Hot Fim Induction Modification
09-30-2005, 06:58 PM
#46
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geofrey,
Your right. Recal the idle valve control map . more reverse slope on idle timing .
The flap is a bit of a problem as its response time is slow , due to mechanical damping.
In Circuit Emulators and a bit of code dissasembly ,is how I unravelled Motronic systems toooo many years ago !
Sorry to be a PIA but I still havent heard any reason why Motec gives more power than Motronic on a motor with the same injectors , manifolds etc.
Guess I will put it down to being the way some tuners feel comfortable.
Thanks for your input.
Geoff
Your right. Recal the idle valve control map . more reverse slope on idle timing .
The flap is a bit of a problem as its response time is slow , due to mechanical damping.
In Circuit Emulators and a bit of code dissasembly ,is how I unravelled Motronic systems toooo many years ago !
Sorry to be a PIA but I still havent heard any reason why Motec gives more power than Motronic on a motor with the same injectors , manifolds etc.
Guess I will put it down to being the way some tuners feel comfortable.
Thanks for your input.
Geoff
09-30-2005, 10:47 PM
#47
Technical Guru
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I've noticed that my impossible to stall 964 with a LWF will sometimes stall IF I have the radar detector, stereo, headlights and the defroster turned on all at the same time. Turn off anyone of those and the problem disappears! So a question I have for any of you that have EPROM emulators, have you tried adjusting the battery voltage compensation array for the ISV (or am I reading too much into it? i.e. lack of understanding) For MY93 (#1-267-357-006) the code location is 0x2950 and for MY90 the code location is 0x294D.
10-01-2005, 12:58 AM
#48
"that Motec has more processing speed than Motronic. Its many many years newer, so it should. The faster the system can get all the input the faster it can make the minute adjustments necessary to keep peak power."
Total B.S.! Even the older 8051 used in the 3.2/964 Motronics were more than fast
fast enough. The typical instruction gets processed in the microseconds & not milliseconds.
"I had a computer back in 90. I have one today. How much faster is it? I'd say over 100 times faster (you wouldnt know it by the operating system that got chunkier at about the same rate)"
Bad analogy for engine mgmt system comparasions.
"So a question I have for any of you that have EPROM emulators, have you tried adjusting the battery voltage compensation array for the ISV (or am I reading too much into it?"
It's not the battery voltage for the ISV, it's the ISV duty cycle which affects the
the idle RPM. The undershoot of the idle with a LWF, as noted, results from how
the DME code deals with the rate of change of the RPM as the engine decelerates.
The code must be changes to allow the rate of change to be much slower for the
LWF mod. Many claim chip mods for this, but none has a proven product.
Given that the 964 Motronics system was developed over 15 years ago, it's technology,
e.g. knock system & timing mods, was fairly robust even by todays standards.
Total B.S.! Even the older 8051 used in the 3.2/964 Motronics were more than fast
fast enough. The typical instruction gets processed in the microseconds & not milliseconds.
"I had a computer back in 90. I have one today. How much faster is it? I'd say over 100 times faster (you wouldnt know it by the operating system that got chunkier at about the same rate)"
Bad analogy for engine mgmt system comparasions.
"So a question I have for any of you that have EPROM emulators, have you tried adjusting the battery voltage compensation array for the ISV (or am I reading too much into it?"
It's not the battery voltage for the ISV, it's the ISV duty cycle which affects the
the idle RPM. The undershoot of the idle with a LWF, as noted, results from how
the DME code deals with the rate of change of the RPM as the engine decelerates.
The code must be changes to allow the rate of change to be much slower for the
LWF mod. Many claim chip mods for this, but none has a proven product.
Given that the 964 Motronics system was developed over 15 years ago, it's technology,
e.g. knock system & timing mods, was fairly robust even by todays standards.
10-01-2005, 01:28 AM
#49
Technical Guru
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
It's not the battery voltage for the ISV, it's the ISV duty cycle which affects the the idle RPM.
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
The undershoot of the idle with a LWF, as noted, results from how the DME code deals with the rate of change of the RPM as the engine decelerates.
The code must be changes to allow the rate of change to be much slower for the LWF mod.
The code must be changes to allow the rate of change to be much slower for the LWF mod.
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
Many claim chip mods for this, but none has a proven product.
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
Given that the 964 Motronics system was developed over 15 years ago, it's technology,
e.g. knock system & timing mods, was fairly robust even by todays standards.
e.g. knock system & timing mods, was fairly robust even by todays standards.
10-01-2005, 03:40 PM
#50
"The only variable that changes between stalling and not stalling (for me) is the amount of current pulled from the battery. Its 100% repeatable."
Because of the additional engine load, the result of the alternator supplying much more
current, the engine RPM decelerates much more rapidly, and thus the idle RPM
undershoots possibly causing the engine to die.
"So a question I have for any of you that have EPROM emulators, have you tried adjusting the battery voltage compensation array for the ISV (or am I reading too much into it?"
Although the battery voltage does affect the positional setting of the ISV & thus
the idle RPM, the closed-loop idle algorithm will compensate for the change.
The effective idle voltage is; Vbatt X duty cycle of the ISV signal. As mentioned
above, the major problem results from the greater RPM deceleration the result
of the LWF versus the greater mass of the stock flywheel, for which the algorithm
was written.
If the belief is still that the battery voltage is the culprit, the ISV battery voltage
can regulated using a resistor (100 ohms, 1/2 watt) a 10 volt zener (1 watt), & a transistor,
(NPN 2 amps, 30 volts). The Motronic idle RPM will be stabilized even though the voltage
was lower because of the closed-loop effect.
Because of the additional engine load, the result of the alternator supplying much more
current, the engine RPM decelerates much more rapidly, and thus the idle RPM
undershoots possibly causing the engine to die.
"So a question I have for any of you that have EPROM emulators, have you tried adjusting the battery voltage compensation array for the ISV (or am I reading too much into it?"
Although the battery voltage does affect the positional setting of the ISV & thus
the idle RPM, the closed-loop idle algorithm will compensate for the change.
The effective idle voltage is; Vbatt X duty cycle of the ISV signal. As mentioned
above, the major problem results from the greater RPM deceleration the result
of the LWF versus the greater mass of the stock flywheel, for which the algorithm
was written.
If the belief is still that the battery voltage is the culprit, the ISV battery voltage
can regulated using a resistor (100 ohms, 1/2 watt) a 10 volt zener (1 watt), & a transistor,
(NPN 2 amps, 30 volts). The Motronic idle RPM will be stabilized even though the voltage
was lower because of the closed-loop effect.
Last edited by Lorenfb; 10-01-2005 at 03:58 PM.
10-02-2005, 12:58 PM
#51
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by Red rooster
Do you always fit the larger flow injectors with Motec ? Have you tried the same injectors with Motronic , remap to suit ?
Originally Posted by Red rooster
I wouldnt believe that an extra 2mm on TB ID would make much difference or are you going to tell me different !
As for why MoTeC makes more power, I do not have the answer, I just fit the system and have happy customers with more powerful cars. If you do not mind I will leave the electronic/software questions to the folks who know an awful lot more than me, I'm just a simple mechanical engineer who tunes the odd engine or two.
10-02-2005, 01:57 PM
#52
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colin,
I understand where you are coming from ! It looks like there is a whole heap of stuff to cover on this subject with contradicting input coming from all sides.For example you dont believe that the flap is a problem, whereas other Motec fans do !
It would be good to be able to fix some of the variables (motor, injector flow rate ,etc ) and for someone to work their way through the Motec / Motronic systems and identify clear benifits or not !!
Thanks for all your input . Maybe given me another winter project !!
Geoff
I understand where you are coming from ! It looks like there is a whole heap of stuff to cover on this subject with contradicting input coming from all sides.For example you dont believe that the flap is a problem, whereas other Motec fans do !
It would be good to be able to fix some of the variables (motor, injector flow rate ,etc ) and for someone to work their way through the Motec / Motronic systems and identify clear benifits or not !!
Thanks for all your input . Maybe given me another winter project !!
Geoff
10-02-2005, 02:10 PM
#53
"Your right. Recal the idle valve control map . more reverse slope on idle timing ." - Red rooster -
You really don't need to "play" with the timing to solve the LWF idle
problem. That's a "brute force" patch. The idle algorithm just needs
to be altered. Having access to the disassembled code should make
this a "no-brainer" mod.
"As for why MoTeC makes more power, I do not have the answer" - NineMeister -
So, without an answer, one must really question whether it does indeed make more power!
Bottom line: It's really unrealistic to compare two engine mgmt without considering
how they were setup, e.g. one may have "pushed" the timing beyond the other one.
This would easily explain the difference in power outputs.
You really don't need to "play" with the timing to solve the LWF idle
problem. That's a "brute force" patch. The idle algorithm just needs
to be altered. Having access to the disassembled code should make
this a "no-brainer" mod.
"As for why MoTeC makes more power, I do not have the answer" - NineMeister -
So, without an answer, one must really question whether it does indeed make more power!
Bottom line: It's really unrealistic to compare two engine mgmt without considering
how they were setup, e.g. one may have "pushed" the timing beyond the other one.
This would easily explain the difference in power outputs.
Last edited by Lorenfb; 10-02-2005 at 03:22 PM.
10-02-2005, 02:44 PM
#54
Drifting
Loren,
without wishing to be an antagonist, I have learnt through life that some things just are. I am sometimes unable to qualify why, but just because I cannot qualify it, dosen't mean it can't be so.
If that makes any sense to you.
kevin.
without wishing to be an antagonist, I have learnt through life that some things just are. I am sometimes unable to qualify why, but just because I cannot qualify it, dosen't mean it can't be so.
If that makes any sense to you.
kevin.
10-02-2005, 04:11 PM
#55
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by Red rooster
I understand where you are coming from ! It looks like there is a whole heap of stuff to cover on this subject with contradicting input coming from all sides.For example you dont believe that the flap is a problem, whereas other Motec fans do !
Originally Posted by Red rooster
It would be good to be able to fix some of the variables (motor, injector flow rate ,etc ) and for someone to work their way through the Motec / Motronic systems and identify clear benifits or not !!
In my opinion for 964's up to 300bhp, keep the Motronic and the flap AFM and just remap it. If you want 320+bhp for no engine changes, fit MoTeC. If you want more again, add a set of cams and port the heads for 340+bhp (we call this our MoTeC +1 package).
As Warmfuzzies so eloquently put it, I do not question why this works, all I know is that it does and I accept it.
Incidentally, before we now start in the "how does your rolling road compare with others" debate, the 340+bhp flywheel power quoted above is a calculation based on an on-the-day figure of 315bhp at the tyre at 6100rpm in 5th, which is pretty respectable for a mildly tweeked 3.6 engine.
10-02-2005, 04:36 PM
#56
Nordschleife Master
"So, without an answer, one must really question whether it does indeed make more power!"
"I have learnt through life that some things just are. I am sometimes unable to qualify why, but just because I cannot qualify it, dosen't mean it can't be so."
Thats all fine and good in practice but will never work in theory !
"I have learnt through life that some things just are. I am sometimes unable to qualify why, but just because I cannot qualify it, dosen't mean it can't be so."
Thats all fine and good in practice but will never work in theory !
10-02-2005, 06:27 PM
#57
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
"As for why MoTeC makes more power, I do not have the answer" - NineMeister -
So, without an answer, one must really question whether it does indeed make more power!
So, without an answer, one must really question whether it does indeed make more power!
....but I have all the dyno results.
Do you want me to post them?
10-02-2005, 08:17 PM
#58
"As Warmfuzzies so eloquently put it, I do not question why this works, all I know is that it does and I accept it." - NineMeister -
Only for those that lack the scientific approach and the ability to make future advances & progress!
Only for those that lack the scientific approach and the ability to make future advances & progress!
10-02-2005, 09:51 PM
#59
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
Only for those that lack the scientific approach and the ability to make future advances & progress!
... I notice that you did not take up my offer to see the dyno results.
Given your obvious understanding in the field of ecu design, why don't you volunteer the answers by fitting your 964 with a set of injectors and Motec and scientifically measure the results? Maybe you would not want to spend your own money finding out something you already know, but on the outside possibility that you have not worked with MoTeC, if you come to our premises I will happily provide a standard 964RS, the dyno, a Motec system & a set of injectors, then leave you to it for a month until we are all enlightened from our overwhelming darkness.
