ryancyates

I pulled the sensor it’s got 3 mega ohms of resistance, guessing it’s bad.

I have a turbo Euro E36 M3 running a plug and play G4x pinned for the Euro motor. It’s been running great since February. Last night I was driving normally and got a quick hiccup, a few minutes later another and it got progressively worse til I got home. Once I was home I grabbed the computer and had 16 trigger errors. I cleared it and did some driving for over an hour and was unable to reproduce the issue with 0 trigger errors. Today I have a no start condition. I’m not getting a trigger 1 signal but I am getting a trigger 2 signal. I’ve attached a trigger scope from February, I’m aware the trigger 2 polarity is backwards in the screen shot. And I’ve attached a trigger scope from today. The trigger 1 voltage is extremely low and uneven. So, I would say it’s probably the sensor but it also looks like my trigger 2 has noise now where it did not in my initial trigger scope. I was just wondering if anyone sees something I don’t before I spend $500 on new sensors.

I just compared to two and yes they are actually very similar in AFR, interesting. So, the obvious difference in the two logs is the spool up rpm in 3rd vs 4th gear. I'm using TPS x RPM for fueling and open loop lambda control. Is there a reason why the AFR isn't following the target in this situation? Either way I can live with it because its fine during regular driving. And I'm using an AEM wideband wired to sensor ground at the ECU and stock O2 channel for signal. PC Datalog - 2023-04-26 2;14;42 pm.llgx PC Datalog - 2023-04-26 2;16;17 pm.llgx

That's pretty much what I figured. This is the first turbo ITB car I've tuned as well as my first time using LinkECU and then throwing the variable cam timing on top of that I've really been rattling my brain the last few weeks. The major discrepancy is happening between 2000-3000 in 3rd and 4th which isn't an issue while driving normally. There's just so many correction and compensation maps in Link I wasn't sure if I was missing something like have been every step of the way so far.

Euro S50B30 turbo, E36 G4X plug and play. Today is hot here in Florida so I thought I would get around to tuning the IAT correction table. I've done most of my tuning at night with an IAT of 80-88*. Today I'm getting 107-115* IAT. I've been doing my nighttime pulls in 3rd but since I can see during the day I've been doing 4th gear and noticed a difference in AFR. I'm awfully nitpicky with my tunes since I have unlimited time to mess with them and there's no reasonable situation for me to be in 4th gear at 2000 RPM but I'm just simulating what I would do on the dyno. Anyway here's two screen shots of 3rd and 4th gear after making some fueling modifications in 4th gear. Ignore the acceleration spikes, I'm still working through that with the ITBs. You can see the 4th gear graph is relatively consistent, still rich, but following the general AFR target. I could just use some minor cell adjustment and pulling a bit from the IAT table. Now, with the fueling altered in 4th gear if I do a pull in 3rd its rich on the low end but near on target under full boost. I understand real world conditions and mechanical load can affect things I'm just wondering if I'm missing something. Or if it's latency due to cell speed between 3rd and 4th. Its pretty safe, just more so wondering if I'm overlooking something.

For future reference to anyone in need of this information, the suggested tuning method has worked very well. I still get minor AFR variances at 3,000-3,500 depending on cam angle but they are in the area of 13.5-14.5 AFR and no longer 10 AFR or lower and not worth nitpicking a quick transient with no detriment to the engine.

That's interesting and it makes sense. This is also the first turbo ITB car I've tuned. I have a built N/A Euro M3 that I've tuned with the stock DME using an extended MAF fault map as an alpha-n table. I assumed the reason why I was having difficulty here is because the Motronic ECUs use different fuel maps for idle, cruise and WOT, where WOT is just a single column referenced by RPM and injector constant, where I'm trying to do all of this from a single table while adding boost. I figured I would be ok since I'm pulling the map reference off a 1/8" nipple on the brake booster rail, but I guess the whole point of ITB is quicker response and cylinder filling so I will go out this evening and see what I can do. From the looks of it the partial throttle section of the map closely lines up with the current MGP map as is, so that's great. Just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, the AFR map is like a background correction adding injector time based on MGP? I guess this would be to create a more linear map? Like how my current fueling map boost range fuel vales are only 71-84 for 0-15 psi? Honestly, I didn't even realize I had it turned on in my current map til I just checked.

Yes its a car that I've imported from Japan in 2021. I've attached the tune file. While the fuel map is still "blocked out" as I call it, I like to work with map regions and smooth afterwards, it gives me great results at 1bar of boost. You can see from the Vanos map that I have it set up closely to the original file from the stock chip with some changes to help with spooling. The Vanos map is referenced TPS x RPM with 42 degrees of advance coming in around 3,000 RPM and quickly tapering at 5,000. So in 4th gear at WOT and 3,000 RPM the Vanos is at 42 degrees advance car is already making close to 3 PSI and the AFR is a spot on 12.5:1. If I'm leaving from a stop light and cross into that 3,000 RPM - 0KPA area under light throttle, there is maybe 8 degrees of cam advance and my AFR will dip into the low 10's. You can see this in the hard shelf between 0 KPA onward. If I set the fuel table up to accommodate for the light throttle portion in that area I see AFR in the 19's under WOT and full advance. S50 MGP.pclx

I’m currently using traditional fueling. It’s made it a lot easier to familiarize myself with the software and Link method of operation. I had originally tried modeled from the start and I was fighting too many variables and user end errors to get anywhere. So in this instance my first thought would to disable vanos and tune that area then enable vanos and tune that portion via 4D map? With cam angle as load reference x rpm?

I’m in the process of tuning my built S50B30 turbo. The fuel map is pretty dialed in except for one area where I’m having an issue. This is my first time using a LinkECU so I was hoping someone with more experience could give me some insight as to how I should tackle the problem. Basically, the area of 0 rpm to 3,500 rpm and -10kpa to +10 kpa has two widely different fueling requirements depending on whether I’m lightly leaving from a stop and vanos cam angle is at rest or I’m crossing that range at WOT with 40° of cam angle advancement. I can set it up so leaving from a stop is fine but then I get a harsh lean condition on spool up at WOT or I can set that area up for 12.5:1 AFR at WOT and I’m seeing 10:1 AFR while gently entering that area of the map and no Vanos engagement. As far as thoughts I’ve had, I could reduce the vanos angle til after crossing that area of the map but it does slightly affect spool characteristics. I haven’t used LinkECU’s closed loop control so maybe that’s a solution? Then I was wondering if this is where I could do something with 4D fueling and cam angle?

For future reference and help I changed the sync tooth from 10 to 5 and the errors have stopped.

Very interesting and makes perfect sense. In my logs the cam position drops out around 11 degrees every time.

Initially when performing the VVTI calibration for the Euro S50B30 I selected falling edge for the trigger, it may have been the default. While I was able to get a signal, tooth angles and no error count at idle and while revving, I would get a "Tooth Tolerance" error, lose Vanos function and the car would run poorly while driving until I cycled the key and all would be fine again until I repeated this process. I had caused me to chase my tail for most of the day because the car would idle and cruise well under 3,000rpm but then just start falling on its face without me realizing why. I have logs, scope and file available if necessary. I switched to trigger from rising edge and did another calibration with new values and so far have had no loss of signal or Vanos function. I'm just wondering if rising edge is correct and I should continue with tuning while monitoring the Vanos function and signals or if there's an error in my set up that needs addressing. These are the old falling edge values 12.1 102.1 192.8 282.3 372.4 462.9 552.2 642.1 These are the new rising edge values 59.8 150.2 239.8 329.3 419.9 510.3 600.2 689.6 I notice the large difference between tooth one on the falling vs rising edge calibration. I'm still learning the Link method of sensor inputs so I apologize if this is basic stuff. VVT.llgx S50 Tune.pclx

Everything the both of you suggested worked. The offset was almost 180* from the default setting of -328*. Everything seems to line up at 324* but I'll check everything over again. After that it fired up within a second of cranking and died off a few seconds later. I added 30% to the entire fuel map just to see what would happen and it's idling wonderfully. I changed the trigger 1 sync to 10 as you suggested and yes I found you had suggested the reluctor value for trigger to for someone previously so that's what I have in there now. I can take another scope if you need me too. Can I swap the plugs on the sensor itself or is it input dependent to the LinkECU? I only ask because the sensor pins can be removed easily but the harness connectors are a nightmare. And if you feel like it can you give a quick explanation of what you're looking at with the incorrect polarity? I've seen you mention to several people the polarity of their sensors is backwards. I understand what polarity is and how it works, more so what you're looking at on the trigger scope. So thank you both very much. I try to figure things out without just asking for the answer but I was just running out of ideas. I recognized the symptom I just couldn't figure out what I was missing and it was very simple. I appreciate it very much.

Thank you so much for the quick reply! I'm sorry that I'm a bit exhausted from trying to figure this out. So, my trigger 1 and 2 look ok? You're absolutely right about the MAP sensor! That's my fault I didn't think the plug and play came with a 7 bar. I should've checked. The crank and cam part of this has been throwing me for a loop. I've worked with dozens of ECUs I'm not sure why I'm finding this so intimidating. And yes I turned off the fueling and ignition while I was messing with different trigger settings. The car has that 180 out sound to it, if that makes sense. There's hesitation while cranking and some pops out of the exhaust.