alexcrosse

Hi, I've got an R32 GTR that I've run on a Link G4+ for a few years now. Although I still use it, I've never really liked the idea of the internal map sensor and the convoluted route some vac pipe has travel through. Has anyone got an opinion on this? Perhaps advantages of putting an under-bonnet MAP in with a short vac pipe to source? Or data showing there is no advantage in terms of quality of reading? Sorry it's a bit of an open ended question. Thanks, Alex

Ok thanks Adam. Do you think this inhibits the signs of a MAP signal delay at all? Its the NGTR+ so MAP on the ECU board. Physically I think I could also do a better job of routing the pipe... but would you ever see an offset like this? I have mapped TP vs engine speed with the target lambda filled out. Cheers,

Hi, I've got a G4+ on an R32 gtr. I see a delay in lambda meeting target on accels. Often in these instances I dont see any input from accel enrichment, but I do see it in other areas, harsher tip ins. I think because it gives a relatively low input, and 30% decay takes it out almost instantly. I just wondered if accel enrichement is even something I should be using to tackle this problem. This is not a base set point error, the fuelling is perfect steady state, and I use a rpm vs tps with target lambda on boost. What I'm after is knowing if I should be calibrating this function to fix the issue, if there is another way, and ideally, a log of where someone has used accel enrichment to better effect than me, say over a 1-2 second event on a turbocharged car. For reference, the lambda controller is a innovate that's wired into the G4+. I have checked this against another controller steady state on dyno, but not transiently on road. Thanks in advance Al.