Rogue_Ant

Replied to your email.
Started looking at the KLR... Nothing exactly planned yet, but it is a possibility.

Thanks!

Harnesses have come up quite a bit over different threads. And yep, the actual parts costs isn't that much, the real problem is the labor time cost...
I will look into harnesses more.

bw993

Josh,

Awesome accomplishment. I take one with maps for the E85 and HVC-II coil. Just tell us when you will accept payment.

Bill

Tom M'Guinn

Cool project! I looked at the FRWilk schematic a many times and wondered just how hard it might be -- cool to see you do it. Are you sticking with the original 8051 processor or using something more modern? I've been mulling whether an Arduino or two could do the same job with all the same supporting hardware. I'd be mindful of Porsche's notorious vigilance re its IP rights -- though maybe they only care about the brand name since they don't seem to mind the existing chip products...

Rogue_Ant

Bill - will do. I will probably setup an order/pre-order list here soon.

eman930

That's awesome, New DME made better and possibly some add ons! Thanks for making it happen!!! How badass would a Package like a New DME with Mtune and injectors..... I'd die if I found that at my front door! I soooo need Mtune

Rogue_Ant

Thanks Tom!
Yes, sticking with the 8051 for the moment.
One thing to consider, is that the 8051 is still the #1 8bit embedded microcontroller in the world (based on number being used for new projects).

Another thing to keep in mind, while the AVR has some nice things (the processor used in the Arduino), there are many variations of the 8051, and new variations are still being developed. If more powerful processor is needed, there are plenty of drop-in replacement 8051/2 variants. For example, SiLabs makes units with 100pins (64 I/O), and run at 100Mhz.
Additionally, the interrupt facilities of the 8051 are significantly better than the AVR. Finally, compatible 8051s can be purchased through many different sources, unlike the AVR - which is only Atmel.

There are other uC options, and I might explore them in the future, but for the moment, the 'old' 8051 will do just fine


Good point about the IP (would it be Porsche or Bosch?). For clarification, this computer was designed and built from the ground up starting with a blank-slate. It is not a DME copy/replica. Rather is is a completely new, backwards compatible ECU. You do have a good point regarding the brand-name, and as such I will refer to this as an ECU, not a DME.

Tom M'Guinn

Agree about the 8051 for all the reasons you mention. It may not be the rage these days, but it's a real workhorse. I think I posted pics of my 8051 microcontroller from over 20 years ago... Have you tested it on the car yet?

I don't know who holds what rights for the DME, but I'd imagine it's covered by some patents (where blank-slate may not help...), copyright on the code, and "maybe" trademark rights re DME (or Motronic). Just something to maybe chat with your lawyer about -- better safe than sorry! I remember when John Dunkle went through quite a pain with the pre-rennlist Porschelist name...

Rogue_Ant

Yes. Throughout the development & testing process there has been a lot of on-car testing. In-fact, there has been multiple earlier versions that successfully ran the 944 & 951. The production unit is the polished end-result.

Sage advice, thanks!

Mangonesailor

That'd probably be the easiest way to give us that capability since OBD to Bluetooth adapters are about $20 and then MAYBE $5 for the app. Might save you some time in R&D and all. I do know from experience though that the speed of which the sensors refresh can put a damper on things.

It'd be a nice option.

Paulyy

Very nice josh!
Something id like to see would be The same unit with OBD2 (easier to log and scan for error codes). Input & Output for external devices like EBC or meth injection which will eliminate aftermarket computer units. USB port/s for tuning logging. What would be useful for the higher powered cars running the stock DME would be boost by gear, having the computer to understand what gear it's in by using the RPM & Speed.

I could keep going!

fejjj

Joshua,

I did a little research for you regarding any type of infringement.

Patents pre 1995 expired 2012 at the LATEST.

You have written your own code so that would not apply.

This unit should have no issue with IP rights just like someone who makes a stand alone EMS has no issues.

67King

Joshua,

Quick thing to consider. If you start adding OBD-II types of ports, or USB ports, or Bluetooth, or really anything beyond a stock replacement, you are reducing the likelihood of PCA accepting it for club racing purposes. I know that isn't your focus, but I think there's a sizable market there. If you do start looking at those things, you may think about maintaining a no-frills, stock-type one for that portion of the market. I don't know if doing so would make sense due to added complexity, but do keep it in mind. You might shoot Walt an e-mail sooner, rather than later, to see what he has to say. Or you might post in the Race forum. Lots of club racers there.

reno808

Very NICE man... I am surprised this wasn't done earlier.

Rogue_Ant

Thanks for the ideas! Please do continue if you have more!

Thanks for the info!

Thanks - as far as I know, nobody has ever made a backwards compatible ECU for any car...

Rogue_Ant

I'm definitely keeping that in-mind. And I agree that the club racing is important - I believe it will be a large % of the marketplace for this computer.

What I'm considering is doing a exactly what you mentioned - a simple version for the racing specs, and a bit more interesting for the rest...