jaypat01

So, I have been on a mission to find a way to store some simple values (mostly binary states) in a non-volatile memory location, so I don't lose the set value through a power cycle of the ecu or PDM. This became an issue I wanted to solve after installing multiple AIM PDM32s so that I could retain CAN keypad button states through power cycles, but I have been looking for a third-party device that I could connect to the CAN bus to store these values. I got me thinking that, maybe there was a method already to accomplish this in the ecu. Then I could just use the ecu as my memory storage. This kind of function could be very useful in many scenarios, and it seems like every manufacturer tries to avoid providing it. One example of this use could be retaining the last boost level setting from a multi-state button on the CAN keypad. Sure, these can be accomplished by rotary selector switches, maintained buttons and so forth, but the CAN keypads are a lot more streamline and they allow flexibility to reconfigure them to be used for anything else in the future. @Adamw do you know of any way to accomplish what I am trying to do. I'm thinking my only option at this point is to connect and Arduino to the CAN bus to use as my storage device. Thanks in advance for your help. BTW...I posted this in the G4+ section of the forum because my current project is using a G4+ Thunder for the ecu, but I have also had applications with the G4x that I would like to know if that platform has the capability.

Well it’s likely your application was a V8 with more displacement than this in-line 6cyl 4.2L (but that’s an assumption) Also the characteristics of these injectors at low PW could be worse. But yes, I could not lean it out at idle enough because I was bottomed out on effective PW. You mentioned about making the minimum effective PW zero, but I had already tried reducing that in small steps and the injectors completely shut off (wouldn’t flow any fuel) once I took it down to 0.7ms. So that there tells me it would almost be impossible to lean it out anymore. So I dropped down to 36lb injectors. Good news is I think I can make the 36 lb injectors work… they are close to 90% in the highest fuel demands, but where it kept hitting my DC max was because the accel enrichment was a bit aggressive, so I’m gonna dial that back. The accel enrichment was spot on when it was warmed up, but the ECT correction on the accel enrichment was quite high in colder temps (these were values carried in by the Fury base map). I set that whole table to (1) now and will adjust as needed once I do some warm up calibrations.

That is exactly what I need. Like you said, it just isn’t an option. What I’m running into now is I have dropped my primary injector size down to a size that is suitable for idle and light throttle fueling, but I am maxing the duty cycle out when the time between injection events becomes so short and fuel demand is at its highest. Even with a relatively low redline motor (4k rpm redline) there is still only 5ms between the start of each injection event with an injection rate of 6. This is why I need to utilize my secondaries.

So I realize that my particular scenario is rare (because let's face it, who is using throttle body fuel injection anymore), but if it's not terribly hard to implement a full range of injection rates in the firmware... it could be beneficial for the G4x platform to have the ability; to make it cover an even larger percentage of applications out there and make it more universal.

@Vaughan maybe I’m not understanding how the grouped injection rate works, but my goal is actually to have 6 injection events per engine cycle (one injection event for each cylinder’s intake stroke on a 6 cylinder). This is just single point injection, so there is only one group.

@Vaughanor @Adamw…is there a reason that the only available injection rates for “group/staged” fueling are 1,2 and 4? I want to run two injectors as primaries and 2 as secondaries on a throttle body injection in-line 6cyl and currently have 2 firing with an injection rate of 6. I want to continue this while adding the secondaries. The only possible solution I see at the moment is configuring the map for a 2 cylinder and setting the injection rate as 2. The triggering is a simple pulse for every cylinder’s ignition event, so the only issue I see is the rpm will be x3. I also would scale the engine displacement accordingly like it was only a 2 cylinder.

@Adamwyou are right, it’s probably actual PW. Holley labeled it as “minimum injector opening time”. Regardless, the new injectors come today and I think it will suit the application a lot better. Because like you said, it could be operating in a very non-linear region of volume vs PW plot because it’s just barely opening to provide such a small amount of fuel. So the smaller injectors will have to open longer and will respond in a more predictable fashion. Even if I got it leaned out, I worry that the modeled fuel equation won’t adapt well to environmental changes in the relatively low fuel consumption regions of the map (idle, light throttle).

@Adamwso the injectors are what came in the original Holley Sniper TBI conversion. I didn’t care for it so I through their ecu in the trash and installed a Fury G4x. So there is limited data on the injectors but they do list flow rate at a certain pressure and the injector dead times. It wouldn’t surprise me if this data is wrong. So I will try lowering it to see if I can achieve target AFR. They did list the minimum effective pulse width at 1.2ms which seems to be a lot, so I dropped that to 0.8ms and got it leaner. I took it to 0.7ms and it shut off. I actually ended up ordering another set of injectors that are 36lb/hr instead of the installed 1000lb/hr. So that’s my end game.

So essentially the fuel calculation adjusts itself based on the injection rate that a user inputs…fair enough. So now that I have this running…my fear has become evident. I’m firing two 1000cc injectors together at the throttle body (because there is one in each barrel of the TB) and I am bottomed out on my INJ Pulse width and still too rich. Here are the options I’d see other than sourcing new injectors…drop the injection rate from 6 to 3 (which I worry many cause unstable fuel mixtures across all 6 cylinders) or try to make it that each injector fires out of phase from each other ( fire INJ 1, then 2, then 1, then 2). Do you guys see this as a viable solution? I also worry firing the two injectors at separate times will effect fuel atomization with one barrel pulling in just fresh air. But, maybe I’m over thinking it.

Well, that did it! The MSD 8918 worked. Now here is my final question @Adamw or @Vaughan. When I enter the "injector flow rate" in modelled fuel mode, the help section states that in single point group or multi-point group injection mode that you would take total flow rate of all the injectors added together and divide by the number of cylinders and use that number for the injector flow rate. But, is this really the case if in single point injection if I set the rate of injection to the number of cylinders (so the injectors will fire for each one of the cylinder's intake strokes). I would think with this setting the injector flow rate should be the total of the two injectors I am using for single point injection (throttle body injection). Thanks in advance for the help!

This is a great starting point. I just ordered one and I will see how it works out. For reference….I was using an AIM rpm filter/adapter (ARP03). Seemed to be almost up to the task…but not quite there. My last resort will be adding a trigger wheel to the crank pulley. I added the provision in my engine harness to add one in the future.

I can’t really see from the clarity of that pic. Is there two falling edges there where you circled? Nvm…I opened the trigger log and I see it now.

This is as I suspected @Vaughan and you will see this is how I have the triggers configured. I have attached the trigger scope and the config file. Don't mind the fuel maps, I haven't got there yet. Just configured the injector settings. Also, there is not enough allowable space left in the post to attach my log. Maybe there is another way to send it to you? FJ40 2F TBI 021722.pclx TriggerScopeLog.llgx

So I’ve installed a G4x Fury on an application where it is grossly under used, but I mistakenly assumed the G4x had the same trigger modes as the G4+. So here is the application and maybe @Adamwcan chime in. I installed a G4x Fury on a Toyota 2F motor (4.2L in-line 6cyl) in an 77 FJ40 to convert it to EFI. I will not be controlling ignition with the Fury, this will be done through a vacuum advance distributor with a magnetic pickup and Petronics igniter. Fuel injection will be accomplished through throttle body injection. This includes 2 injectors total (one in each of the two barrels). Since the ignition is independent and the fuel injection mode will be single group injection, the ecu will not need to know any sequence of cylinder firings…the injectors just need to fire in reference to each cylinder ignition event, regardless of which cylinder fires. So I have used a converter that drops the pulsed signal from the coil negative trigger to a low level that the ecu can use and have wired this to trigger 1. This essentially looks like a Hall effect sensor on the ecu and I have configured it as such. I realized after setting up the Fury that the G4x no longer lists “1 tooth per TDC” trigger mode as an option. So I tried to use a different mode, “multi-tooth” on trigger 1 and tooth count as 6 (because the coil fires 6 times for every single rotation of the cam) , also I set the trigger up as a “cam” source. On trigger 2, I set the “sync mode” as “None”. I was assuming that would ignore the “sync tooth” number in the trigger 1 settings, but regardless…I set the “sync” tooth to 1. Where it sits right now, I crank and it shows nominal cranking rpm and then shoots to 6k-10k rpm. I found that this is because the log shows that trigger 1 status goes to “counting timeout”. Also, the trigger scope shows a clean signal from the coil, but without knowing how the ecu detects a “tooth edge” I can’t know for sure if the signal is the issue. It produces a clean square wave that switches between 9v and 0v.

So there was actually a test someone did with an sw20 in a wind tunnel to see how the air flowed around the car and when they moved the smoke stream to the front fog light (even with the fender liner fully intact and not vented) the smoke actually was pulled into and out of the wheel well through the bumper. Now of course there are some things I could do to help create more negative pressure on the wheel well like a small deflector running up the front of the wheel well edge or spacing out the fender where it meets the door, but I’m going to mess with other things first as I’m trying to keep the body looking oem. Also, my fans are controlled off differential temp between ambient air and the water coming out of the heat exchanger (low speed always comes on when the car is under 20mph and high speed is turned on when the delta temp is 5F and the car is under 20mph). I do this because in most cases running the fans at higher vehicle speeds can reduce airflow if the air speed is greater than air velocity produced by the fan. But, this condition may never happen where the exchangers are mounted so next course of action will be removing the speed lockout and seeing if I can pull heat out quicker with the fans running while the car is at speeds above 20mph. Now all this being said, my goal is just to get my water temps as close to ambient air as possible and hold it steady…for the most part, I see between 5-10F difference between the ambient air and the water coming out of the heat exchanger on a hot day (90F). This is a street car and I don’t have a massive reservoir because I’m never putting ice in it. I’m not trying to be the fastest thing out there or break records, I just find pleasure in properly designed systems that work well.

Oh @Ducie54 I have thought about this many times. I know this has been done by oems before and sometimes in Motorsport applications. The power consumed by running the AC compressor was less than the power gained by cooling the charge temps. Before I go crazy I’m going to try and shroud my IC heat exchangers better. Right now they Are stuffed under each head light in the sides of the bumper. I 3D printer air diverters that bolt in place of my foglights to force air into the sides of the bumper and then the air passes through the exchanger and exhausts through the fender liner. Theory was the vacuum created on the front wheel well while driving at speed would naturally try to draw air through it. @Ducie54 here is the backside of one of the heat exchangers with the fender liner removed. I have a mirror version on the opposite side of the car. The exchangers are dual pass and the water flows through them in series.

Interesting…and yes cavitation was one of my concerns with running one larger pump vs the two smaller ones in series. But your suggestion with flow makes sense (you are bringing back memories of my fluid dynamics classes lol). You are referring to the non-slip condition between the heat exchanger inner surface and the water. This is why I added all of these sensors in my system. One of the variables I was going to play with was flow to see if I could optimize the heat transfer. Like I said before, my IC heat transfer cannot possibly get better. The air coming out of the IC always matches my water temp entering the IC, no matter what the pre-IC air temp is. But, I feel like my heat exchangers could do a better job removing the heat from the system.

So not saying I’m doing it the right way, but on my setup…I’m running -12 lines with two Johnson CM30P7-1 pumps in series (one in the front and the back). It seems to be working fantastic. I opted for this because the cooling loop is so long and I wanted the redundancy of two pumps. In this configuration, I keep the flow rate low (which I feel too fast of flow can diminish heat transfer rate) and if one pump dies, I see a drop in the flow rate, which triggers an alarm on my MXG dash, but the system isn’t rendered completely useless until I replace the failed pump. Just for reference…while on the street, my IC water temp stays in between 5-10degF above ambient temp. Also, my IATs always match the water temp going into my IC…it’s a very efficient core.

91 SW20 MR2 chassis EFI System: -Link G4+ Thunder -1zz COP direct spark -5s 36-2 crank sensor and trigger -Gen 2 3s distributor used for cam sync -BM 2-wire knock sensor -GM 4bar MAP sensor -GM Flex Fuel sensor (modeled fuel mode, dual fuel mapping from E10-E80) Engine: -2.0L forged Gen 2 3sgte block maintaining factory compression -Gen 2 3sgte head with Engle valve springs and GSC S1 (268) cams, adjustable cam gears (E:7deg retard, I:0deg) -Modified ATS straight runner intake manifold -Custom intercooler system utilizing a CSF A2W core -Custom exhaust manifold and downpipe with recirculated Tial MVR 48mm EWG, XonaRotor XR7164 turbo with 0.82 v-banded hotside -3” Berk dual exhaust -ID1700xds injectors supplied with a Walbro 450lph pump -Custom air cooled oil cooler system with Setrab cooler and Mocal oil thermostat, relocated oil filter -IAG universal AOS with three -10 crank case breathers Transmission: -Stock E153 w/ factory LSD -Clutch Masters 725 series twin disk w/ steel flywheel -Drive Shaft Shop axles Car made 495whp/385wft-lbs on a Mustang Dyno on a 95degF day and 70% humidity and a heat soaked IC system (120F IC water temp) because the heat exchangers were being starved of airflow. Boost pressure was on 20psi tapering to 23psi at redline and fuel was E79. It had a lot more steam in it, but I stopped where I did because I didn’t want to exceed 350ftlbs-lbs around natural peak torque and 380ftlbs-lbs closer to redline because it is a 3sgte block prone to fatigue cracking on the cylinder walls. Plan is to run it like this until I build a 5s block with a partial block fill. This car is more wired than a new BMW and the Link ecu is the nervous center for it and handles everything I throw at it. All auxiliary systems that have to do with motor function are controlled by the ecu and I have more sensors on the car than are probably necessary. The IC system alone has 5 temps sensors, one water flow sensor and one level sensor in the reservoir just to give you an idea haha. But I love data and since the Link has access to all of it, I can change how each system functions just by a simple software change.

@Adamw I mean I already know it’s the probe that’s bad and at this point I just think they all are of poor quality. It was confirmed by the company that sold them, that they had a bad batch that they tried to pull all of their stock before they went out, but some went out and I was the lucky one that got them (that was the first batch). Then the replacements came from a different supplier to the same company I bought from before because they couldn’t get them from the previous supplier due to Covid circumstances. Well, the new batch had one bad one with the same issue as the last ones. So at this point, I’m cutting my losses and just ordering a higher quality set from somewhere else. I will probably just order the Link ones honestly.

Same here @Adamw, but at my job we are using Emerson thermocouples instead of the ones I am using on my motor haha....so a lot higher quality. And yes, I did measure resistance to ground on both leads, which is how I came to the conclusion of them being grounded out. Resistance is almost identical between the two conductors on the same probe to ground, but does vary by probe to probe that is unintentionally grounding out. The ones that worked fine had no continuity. Whenever they ground out, it does cause the overall temp reading to skew lower than the ones that are not, but it also imposes a jagged wave form on the signal which I am assuming is noise from the ignition system as it stops when the I shut the motor off. I know what you are thinking..."this could be a loose connection" but I have gone over everything. This time around installing the replacement thermocouples, I was very delicate with handling them and the wires and did not run them through a firewall or anything...I just laid them loose running back to my EGT-to-CAN module and I have ensured there are no loose connections on the module terminals. Also, I see no correlation in my logs while driving with engine operation to when the one problem child EGT probe starts to act up. It seems like temp is the only correlation because it won't act up until it is above 1000F and sometimes not at all. Additionally, I have logged the EGTs directly from the EGT-to-CAN module and I get the same readings there as I do through the CAN bus on the Link ECU. So we can rule out a CAN bus communication issue. Just for reference, these were the resistance readings I got from the first batch where I had 3 out of 4 that were bad. Cyl#1 / EGT#1 - 233.6 ohms from black wire to braided shield - 234.7 ohms from red wire to braided shield Cyl#2 / EGT#3 - No continuity from black wire to braided shield - No continuity from red wire to braided shield Cyl#3 / EGT#5 - 38.5 ohms from black wire to braided shield - 38.9 ohms from red wire to braided shield Cyl#4 / EGT#7 - 12.4 ohms from black wire to braided shield - 11.8 ohms from red wire to braided shield @Adamw you may also notice I have the EGTs placed on every other thermocouple channel by my resistance measurement notes. This was because it is an 8 channel module (ECUMasters EGT-CAN Module) in which every two channels shares a common ground. During troubleshooting, I moved them to every other channel to isolate them from each other incase that was the issue.

I wanted to get a consensus on what is the normal insertion depth into the exhaust runner that an EGT probe is placed at. I am using the probes for individual cylinder trims and I have all of them about 20mm off of each exhaust port and currently I have the tip extended into the runner so that it resides right in the center of the cross sectional area. I figured this would be the area where the temp reading is least effected by external cooling around the exhaust runner, but I might be over thinking it. Question is...is this a typical depth for these or should a back it out a bit to something like a 5mm protrusion into the runner? I'm asking because I've been having problems with some thermocouple probes grounding out the thermocouple tip to the probe housing internally (these are enclosed tip thermocouples) when I get temps up to around 1000degF and then the signal becomes erratic. After consulting the manufacturer extensively, they agree with me that this is happening, but they don't know the cause. We were starting to wonder if since the probe is inserted so far into the runner, that the portion inside the runner is warping under extreme heat and causing the thermocouple tip inside to make contact with the housing....although this is a pretty far out theory...this is what made we question if I have them inserted to far into the runner regardless of the issue that I am having.

Alright @Adamw, where do I send beer? haha...that did it! It runs incredibly smooth now. Thank you so much for your help as always and thank you as well @0x33 for your input. It ran great without break up on 2.0ms dwell time at 14v so I'm gonna keep it there unless I have issues on E85.

Yeah I was definitely going to double check my offset after swapping polarity. I would assume it would move a little bit. And I will try out your method with dwell. Thanks for the help. Hopefully I have good things to report tomorrow.

Well that makes sense, you learn something new everyday! Thanks @Adamw. I will update this post if it fixes it...I mean it certainly needs changed anyway.