Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Am posting this based on something cubes has discovered whilst reading some tuning material.

He found that some ecu's tend to have the AFRS (tuned in) vary based on what gear is used.

Ie: have a range of cells set to say 12.1 AFR and then when done and tuned in 4th its fine.

When a subsequent run is done in 3rd or 2nd the AFRS vary slightly and could be leaner, say 11.8

It is envisaged that the ecu is looking at the previous snapshot of sensors and deciding injection amounts but when this is happening in real time in low gears it happens a lot quicker and thus, the ECU typically lags. The outcome is that the AFRS to lend to sway a little as its always looking at the previous set of numbers instead of predictive load checking, ie: check thats its on WOT and predict the load and precalculate the injection coming up.

Ive had some thoughts regarding this and the only way I would agree with it would be to see a dyno plot of AFRS side by side with both gears and a show of the map tracer plots showing the same block of cells were hit. it sounds like to me its simply a case of some alternate cells are being hit in the lower gears, as load varies compared to 4th. The main source of comments was found on another forum here -> http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/forums/...read.php?t=4109

Has anyone else heard similar comments or seen similar results? I've never checked my AFRS in other gears.

Cubes deserves all the credit, im just posting it up for discussion

:P

I have logs of a couple of runs from the R33GTST down the ¼ mile at WSID, they are posted up in the Teach Edge thread. I can’t see any real differences in A/F ratios between 2nd , 3rd or 4th gears. Keeping in mind that I do most of the high load/rpm tuning in 3rd gear on the road, 4th gear is simply too many kph.

:) cheers :)

yeah sorry i worded it wrong. meant to say richer. im not sure what ecu it was, but we were thinking the powerfc had the same problem and was possibly lagged in the lower gears. i havent seen any evidence, more just a thought

theoretically if the ECU was a bit on the slow side, in the first couple of gears where the rate of change of RPM is higher it could be slow in calculating what injector pulse to run at the next predicted RPM/load point.

i would have expected this to have been predicted by the ECU manufacturer though, and the processor speed upped enough to discount it. maybe i'm wrong?

I'd think the pfc is more than capable.. They really are an awesome no frills ecu powerful ecu.

Mad082, check out the link posted, more likely with maf, apparently. :P

Leaner conditions in 1st and 2nd are very common with many ECUs. I've seen it more pronounced on MAF based systems. an ECU calculates the next injector duty cycle on the previous engine cycle(s). When RPM is fast rising, it is behind. Some higher end aftermarked ECUs and some OEM ECUs try to compensate either by looking at the current gear or trying to predict from RPM rise rate. That's why tuning should be done in higher gears.

Yeah i think it is a MAP sensor ECU.

I think the ECU he is talking about is a Microtech.They need to be tuned in MATRIX mode to be most Effective on street cars.They USUALLY run off a LOAD MAP which is tuned in vacumm and PSI.They dont tune in Different RPMS unless in matrix mode.So i think that might be a problem.If you tune in matrix mode you will get rid of the problem.But the ecu only has a 16 x16 graph from what i remember.

Another Problem you might have is if you tune a car with a map sensor that has Multiple throttle bodys or BIG cams with low vacuum you will find it will change AFRS in different gears as well. To fix this problem you need to tune in a TPS x MAP screen which is usually found in the Settings page.

this isnt a problem with the ECUS its a problem with Who set it up and tuned it.

If you have a AIR FLOW METER ECU it wont have this problem to what i remember,Only map Sensor cars but they need to be tuned and setup correct to fix it.

Interesting topic. On a related note, it can also vary when in the same gear:

For example, when I first had my tune, it was showing a rich mixture as it comes onto boost (about 11.3) before settling to almost bang on 12. Took it elsewhere with the same tune, and this one showed the rich patch going to 11 before settling on about 11.7. Air intake temps were showing the same, the runs were both done in third, so the consistancy was there, just showing different results.

Edited by Thunderbolt

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

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...