Best replacement ECU poll LINK, MOTEC or GEMS
14 March 2002, 01:18 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
I have a MoTeC M48 on my MY00 and they fitted a xtra temp sensor in the I/C for compensation. I have no idle stepper motor control. U say you have a fix for that? ( Credit card in hand and me on my knees begging
)
Stelios
I have a MoTeC M48 on my MY00 and they fitted a xtra temp sensor in the I/C for compensation. I have no idle stepper motor control. U say you have a fix for that? ( Credit card in hand and me on my knees begging
)Stelios
14 March 2002, 06:18 PM
#35
Ecu Specialist
Hi Stelios, the M48Pro does not have enough outputs for the linear motor isc and does not have stepper software, only the M800 has that but there is a way to help this issue, mail me off line to discuss. I had my M48Pro idling at circa 850 rpm with very little problem except that the throttle needs "catching" on very cold starts.
16 March 2002, 01:01 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Trouser's dad Graham at TSL is in the process of developing the Motec M800 system for use on the 01/02 WRX.(as well as the M800 fitted to the P1)
Looks like its a top class system, and can transform an otherwise standard car.
Think I will start saving up for it now
BOB
Looks like its a top class system, and can transform an otherwise standard car.
Think I will start saving up for it now
BOB
18 March 2002, 11:48 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bob, do these new Link chips help us 97MY PC chip users?
Cold/Hot start and idle on mine is still not OEM standard but this sounds like a good resolution.
I will email you.
Norm.
Cold/Hot start and idle on mine is still not OEM standard but this sounds like a good resolution.
I will email you.
Norm.
18 March 2002, 09:27 PM
#39
Ecu Specialist
Norm, unfortunately it won't improve on the MY97 PC enabled chip but ... I will be in Ibiza during May.
WRXBob ... looking forward to playing with those as well !!
WRXBob ... looking forward to playing with those as well !!
03 July 2002, 10:26 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A few questions and theoretical considerations...
Getting rid of the MAF would be nice because of its frailty, but are there advantages to MAF based fuelling? Why are they used so extensively by manufacturers? In estimating the actual mass of air entering the engine this is presumably the best variable to use to calculate the amount of fuel to add for a given mixture and should not be affected by temperature? If you use MAP with temperature you may also need to compensate for volume and volumetric efficiency to give a speed density calculation, and this would require further maps and complexity.
PV = nRT
n proportional to what the MAF is measuring and is what you need to know to calculate fuelling.
Calculating n from other sensors requires T and P and volumetric efficiency assumtions.
How accurately does say the Link fuel based on P, what does it use for temperature compensation?
Obviously MAF sensors as well as being fragile can be susceptible to misreading because of turbulence outside the parameters they were mapped for - ie smooth laminar flow with new intake could lead to under-reading and a lean condition. They can also be slow to react and give strange results because of reverse flow situtations or contaminants.
Neither method seems perfect does it?
[Edited by john banks - 3/7/2002 10:29:01 PM]
Getting rid of the MAF would be nice because of its frailty, but are there advantages to MAF based fuelling? Why are they used so extensively by manufacturers? In estimating the actual mass of air entering the engine this is presumably the best variable to use to calculate the amount of fuel to add for a given mixture and should not be affected by temperature? If you use MAP with temperature you may also need to compensate for volume and volumetric efficiency to give a speed density calculation, and this would require further maps and complexity.
PV = nRT
n proportional to what the MAF is measuring and is what you need to know to calculate fuelling.
Calculating n from other sensors requires T and P and volumetric efficiency assumtions.
How accurately does say the Link fuel based on P, what does it use for temperature compensation?
Obviously MAF sensors as well as being fragile can be susceptible to misreading because of turbulence outside the parameters they were mapped for - ie smooth laminar flow with new intake could lead to under-reading and a lean condition. They can also be slow to react and give strange results because of reverse flow situtations or contaminants.
Neither method seems perfect does it?
[Edited by john banks - 3/7/2002 10:29:01 PM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MightyArsenal
Wheels, Tyres & Brakes
6
25 September 2015 08:31 PM
DogsofWar
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
16
23 September 2015 07:41 PM
aaron_ions
General Technical
1
17 September 2015 10:42 AM
