Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Mine is not a daily and i tend to drive hard 90% of the time so i doubt the O2 has much input. Its only had 1 tune on E85 so i'm not concerned (still uses less fuel than my patrol )

I don't see how you can have such little variation in fuel use considering how much extra fuel is needed with ethanol.

Edited by Bond

because mine is a daily/streeter. so it sees a lot of time at cruise.

and it doesn't seem to need all that much extra to give me a lambda of 1 on e-flex

but yes I haven't done a full tank driving it hard 90% of the time. Will find out when i finaly get it onto the track :verymad:

Edit : Also consider 11l/100Km > 14l/100Km as a percentage. My consumption went up 27% Which is crack on ball park for ethanol

techedge will set me back $478 or some shit after GST and freight tho :P

then I gotta get it installed....fark knows where I'll get that done, unless I can somehow just replace my factory o2 sensor with the techedge and plug that into the v44.

i can install it if you want.

Pat, it can do wideband closed loop or use the stock narrow band one.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/10-COLOUR-LED-WIDEB...=item2eb09e11bf

this is the one I've got.

Looks cheap and nasty, but responds fast, is accurate compared to Ed's dyno one. and cheep cheep!

does it have a 0-5v output for the ECU?

http://wbo2.com/2j/default.htm

this one is 411 + delivery if you get the 2j9 + 7200 sensor + LA1 52mm display

thats the updated version of mine and outputs to the ECU flawlessly.

does it have a 0-5v output for the ECU?

http://wbo2.com/2j/default.htm

this one is 411 + delivery if you get the 2j9 + 7200 sensor + LA1 52mm display

thats the updated version of mine and outputs to the ECU flawlessly.

Yeah man that's exactly what I wanted to get....BUT, it's $411 PLUS GST PLUS DELIVERY. They don't count GST in their original prices :) from memory, it came to like $478

Could you please define to me exactly what "closed loop" means in this sense? I keep getting the impression you tell it you want 12:1 AFR, and it will adjust fuel constantly to keep it there....if that's the case, you'd only need to adjust timing when swapping to E85...correct? that doesn't sounds quite right to me, hence my confusion...but it could be the case lol

Closed loop only gets used during idle and cruise, where the ecu looks at the narrowband voltage, which only fluctuates from 0-1v and can only measure between 14-15 AFR... so the ecu keeps the voltage in between 0 and 1 volt by adding and taking out fuel. thus keeping the AFR's at i nice 14.7/1

This is my understanding of it anyway...

narrow band closed loop aims for 0.5v which is 14.7:1 and is only used during light load/cruise, you can not use it to accurately aim for other ratios much beyond that, wideband closed loop aims for what ever afr you tell it to and can work even when you are using 100% throttle @ 7000rpm if you want.

if you want i can give you the map from my ECU Pat and you can take a look.

wideband closed loop would be awesome! is that what your gonna be running? I'm very much limited to what NIStune can do.

I'll be getting the software tomorrow when I'm "hard at work" and have my laptop there hehehe

so i'll grab it off ya then. cheers!

wideband closed loop would be awesome! is that what your gonna be running? I'm very much limited to what NIStune can do.

I'll be getting the software tomorrow when I'm "hard at work" and have my laptop there hehehe

so i'll grab it off ya then. cheers!

i have been running it for the past 2 years, you can get some excelent cruise econ running 15.5-16:1 with very low throttle

i just emailed the file to you as i dont have them at work.

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

    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...