Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was reading another thread about different management set ups and read something interesting about knock maps. It was suggested that while nistune retains the standard knock maps, other systems like power fc do not, even though they display a knock reading.

I would like to know if this is correct. Would this mean those running power fc have essentially done away with the rich and retartd function as result?

Also do other systems like microtec use any kind of knock detection, R+R, or just a waring sytem?

cheers..........

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/327720-knock-map-question/
Share on other sites

no, R+R is simply the higher airflow end of the map. from factory both the normal and knock maps are hugely rich and retarded towards the end of the map wit the knock map obviously being more retarded than the normal map.

power fc's have no form of knock control whatsoever, they run whatever timing is on the map and simply flash a number if one of the knock sensors picks up something.

nistune uses the factory system, with a normal map and a knock map. will run off the normal map until knock is deteced, then it'll switch over to knock maps. if the knock map is too advanced then it'll keep knocking, it wont pull out any more timing. so you have to set it up rather conservatively.

pretty sure vipecs have true knock control, retarding timing until theres no more knock, this is the safest way

AEM version 2 has the best knock map-style functionality ive seen so far, VIPEC and LINK have an ok system it as do the new Haltech's and most MOTEC (once enabled) so its not really an issue if you want it as most decent ecu's support it.

The NISTUNE setup is pretty cool and very easy to setup on your basic std engine but like all knock systems becomes harder once the engine and car become more modified, clutch choice, engine clearances and lash type can all play havoc with the knock sensors which require recalibrating to the "new noise" introduced with such modifications.

Thanks guys that explains r&r a lot better for me.

I need to understand it better as i am trying to figure out the most inexpensive way to get more mid range out of my r33, as it seems to be a bit doughy before 5000rpm. I thought it might have been running knock maps in that region and i was considering padding out the sensors with resistors as a tuner told me the car is not knocking but was being retarded by my overly sensitive sensors? But now it seems that i may also have an issue simply with the r&r end of the normal map.

I have the usual basic mods including a high flow turbo (hypergear) and a safcs2 as my only form of tuning. I have checked my vvt solinoid is ok and it seems to be. I know high flow turbos are slightly bigger, but i would not have thought that they would sacrafice so much mid range over standard.

The car has only had one breif tune and made 275hp at 6000rpm (11psi) which is all well and good but it has nothing prior to 5000rpm. Funnily enough if i only use half throttle it seems to be far more responsive in the midrange and goes about as hard as full throttle? Any suggestions? Cheers......

Ps. i have not yet put in adjustable fuel reg. Perhaps this would help tune out R&R with safcs ?

  r32dan said:
Thanks guys that explains r&r a lot better for me.

I need to understand it better as i am trying to figure out the most inexpensive way to get more mid range out of my r33, as it seems to be a bit doughy before 5000rpm. I thought it might have been running knock maps in that region and i was considering padding out the sensors with resistors as a tuner told me the car is not knocking but was being retarded by my overly sensitive sensors? But now it seems that i may also have an issue simply with the r&r end of the normal map.

I have the usual basic mods including a high flow turbo (hypergear) and a safcs2 as my only form of tuning. I have checked my vvt solinoid is ok and it seems to be. I know high flow turbos are slightly bigger, but i would not have thought that they would sacrafice so much mid range over standard.

The car has only had one breif tune and made 275hp at 6000rpm (11psi) which is all well and good but it has nothing prior to 5000rpm. Funnily enough if i only use half throttle it seems to be far more responsive in the midrange and goes about as hard as full throttle? Any suggestions? Cheers......

Ps. i have not yet put in adjustable fuel reg. Perhaps this would help tune out R&R with safcs ?

Issue is the big drop in timing in the factory tune, you will need either a remap or a new tunable ecu.

Have a look at the timing numbers in this R33 map from 4800rpm onwards load areas 72-on (timing drops from 20 to 16 which is around 20kw in one fatal swoop. Thats why part throttle (lower load) will actually make more power as it will run along load point 56 which has 26 degrees :P Nissan aint stupid they know exactly what goes on once the car leaves the showroom.... call it built in safety..

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/post-a284940-

post-34927-1273574731_thumb.jpg

  STATUS said:

is that a 100% stock map? nice little jump from 16 to 53 degrees up the top

also interesting how much timing they drop right around where the stock turbo hits full boost

This is why nistune is such a brilliant way to get a completely tuneable ECU, cheap and it has more features than most aftermarket ECUs.

  JonnoHR31 said:
is that a 100% stock map? nice little jump from 16 to 53 degrees up the top

The reason I imagine the map does that is because when 100% standard the car most likely runs only along 75% of the map, then when it gets modified you run up to the rest of the cells, because nissan assumed that this was because someone had slapped a dirty big turbo on it they retard the ignition immensely to prevent damage, however during normal driving with a stock setup the ECU would never reach those cells.

Edited by Rolls

i would have thought that standard or not, the entire map would be used because the load points appear to be throttle position reference points. so if you are foot flat and towards the end of the rpm range you will find your self in the least desirable end of the map regardless of modifications or not.

  r32dan said:
i would have thought that standard or not, the entire map would be used because the load points appear to be throttle position reference points. so if you are foot flat and towards the end of the rpm range you will find your self in the least desirable end of the map regardless of modifications or not.

The load axis is theoretical pulsewidth (based on maf voltage and injector constant) not throttle position.

Don't let the knock feature of the factory system sway your judgement when selecting an ecu as it's quiet poor and will usually only revert to the lower octane map if you see lots of knock at low rpm high load. That being said I'm a big fan of the factory system compared to most other aftermarket ecus.

  Rolls said:
The reason I imagine the map does that is because when 100% standard the car most likely runs only along 75% of the map, then when it gets modified you run up to the rest of the cells, because nissan assumed that this was because someone had slapped a dirty big turbo on it they retard the ignition immensely to prevent damage, however during normal driving with a stock setup the ECU would never reach those cells.

the part i'm talking about is very light load, off boost. turbo size would be irrelevant. you could reach those sells parked in your driveway if you wanted

  rob82 said:
The load axis is theoretical pulsewidth (based on maf voltage and injector constant) not throttle position.

Don't let the knock feature of the factory system sway your judgement when selecting an ecu as it's quiet poor and will usually only revert to the lower octane map if you see lots of knock at low rpm high load. That being said I'm a big fan of the factory system compared to most other aftermarket ecus.

Correct (i agree wholly) and to add to that the factory system only has closed loop knock control to around 4000rpm (model specific) so if you find it is reliable you can raise it via nistune.

  JonnoHR31 said:
the part i'm talking about is very light load, off boost. turbo size would be irrelevant. you could reach those sells parked in your driveway if you wanted

The only way to reach the cells you talk of are to rev your car to redline and quickly let off the accel and coast ie above 5200 rpm with no load and it will only pass through there on the way back to idle, soon as you add any throttle it will be out of there in an instant.

So in theory if you could some how cap the voltage signal from the afm so that you eliminated a few of the high end load reference points, and use a fuel reg to replace the lost fuel, although crude, you would at least have improved timming without the expence of an after market computer? I relise it would not be as good, but would it work? Obviously it would be subject to a safe tune!

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...