Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure that's really true, there are 4 wires shown on the diagram and its very hard to read. 2 wires are for the g meter reading and the other 2 power and earth, but I'm not sure which of those would be useful as an AVI for an ECU.

I've been meaning to sort this out for mine too, so it would be good to hear from anyone who has it working

  • Like 1

If one is power, and one is earth, they would be readily findable with MM. Then the other 2 are the signal and its likely signal earth.

Notwithstanding that - this is the snip from the R32 wiring diagram.

image.thumb.png.336159d5dd74c774f7974f452fc4249f.png

The wire numbers are reasonably well identified and the call outs to 30 and 35 go to terminals 44 and 45 on the E-TS control unit. Seems simple enough. Should be quite similar on the 33.

  • Like 2

Just thinking even when finding the proper wiring, the problem then comes with the display value in the ICC software.  Im not sure of the proper value to choose from. the Haltech as it doesnt have a value for Kg/m^2 (torque). I think the Haltech would have to have a display unit option for Kg/m^2 or lbs.

Anyone have a Haltech connection? I'll slide them a $5 for R&D cost lol

 

For the calibration, I'd just log to get the highest voltage the signal delivers, then call that "50%". It's not like there is any real accuracy in the gauge, the value sent from the ATTESSA control unit is just an intended target, not an actual value delivered by a 30 year old, worn system.

  • Like 1

From Haltech:

Thank you for reaching out! 
 
"Now that we have a proper ATTESA control function, this will be added. 
What I have done in the past is use a generic to follow the ATTESA function output and generate a 0-100% channel in the iC-7, so you can see how much power is being sent to the front. 0 being RWD only, and 100% being as close to 50/50 as it can get."
3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Good on them for quick response. I don't suppose they confirmed the dash wire pin too?

They didnt provide a pinout or ETA for a firmware patch with this update.

I have tested the front torque gauge on the bench, the input from the ATTESA ecu is 0-5v.

There are four terminals. As  suggested above there is a fixed 12v across one pair of opposite screw terminals and the "sensor" 0-5v and sensor ground on the other two terminals. 

The copper track on the plastic "circuitboard" leading to the sensor 0-5v terminal is labelled "ETS" from memory (on the R32).

The calibration units for the display on the ic7 dont matter really but you could use 0-50% or 0-288psi on a r32. If its a r33 then it would be 10-50% or 25-288psi because of the minimum pressure they run (that i guess isnt shown on the gauge).

Based on my tests the front torque gauge meet doesnt totally accurately reflect the front wheel torque or centre clutch pressure in some conditions like the "fast start" behaviour when stationary, when the guage doesnt show that the centre clutch has been activated. But its close enough unless you are data logging for the track in which case drill/trap a pressure sensor on the back of the transfer case.

  • Like 5

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...