Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

One thing I haven't figured out yet is the knock reading on the SAFC2...

The reading kept telling me 0, so I got into:

settings -> Knk level

and set the knock levels for 1650 and 3650 rpm to whatever they were at the time (45 I think??)

Anyhow, if I stay on that screen, as the car warms up the knock reading goes to about 100. If I go to one of the screens in the monitor section, the knock goes up to about 10 on idle, and down between 0 and 3 when driving...

Can someone tell me what the differences are? I have no idea what either mean now :D

Thanks

George

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/16020-safc2-knock-readout/
Share on other sites

The knock readout (if it is the same as the PowerFC reading) is a synthetic indicator of engine 'health'.

A bad engine is 60+

Mine came to 11-12 avg.

A new engine is supposed to be 20.

A well run in good running engine is 10.

30 - 40 might be a more well worn motor.

As it gets higher, the 'worse' condition the engine is (ie. the more likely you need a rebuild or the more it 'pings' metaphorically speaking).

Funny thing is that an engine that has forged internals will put out worser numbers.

This is a reading that the ECU (in its limited intelligence) gives. It is not 100% reliable.

T.

But that still doesn't answer my question...

See the SAFC has a number that it spits out in:

settings -> Knk level

ans another on the monitors. The one on the monitors is relative to the one found in settings....

For example when I start the car cold, the reading is 40 (in settings), so I set the knock levels for 1650 and 3650 (that's all it lets you set) to 40.

Then, as the car warms, the number it shows for the current rmp grows to about 100, sometimes more.

The munber in the monitor section, is always around 20 on idle (when the car fully warms up), and about 9 when driving....

I dont know what the difference is between the 2.....

Does any1 know?????

DJ_L3THAL: I have attached a pic of the ecu as you look at it mounted in the side panel. the light blue (23) and light green(24) are the wires for the knock sensors. Connect it to 24 (cylinders 4-6) as I have read that they lean out first.....

Think about this - does your engine run the same in every environment?

Run a bad load of fuel - the engine will run bad = higher knock number.

Run it on a cold morning and the motor rattles due to the cold = higher knock number.

If I warm the car up, kill the motor, reset the knock - the rating is like 1-5 which is almost unbelieveable.

T.

All this I understand, but it does not explain the correlation between the 2 different readouts for knock...

The one in the setting menu, hangs around the 100 mark when idling, and increases as rev it out.

The one in the monitor section peaks at 20 on idle, and drops to 9 as I rev it out..

Which figure do I go by?

Yeah, thats what I am thinking (otherwise why would it be in the monitor section)

But obvioulsy it has some correlation with the values that can be set in the settings section. I wonder how this value would differ if the the setting were changed?

So then.... what should the two knock values for 1650rpm and 3650 rpm set to????

I got a SAFC II hooked up to my S14 SR20DET. I reckon the knock readout is completely haywire. The best way to check it is to go to the "sensor chk" and get a direct reading. I get around 50 when idling and it goes higher as revs rise/engine warms up.

I reckon the readout is complete shit as I can floor it at 3500 rpm or 2500 where knock would occur and it stays exactly the same, not even 1 unit count higher. Then I unplugged the det. sensor, and put a resistor on the harness and left it. And guess what. The readings were the same! WTF? How can it even get any readings if its not even hooked up? Sometimes it would show a value of 50 and then I swtich the car off. And it drops to 45. It should go to zero cos the engine is OFF!!

I cant figure it out either, so I disregard the knock sensor input. Hey btw, do you sometimes get trouble switching between File 1 and 2? I sometimes find switching between them CLEARS all my settings!!!!!!! Pisses me off.. Blah =(

The 2 maps/knock sensor reading is the reason i got the II over the original SAFC =(

Nah, I haven't tuned the second file, so I haven't tried switching...

I might this weekend though, as I finally booked it in for a dyno tune...

Yeah that knock sensor readind pisses me of. It makes no sense.....

Did you figure out what the relationship is between the readind in the monitor section, and the reading in sensor chk?

I did 4 years of engineering maths at uni, and I cant figure the prick out!!!!

Go here to get the knock function working, but as I said before, its about as reliable as dogshit!!

http://www.prostreetonline.com/pso/pages/h....asp?sessionId=

Sensor Chk is the raw reading of the knock level. What you see during monitoring is any knock value that is HIGHER than what has been set in Knk Level. Ie so if the raw reading is 60 from the sensor, and the Knk Level been set to 50 (as background noise at that particular rpm), it'll report 10 to you!!

Read the link and it hopefully will clarify things. But still, i reckon the whole knock feature doesnt work. Might work properly with a separate knock unit from Apexi.

Let me know about switching maps too. Even just make two different files and switch between them while the car is off..

I have a similar thing on mine but much lower numbers.

Mine gets to about 10 on idle and reduces to 0-2 during driving. Is this indicative of a good engine (TOnyGTst?) or incorrect settings due to low numbers. I followed the instructions on that web page posted three times now with similar results.

Hey Busky, thanks for the link.

OK, I am a little less confised, but I still don't fully undersatnd it.... I can't be bothered with it anymore though.

I dont think that it tells you what lever you have gone over the raw reading....

For example, my "acceptable" levers for the 2 rpm ranges specified are: 42 and 47 respectively. Sometimes the raw value has gone up to 130 when driving for more than 1 hour, but the readout in the monitor section is still only 9.

47 + 9 = 56 so that cant be right.

I guess we just stay tuned to that site for the next update...

The knock sensor is handy.

It learns the 0 point by the average of the two rpm ranges. The figures given are then taken as 'knock level' in the monitor section.

If done right the level of knock will stay around 0 for idle and low throttle, as this has been zero'd.

I have mine set such that I can use it in the 'graph mode' against rpm etc.

I find that a knock level upwards of 70 will correspond to a very light ping that gets worse, upto 190+ for a substancial ping. Setting the fuel and timing to a level where a max of 20ish is reached at the peak is what I aim at.

So what have you set the knock level to be in those rpm ranges? Depending on what these are, it determines the value in the monitor section like you say.

For example, when I fist did it, the car was warm, and so those 2 values it bases the average on were 70 and 90 respectively. From that, my knock readout in the monitor was never over 7 on idle, and dropped to 1 when cruising / WOT.

Now I set them again when it was cold and they are in the low 40's, so I peak at 19 / 20 on idle, and drop to 7 - 9 on WOT.

How is everyone else's setup?

But that is what confuses me now....

If you take these readings while the engine is warm, your car could be knocking like crazy, but you set these knock levels at that time. Then in the monitor section, as that reading is relative the level you have adjusted, it would still show a low figure!?!?!?!?

So the knock level shown in the monitor section, is only relative to: how bad your car was knocking at the time you set it.

So how does this figure give you a true indication of knock? This was my argument to begin with....

It's giving me lots of headaches... I'm the type of person that doesn't just accept things, I need to know how it all works... :)

LOL told you man, its not reliable at all!!

I wound the timing way back as an experiment and it still showed knocking. WTF? And as i said b4, I disconnected the knock sensor once and it still said i was knocking.. heh.

=(

I'd just leave the settings at 70/90. Just when u boost it, make sure it doesnt go >150 (over the noise value) or some high figure like that!! Usually the ECU will wind back the timing if it senses knock anyway, so usually fat knocking wont occur in the first place unless the ECU cannot retard the timing any more. The SAFC might be confusing knock for engine noise at high RPM..

Im gonna take a look at Link's KnockLink. Looks good!!

a 'knock engine' as used to test RON figures for fuels will set you back the best part of $200k if you want an 'accurate' figure for knock. I'd suggest that the factory ecu does not allow the engine to "knock like crazy" under any circumstance (given factory timing and appropriate fuel). If your engine is 'knocking like crazy' expect it to die pretty soon.

The 'relative figure' as used by the factory ecu is good enough to tune with. Mine is fairly predictable and has served well as a tuning guide. The knock is best looked at on the graph trace Vs rpm and fuel correction. This way you can determine the relative 'stress point' of the engine's power band under load and adjust timing and fuel to suit.

I can quite easily remove any knock by decrease to timing and increase to fuel, the problem is in finding the balance for power.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...