scoobyclinics turbo's just got billet I mean better!
03 November 2010, 05:14 PM
#1201
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: www.scoobyclinic.com
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
as the car is running a standard ecu, the power will be around 380 bhp due to the limit of 1.55 bar, an sti top mount will handle that easily, Fmic would of course be better whatever the ecu.
An uprated free flowing inlet pipe would also help.
cheers
Kev
03 November 2010, 05:32 PM
#1203
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: www.scoobyclinic.com
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
the SC46 Billet twin scroll will do 450 bhp, but not on a standard ecu unless the mapper turns off all the safe guards.
Most people have had the 46 twin scroll on the standard ecu first then at a later date upgraded to the syvecs or other speed density ecu, along the way the cars have gained a FMIC at some point, some people go the other way, FMIC, ecu then eventually the 46 billet, its a matter of choice.
One thing is its a massive upgrade from the VF37.
cheers
Kev
03 November 2010, 05:32 PM
#1204
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 November 2010, 05:45 PM
#1205
Scooby Regular
Too add to this thread a little 
, we recently fitted an SC46 Billet to an RB320 with a forged 2.5 engine. It was staggering, no loss of response when compared to the stock VF43 and over 400 of each even with the stock ecu, airbox and topmounted interwarmer. Boost was 1.4 bar peak tailing to 1.2 bar top end.
, we recently fitted an SC46 Billet to an RB320 with a forged 2.5 engine. It was staggering, no loss of response when compared to the stock VF43 and over 400 of each even with the stock ecu, airbox and topmounted interwarmer. Boost was 1.4 bar peak tailing to 1.2 bar top end.
03 November 2010, 10:07 PM
#1206
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
the SC46 Billet twin scroll will do 450 bhp, but not on a standard ecu unless the mapper turns off all the safe guards.
Most people have had the 46 twin scroll on the standard ecu first then at a later date upgraded to the syvecs or other speed density ecu, along the way the cars have gained a FMIC at some point, some people go the other way, FMIC, ecu then eventually the 46 billet, its a matter of choice.
One thing is its a massive upgrade from the VF37.
cheers
Kev
the SC46 Billet twin scroll will do 450 bhp, but not on a standard ecu unless the mapper turns off all the safe guards.
Most people have had the 46 twin scroll on the standard ecu first then at a later date upgraded to the syvecs or other speed density ecu, along the way the cars have gained a FMIC at some point, some people go the other way, FMIC, ecu then eventually the 46 billet, its a matter of choice.
One thing is its a massive upgrade from the VF37.
cheers
Kev
So what do you mean by safe guards? I know one of them will be running higher boost than the ECU can read, which will then mean it can't adjust properly. I know over here in the US it's common for JDM v7/v8 STi's to be pushing 25-30psi on the stock ECU without problems. I'm not a tuner though, so I ask questions before I do something instead
.John
03 November 2010, 10:08 PM
#1207
Scooby Regular
I keep hearing "safe guards" but never hear what they are exactly. I'm running the JDM ECU, is this different from the UK ECU in terms of making more power? Because when looking at the dyno's on scoobynet I noticed the JDM engine/ecu guys were all pushing 450hp with the SC46/LM450 on the stock ECU.
So what do you mean by safe guards? I know one of them will be running higher boost than the ECU can read, which will then mean it can't adjust properly. I know over here in the US it's common for JDM v7/v8 STi's to be pushing 25-30psi on the stock ECU without problems. I'm not a tuner though, so I ask questions before I do something instead.
John
So what do you mean by safe guards? I know one of them will be running higher boost than the ECU can read, which will then mean it can't adjust properly. I know over here in the US it's common for JDM v7/v8 STi's to be pushing 25-30psi on the stock ECU without problems. I'm not a tuner though, so I ask questions before I do something instead
.John
its do do with boost level not power
03 November 2010, 10:48 PM
#1208
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 November 2010, 11:37 PM
#1210
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so I just ran this by one of the top tuners for the JDM engine on Nasioc...... and he is really confused about what you guys are talking about. He told me you can set boost cut within the ECU to well over 30psi. Are you guys referring to boost cut or something different?
03 November 2010, 11:58 PM
#1212
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Def something I would like to figure out as I have two sides saying different things. Not sure if it's just the MAP sensor on the UK cars, but on the JDM STi 30+ PSI on the stock ECU is fine. He thinks you are referring to the factory rom file, which he said you can change.
Last edited by Deadpool; 04 November 2010 at 12:00 AM.
04 November 2010, 11:12 AM
#1214
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: www.scoobyclinic.com
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just reallised we have an SC46 twin scroll Billet sat at Blouch, as its already over there shipping would be free.
Just a thought, if you are interested let me know by sending an e mail to info@scoobyclinic.com
cheers
Kev
04 November 2010, 12:21 PM
#1215
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: www.scoobyclinic.com
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
a bit of Birkett footage in the dry, worth a quick look, shows the sort of stuff we were up against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoswqNhBSYE
Wet footage to follow.
Cheers
Kev
a bit of Birkett footage in the dry, worth a quick look, shows the sort of stuff we were up against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoswqNhBSYE
Wet footage to follow.
Cheers
Kev
04 November 2010, 12:34 PM
#1216
Def something I would like to figure out as I have two sides saying different things. Not sure if it's just the MAP sensor on the UK cars, but on the JDM STi 30+ PSI on the stock ECU is fine. He thinks you are referring to the factory rom file, which he said you can change.
What is causing the 1.55bar limit in the UK/EDM ECU?
Come on Scoobyclinic, or any other tuner for that matter, let us in on the facts
04 November 2010, 01:23 PM
#1217
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salmacis,
There are two issues that relate to the maximum safe boost, from an electronics point of view....
The first is the maximum boost pressure the sensor can read. This varies from year to year and also between JDM and EU markets. The basic premise is that you cannot set the boost cut any higher than this, otherwise the boost cut is disabled since regardless of what boost is made, the sensor will not see it. Typically this sits around 1.7 bar, but can be as high as 2.05 bar on the JDM Twin Scroll engines or as low as 1.1 bar on MY92-96 cars (bar potentially the 555 edition). Due to the poor boost control strategy in all standard ECUs it is virtually impossible to achieve target boost without some overshoot, therefore there needs to be some "headroom" between the target and the cut. This headroom will typically be 0.15 to 0.2 bar; if we have a sensor that reads to 1.7 bar then that places our maximum safe boost target at 1.5 bar. It can be higher on cars with sensors that read higher but that is not the end of the story :
The SelectMonitor protocol has an upper limit of 255 kPa absolute for the manifold absolute pressure parameter and 128 kPa gauge for manifold relative pressure. In simple terms, DeltaDash will not be able to display boost beyond 1.55 bar, regardless of how high it really is. This is not a major problem when a car has a boost gauge because that can be used during road test to verify boost control; whilst on the dyno of course the dyno boost pressure sensor is used and it can read 4 bar of boost. If a car does not have a boost gauge then it becomes impossible to verify correct boost control operation on the road without fitting, and removing, a "loan" boost gauge. Whilst this is possible, it is an additional amount of labour and expense which would be incurred every time the car is looked at, so unless a car will be fitted and retain its boost gauge, mapping beyond 1.55 bar will not be offered on stock ECU. Mapping beyond the limits of the map sensor will never be offered, removing the safety features simply isn't an option as far as we are concerned.
As a final note, some ECUs also implement a maximum load cap. The engine load is calculated by dividing the airflow by the RPM. The result is used to lookup the right fuel and ignition, and of course if that value is capped, additional boost and airflow cannot be dealt with safely. A typical example of this is an EG257 in an MY99-00 car; the AE80X and AF04X/AG340 cap around about 57, but you can get that with just 1.25 bar on an EJ257, sometimes at less boost. There is no proper engineering solution to this, only various band aids.... rescaling the airflow to fool the ECU into thinking it is flowing less air (and thus reducing the computed load) then richening the fuel map to compensate and adjusting the ignition table to compensate for the fudged engine load is one such method and a "get me out the poo" option but sanity checking such a map becomes an exercise in mental arithmetic, trying to keep track of the real load by correcting the fudged figures in your head as you see them; certainly a recipe for mistakes to be made. It is always better to deploy a properly engineered solution that doesn't rely of pseudo-figures to make a square peg fit a round hole, but I do appreciate that is sometimes the only viable option there and then.
Hope this sheds some light on the situation,
Pat.
There are two issues that relate to the maximum safe boost, from an electronics point of view....
The first is the maximum boost pressure the sensor can read. This varies from year to year and also between JDM and EU markets. The basic premise is that you cannot set the boost cut any higher than this, otherwise the boost cut is disabled since regardless of what boost is made, the sensor will not see it. Typically this sits around 1.7 bar, but can be as high as 2.05 bar on the JDM Twin Scroll engines or as low as 1.1 bar on MY92-96 cars (bar potentially the 555 edition). Due to the poor boost control strategy in all standard ECUs it is virtually impossible to achieve target boost without some overshoot, therefore there needs to be some "headroom" between the target and the cut. This headroom will typically be 0.15 to 0.2 bar; if we have a sensor that reads to 1.7 bar then that places our maximum safe boost target at 1.5 bar. It can be higher on cars with sensors that read higher but that is not the end of the story :
The SelectMonitor protocol has an upper limit of 255 kPa absolute for the manifold absolute pressure parameter and 128 kPa gauge for manifold relative pressure. In simple terms, DeltaDash will not be able to display boost beyond 1.55 bar, regardless of how high it really is. This is not a major problem when a car has a boost gauge because that can be used during road test to verify boost control; whilst on the dyno of course the dyno boost pressure sensor is used and it can read 4 bar of boost. If a car does not have a boost gauge then it becomes impossible to verify correct boost control operation on the road without fitting, and removing, a "loan" boost gauge. Whilst this is possible, it is an additional amount of labour and expense which would be incurred every time the car is looked at, so unless a car will be fitted and retain its boost gauge, mapping beyond 1.55 bar will not be offered on stock ECU. Mapping beyond the limits of the map sensor will never be offered, removing the safety features simply isn't an option as far as we are concerned.
As a final note, some ECUs also implement a maximum load cap. The engine load is calculated by dividing the airflow by the RPM. The result is used to lookup the right fuel and ignition, and of course if that value is capped, additional boost and airflow cannot be dealt with safely. A typical example of this is an EG257 in an MY99-00 car; the AE80X and AF04X/AG340 cap around about 57, but you can get that with just 1.25 bar on an EJ257, sometimes at less boost. There is no proper engineering solution to this, only various band aids.... rescaling the airflow to fool the ECU into thinking it is flowing less air (and thus reducing the computed load) then richening the fuel map to compensate and adjusting the ignition table to compensate for the fudged engine load is one such method and a "get me out the poo" option but sanity checking such a map becomes an exercise in mental arithmetic, trying to keep track of the real load by correcting the fudged figures in your head as you see them; certainly a recipe for mistakes to be made. It is always better to deploy a properly engineered solution that doesn't rely of pseudo-figures to make a square peg fit a round hole, but I do appreciate that is sometimes the only viable option there and then.
Hope this sheds some light on the situation,
Pat.
04 November 2010, 01:30 PM
#1218
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scoobyclinic & Hull!
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salmacis,
There are two issues that relate to the maximum safe boost, from an electronics point of view....
The first is the maximum boost pressure the sensor can read. This varies from year to year and also between JDM and EU markets. The basic premise is that you cannot set the boost cut any higher than this, otherwise the boost cut is disabled since regardless of what boost is made, the sensor will not see it. Typically this sits around 1.7 bar, but can be as high as 2.05 bar on the JDM Twin Scroll engines or as low as 1.1 bar on MY92-96 cars (bar potentially the 555 edition). Due to the poor boost control strategy in all standard ECUs it is virtually impossible to achieve target boost without some overshoot, therefore there needs to be some "headroom" between the target and the cut. This headroom will typically be 0.15 to 0.2 bar; if we have a sensor that reads to 1.7 bar then that places our maximum safe boost target at 1.5 bar. It can be higher on cars with sensors that read higher but that is not the end of the story :
The SelectMonitor protocol has an upper limit of 255 kPa absolute for the manifold absolute pressure parameter and 128 kPa gauge for manifold relative pressure. In simple terms, DeltaDash will not be able to display boost beyond 1.55 bar, regardless of how high it really is. This is not a major problem when a car has a boost gauge because that can be used during road test to verify boost control; whilst on the dyno of course the dyno boost pressure sensor is used and it can read 4 bar of boost. If a car does not have a boost gauge then it becomes impossible to verify correct boost control operation on the road without fitting, and removing, a "loan" boost gauge. Whilst this is possible, it is an additional amount of labour and expense which would be incurred every time the car is looked at, so unless a car will be fitted and retain its boost gauge, mapping beyond 1.55 bar will not be offered on stock ECU. Mapping beyond the limits of the map sensor will never be offered, removing the safety features simply isn't an option as far as we are concerned.
As a final note, some ECUs also implement a maximum load cap. The engine load is calculated by dividing the airflow by the RPM. The result is used to lookup the right fuel and ignition, and of course if that value is capped, additional boost and airflow cannot be dealt with safely. A typical example of this is an EG257 in an MY99-00 car; the AE80X and AF04X/AG340 cap around about 57, but you can get that with just 1.25 bar on an EJ257, sometimes at less boost. There is no proper engineering solution to this, only various band aids.... rescaling the airflow to fool the ECU into thinking it is flowing less air (and thus reducing the computed load) then richening the fuel map to compensate and adjusting the ignition table to compensate for the fudged engine load is one such method and a "get me out the poo" option but sanity checking such a map becomes an exercise in mental arithmetic, trying to keep track of the real load by correcting the fudged figures in your head as you see them; certainly a recipe for mistakes to be made. It is always better to deploy a properly engineered solution that doesn't rely of pseudo-figures to make a square peg fit a round hole, but I do appreciate that is sometimes the only viable option there and then.
Hope this sheds some light on the situation,
Pat.
There are two issues that relate to the maximum safe boost, from an electronics point of view....
The first is the maximum boost pressure the sensor can read. This varies from year to year and also between JDM and EU markets. The basic premise is that you cannot set the boost cut any higher than this, otherwise the boost cut is disabled since regardless of what boost is made, the sensor will not see it. Typically this sits around 1.7 bar, but can be as high as 2.05 bar on the JDM Twin Scroll engines or as low as 1.1 bar on MY92-96 cars (bar potentially the 555 edition). Due to the poor boost control strategy in all standard ECUs it is virtually impossible to achieve target boost without some overshoot, therefore there needs to be some "headroom" between the target and the cut. This headroom will typically be 0.15 to 0.2 bar; if we have a sensor that reads to 1.7 bar then that places our maximum safe boost target at 1.5 bar. It can be higher on cars with sensors that read higher but that is not the end of the story :
The SelectMonitor protocol has an upper limit of 255 kPa absolute for the manifold absolute pressure parameter and 128 kPa gauge for manifold relative pressure. In simple terms, DeltaDash will not be able to display boost beyond 1.55 bar, regardless of how high it really is. This is not a major problem when a car has a boost gauge because that can be used during road test to verify boost control; whilst on the dyno of course the dyno boost pressure sensor is used and it can read 4 bar of boost. If a car does not have a boost gauge then it becomes impossible to verify correct boost control operation on the road without fitting, and removing, a "loan" boost gauge. Whilst this is possible, it is an additional amount of labour and expense which would be incurred every time the car is looked at, so unless a car will be fitted and retain its boost gauge, mapping beyond 1.55 bar will not be offered on stock ECU. Mapping beyond the limits of the map sensor will never be offered, removing the safety features simply isn't an option as far as we are concerned.
As a final note, some ECUs also implement a maximum load cap. The engine load is calculated by dividing the airflow by the RPM. The result is used to lookup the right fuel and ignition, and of course if that value is capped, additional boost and airflow cannot be dealt with safely. A typical example of this is an EG257 in an MY99-00 car; the AE80X and AF04X/AG340 cap around about 57, but you can get that with just 1.25 bar on an EJ257, sometimes at less boost. There is no proper engineering solution to this, only various band aids.... rescaling the airflow to fool the ECU into thinking it is flowing less air (and thus reducing the computed load) then richening the fuel map to compensate and adjusting the ignition table to compensate for the fudged engine load is one such method and a "get me out the poo" option but sanity checking such a map becomes an exercise in mental arithmetic, trying to keep track of the real load by correcting the fudged figures in your head as you see them; certainly a recipe for mistakes to be made. It is always better to deploy a properly engineered solution that doesn't rely of pseudo-figures to make a square peg fit a round hole, but I do appreciate that is sometimes the only viable option there and then.
Hope this sheds some light on the situation,
Pat.
04 November 2010, 03:06 PM
#1219
Salmacis,
There are two issues that relate to the maximum safe boost, from an electronics point of view....
The first is the maximum boost pressure the sensor can read. ---SNIP--
The SelectMonitor protocol has an upper limit of 255 kPa absolute for the manifold absolute pressure parameter and 128 kPa gauge for manifold relative pressure. ---SNIP---
As a final note, some ECUs also implement a maximum load cap. The engine load is calculated by dividing the airflow by the RPM. ---SNIP---
Hope this sheds some light on the situation,
Pat.
There are two issues that relate to the maximum safe boost, from an electronics point of view....
The first is the maximum boost pressure the sensor can read. ---SNIP--
The SelectMonitor protocol has an upper limit of 255 kPa absolute for the manifold absolute pressure parameter and 128 kPa gauge for manifold relative pressure. ---SNIP---
As a final note, some ECUs also implement a maximum load cap. The engine load is calculated by dividing the airflow by the RPM. ---SNIP---
Hope this sheds some light on the situation,
Pat.
Thanks a lot for the explanation
I have been wondering about this a while now and this really cleared things up for me (I think).So if I understand this correctly, it's basically an issue with
1.) the physical sensor,
2.) a limitation with the Select Monitor protocol Subaru is using and
3.) a 300g/s Maf limit (at least on the newage 01-02).
Ok, so just thinking out loud ...
To get around #1, is it a viable solution to get a higher reading sensor and replacing the stock sensor? (Btw, where is it physically located? In the ECU?).
To get around #2, get a boost guage?
To get around #3, get a Big Maf tube and rescale MAF table and other associated/implicated tables?
Would this be a feasible and cost effective solution to getting a speed density ECU?
Thanks and sorry about the off topic content
04 November 2010, 05:05 PM
#1220
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salmacis,
1) You can fit a larger range sensor to get round the ECU being able to "see" the boost, but there are further caveats.... ideally you want to be able to re-scale for the new sensor so that the reading is true. This will of course make the overall solution subject to 2) below but it is better to work with real figures. If the sensor cannot be rescaled then you're back to using pseudo-readings and the whole thing a little more difficult to work with.... it doesn't help when the ECU says it's running 1 bar only to find that it's really 1.4 bar, but that can and does happen...
2) The limitation applies primarily to what we can "see" from the outside. The ECU can represent more than 255kPa internally and we can set a target higher than this, and also set a limit higher too, but since we cannot "see" it, we cannot know if the limit we have set is actually achievable. Let's say that we set the limit at 272kPa but the sensor can only register 271kPa, in order to "prove" that the limit works we MUST exceed 272 kPa for a period of time, something you may not want to do. You cannot "check" that the sensor stops reading at 271kPa with DeltaDash because anything over 255kPa will read 255kPa...
3) I hadn't touched on the MAF reading limit, I was talking about load limit, but the same applies. You can fit a bigger MAF tube and scale... BUT regardless of what the turbo can flow, you cannot see more than 300g/sec. So let's say the turbo flows 450g/sec. You rescale the MAF so that the real 450g/sec reads 300, ie you downscale to 66% of real airflow. Then you would re-scale the injectors the same amount, say they were 750cc/min, you'de enter them as 500cc/min. This will cause the injection pulse width to be 1.5 times as long as it "should" be, and 0.66 * 1.5 = 1.00, ie the correct amount of fuel gets delivered. Of course the load axis on the ignition table will now be wrong, that is to say where in reality it maybe should read 7.5g/cycle it will now only read 5 g/cycle so the ignition values that should have been in the 7.5 row, if it had been possible to "see" 450g/sec will now be in the 5.0g/cycle load row. This type of thing is a fudge, you are no longer working with real values. By contrast the later ECUs can see more than 300g/sec and you'de do the job properly by scaling the MAF readings so that you genuinely do see 450g/sec.
It would not be a speed density ECU if you used a MAF. In order to go speed density you'de want to a) use something like the HKS VPC (no longer made, I wonder why...), MAFSIM (no longer made, I wonder why...), or indeed use a proper speed density ROM file (STi Group N, not officially available to anyone outside STi).
At present there is no viable solution that addresses all of the limitations of the standard ECU. ECUTEK are quite busy with cool new features that may redress that balance but for now, if you want to go speed density then the only way to do it legitimately (ie not using stolen ROM files) is to replace the ECU.
Hope this helps,
Pat.
1) You can fit a larger range sensor to get round the ECU being able to "see" the boost, but there are further caveats.... ideally you want to be able to re-scale for the new sensor so that the reading is true. This will of course make the overall solution subject to 2) below but it is better to work with real figures. If the sensor cannot be rescaled then you're back to using pseudo-readings and the whole thing a little more difficult to work with.... it doesn't help when the ECU says it's running 1 bar only to find that it's really 1.4 bar, but that can and does happen...
2) The limitation applies primarily to what we can "see" from the outside. The ECU can represent more than 255kPa internally and we can set a target higher than this, and also set a limit higher too, but since we cannot "see" it, we cannot know if the limit we have set is actually achievable. Let's say that we set the limit at 272kPa but the sensor can only register 271kPa, in order to "prove" that the limit works we MUST exceed 272 kPa for a period of time, something you may not want to do. You cannot "check" that the sensor stops reading at 271kPa with DeltaDash because anything over 255kPa will read 255kPa...
3) I hadn't touched on the MAF reading limit, I was talking about load limit, but the same applies. You can fit a bigger MAF tube and scale... BUT regardless of what the turbo can flow, you cannot see more than 300g/sec. So let's say the turbo flows 450g/sec. You rescale the MAF so that the real 450g/sec reads 300, ie you downscale to 66% of real airflow. Then you would re-scale the injectors the same amount, say they were 750cc/min, you'de enter them as 500cc/min. This will cause the injection pulse width to be 1.5 times as long as it "should" be, and 0.66 * 1.5 = 1.00, ie the correct amount of fuel gets delivered. Of course the load axis on the ignition table will now be wrong, that is to say where in reality it maybe should read 7.5g/cycle it will now only read 5 g/cycle so the ignition values that should have been in the 7.5 row, if it had been possible to "see" 450g/sec will now be in the 5.0g/cycle load row. This type of thing is a fudge, you are no longer working with real values. By contrast the later ECUs can see more than 300g/sec and you'de do the job properly by scaling the MAF readings so that you genuinely do see 450g/sec.
It would not be a speed density ECU if you used a MAF. In order to go speed density you'de want to a) use something like the HKS VPC (no longer made, I wonder why...), MAFSIM (no longer made, I wonder why...), or indeed use a proper speed density ROM file (STi Group N, not officially available to anyone outside STi).
At present there is no viable solution that addresses all of the limitations of the standard ECU. ECUTEK are quite busy with cool new features that may redress that balance but for now, if you want to go speed density then the only way to do it legitimately (ie not using stolen ROM files) is to replace the ECU.
Hope this helps,
Pat.
04 November 2010, 06:00 PM
#1221
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: www.scoobyclinic.com
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
hot on this new debate a customer has just dropped off his scoob running 400 BHP on an SC40 Billet with a FMIC, mapped elsewhere on ecutec, safetys turned off so he could run more than 1.55 bar.
He noticed that he has had to control the boost, displayed on his boost gauge, with the position of the accelerator pedal as it overshot to 1.8 bar easily when loaded up, now its "popped" a piston.
There could be many reasons for its demise but I know where I will place my bet.
cheers
Kev
hot on this new debate a customer has just dropped off his scoob running 400 BHP on an SC40 Billet with a FMIC, mapped elsewhere on ecutec, safetys turned off so he could run more than 1.55 bar.
He noticed that he has had to control the boost, displayed on his boost gauge, with the position of the accelerator pedal as it overshot to 1.8 bar easily when loaded up, now its "popped" a piston.
There could be many reasons for its demise but I know where I will place my bet.
cheers
Kev
04 November 2010, 08:36 PM
#1223
Hey Pat,
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanations. I really appreciate it
This makes me realize just how little I know about the subject.
I had set my mind on just adding a 3" maf tube and having my tuner rescale the maf table et al. However having read your answer, I guess I have to start saving for a descent speed density ECU.
Thanks again
Cheers Axel
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanations. I really appreciate it
This makes me realize just how little I know about the subject.
I had set my mind on just adding a 3" maf tube and having my tuner rescale the maf table et al. However having read your answer, I guess I have to start saving for a descent speed density ECU.
Thanks again
Cheers Axel
Last edited by Salmacis; 04 November 2010 at 08:38 PM.
04 November 2010, 10:54 PM
#1224
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
The latest file for that ECU is AF482, and I just tried putting in 400g/sec, it was capped at 300g/sec, so it looks like the answer to your question is no, it won't see more.
Axel,
It would be sensible to discuss your proposed mods with your tuner before making a final decision. As you may have noticed, I didn't say it was impossible, just that certain things either involve more effort, compromises I am not prepared to make, or fudges that I am not happy with, however your tuner may disagree! If they are prepared to put in the extra effort and diligence required to get a result using this approach then fair play to them. Might I also suggest that if you think you NEED a large MAF tube then the turbo will probably also be quite big, which means you may well be thinking of going for a front mounted intercooler, which means there is a large volume of pipework between the MAF and the throttle plate; this tends to cause driveability "artefacts" (quirks if you like)... it may be more sensible to place your MAF in a "blow through" position close to the throttle body to mitigate these artefacts as much as possible, but again that is something you will need to discuss with your tuner.
I should also point out that I cannot consider myself unbiased; the fact that I am involved in the manufacture and sale of speed density ECUs will have a bearing on my perspective... whilst this doesn't alter the limits Unisia JECS, Hitachi and Denso have placed in their ROM files and the SelectMonitor protocol, it perhaps does taint my objectiveness with regard to what is a) an acceptable solution and b) a properly engineered solution....
Hope this helps,
Pat.
The latest file for that ECU is AF482, and I just tried putting in 400g/sec, it was capped at 300g/sec, so it looks like the answer to your question is no, it won't see more.
Axel,
It would be sensible to discuss your proposed mods with your tuner before making a final decision. As you may have noticed, I didn't say it was impossible, just that certain things either involve more effort, compromises I am not prepared to make, or fudges that I am not happy with, however your tuner may disagree! If they are prepared to put in the extra effort and diligence required to get a result using this approach then fair play to them. Might I also suggest that if you think you NEED a large MAF tube then the turbo will probably also be quite big, which means you may well be thinking of going for a front mounted intercooler, which means there is a large volume of pipework between the MAF and the throttle plate; this tends to cause driveability "artefacts" (quirks if you like)... it may be more sensible to place your MAF in a "blow through" position close to the throttle body to mitigate these artefacts as much as possible, but again that is something you will need to discuss with your tuner.
I should also point out that I cannot consider myself unbiased; the fact that I am involved in the manufacture and sale of speed density ECUs will have a bearing on my perspective... whilst this doesn't alter the limits Unisia JECS, Hitachi and Denso have placed in their ROM files and the SelectMonitor protocol, it perhaps does taint my objectiveness with regard to what is a) an acceptable solution and b) a properly engineered solution....
Hope this helps,
Pat.
05 November 2010, 02:13 AM
#1225
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I posted this on Nasioc and the response was..... "this person is confused". Is it something to do with tuning with Ecutek? Because pretty much nobody over here uses that, either AP, Hyrda, Utec or opensource tuning.
I'm not an authority on the matter. Just thought I would share info.
Here's the thread on Nasioc
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...1#post32370029
Not trying to stir up ****, just want to get to the bottom of this and learn more
I'm not an authority on the matter. Just thought I would share info.
Here's the thread on Nasioc
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...1#post32370029
Not trying to stir up ****, just want to get to the bottom of this and learn more
Last edited by Deadpool; 05 November 2010 at 02:33 AM.
05 November 2010, 09:18 AM
#1227
Scooby Regular
So I posted this on Nasioc and the response was..... "this person is confused". Is it something to do with tuning with Ecutek? Because pretty much nobody over here uses that, either AP, Hyrda, Utec or opensource tuning.
I'm not an authority on the matter. Just thought I would share info.
Here's the thread on Nasioc
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...1#post32370029
Not trying to stir up ****, just want to get to the bottom of this and learn more
I'm not an authority on the matter. Just thought I would share info.
Here's the thread on Nasioc
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...1#post32370029
Not trying to stir up ****, just want to get to the bottom of this and learn more
rafpmsl, as said Pat is Pat Herborn, confused about something like that? mm let me think, somewhere between 'bob' and 'no' chance.
and the guy questioning on nasioc is a vendor? christ don't go anywhere near anything he would work on lol
05 November 2010, 10:53 AM
#1228
Scooby Regular
Pat, you might be able to answer a question for me here.
In the last couple of years I have tuned a variety of aftermarket ecus. These have been fitted by 3 mappers of note and all of have been 2k STis still fitted with the stock map sensor and running up to 1.7 bar boost.
From my own basic findings with a Mityvac, boost gauge and volt meter, the stock sensor appears to go static at 4.7 volts and 1.55 bar boost. Why would someone try and run one beyond it's capability rather than just fit a £75 Delco 3 bar ?
In the last couple of years I have tuned a variety of aftermarket ecus. These have been fitted by 3 mappers of note and all of have been 2k STis still fitted with the stock map sensor and running up to 1.7 bar boost.
From my own basic findings with a Mityvac, boost gauge and volt meter, the stock sensor appears to go static at 4.7 volts and 1.55 bar boost. Why would someone try and run one beyond it's capability rather than just fit a £75 Delco 3 bar ?
05 November 2010, 01:43 PM
#1229
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deadpool,
The problem with forums is that it's difficult to tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't....
Martyn,
The sensors on that year seem a little sporadic. I have seen some stop reading at 1.52 bar... yet others seem to read a bit higher. Replacing the sensor can be easy or downright awkward; if the ECU allows you to adjust the linearisation to suit then it's a no brainer, if it won't then you're back into pseudo-numbers and headaches.... As for why someone might do it, I don't think it's for me to speculate what the rationale was.
Cheers,
Pat.
The problem with forums is that it's difficult to tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't....
Martyn,
The sensors on that year seem a little sporadic. I have seen some stop reading at 1.52 bar... yet others seem to read a bit higher. Replacing the sensor can be easy or downright awkward; if the ECU allows you to adjust the linearisation to suit then it's a no brainer, if it won't then you're back into pseudo-numbers and headaches.... As for why someone might do it, I don't think it's for me to speculate what the rationale was.
Cheers,
Pat.
05 November 2010, 02:28 PM
#1230
Scooby Regular
Martyn,
The sensors on that year seem a little sporadic. I have seen some stop reading at 1.52 bar... yet others seem to read a bit higher. Replacing the sensor can be easy or downright awkward; if the ECU allows you to adjust the linearisation to suit then it's a no brainer, if it won't then you're back into pseudo-numbers and headaches.... As for why someone might do it, I don't think it's for me to speculate what the rationale was.
Cheers,
Pat.
The sensors on that year seem a little sporadic. I have seen some stop reading at 1.52 bar... yet others seem to read a bit higher. Replacing the sensor can be easy or downright awkward; if the ECU allows you to adjust the linearisation to suit then it's a no brainer, if it won't then you're back into pseudo-numbers and headaches.... As for why someone might do it, I don't think it's for me to speculate what the rationale was.
Cheers,
Pat.