Scott33

bump.. I think I posted this when everyone was still on vacation.

I don't think you want to use a high side output for this. The aux outputs have built in pull up resistors, which AFAICT is enough to pull the pin high. Then the low side switch is used to pull the pin low.

My engine doesn't have any timing marks that I can find. I do know, however, where TDC is relative to the first tooth after the missing tooth (60-2 configuration on the crank). If the first tooth after the missing tooth is, say, 50 degrees BTDC, then do I enter 50, -50, or 310 (360-50) in the 2nd field in "Set Base Timing"? ECU is Force GDI if it matters.

I'm curious why it's recommended to use MGP instead of MAP as an axis for the fuel table. If we consider two scenarios, both with the same MAP/IAT value, both with the same Fuel pressure level, but at different BAP values, then IMO: 1. The mass of air in the manifold is the same (same MAP/IAT = same mass, unless the manifold changed size?) 2. The mass of air in the cylinder is the same, for the reasons above 3. The fuel injected for a given pulsewidth is the same (same fuel pressure as stated above, and same pressure where the fuel is being injected into due to 1/2 above depending on whether direct injection or not) The only things I see being different are exhaust backpressure (but that just affects how much effort it is to push the mixture out) and different crankcase pressure (but I don't see why that matters). I do think it's important to take BAP into account when creating target boost levels (since the turbo may not be able to generate high boost levels at altitude simply due to the lower density of air, which may result in the turbo heating up), but that's not actually configurable AFAICT. Anyways, if you could clarify how MGP results in better fueling tables for turbo engines, direct injection or not, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

True (though I'd use oil temp, not engine temp, in order to compensate for the change in oil viscosity). It'd just be nicer to have pid capabilities available in a generic way. What do you control with that output? Water pump speed, or thermostat heater?

It'd be great if the GP PWM feature could be further expanded to support PID feedback control. So configuration would include things like: 1. Target map (2 or 3d map taking analog or canbus inputs and mapping them to a target value) 2. Current value (which analog input represents the current value) 3. P, I, D parameters 4. PWM frequency (assuming the PID loop is tuning the duty cycle) 5. Base duty cycle (2 or 3d map taking analog or canbus inputs and mapping them to an estimated duty cycle, in order to reduce the error the PID algorithm needs to compensate) I'm sure other parameters could be added too, but that would be a great start. With that, I could control the oil pressure on a BMW N20 engine (it has a solenoid that can be used to change the efficiency of the oil pump so one can reduce oil pressure). Without this the motor falls back to a mechanical fail safe relief valve. If it was feature-ful enough (ability to add extra maps as modifiers, either through addition or multiplication) then you could probably remove Boost Control as a separately defined function and just rely on this instead.

I would like to use a Link G4+ Force GDI to run a BMW N20/N26 engine. The later N20s and all N26s use an electronic wastegate actuator. This is similar to the one in another thread, but since I have specific details to the one in my car I decided to start a new thread. First what I measured: It has a 5-pin connector, with a built in position sensor (using 3 pins - power, signal, ground), and a brushed DC motor (using 2 pins). If I apply voltage one way to the motor, the actuator moves. If I remove the voltage, it stays in position (i.e. there's no return spring). If I reverse the voltage, it moves back. Again when I remove the voltage, it stays in position. I measured the resistance of the motor, and it's 4 ohm. I measured more than 2A when driving it using a dying 12V battery (~10.4V). I see two problems with this: 1. It is more power than the any of the Force outputs can handle, barring the e-throttle drivers (which I need for the e-throttle) 2. It requires a full h-bridge output, not a single output pwm. Am I right that G4+ Force cannot handle this? I am considering building a simple wastegate controller that translates PWM duty cycle of the Boost Control output to a position, and drives the actuator based on that. I already need a helper board to handle valvetronic.