GTRS for the GT3076 and see what happens with the light load fuel consumption.

[discopotato03]

Well short of having blender pumps here there isn't a lot of choice , and the oil co's have done a great beat up job on ethanol in fuel .

The problem in reality is that we pay far too much for E70/E85 considering that ethanol is MUCH cheaper to produce than ULP . The price difference is quite a bit less than the consumption difference so it's a major rip off to consumers .

The only mob that's half having a go is United with their 100 octane (98E10) and actually that could be interesting to try , can get that quite close to where I work .

A .

[blackrex]

Yeh that sounds about right. How do I know what softwear version I need??

Have a look here http://www.vi-pec.com/software

[Dale FZ1]

If the United 100 octane E10 is readily available and convenient, perhaps you've hit the jackpot. Get onto it.

After the trials are all done you'd do well to install a flex fuel sensor and have the ECU automatically interpolate. Sounds too easy if you then wanted to have a night at the drags or a track day - simple just run your tank down and top up with E70/85 before attending. Then stick with the United E10 for longer fuel range between fills when commuting.

You really should get a pyrometer installed to gauge how hot these lean mixtures are getting.