Notices
ECU Flash

Speed Density 2.0 (3D VE Tables, Baro)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 22, 2011 | 05:39 AM
  #421  
92LaserRs's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Getting all the little bugs worked out on my tune with this ROM, and was wondering if anyone else is working on the jitter issue? I know Roadspike has other priorities, im just wondering if someone else is picking things up, or are we stuck with it?
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2011 | 05:46 AM
  #422  
And's Avatar
And
Evolving Member
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: Bristol, England
which rom are you using? 9653? I've found that the cough I was experiencing was more of a tip in problem and also of a throttle being constant as well as the rpm and boost but the load increasing due to inclines in the road, which I still haven't fully got rid of. but I'm now back on the original 2 jitter fix and put all the other back to standard, and I don't experience any jitters as such.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2011 | 06:21 AM
  #423  
THUB's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
From: Lombard IL
Does anyone have a wiring diagram for splicing the IAT in without using the PnP harness?
Reply
Old Jul 23, 2011 | 03:56 AM
  #424  
92LaserRs's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Yeah im on 9653, seems to be the only ROM to run on a 1g with evo ecu. So just to clarify, you are using 2 of the original 9653 jitter fixes, and not any of the 6 "J Jitter Tests" or the MAF Reset, that have been posted in this thread?

On my old 9653 SD Rom i was just using the original #2 and #3 fix.

My problem is pretty much the same conditions as you describe. Not just limited to highway cruising, but any time im at a constant throttle it feels like.

Originally Posted by And
which rom are you using? 9653? I've found that the cough I was experiencing was more of a tip in problem and also of a throttle being constant as well as the rpm and boost but the load increasing due to inclines in the road, which I still haven't fully got rid of. but I'm now back on the original 2 jitter fix and put all the other back to standard, and I don't experience any jitters as such.
Reply
Old Aug 2, 2011 | 10:18 AM
  #425  
211Ratsbud's Avatar
EvoM Guru
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,286
Likes: 43
From: Watertown, NY
Ok...

So just because I'm confused and now feel like I wasted money on spoolin up plug and play harness.. You guys are saying you can use the fuel temp sensor all year with out any hassle and less variation in afr?
Reply
Old Aug 2, 2011 | 12:15 PM
  #426  
HornstarBU's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 1
From: Austin, Tx
Originally Posted by 211ratsbud
So just because I'm confused and now feel like I wasted money on spoolin up plug and play harness.. You guys are saying you can use the fuel temp sensor all year with out any hassle and less variation in afr?
People use IAT from the maf using the spoolin up harness or just splicing wires to read an IAT sensor in the UICP. People also use the same wire that would feed the fuel temp, and wire an iat sensor into that..... There is also a group of people who use the fuel temp directly, and just don't even run an iat sensor. I'm of the mentality that it's better to have a direct reading, but...apparently you can get by using fuel temp.
Reply
Old Aug 2, 2011 | 12:46 PM
  #427  
l2r99gst's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 4
From: CA
Originally Posted by HornstarBU
There is also a group of people who use the fuel temp directly, and just don't even run an iat sensor. I'm of the mentality that it's better to have a direct reading, but...apparently you can get by using fuel temp.
Yep, I agree as well.

You didn't waste money on your harness. You want true IAT for proper SD functioning. Can fuel temp work...sure. But, it doesn't necessarily follow intake temps, especially on varying setups. For a car with semi-constant IATs, then using the fuel temp sensor may just be easier, but not really 'correct' or accurate.

Last edited by l2r99gst; Aug 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM.
Reply
Old Aug 2, 2011 | 07:48 PM
  #428  
211Ratsbud's Avatar
EvoM Guru
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,286
Likes: 43
From: Watertown, NY
Ok I see, just one of those things. I've already began tuning with the uicp sensor in place. Haven't made much progress so I was rereading all the threads.
Reply
Old Aug 2, 2011 | 10:47 PM
  #429  
HornstarBU's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 1
From: Austin, Tx
Originally Posted by 211ratsbud
Ok I see, just one of those things. I've already began tuning with the uicp sensor in place. Haven't made much progress so I was rereading all the threads.
For me, so far tuning has been one of those "exponential" things. I start off slow, then increase very very very slowly, but by the end it just sort of starts making sense, and I make good progress quickly after a while.

Sd2.0 obviously makes things easier....but it also makes them harder. You know the ol' expression there's more than 1 way to skin a potato (or feline, whatever). Anyway, it's true in 2.0 because there is literally like 4 different ways to achieve the same thing. I've finally settled in on using kpa2load to get close, ve to polish it off, but not neglecting MAF comp because it does still get used. It's nice because it has a diagonal result, instead of just up down left right, hard to explain.
Reply
Old Aug 3, 2011 | 10:12 AM
  #430  
gkania's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
From: Deltona
Tried 96534706 with a evo and the 2900rpm hiccup is not what I hoped for. Went back to 96531706 and the hiccup is gone again... I think I will just stay with what works. All the jitter fixes were enabled in the 4706
Reply
Old Aug 4, 2011 | 05:31 AM
  #431  
92LaserRs's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Yeah im hating having to switch back because of the jitter.
Reply
Old Aug 4, 2011 | 06:13 AM
  #432  
HornstarBU's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,509
Likes: 1
From: Austin, Tx
Originally Posted by 92LaserRs
Yeah im hating having to switch back because of the jitter.
You guys can't run 9417 I guess? That's what I'm rollin' without any jitter. I talked to RoadSpike, and he's wicked busy these past few weeks, so he can't continue to troubleshoot the 9653 jitter right now...but he does suspect it's related to the car it comes off of not having a MAP sensor stock.
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 06:23 AM
  #433  
92LaserRs's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Yeah i sent him a message a few weeks ago, i know hes super slammed and totally understand having other priorities. I havent tried 9417 because im running the evo ecu in a 1g dsm. It was my understanding the 9653 was the only DSM friendly rom due to the lack of emissions stuff and i believe something with the CAS. I need to research it again and see what the deal is.
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2011 | 08:27 AM
  #434  
surferjeff's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: orlando
This rom drives like crap. I went back to my old map 9653
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2011 | 08:32 PM
  #435  
92LaserRs's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Unfortunately i too have switched away from SD 2.0. Im back to 96531706. I miss being able to dial in the VE table. But drivability is was smoother and nicer on this Rom. The hesitation and jitter was killing me.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 PM.