Jump to content
gtrclive

G4+ Thunder are there any options ??

Recommended Posts

Hi to you all, I'm in the market for a Ecu and have just checked out the "Thunder". Seems to have ticket all the boxes I wanted, in-fact its the only one so far that has dual DBW and Cruise Control that I know of.... Not sure about the Vipec / Link thing a little confused BTH, does the Thunder have all the options on ? or are there any extra costs ??

Can I input the Corvette ABS sensors I'm using as wheel speeds direct to the ECU for the Traction Control ?

How advanced is the Closed Loop O2, are there short term and long term Trims ?

I've been looking at using MAF for normal driving and low boost then transitioning after that, spoke to Haltech and Emtron at Sema last year

and they both recommended this strategy for the drivability.

Car also has some Active Aero devices, so will need help with maybe some bespoke programming, is that offered ??

 

Thanks for any help etc

 

Clive

Info on the Car is a 1100kgs Mid-engined LSX short stroke 6.1 Twin Turbo... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the Vi-PEC and Link ECU brands are manufactured by the same company. The Vi-PEC brand now only sells ECUs for the powersport market, this is plug-in ECUs for jet-ski's, snow-mobiles, quads, etc. All wire-in and car plug-in ECUs are now in the Link brand. The G4+ Thunder ECU comes with all ECU features unlocked included in the purchase price of the ECU, there are no extra feature unlock costs.

The Thunder has 6 differential reluctor interfaces, so will be able to receive the corvette wheel speed sensor signals. You will then be able to use these for different functions including traction control.

We don't offer bespoke programming. However you are welcome to request features as we are always working on the next version of firmware. Also with the combination of using the ECUs timers, conditions, and virtual auxiliary channels you may be able to make the ECU do what you need without additional input from us.

I imagine the car would be pretty fun!

Scott

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clive

On the closed loop there are short term trims that are reset at each power down, You can also use mixture map tuning where you use logged information to base fuelling adjustments from.

Once these are applied the change is permanent.  

We don't offer support of MAF but generally a well tuned TPS with MAP overlay will give excellent results. Are you running 8 ITB with two motors to control or just 2 butterflies.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Simon

Car runs great on MGP vs RPM, but found it also  more difficult to get rock solid AFR during low load, compared to MAF setup.  It's important to say, thats more the natur of MAP base ECU's and not in any kind the case on some ECU manufactor. Slightly flucating AFR's are absolutly no problem for drivability. 

The only problem I see with MAP is to get goood emissions. I feel MAF is more precise on low load. On the other end of scale (high load), I feel a well calibrated MAP system can get better results.

 

Simon, do you recommend to spann the main table  TPS vs RPM and the 4D table MGP vs RPM to get the best results? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine has a Holley Hi ram intake, but I'm building a new top plate with twin Throttle bodies as I have no room at the front or rear of the motor, so it makes more sense to have a throttle on each side. 

IMG_3547.JPG

IMG_3533.JPG

EOQqYAGz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice built! Think you are more than enought accurate for this built whit a MAP only based Ecu. And Link is absolutely  the first choise. The new modelled fuel or modelled multi fuel is very advanced and I would say the best fuel modell on the market. 

So you can get very good results if it is well calibrated. In the end it's the tune that makes drivability, reliability and power of an engine. In my eyes I would been more concernd to find a good tuner, than struggle to much with ECU choise. A well calibrated MAP system runs much smoother also at low load, than a bad calibrated MAF system. So the tune is all!

Edited by mapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap that looks cool :)

Initially I had the same thoughts that MAF is more precise.

Since my car came with a MAF sensor in the first instance, I tuned the car on two seperate maps, one with MAP and one with MAF.

I found zero difference between the two to be honest, apart from that with MAF you get all of the headaches associated with air leaks after the MAF sensor.

Either way, even when my tune was just getting roughed out, at low load the car ran brilliantly on account of having a wideband 02 in the exhaust, and fuel correction turned on.

After putting some time into it my low load tune is silky smooth, and the car gets 7l per 100km which is better than it ever has.

Another problem with MAF, is that you lose useful table resolution at low load because 98% of the load zones you will never reach, you end up tuning low throttle with only 1-2 rows at the top.

Your fuel and ignition maps end up looking like a triangle rather than a square, because you never under any circumstances end up consuming 8000rpm worth of air at 1000rpm. But that's what your tables need to span to.

But when using MAP, you'll reach 40kpa and 80kpa and 100kpa etc at every RPM so the entire table is utilized.

Edited by Davidv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This being the First Car I want to tune my self. I've read a few good books on basic tuning, and I bought a package from HPA that's been very useful..  What pushed me to start tuning my own car was mainly the Quotes for doing a good base map Dyno tune. Locally its $250 an hour on the dyno, so with the possibility of a 3K bill just to get going I thought it was about time to learn a new skill... I have a history of learning and doing it myself when the costs stack up for Labour, but that's just me if it's interesting I'd sooner built it myself rather than buy it. Plus I was spoilt in the UK one of my friends was a Very experienced Engine tuner with Motec, and he used to do all my mapping for me, but now I'm in Canada BOHO...

Really your going to have to thank Ondrea at HPA for me even know what a Link ECU is TBH never even knew you existed, all be it I had herd of Vipec...... 

Just found a dealer I know stocks your Stuff ( Lightspeed Innovations ) so a trip to see them will be on the cards early in the new year, thanks for the input and speak to you soon.... Happy Christmas to you all...

 

PS if your bored and in need of a good read then here's the build thread..

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=30&t=361836&mid=0&i=0&nmt=So you sold your Ultima, what do you build next Answer is !&mid=0

 

and if you like Porsche 962's here's another fun car I'm building in the shop....

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=1426740&mid=1868&nmt=962+recreation+with+a+GT3+Heart...+

 

 

 

Edited by gtrclive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GTRCLIVE,

I have tuned many engines like yours using LINK / ViPEC ECU's.

N/A, SUPERCHARGED, TWIN SUPERCHARGED, TWIN TURBO CHARGED, with 4 inches of vacuum at idle without issues.

MAF has it's advantages but also disadvantages, MAF sensors are proned to contamination and also any modifications to the inlet design before the MAF sensor can alter the air flow path across the MAF sensor which can create issues.

The MAF as most of us know has a resistive sensor that is effected by air flow and temp to measure the amount of air inducted.

Calibration of MAF sensors is VERY VERY critical and the chosen MAF sensor for the job must have enough scope (range) for it to work correctly in your setup.

At maximum RPM the engine may require more air than the MAF sensor is designed to flow, therefore bottoming out the MAF flow specifics.

This will lead to poor tuning, as mentioned in earlier posts.

Another thing to consider with MAF is valve reversion effects on the sensor dependant on it's location, resonance chambers can rectify these pulsations.

However I still believe that TPS/RPM and MAP/RPM crossover on a LINK is far superior.

This is only my personal opinion.

Regards

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...