Adamw

Can you post your .pclr also. Looking at your log your idle control is in open loop mode. That means the Idle target RPM table has no effect - this is only used to display target error. In open loop mode you need to adjust the ISC base position table to achieve the idle speed you require. If you want help with your fuel consumption then we will need a log of the car driving under typical conditions, a log of an idling engine doesnt tell us much.

Please do a couple of trigger scopes also. Dont bother at 5000RPM, but maybe do 1 at idle and 1 at say 3000RPM.

What ecu? A 36-1or2 is generally less fussy but 60-2 is still very common so it should work. The diameter doesnt really matter, just the tooth size has to be compatible with the pole size (relucter sensor) or bias magnet size (hall sensor). If you can post a photo I might be able to spot something.

GS101201 is the version with integrated metripack connector, GS101202 is the pigtailed version (seems a little harder to find).

I see my wording above may have been a little ambiguous. I meant "magnetically soft" not "magnetic". The difference is a "magnetically soft" material will not permanently magnetise easily. This is what you need for a trigger wheel. If the metal is not "magnetically soft" then overtime the bias magnet inside the hall sensor can slowly magnetise the trigger wheel and your trigger points (base timing) will shift. In your case if that sprocket is also sintered/powder metal like most are then even if your teeth are machined accurately the porosity will mean every tooth will trigger at a slightly different point - again not good for ignition timing accuracy.

LSU4.9 Tech info: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiYbYlZQuRHPixMg31pUx3HxmQI2 You are correct in that the CJ125/135 chipsets dont control the heating but Bosch does give guidelines for how that should be done to achieve the quoted sensor performance and life. Unfortunately many aftermarket manufacturers seem to ignore those guidelines. As Steve has pointed out here also many of the standalone controllers dont have any way to know when the engine is running so they cant do the recommended "reduced heating during water condensation phase". In my experience though the CJ125/135 based controllers that followed the recommended implementation usually give good reliable performance - some even without the reduced heating phase. Then there are some manufacturers that have thrown the Bosch book out the window and do some really unique sensor control/interface in an effort to get better response time but they often consequently get very poor life too. Inno* is one such example that seems to fall into this category.

Yes with internal Lambda or our lambda CAN device there is a built in start up delay that times out after RPM is detected. I couldnt tell you what the time period is off the top of my head however. Yes your assumption about "goal temperature" is correct but in my experience I have never seen the need to have any further controls or influences on the heater setpoint. I have ETAS controllers on my dyno that display sensor temp so I do regularly get to observe the EGT influence. For the LSU4.9 the normal control temp is 780°C, but the sensor is rated for continuous use with exhaust gas temp up to 930°C with up to 250hrs accumulated at 1030°C, so its going to need some fairly serious external heat influence to achieve that. I would probably be more worried about my molten pistons than my O2 sensor by that point....

Yes using two knock sensors on a boxer engine should enable you to achieve a better s/n ratio provided there are suitable mounting locations on each bank somewhere near the top of cylinders. Having said that in my experience on the few subarus I have tuned the knock control was effective and reliable with just the stock knock sensor location.

The OEM ecu header only has 1 knock pin. So you can only connect one sensor.

Hi Martin, I have had a play around with the RTD EGT input myself now and agree with you that it seems like a bug. I have passed it on to engineering to fix.

I have mentioned this previously on the forum but just in case you missed it: Cherry or ZF GS101201 & 101202 are a direct drop in replacement for the GT101 sensor, in my experience they work well with missing tooth trigger wheels.

1). First of all your target wheel needs to be a magnetically soft steel (usually low carbon steel is suitable). Those belt sprockets are usually some kind of sintered alloy steel material so will likely give poor positional repeatability. You might be better to start from scratch or get something laser cut. 2). For multitooth or multitooth missing trigger modes we only use one edge. Provided the 8 teeth are positioned accurately and the target is made from the correct steel then yes it should be better than two teeth. 3). Most automotive hall sensors have a bias magnet inside, you can guess the diameter of that magnet by wiping something like a paper clip over the end of the sensor. Your target wheel teeth need to be at least bigger than that bias magnet.

I think they normally call the versions with variable exhaust "Quad AVCS". We dont have any exhaust target table examples to give you sorry.

With a missing tooth crank wheel the location of the cam tooth is less critical. Ideally your number of teeth should divide into 360 deg so definitely dont go for 16T. 8 teeth will be ok. What do you mean by "modifying a standard sprocket" What engine is this and what is the Sprocket off?

Engineering has just given me a test firmware with VQ35/37HR/VHR Trigger mode. If any of you guys have a something to test it on please PM me.

For the crank using an OEM evo sensor I would do 12 minus 1. For the cam tooth the length/angle is not important.

You could scope the signal if you have a running OEM setup. However it is often not very important and a wide range of frequencies will work for many solenoids. Around 30Hz works for most boost solenoids and around 250Hz will do most cam solenoids. What are you trying to control and what issues are you having?

Set it like below. You might need to try 250 kbit/s bit rate if your device doesnt work at 500.

So it seems you might not undersatnd the function of the MAP limit table but I will explain that better later. For now the most important thing that you need to know is you have a problem with your MAP sensor. It appears it is only a 2 bar sensor. In your logs it is pegged at 4.85V @ 220KPa. So you are probably boosting a lot more than you think, just your sensor cant read any higher and the consequently the ECU doesnt have any idea. Fix that first then we can talk more about the MAP limit table.

Hi Lostsoul, Yes this sounds correct. A typical FPR should vary fuel pressure 1:1 with MAP. So if you apply 70Kpa vacuum to the diaphram the fuel pressure should drop by 70KPa. If you put 1bar boost into it then the fuel pressure should increase by 1bar.

Same cable - the part number is CANPCB. You can order it through a dealer. In the meantime you can unplug the USB cable and plug it in to the can port connector.

no.

efi265, I just had a quick look at your log, I'm not sure it is a good example of the problem you are describing as it all looks as expected to me. Can you maybe explain better what you expect to see? In this example, Your virtual aux 2 is active the whole time. That means Map limit 2 table is active the whole time. Your ECT is 70°C so the limit would be 256Kpa which is correctly shown in the time plot. However you are only boosting to 220KPa so the MAP limit will not be doing anything at all.

Yes, thats how it would be connected. I'm not normally using mine with a ECU though, more as a portable PC but I did try it with PC link before posting that and it worked ok.

We dont think Krohlem has a sensor problem - none of his have worked from new so it seems unlikely he got 3 faulty sensors and two faulty CAN Lambda devices. The LSU4.9 is the most common OEM wideband sensor today and I dont see reports of massive emissions failures in the news so I think we can assume the sensors are well proven. One thing I have noticed recently is there are a lot of counterfeit/clone 4.9's on the market so @wasted talent, depending on where yours have come from that is possibly something to consider. Whilst the common NTK's are typically more robust to thermal shock they do have some drawbacks too; 1) about twice the cost, 2) much slower, 3) very sensitive to EMAP, so for those reasons I would generally recommend the 4.9 as more suitable for most users. The NTK is better in situations like a dyno shop where it has to move it from vehicle to vehicle very often, it is also more resistant to lead poisoning so it is better for some of those odd fuels also.