Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I was thinking about MAF vs Map. You see all my tuning knowledge is with MAP based ECU's. I want to re-tune my GTR which has a power fc with MAF sensors so i need to re-learn how to tune the car based on MAF.

One of the the firsts thing that everyone usually does is turf the standard MAF sensors and upgrade to nismo or Z32 sensors. They then go about cutting and re-soldering the Z32 plugs on their GTR loom. Its simple and involves connecting the +12V, 0-5v signal and signal ground correctly.

The reason we all know is to maintain a tunable resolution when airflow is substantially increased when boost is turned up. Im told you can tune beyond the max limits of the sensors when the sensors are no longer able to provide tunable sensor information, but your limit is that your stuck with one boost level to maintain the correct AFR's. Thats all provided you have a fuel system to support what your doing. No boost cut/MAF sensor limit cut applies with the FC tune. Downside is that if you change that boost level your tune goes out the window.

Now it occurred to me that it would be possible to very easily connect an after market external MAP sensor to the ECU and achieve a tunable result. The ECU doesnt need to know that its dealing with manifold pressure. All it needs to do is provide fuel and spark, and sense varying loads.

So, here's my idea.

Purchase a Haltech 3 bar map sensor. Then get a 7805 voltage regulator, and a couple of small capacitors to make a small 5V regulated power supply. Connect the output of the supply to the map sensor, and have the sensor output go to the signal input for what was the MAF sensor inputs.

This basic design wouldnt have a full vacuum or max pressure calibration, but if it works it would be easily possible to modify the power supply circuit to make that adjustable. If it works I could fine tune the design later.

Also, the FC Datalogit software allows the ECU to make fuel corrections based on intake air temps with the GTR, so it really has potential to become a decent upgrade.

Why would you do this? Im thinking because its cheap for starters, allows tunability to any boost level so long as you have the sensor for the job. Allows you to ditch the MAF sensors, or keep the stock ones in place to retain that stock appearance.

This modification is so simple to implement that you could literally have a bypass switch to switch between MAF or MAP load sensing, and then just change the ecu maps and your off and running.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Cheers,

Ian

Edited by Vspec R33

I believe that the standard computer can be reprogrammed to run maps also. A few things that i can see being a drama are:

(1) The amount of fuel trim that the air temp sensor has in its range, this is essential in getting right, as the change in air density with temp has a monumental effect on AFR's,

(2) although not an outright problem on its own, the ecu has inbuilt scaling which compliments the non linear voltage curve of the AFM, ie:going from 4.0v to 4.4v almos doubles the amount of airflow, and hence fuel im not sure if this can be eliminated totally. I dont know if you would need to make a voltage regulator, as there is already a 5v power supply to the AFM.

rb26 is tuned with throttle for fuel. map for ignition.

there is not enough manifold to get the resoultion for a map only tune. eg. load rising can tune to a good 14:1 at a point but when lifting of or crusing at the same load point it could be 10:1 or 18:1.

i tried to change my tune to map only but just was not as good a a throttle/map configuration.

so to answer your question no you cant. and this is why the d-jetro is so hard to get correct. it may drive well and make good power. but put a wideband afr meter on it and it tells a differant story

Yeah good points... The autronic, wolf and haltech ecu's all use a TPS to map change over point that allows TPS + RPM for lower load tuning and then it switches to map after. I'd have to develop a circuit that could do the same thing i guess. Its possible, but it would be a little clunky as you'd have to adjust a variable resistor to set the change-over point...

All of the sudden its gotten too complicated. ah well..

Im still going to re-search how some people have replaced the MAF sensor with a MAP on their standard ECU's. There has got to be a way to make it work with a reasonable result.

Also, the load band calibrations for the FC Datalogit on page 3 of the configuration allows you to define the load points for each voltage reference. I dont see why you cant use 5 or 6 of these load bands for light load tuning, and then use the remaining two points for high load. The ecu aproximates the values inbetween based on averages of the values set in the map. I recall seeing one version of Autronic ecu that had only two load bands for on boost tuning, yet you could calibrate it for any map sensor.

I suspect i'll probably end up selling my FC and getting an autronic or wolf 5 plugin tho... we'll see...

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...