Adding load columns and RPM rows to maps
No offense but I 1000% disagree with you. Do you not recall just a few years ago everyone said the same EXACT thing you just said for 350+whp evo's to run successfully and safely?

The stock hardware is limited: we don't have a lot of memory or flash space, and don't have a lot of inputs and outputs available to us. And the client software we're working with today lacks a great deal of the polish you'd expect from a commercial package; EcuFlash and EvoScan ain't MoTeC, not by any stretch of the imagination.
But the stock ECU is just a processor, with inputs and outputs, just like any other physical unit we could swap in it's place, from AEM to Haltech to MoTeC to Megasquirt. There's no magic here, and just because someone sells it for few thousand dollars doesn't immediately make it any better.
IMHO, of course. Now, where were we? Oh right, doing some basic relocation of a few timing and fuel tables...
I'm in the process of enlarging the Ignition and Fuel Maps for some earlier ecus.
If you are enlarging maps on an earlier ecu with limited space, you can delete the second set of maps and enlarge the first map to double size. Just need to make sure the first map is always pointed to and add new axis.
I have a question that someone more knowledgeable than me will know, hopefully.
Why does the Ignition Map have the extra 11000 rpms at the end, but the Fuel Map does not?
Is it because the ecu would be cutting fuel by that point because of the RevLimiter?
If that is the case, would it be wise to add an 11000 rpm to the Fuel Map? (Will the Fuel Map Lookup get corrupted if you go past 7500 rpms?)
If you are enlarging maps on an earlier ecu with limited space, you can delete the second set of maps and enlarge the first map to double size. Just need to make sure the first map is always pointed to and add new axis.
I have a question that someone more knowledgeable than me will know, hopefully.
Why does the Ignition Map have the extra 11000 rpms at the end, but the Fuel Map does not?
Is it because the ecu would be cutting fuel by that point because of the RevLimiter?
If that is the case, would it be wise to add an 11000 rpm to the Fuel Map? (Will the Fuel Map Lookup get corrupted if you go past 7500 rpms?)
I am not saying it can't be done, because, obviously it can. What I am saying is that pushing the limits of an ECU that may not have the capability could lead to disaster. There are far too many "amature" tuners on here that do not fully understand everything we are dealing with.
What I am getting at is that, for the sake of the average "tuner" we should draw a line. More for the sake of safety than for any other reason.
Granted, it is fun to explore the limits and to push them as far as we can. The end result of pushing too far will, ultimately, be disaster.
One final note. Until the factory ECU is fully understood we would be shooting ourselves in the foot for trying to develop known areas and forget about the uncharted territories.
I am eager to see where this will go though.....You are all amazing programmers.
What I am getting at is that, for the sake of the average "tuner" we should draw a line. More for the sake of safety than for any other reason.
Granted, it is fun to explore the limits and to push them as far as we can. The end result of pushing too far will, ultimately, be disaster.
One final note. Until the factory ECU is fully understood we would be shooting ourselves in the foot for trying to develop known areas and forget about the uncharted territories.
I am eager to see where this will go though.....You are all amazing programmers.
Load and RPM.
I decided to set my MAP sensor up the right way so I dont look like a hack, but the idea of 400kpa and low resolution is not particularly appetizing. I would definitely take Load before rpm but if I had 5 more of each I'd be golden.
Dave, shoot me some ideas and I will see what the pocket book can finance.
I decided to set my MAP sensor up the right way so I dont look like a hack, but the idea of 400kpa and low resolution is not particularly appetizing. I would definitely take Load before rpm but if I had 5 more of each I'd be golden.
Dave, shoot me some ideas and I will see what the pocket book can finance.
If anyone had a specific requirement/request I could do it fora small fee...
With regards to hijacking a +12v output, I reckon the BEST bet would be to use the second BCS. Anyone that has this requirement will be running a 3port (or after market) so the second BCS shouldn't be used at all.
I want this also to control Mivec on a 1.6L. Barry, let me know the answer.
Last edited by wreckleford; Sep 30, 2009 at 06:42 AM.
I'm sure if you let someone know your 'small fee' amount, we could start a fund for that cause quite quickly. What you guys do for this community is epic. We appreciate all of your drive and hard work and are always willing to compensate you guys for your huge efforts.
I'm sure if you let someone know your 'small fee' amount, we could start a fund for that cause quite quickly. What you guys do for this community is epic. We appreciate all of your drive and hard work and are always willing to compensate you guys for your huge efforts.
I am not saying it can't be done, because, obviously it can. What I am saying is that pushing the limits of an ECU that may not have the capability could lead to disaster. There are far too many "amature" tuners on here that do not fully understand everything we are dealing with.
What I am getting at is that, for the sake of the average "tuner" we should draw a line. More for the sake of safety than for any other reason.
Granted, it is fun to explore the limits and to push them as far as we can. The end result of pushing too far will, ultimately, be disaster.
One final note. Until the factory ECU is fully understood we would be shooting ourselves in the foot for trying to develop known areas and forget about the uncharted territories.
I am eager to see where this will go though.....You are all amazing programmers.
What I am getting at is that, for the sake of the average "tuner" we should draw a line. More for the sake of safety than for any other reason.
Granted, it is fun to explore the limits and to push them as far as we can. The end result of pushing too far will, ultimately, be disaster.
One final note. Until the factory ECU is fully understood we would be shooting ourselves in the foot for trying to develop known areas and forget about the uncharted territories.
I am eager to see where this will go though.....You are all amazing programmers.
Money waiting. 5 and 5 would be fantabulous.
++++++++
I know I could get two others to pitch in too. FastFreddie and BlkCarbonEvo.
I think we'll make it more than worth your time Tephra.
**EDIT** IM SO FREAKIN EXCITED! W00t!
++++++++
I know I could get two others to pitch in too. FastFreddie and BlkCarbonEvo.
I think we'll make it more than worth your time Tephra.
**EDIT** IM SO FREAKIN EXCITED! W00t!









