Notices
ECU Flash

fed up with knock control

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 10:00 AM
  #136  
D-VO's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: kissimmee FL.
Hey Tephra. I'll be a ginuea pig for ECU 96940011.
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 10:45 AM
  #137  
DS-03evo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: Central PA
If this works....man I will be so freaking happy!!
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 10:48 AM
  #138  
Mellon Racing's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach, Virginia
no doubt, this would be awesome and like I said, really narrow the gap between stock ecu and aem ems
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 04:48 PM
  #139  
DS-03evo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: Central PA
How is this working for any one who tried it?
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 04:51 PM
  #140  
tephra's Avatar
EvoM Guru
15 Year Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,486
Likes: 67
From: Melbourne, Australia
I have only sent out 2 copies, because its totally untested I prefer to have a small group of testers.

Once the initial testers have ok'd that it doesn't make their cars explode then I will send out a few more copies.
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 05:05 PM
  #141  
3geclipse's Avatar
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: MIAMI,FLORIDA
i cant wait to try this patch,Awsome job tephra!!......my car is not even an evo,i drive a 2000 eclipse custom turbo using the evo ecu,im using most of your patches and they worked great!!
Reply
Old Oct 28, 2008 | 05:35 PM
  #142  
cossie1's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
From: UK
I will test 90550001 when you feel you need more tests doing (car should be up and running within the next 2 days all being well).
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 11:09 AM
  #143  
D-VO's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: kissimmee FL.
Originally Posted by 3geclipse
i cant wait to try this patch,Awsome job tephra!!......my car is not even an evo,i drive a 2000 eclipse custom turbo using the evo ecu,im using most of your patches and they worked great!!
Hey that's pretty cool! Did you have to change the wiring harness at all?
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 11:14 AM
  #144  
D-VO's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: kissimmee FL.
Originally Posted by DS-03evo
Ok cool, I was thinking it might be someone else.
I'm intereted. Who did you think I was talking about?
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 03:02 PM
  #145  
Erik@MIL.SPEC's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (94)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,695
Likes: 24
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
I think its funny how some engines are noisy and others arent, even assembled by the same tech.

Case in point:

Turbojunkie (Billy) had us build a JE 9.5:1 motor for E85 and the car is "quiet". Lucas 10:1 alloy rod motor is "quiet". Okay so at this point you are saying that oh its because its on E85 or I am lying, right?

At the same time we did a build for another customer, a 9:1 JE for dual fuel, BC280s, and it phantom knocks like a *****. The piston wall is set loose on all these motors (.0055-.006), none of them have balance shafts, they all use the same manufacturer for pistons, use the same brand of clutch (2 are exedy twins and one is a triple), and were assembled at the same shop by the same guy.

I honestly think it has nothing to do with the assembly, and more with how finicky the stock ECU is too the "knock frequency". For sake of argument lets assign it a value, 10khz. So is it silicon content, thrust bearings, oil, etc. that make the difference or is it really truly random?

To add to what Charlie said, switching to an AEM on one of these cars after having extensively logged what "noise" looked like in knock voltage, I can personally say if the car knocks now its impossible to distinguish in the logs from what the stock ECU records. I dont think its impossible to tune an AEM and make good power but its knock control is primitive in comparison to Mitsu's.
For a layman, I found this a very interesting post. I would have thought the engine build might be accountable for the no knock vs. phantom knock issue. Didn't consider the aggregate effect of parts on harmonics. Thanks for the insight.

I would still assume (maybe incorrectly) that a "sloppy" build could still cause more issues than a good one. Am I right?
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 04:04 PM
  #146  
justboosted02's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 14
From: northeast
Originally Posted by Erik@MIL.SPEC
For a layman, I found this a very interesting post. I would have thought the engine build might be accountable for the no knock vs. phantom knock issue. Didn't consider the aggregate effect of parts on harmonics. Thanks for the insight.

I would still assume (maybe incorrectly) that a "sloppy" build could still cause more issues than a good one. Am I right?
although im sure that is true, i think if anything is learned from this thread is that even perfectly built motors (especially forged internal increased displacement) can and do have negative effects on engine harmonics that mess with the stock knock control
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 04:52 PM
  #147  
RazorLab's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,092
Likes: 1,090
From: Mid-Hudson, NY
I'm trying to find the test this out on my car but I am running into some time restraints, might need another day or so. Sorry guys
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 05:36 PM
  #148  
justboosted02's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 14
From: northeast
Originally Posted by razorlab
I'm trying to find the test this out on my car but I am running into some time restraints, might need another day or so. Sorry guys
unacceptable, sleep is for the weak
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2008 | 05:37 PM
  #149  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Originally Posted by Erik@MIL.SPEC
For a layman, I found this a very interesting post. I would have thought the engine build might be accountable for the no knock vs. phantom knock issue. Didn't consider the aggregate effect of parts on harmonics. Thanks for the insight.

I would still assume (maybe incorrectly) that a "sloppy" build could still cause more issues than a good one. Am I right?
Yes i would think so as well. We have built one or two loose motors (I wont say sloppy since its what we wanted to do) in the .008-.009 range of piston to wall and the noise profile didnt really seem to alter. I can also say that both of them are quiet in reality (knock aside). Alot of the motors that seem prone to phantom knock also sound like a VW TDi at and idle and cruise. The 2 seem to go hand in hand.
Reply
Old Oct 30, 2008 | 09:44 AM
  #150  
D-VO's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: kissimmee FL.
Originally Posted by justboosted02
although im sure that is true, i think if anything is learned from this thread is that even perfectly built motors (especially forged internal increased displacement) can and do have negative effects on engine harmonics that mess with the stock knock control
I've got .2 overbore Wiseco pistons with no balance shafts and have no problems that weren't there before. Particularly the phantom knock issue at 2500 - 3500 rpm. I actually get less phantom knock in that rpm range.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 PM.