Jump to content

TnF

Members
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

TnF last won the day on July 29

TnF had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

TnF's Achievements

  1. yes that is correct, but it seems the big intercooler used in front blocks the airflow enough that i saw temps rise to 90oC standing idle and that was with the hood open (note we have ambient temps of 38-40oC here like now in summer). I have some plans on how to workaround it. Thanks for reminding me on the idle ignition, i just set up the car so i have such details to get fixed
  2. TnF

    Limit Ign Trim?

    thanks a lot, this explains lots of things. Does this apply to MAP limit too? Also is this documented anywhere?!
  3. Almost factory EVO 9; i've been said the fans are the originals. I have 1st fan (engine fan 1) start at 75oC and 2nd fan which is the bigger aircon fan (engine fan 3) at 85oC. The car has a slightly smaller battery than stock. When the 2nd fan is activate there is a huge drop of 1.5V due to the load on the engine. If you check the log i should fix fueling in that area because it goes too lean, but this will not completely solve the problem. A bigger battery and/or a capacitor/soft-starter could be used too. My question is in the idle speed control there is the "Engine Fan Step" parameter. I had it at 5 steps then changed it to 10 steps but saw no change. I believe this is due to the 1st fan already being activated this correction is already applied and is not applied for a 2nd time. Is this correct? If you know a better workaround please let me know fan_prb.llg
  4. TnF

    Limit Ign Trim?

    I saw this in a log file and was wondering why it's retarding 5 degrees; seems to be related to an advanced rpm/map limit option but i don't have advanced mode on on any of these two. Is it possible that it is still active in the background?!
  5. I thought i posted this bug years ago, anyways, it's still present and it is very annoying. Basically PClink will crash when the screen is turned off after inactivity by Windows. I think it only happens when using more than a single monitor only if i remember well (if you want i can test it more). However here's the crash log: Faulting application name: PCLink.exe, version: 1.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x00000000 Faulting module name: mshtml.dll, version: 11.0.19041.1151, time stamp: 0xa8fc66cf Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x0035cc10 Faulting process id: 0xa608 Faulting application start time: 0x01d7978dfb3f25a2 Faulting application path: C:\Link G4\PCLink G4+\PCLink.exe Faulting module path: C:\Windows\System32\mshtml.dll Report Id: ecedc2fd-e02e-439b-82dc-b815b61e9228 Faulting package full name: Faulting package-relative application ID:
  6. I think Inst. Fuel Consumption is the way to go. These are data pulled directly from a log file, where TP and AP are over 90%, essentially WOT. Air per Cyl Estimated looks to be directly related to the VE map, where's fuel consumption is based only on the duty cycle and dead time of the injectors which are known values. Ideally these should be identical but because of not perfect mapping there is quite the difference at the top end. Compressor map is of the exact turbo used a GT2871R 52 trim. This shows also that some overspeed must be happening.
  7. Thanks a lot for the reply. I do understand all the other variables and for some there are ways to process the data in order to eliminate some types of errors. However i am more interested finding out the actual calculation taking place for these 2 parameters so that a more educated choice can be made between those two. Maybe one of the software engineers can give some input here. From what you show however (which is if i understood correctly an engine that is VE (speed-density) tuned but still happen to have the MAF sensor installed but it's not used in the load calculation) is that the "Air per Cyl Estimated" to be the closest to the realistic flowrate in my opinion, due to the very close similarity of the curve. If there was a systematic error present it would show here as an offset, but if there was a characteristic error the curves would show noticeable differences. Which brings me to the point that i should generate the calculations for some period of time because only checking at one point is extremely likely to show big errors like the 10% i calculated. I knew about this, but i figured to ask first and just give it as an example. Lastly, i've asked in the past about this but it would be nice if we could setup custom parameters with algebraic functions in the PClink software so these calculations can be done without having to export the data csv and do it in excel. Also you should allow us to make a custom gauge graph where we can put any parameter on the axes with a stretchable underlay image so that the compressor curve can be viewed in realtime. I know you put functions in G4x but i think these are functions for the ECU, this is something that can be done on the PC software side and should be easy to put as an update for both PClink versions. Please:)
  8. Hello. I am building a curve to help me compare compressor maps and i am wondering which of the following is the most correct way to calculate the mass air flow. Consider the following logged parameters at one point of time in WOT: RPM: 6171 MGP: 168kPa (BAP: 100kPa->MAP: 268kPa) Lambda 1: 11.17 AFR Air per Cyl Estimated: 1.566g/cyl Inst. Fuel Consumption: 2110.2cc/min Fuel density: 0.7447g/cc Differential Fuel Pressure: 297 kPa Inj Duty Cycle: 53.4% Batt Voltage: 14.56V Fuel: 98RON petrol IAT: 47oC Calculation using "Air per Cyl Estimated": Mass air flow rate (kg/min) = 1.566 * 4 (cylinders) * 6171 (RPM) / 2 (4 stroke) /1000 (kg) = 19.33kg/min = 42.61 lb/min Calculation using "Inst. Fuel Consumption": Mass air flow rate (kg/min) = 2110.2 * 0.7447 (fuel density) * 11.17 (AFR) / 1000 (kg) = 17.55kg/min = 38.7 lb/min There is a 10% difference between the results here which is quite significant. Which would be the best way to get the most realistic value? 1st calculation is totally depended on the parameters "Air per Cyl Estimated" is derived from of which i don't know. 2nd calculation is depended on the density of the fuel which should be quite close and the parameters from where "Inst. Fuel Consumption" is derived from. Note that i use Injector Dynamics 1050x of which i have fully modeled inside the map and i also run a fuel pressure sensor which allows for realtime differential fuel pressure calculation. So injector quantity calculation should be really close to actual.
  9. Was this fixed finally fully with new hardware revision?
  10. update: The owner brought me a new genuine cas of which i tested.. No apparent issue anymore. I did check the wiring and connectors beforehand too and found no issues. Also tiggerscope signal between new and used sensor are essentially identical. So my final verdict is that since the sensor runs internal circuitry after heat cycling and heatsoaking there is either damage to the bond wires or the silicon substrate is damaged cause this type of intermittent issue. Therefore a heatshield should be a minimum requirement for anyone running an aftermarket exhaust manifold.
  11. thank you i'll check it out
  12. Hello. My friend's 4G63 (EVO 8MR) started dying out out of a sudden at random and it would not start again unless 15 minutes pass or so. Big story short i understood the issue was ignition related so i've confirmed power and replaced the coils and plugs with known good ones before checking the ECU, since it didn't log an error and i didn't had a laptop on me at the time. Turns out though is an intermittent trigger issue in one of the two hall sensors as it's seen from the RPM spikes in the internal log in the photo below. It is unlikely to be wiring related since upon disconnection of wires the ecu would generate an error plus i've fixed the wiring on this car before fully, and i did had a quick check of the wires for any noticeable issues. My bet is on the CAM angle sensor since the crank sensor seems to be have been replaced with a new one at some point while the CAM sensor sits right by the exhaust manifold and its o-ring is totally cooked into a hard plastic. My question is this a known issue with this engine's hall effect sensors? My idea is that they would fail with short circuit open, not do weird things like this.
  13. I've installed this in the car a few years ago but didn't work on the car for a few years and i decided to finally finish it these few weeks now. Today i planned to fix this abs vr sensor to link issue, i doubled checked everything and even captured a log of the input and output of the oscillorscope. Then i thought something is not write as the output was a small pulse with the desired frequency output. I've re-checked the installation sheet and saw the note about pin 3..turns out like you it was the issue all along. For reference is a nissan s13, abs vr front div/4, rear propshaft div/8, auto (adaptive mode) aka no solder blob. With the car on jacks and 1st gear, rear VR sensor outputs 1V peak to peak. So adaptive mode is fine. Also before even though it was not working i was getting some signal every now and then. Even though i twisted the extension wires (about 20cm) they were causing interfierence. I shielded the pairs separately to ground, now everything is 100% good.
  14. This will make checking and setting up the knock settings without needing to plug an external knock sensor and/or extra equipment. Knock audio function is already there. Of course this requires some bandwidth (not really much see below) but USB 3.0 or disabling logging channels to the rescue. For 32khz mono 16bit = 32000 * 16 * 1 = 512 kbps or 64 KB/s which is not much If the electronics required don't exist on current ECU's (i don't know about G4X, i only have G4+) you may consider implementing it in the future. Kind regards
×
×
  • Create New...