Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I remember 666Dan last time only used the injector harness and not the ignition, therefore he had no problem with the coil pack.

I was under the impression that the coil pack only goes with the ignition harness installed.

I think the fuel control is fine.

I also have heared from the Yahoo group that the 1.36 firmware have corrected this problem. Is this the new firmare you are talking about Abo Bob?

Last time I spoke to Dr_Drift, he mentioned something about signals interference somewhere from the ignition harness to the auto ecu and this was what causing the problem. I think that's what he said? It was a while ago :D

  • 1 month later...

Hey guys, no I'm still not using the ignition harness. BTW just for your information, GReddy are releasing car specific harnesses that just plug in, meaning no soldering required for the ignition and injector harness, as it's a premade unit that goes between the ECU and factory harness.

I just don't understand why it could be a problem to use fuel control but not ignition control.  Heaps of people use SAFC's on autos don't they?

I was sure I answered this a few posts ago ................

The big claim for e-manage is that they work for autos in piggy back with the standard ECU. This is OK for fuel, but the auto shift problem with ignition timing optimisation seems to have been ignored, or maybe it is simply too hard to program.

Yep, thought I did.

Maybe further explanation is required.

In the autos on gear changes the ecu retards the ignition, this both smooths out the gearchange and lightens the torque loading on the gearbox. If you put an ignition interceptor (e-manage) between the ecu and the igniters this means that the ignition won't be retarded on gear changes. So you will get flaring and damage to the gearbox over time.

In order to work on autos, the e-manage would have to have some extra logic in the software that worked out that a gearchange was happening. Then it would allow the ignition signal from the ecu to pass through without changing it.

Since Apexi haven't bothered (and/or been able) to program this logic into Power FC's (no PFC's for autos) I don't see it happening for e-manage any time soon. But maybe I am just being pessimistic. I hope so, ‘cause the Stagea will be here in 2 weeks.

Just thinking out loud.

As the emanage has no cas input it is really ony dependent on intercepting the outgoing signal from the ecu and delaying/advancing that (i assume to advance it actually is delaying the signal by almost one cycle). So when the auto shifts the stock ecu will retard the timing to waht it normally would plus the amount of advance the emanage is putting in so the timing is still being retarded to a certain extent.

Or no?

Just thinking out loud.

As the emanage has no cas input it is really ony dependent on intercepting the outgoing signal from the ecu and delaying/advancing that (i assume to advance it actually is delaying the signal by almost one cycle). So when the auto shifts the stock ecu will retard the timing to waht it normally would plus the amount of advance the emanage is putting in so the timing is still being retarded to a certain extent.

Or no?

Could be wrong, but I think not. I don't believe the E-manage adds X amount (of retard) to the standard ignition timing (as varied by rpm of course). I think it chooses the timing all on its own, as per the tuners input. Otherwise you could only have retarded timing, not advanced, as it wouldn't know when to fire because the ecu wouldn't have told it yet.

Did that make sense?

Otherwise you could only have retarded timing, not advanced, as it wouldn't know when to fire because the ecu wouldn't have told it yet.

Did that make sense?

Thats what i mean by firing late enough so it's actually early for the next firing stroke.

Say when you start the car piston 1 is on the firing stroke, ecu sends signal to fire the sparkplug but emanage intercepts it and does not send it until the next firing stroke on cylinder 1 but slightly earlier in the stroke so its effectively advanced. It's about the only way i can think of that the emanage can advance the timing because you are only adding advance to the standard timing, not re writing the entire ignition map.

Either that or it is using the signal of the first cylinder that fires to adjsut the advance on the next one that fires.

Trust actually state an error of +/-1 degree in their manual for ignition timing which i assume is because it is not using a cas but using the firing signal from the ecu as it's input.

This is why i think it should still be retarding on gear chang in autos. Or i'm completely wrong about the whole thing and it's actually really simple.

You'll have one in two weeks SK ;)

Good timing Bob, our Stagea arrives in two weeks, but it won't be complied until 10 days after that, plus a couple of days to get to Sydney and then it's rego time. :D

anyone interested in buying a Gtech, dont get ripped off and pay $399

can supply brand new in box including freight Australia wide for $160.

Call Darren on 0417898512  [email protected]

Is this a spam attempt? Or did you just forget to post in the forsale section.

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all,

Been running an E-manage on a RB25DET for a couple of months without any problems. Got round to wiring in the ignition harness today and the engine runs fine, no E-manage fault codes but the ECU flashes 21 which is ignition related I believe. Tested for fault codes prior to fitting the harness and it read 55 - all clear.

Funnily enough I got this code on my CA after fitting the ignition harness too.

Does anybody else get the error code when using the ignition harness ?

Also is anybody using the new add on detonation sensor harness for the e-manage ?

  • 3 weeks later...

OK guys read something interesting relating to the use of the e-manage on the RX-8 apparently the OEM coils get fried by the e-manage as well...this can be countered by using what looks like a zener diode setup....see the link below. It prevents the continuous powering of the coil-pack.....so only the peak signal voltage will pass through the diode (firing signal)...the holding voltage is below that of the diode trigger so doesn't pass through and put the coil under continous load. The theory seems sound to me.

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&t...&threadid=17055

  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • You are selling this? I have never bought something from marketplace...i dont know if i trust that enough. And the price is little bit "too" good...
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
    • There is a guy who said he can weld me piping without having to cut chassis, maybe I do that ? Or do I just go reverse flow but isn’t reverse flow very limited once again? 
×
×
  • Create New...