I'll just get a haltech E11 plug and play
stop messing with this maf stuff

 

Standalones have their own share of problems.. First and foremost is you cannot get a car to pass an inspection (OBD-II inspection) with one in most of the Northeast. And you won't be able to get one to pass at all in a few years when most cars 96 and newer would be required to pass an OBD-II inspection.

 

I love me haltech. So damn accurate and so easy to tune so long as the compensation maps are correct.

I can get them to pass emissions.
No sniffer test where I am. Only plug-in OBDII testing.

My other car throws some stupid amount of codes running on a haltech E6X...but it'll pass this year once I put the thing back together.

 

Unless its a piggyback setup, without OBD-II compliance you won't pass. Not unless your asking a shop that does inspections to do something Illegal.

Some states or counties have not implemented the OBD-II testing, and only do sniffer, or safety only in some too.. But according to some reading I have done, thats going to change as the technology becomes cheaper to get out to the areas that they cannot afford to monitor and certify (and purchase) the equipment.

 

You can get standalones to read fine on OBDII scanners.

I've done some haltech F10X installs without any CEL's on IS300's.
When you start to do standalone ignition setups, you may have to mess with the ignition feedback signals, but that can be done and you won't get any CEL's either.

There are other "tricks" but it doesn't involve anything illegal at the shops that do the testing. They simply plug in as they normally would.

 

Standalones don't have OBD-II output, If you have a way to do this, then PM me the details, there have been some "piggyback" setups that work (AEM EMS for the Dodge SRT-4 is a good example) and the UTEC..

Let me clarify, a Standalone in most peoples perception is where the stock ECU has been removed completely, otherwise its considered a piggyback system. There are a few "piggyback" systems that function without the ECU's input and and only pass sensor data to the ECU to make it happy (the UTEC is the only example I can think of with the Evo)

If the Haltech does this, where both the stock ECU is retained, and the Haltech reproduces signals that are missing to the ECU, so the ECU is completely unaware, then yes, that would pass an OBD-II inspection as it would pass all of the tests given the right data.

FWIW if you know of something that exists and works, I would switch to it.

 

I did not think that someone in the EVO tuning community would not have heard of Shiv....Shiv is quit knowledgeable with engine management and tuning on a variety of cars....Sounds like you are going down your own path...Best of luck

 

Although my opinion of Shiv differ's and respect what he as done for the community, I do agree that he's knowledgable and well known..

 

We're talking about slightly different things. Different terminology.
When I wire in standalones, I wire them to work in conjunction with stock ECU's.
However, I don't consider that piggybacking in any way.

The ECU's I have done directly control fuel and timing. Sometimes utilizing factory wiring, sometime running new wiring. The factory ecu has zero control over those things. The factory ECU still outputs via an OBDII port in this case.

There is also another option but I have yet to test it.
I'll PM you.

Well. I'm not big into doing what other people do on the forums.
I started that way on my IS300 and over several years learned not to follow the path suggested by most people on the forum and not to hug people's nuts simply because they can produce powerful cars. I'm on my own path with that car as well. A much better, cheaper and more effective path.

Many of the paths that people follow are based on tuner's recommendations...which is based on profitability.

Knowledge, brainpower, willingness to learn and the ability to sift through regurgitated crap is what I believe makes someone a better tuner/builder. I definately have a lot to learn about the Evo. At the same time, I see more regurgitated, useless info being slung by ignorant people on this forum than on many others.

To be honest, I don't care who he is or what advice he gives.
I care about the theories and reasoning behind what he does. I am very open to learning...but not via the "Do what he says. He's a god" type mentality. I do what I think makes sense. My guess is that Shiv is the same way.

A nobody can be just as right about something as a "professional".
Being a professional doesn't make you necessarily right.

 

Getting back to the topic here...

Yeah my car has/had the same problem with getting a stable AFR as a function of gear.

I never really found a solution for it....I think all the evos suffer from this.

One thing I did was to back off the timing so that even if it had a lean excursion I wasn't getting the bad knock.

If your unstable AFRs worry you because you like good data thats one thing. If they worry you because when they go rich/lean your power disappears thats another. In the latter case I would just suggest detuning the car so that its power delivery is more robust to AFR unstability and call it a day. Either that or run 100 octane...that makes the AFR instability a moot point haha.

I tried both the above solutions btw and they both worked.

 

LOL, its a piggyback if the stock ECU is retained. You cant change that. also, when you say stand alone when its not one, people get confussed.

Anyways, if you wire it in with the stock ECU, its a piggyback, plain and simple.

 

However, you can wire in an ECU that is capable of running standalone but leave the stock ECU still connected to enough to let basic diagnostics function. Or you can run two standalones at once. I have been involved with a setup that runs two MAF based standalone ECUs that run a shared wiring loom which has a simulated MAF signal. One ECU controls the ignition and four injectors, and the other ECU controls another four injectors and other stuff. This solution was not only cheaper, but it was a good way for the vendor to promote his favourite ECUs on his shop drag car.

I like SophieSleeps independence.

Re AFR in various gears, I have little offset between the gears. Perhaps this is because over 200 load I have a pretty much flat range of AFR targets and because I achieve the same boost in every gear (at least 2nd upwards) using a gear judge boost controller (AVC-R). I have a much steeper gradient of timing vs load than SophieSleeps though. What offsets do remain between the gears seem appropriate - the higher gears have more time under load so the EGT can build up. The factory seem to have lean spool code in there that allows it to run leaner for a while anyway, maybe this is emissions, economy etc. A lot of Bosch ECUs seem to run some sort of closed loop EGT where it will run lean until it gets hot and then start to richen up.

 

I am curious if its capable of doing on the Evo, I've seen it pretty often on some american cars, the Neon, and Nissans and Toyotas, but never seen it on a Mitsubishi.

Ultimately this is what I have always wanted to do, so if someone had sucessfully done it, please PM me with details on how to satisfy the sensors to the ECU, remember, Evo ECU's need to complete one or more drive cycles for all its tests to be ready before a car can pass an inspection.

This is off-topic and would like to continue this in PM's..

 

I have my lean spool code essentially diabled. I also have most of my load cells above 200 atabout the same value. My AFR's are within a few tenths at full load every gear.

Another option is feedback using the wideband. If you jump onto the MAFT gen 2 ship you can install is such that the unit will fight to obtain a certian AFR that the user sets. I have one sitting in front of me as I'll be using it on my 1g eclipse.

 

Back on topic. I tried this today. Two runs in 3rd gear and two runs in 4th gear. My AFR was about half a point richer in 4th than in 3rd gear. The problem I having is if lean the AFR in 3rd gear beyond 11-11.2:1 I am getting more than 3 counts of KS. I would need to set the AFR @ 11.5:1 in the upper RPM range in 3rd gear inorder to make the AFR 11:1 in 4th gear @ the same rpm range.

The best solution to this is to run 100 octane gas all the time or create two maps one for road courses that use 3rd gear and another for road courses that use 4th gear. I think I am going to go with the latter option.

3rd gear


4th gear