Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

For anyone else playing along re timing issue. 

A good unbiased thread here. 

Unsurprisingly issues occurs on a number of ECUs, not limited to Haltech, and even features our OP(and others) claiming the same issue on a PowerFC, madness... 

Seems like most ECU manufacturers and Tuners were aware of and had produces solutions to address it, including modified/better CAS discs, crank triggers, etc.  

Too much was said for me to not look into it as a precaution - So thanks for that even if your caps are flat. 


 

I am probably as far from a flat clapper as you can get!

Yes it is an issue with not just Haltech, motec m800 and earlier, link etc all suffer from it.

With a good CAS and good signal wires PFC, Nistune and Adaptronic won't suffer from it, if you get really bored you can listen to a youtube video or post Andy from Adaptronic made about it too. So for a plug in ECU designed for that engine I think it's a rubbish ECU choice if you need to fit aftermarket sensors.

It's always to learn something new :D

 

 

Haltech "claim" not an issue with Platinum Pro, but was a problem on earlier ECUs, guess I'll find out it ever happens. 

So I guess the bombshell here is old shit can be problematic... but new shit has less issues.. Who knew!

 

2 minutes ago, ActionDan said:

Haltech "claim" not an issue with Platinum Pro, but was a problem on earlier ECUs, guess I'll find out it ever happens. 

So I guess the bombshell here is old shit can be problematic... but new shit has less issues.. Who knew!

 

LOL it's defiantly a problem with the Platinum pro, even worse with the Elite range but I won't tag Jono Pace in this thread for him to rage about them. 

Don't always believe the marking bullshit that comes from a manufacturer, i am sure you tuner would have tuned you car extremely safe up top if it was showing any issues.

Just now, ActionDan said:

He might have given me an ear bashing on FB about it already?

Wonder why my car hasn't seen it. Maybe the key is don't drive it. 

it may well have it, you can tune around it to a degree or just ignore it like most do.

Just now, ActionDan said:

That must be it then, I can't there being any possibility that it's just working properly. 

I'll be ready to replace the ECU when I put my TH400 in.

 

 

Just put a crank trigger kit on it!

You will need it for the 1000hp and your TH400

  • Like 1

Setup a real crank trigger.

Throw OEM CAS disc in the bin. Fit an aftermarket disc.

 

Run whatever ECU you want or as many Haltech products as your passenger footwell can fit. Job done.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

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, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...