TC951

Your comment about 30% DC makes me think about my injector sizing and wonder if I'm sized too large, and what effect that might have on some of the results I saw at low load during charge temp approximation testing as shown above. At first I thought I might be getting into the non-linear range of the injector curve but looking at Injector Dynamics website I think I'm still way past that range in my "hunting" area. I'm running ID1050X injectors and I don't get to about 30% duty until I get right around/just above 1 bar of boost. The max duty I see is typically around 55%. So, 1. Considering my car is a partial daily driver, there's a lot of time spent well below 30% duty where I think I could probably benefit from a map over a signal value. Do you agree, or think I'm being too picky? 2. Considering I never get over ~55% DC do you think my injectors are too large for my application? I tried to size them on the larger side to protect for a future higher performance engine build I've been planning, but now I'm wondering if I went a hair too large.

Hmm interesting thought. I haven't touched the injection timing at all... I left it at single zone and 400deg BTDC. Certainly makes more sense to make it a map and calibrate accordingly. However I'm wondering what is the best and most efficient way to calibrate that map. What method do you use?

I had the pull the car off the dyno for now. I ended up calibrating a few other area's in the map with good success including some higher RPM low load, higher RPM med/high load, and idle, so it was just this lower/mid rpm low load area that had that hunting. I also went back and quickly re-calibrated most of the fuel map before pulling the car off the dyno, so I'll be sure to report back what I find when I revisit hopefully soon.

The log was too large to attach. Here is a link if you'd like to check it out: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14E5bUdFSaN62AlWowxGzevfSLWd3lYaQ/view I've double checked and I can't see anything obvious. It does look control related to me but again nothing is sticking out... I don't think the swings are frequent enough to be cycle-cycle variation and I would think if the individual cylinders were offset they would stay that way, meaning the offset shouldn't shift periodically like it is in the data. Anyway, if you see anything that sticks out let me know because I'm curious to learn what might cause that.

Hi Adam, OK I think I was allowing myself to get confused by the large change in lambda between the two tests and the lean/rich amount between the two instead of focusing on the change in lambda error from start to end of test. I've made some changes to the ~20kpa area at 2.0krpm and am able to get a good result. As you can see below, with a charge temperature approximation value of 45.5, the lambda error is now consistent throughout. However, while making a similar change at -30kpa/2000rpm, I am seeing some odd hunting as highlighted in the red dashed lines below. Have you seen this before? Lambda error is swinging up and down by ~2%

Hi guys, I attempted to calibrate my Charge Temperature Approximation Table today with my G4X fitted to a 2.5L turbocharged 4-Cyl and experienced some odd results. Preface: I had already calibrated my fuel table to achieve a lambda within +/- 1-2% of target across most of the table. When I originally did this I held IAT around ~40C while calibrating each cell. I paid no attention to ECT at the time. Today I set out to do some testing and the results I found were quite different from what I expected…. So I'm wondering what you guys think of this… Test conditions for screen shot below: RPM = 2000 Charge Temp Approximation Table = 0% Load = ~115kpa (WOT) Inlet to turbo was ducted near the headers to increase IAT throughout the test Based on the Help section, as IAT (and charge temperature while the table is set = 0) increases, lambda should trend richer due to less air density. However, the opposite occurs… My result: What am I missing here?? Why would Lambda trend lean instead of rich as IAT increases?? Additional clarification: IAT = TMAP sensor welded in thin wall aluminum intercooler pipe, 2-3 inches before throttle body. TA3 = TMAP sensor welded near back of aluminum intake manifold Dyno = Dynapack hub dyno When performing the same test but with the Charge Temperature Approximation table set to 100%, lambda trends much leaner: PC Datalog - 2022-07-7 5;46;31 pm_ChargeTempSetting_2.0krpm_WOT_0%_IntakeAtHeaders.llgx

Oh duh. Yea looking at that Knock MAP Delta channel it is quite noisy. Suppose I will filter it. Thanks for the quick sanity check.

Hello, While setting up normalized knock control I started by checking a few steady state areas to see how the system behaved. I noticed that when holding the engine at 2k rpm at full load (~112kpa) the Knock Load Status changed to "Changing Load" and remained there until I removed load. During this time it applied my Load Delta Threshold Gain, even though the MAP Delta Level had not been met... I'm not sure that this is intended operation? Can someone confirm? These are my relevant settings: PC Datalog - 2021-09-9 5;39;10 pm_KnockSetupNormalized_LoadStatusinBoost.llgx

Got it, thanks!

Not to hi-jack thread, but I'm a bit confused about how 2 knock sensor inputs are used. I do not see a way to dictate which sensor is used on which cylinders. Is this hardcoded based on configuring >4 cylinders and firing order?? My application is a large bore 4cylinder. The OEM system used two knock sensors. One for the front two cylinders and the other for the rear two cylinders. I'd like to do the same with G4X. Is it possible? Can't find anything in the help section regarding which knock pins are used for which cylinders.

FYI - Running the same switched 12V supply that the main relay uses for 86 to also supply the sub relay's 86 worked. So thank you Adam!! I still don't understand why the sub-relay isn't able to open fast enough. It's a mini Song Chuan 35A 14VDC relay that I see pretty widely used... P/N 301-1A-C-R1 U03. --> https://prowireusa.com/p-3892-35-amp-spst-12-volt-relay-iso-280-mini-resistor.html It is a very inexpensive relay I guess, so is it just a cheap "slow" relay??? Or is it somehow possible I've wired power or grounds in such a way as to cause the EBC/ICV to want to back feed so quickly at IG-Off?? Just seems odd.

Ah! OK, very good point. Thank you

Ah OK, that makes sense I suppose! I'll give that a try. Thank you! Just out of curiosity, would using a diode like I tested originally be a bad idea for a fix? In the end it's a band-aid rather than a true fix, but it does eliminate the backfeeding from having a path back through the ECU and is a bit easier to permanently wire up compared to moving sub-relay 86 to ignition switch. This is my first time building a harness like this so I'm not super familiar with what is considered acceptable conventions vs. a ghetto fix...

So I've actually tried removing the main relay completely and the backfeeding continues. That's how I came to the conclusion that it has to be coming from the ECU side or from the ICV/EBC somehow. The Main relay is an OEM Porsche DME relay which is used as a main relay for powering the OEM ECU and Injectors as well as powering the fuel pump by a ground output from the ECU. I'm re-using it to do the same with my G4X. Here is a schematic:

Hello, Hoping someone can point out what I'm doing wrong or give me some suggestions on what to check… I'm using a G4X ExtremeX with a custom wiring harness. Here is how my power supply is wired: My problem: Powered up with IG-On, engine off, ECU reads 12V and operates normally. At IG-Off, ECU battery voltage drops to ~8V and it remains powered up. My Sub-Relay remains energized as well. If I remove the Sub-Relay the ECU battery voltage drops to zero. If I remove the fuses or disconnect the connectors for my idle control valve and my electronic boost control MAC valve, voltage drops to zero. If I remove only the MAC valve connector, voltage drops to 6V. If I remove the battery positive from pin 30 of the sub-relay the backfeeding stops. If I place a diode inline with the power supply side of the ECU supply wire the backfeeding stops. So it appears that the idle control valve and the boost control valve are where the backfeeding is taking place. However I have them wired per the wiring diagrams in the help sections as far as I can tell. Here is what the help sections shows as the correct way to wire a solenoid: Based on this diagram, my idle control valve and/or boost control solenoid should both be wired same as the "Relay or Solenoid" in the diagram above. So it seems like either: The ECU is somehow still supplying a small enough amount of voltage to partially energize the sub-relay so that the 6-8V can flow through pins 30-87 of the sub-relay?? The EBC/ICV are somehow backfeeding due to some wiring error. Does anybody have any suggestions on how to check #2? I've already confirmed both solenoids are wired how I have them shown. Power coming from sub-relay pin 87 and ground to the respective aux output pins on the ECU. Is there something else I can check?? Alternatively, is it possible that somehow #1 is occurring from some hardware issue or wiring issue with the ECU itself?? I've attached a log file and my harness pinout document. Any help or suggestions is MUCH appreciated! PC Datalog - 2021-06-29 5;43;05 pm.llgx Link G4X ExtremeX Wiring Diagram_Dist.xlsx

I think there is some parallax in the picture, so it looks worse than it actually is but yes it does need adjusted. I'll be adjusting that, thanks again for your help. I'm slightly concerned in a cold ambient cold start, or with a slightly low battery capacity, getting to the 0.2V/0.3V arming voltage might be borderline. This test was also done with the spark plugs removed...So I'll be re-installing plugs, making sure the sensor alignment is perfect, and re-checking.

So, I've captured a trigger scope log after bench testing with just the trigger 1 input to the ECU. The scope data doesn't look so nice though. I also had a bit of trouble getting the an RPM signal at all. At ~160rpm cranking speed the sensor was outputting like 0.2v. So after changing the arming voltage at 500rpm from 0.5V to 0.2V I can get a wave form but it's not great obviously. This was at 0.89mm sensor to wheel gap. I moved to 0.5mm and the amplitude increased to ~0.68V. So I have a couple questions before moving forward: 1. Am I going to struggle with such low cranking trigger voltages if I stay with this setup? This engine uses 20w50 oil and has quite a heavy flywheel/clutch and reciprocating mass...So cranking speeds will always be low, especially on cold starts. 2. Do I risk the missing tooth gap not being correctly measured by running a wheel to sensor gap of 0.5mm? 3. I've attached a log of the 0.89mm and 0.5mm trigger scope logs. Do these look acceptable? To me they don't look super clean but I have no experience with this. My goal is to still determine if the fan speed effects the ECU's trigger measurement but I want to make sure I have a solid reliable trigger input with no fan speed first... Any advice is much appreciated. Thanks TriggerScopeLog_2_Cranking_0.89mmgap.llgx TriggerScopeLog_3_Cranking_0.50mmgap.llgx

OK got it. I understand this was not really a "valid" test, but since the results clearly show that the fan motor does have some effect to the sensor signal I just wanted to know how much is worth being concerned about. However I didn't realize (stupidly) that the ECU would provide further filtering and attenuation of the signal...So yea probably hard to really give an answer based on a signal not processed by the ECU I guess. I'm glad to hear you aren't concerned about the proximity of the sensor. That gives me more confidence but I think I'll still do this test again wired up to the ECU using the trigger scope function to be sure. My loom is sheathed in DR-25 so I don't want to be modifying it for any reason after finishing and want to be 100% confident in the trigger signal integrity. Yep I was taking a million screen shots of both +/- input to the scope to see both signals and when swapping one for the fan speed motor input I was doing it in haste as my helper that was cranking the engine over while I powered the fans needed to leave, so I accidentally left the negative lead hooked up instead of the positive. Figured in reality it didn't matter for the test anyway b/c all I wanted to see was any EMI from the fan motor. I'll make sure it's correct for the ECU test. Thank you for the quick reply and for your input.

Hello, So, I am fairly convinced that I will need to change my current trigger from a VR to a hall effect, but I'd like to get some expert options first. I am also just curious for my own internal knowledge going forward regarding how much noise is considered too much... Basically, I've finished designing and started building a loom for my G4X Extreme install into a Porsche 944 Turbo. "Stock," This car uses a VR trigger that picks up on the flywheel ring gear for the starter, with 132 teeth. The PCLink SW has this as an option, however I had decided to switch to a front mounted 60-2 kit. After installing the kit I became uncomfortable with how close the sensor is to the radiator fan. I was concerned about possible EMI causing trigger errors, or inaccurate RPM readings. Picture below of the sensor location to the fan: ]] So before going any further and finishing my loom with a VR trigger I decided to make sure that this would not be a concern. I measured the signal with a PicoScope while cranking, and turning the high speed fan motor on/off. In this car, the high speed will not actually operate during cranking, however it will operate on/off at idle or cruise based on coolant temperature (the fans are controlled chassis side by a temp switch in the radiator, not by the ECU and I will keep it that way). So this was the best method I could think of to just check what effect the fan motor might have to the sensor signal. This is also maybe "worst case" since I don't have the shield wire grounded to the ECU, since I'm not wired up to the ECU yet... However, since the actual sensor side wiring is not that close to the fan motor wiring, I think probably most of the EMI is being transmitted through the sensor body itself rather than the actual wiring. I only have a very basic understanding of EMI though so I don't know if that assumption is legitimate. So anyway, pictured below is what I measured. Is this something I should be concerned about? Is this amount of noise immediately noticed as absolutely no good to the experts on this board? Or is this small enough in magnitude that it could be considered negligible? Any insight is much appreciated. Zoomed in a bit. Looks like roughly 50-60mV difference valley to valley between fan vs. no fan: Thanks!