Convert 132 to 60-2
#17
60-2 just appeared to be universally acceptable, however any output pattern is just a small matter of firmware tweaks. BTW pretty sure the pattern shown is not what the output from a hall sensor would look like. it's closer to what a VR sensor does.depending on the profile of the blank tooth portion of the wheel.
A VR sensor signal will look like this:
Where the ECU will count a trigger event when the voltage crosses the zero point as the tooth leaves the reluctor.
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Since the teeth IN vs. OUT align every 12 teeth, then they are out of sync the rest of the time. You will be feeding the ECU inaccurate crank positions. Not a show stopper, there are ways to can get around it.
I went with a 12-1 output pattern. It'll be more accurate and most aftermarket ECUs support it.
The details will take most of your time. Handling possible faults (ex: missing a crank tooth....)
A fun project for sure.
@fast951 as i mentioned above with the 132 input and the sixty tooth output they actually align 12 times a revolution (30 degrees) - . 11 teetrh*2.72727 = 5 teeth *6 degrees. it also aligns every 1/4rev (33/15 teeth) and every 1/6 rev. (22/10 teeth)
what trigger pattern would you have chosen and why?
60-2 just appeared to be universally acceptable, however any output pattern is just a small matter of firmware tweaks. BTW pretty sure the pattern shown is not what the output from a hall sensor would look like. it's closer to what a VR sensor does.depending on the profile of the blank tooth portion of the wheel.
You are spot on about testing that's where the 90-10 rule rears it's ugly head. I plan to have the firmware do some internal consistency checks and aesssment of incoming signal quality. and there is always the trusty mixed signal scope with deep memory and the ability to record signals for a very long time. From what i understand the Haltech has "tooth" diagnostics and has a limited degree of forgiveness with tooth tming as poorly mounted hall sensors don't provide the best signal quality.
I went with a 12-1 output pattern. It'll be more accurate and most aftermarket ECUs support it.
The details will take most of your time. Handling possible faults (ex: missing a crank tooth....)
A fun project for sure.
@fast951 as i mentioned above with the 132 input and the sixty tooth output they actually align 12 times a revolution (30 degrees) - . 11 teetrh*2.72727 = 5 teeth *6 degrees. it also aligns every 1/4rev (33/15 teeth) and every 1/6 rev. (22/10 teeth)
what trigger pattern would you have chosen and why?
60-2 just appeared to be universally acceptable, however any output pattern is just a small matter of firmware tweaks. BTW pretty sure the pattern shown is not what the output from a hall sensor would look like. it's closer to what a VR sensor does.depending on the profile of the blank tooth portion of the wheel.
You are spot on about testing that's where the 90-10 rule rears it's ugly head. I plan to have the firmware do some internal consistency checks and aesssment of incoming signal quality. and there is always the trusty mixed signal scope with deep memory and the ability to record signals for a very long time. From what i understand the Haltech has "tooth" diagnostics and has a limited degree of forgiveness with tooth tming as poorly mounted hall sensors don't provide the best signal quality.
Last edited by fast951; 02-06-2022 at 01:30 PM.
#19
@fast951 Doesn't matter that they aren't aligned in between the relationship between the two is 100% consistent. The '132" input RPM and Crank angle exactly equals the "60-2' output RPM and crank angle . The ECU is going to calculate crank angle based solely on the 60-2 pattern - 6 degree of crank angle per tooth. Actual position is relative to the blank period and so as long as the blank period for the 2 missing teeth is consistently aligned with TDC there is no issue.....IMO . That being said under very fast accelerartion (1k-7K in a second) there will be a slight lag of a 1/3 of a degree.
@SirLapsalot sorry i mispoke a bit, the LA shot shows the PROCESSED VR signal after it's been converted from your pic to a digital signal. . What i was trying to say is that i **think** the digital pattern for missing teeth with a hall sensor MIGHT looks like the below shot. from the MasterECU website. There is one missing pulse and one "fat pulse" not two missing pulses. In any evet n the converter can output any required pattern ...not a big deal.
@SirLapsalot sorry i mispoke a bit, the LA shot shows the PROCESSED VR signal after it's been converted from your pic to a digital signal. . What i was trying to say is that i **think** the digital pattern for missing teeth with a hall sensor MIGHT looks like the below shot. from the MasterECU website. There is one missing pulse and one "fat pulse" not two missing pulses. In any evet n the converter can output any required pattern ...not a big deal.
#20
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Formerly the DPRK, now seeking political asylum in Oregon
Posts: 1,168
Received 594 Likes
on
358 Posts
Awesome work!
No direct knowledge of the fuel atomization benefits from sequential operation, but for sure there was a reason the OEMs went to it.
It is pretty easy to take advantage of sequential with the knock control function.
I'm still a long way from having my AEM dialed in, but even at the basic steps, that seems pretty straightforward.
Good luck with your project!
No direct knowledge of the fuel atomization benefits from sequential operation, but for sure there was a reason the OEMs went to it.
It is pretty easy to take advantage of sequential with the knock control function.
I'm still a long way from having my AEM dialed in, but even at the basic steps, that seems pretty straightforward.
Good luck with your project!
#21
@Nowanker -i'm probably going to use these guy to help me tune "remotely":: https://www.brewedmotorsports.com/pr...-series-2-ecu/ NO affliation, but i've bought stuff from them and they seem knowledeable HOWEVER YMMV.and there are probaly others out there offering similar services.I bartered for access to an engine dyno for my build , but i believe a lot of their customers are doing "road/track tunning" . My theory is track time is really expensive, if i lose a day of track time (or worse) because of a crappy tune then getting some professional help is money very well spent.
#22
Three Wheelin'
@Nowanker -i'm probably going to use these guy to help me tune "remotely":: https://www.brewedmotorsports.com/pr...-series-2-ecu/ NO affliation, but i've bought stuff from them and they seem knowledeable HOWEVER YMMV.and there are probaly others out there offering similar services.I bartered for access to an engine dyno for my build , but i believe a lot of their customers are doing "road/track tunning" . My theory is track time is really expensive, if i lose a day of track time (or worse) because of a crappy tune then getting some professional help is money very well spent.
#23
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Formerly the DPRK, now seeking political asylum in Oregon
Posts: 1,168
Received 594 Likes
on
358 Posts
@Nowanker -i'm probably going to use these guy to help me tune "remotely":: https://www.brewedmotorsports.com/pr...-series-2-ecu/ NO affliation, but i've bought stuff from them and they seem knowledeable HOWEVER YMMV.and there are probaly others out there offering similar services.I bartered for access to an engine dyno for my build , but i believe a lot of their customers are doing "road/track tunning" . My theory is track time is really expensive, if i lose a day of track time (or worse) because of a crappy tune then getting some professional help is money very well spent.
He wasn't too familiar with the Infinity box, so I did most of the tuning.myself. Stressful as hell, but pretty straightforward.
Low boost maps are good but still working on 12psi+. It's not too tough at the track. I still get the sessions, just way short on HP (for now!).
Damn, I wish I had a dyno.