Evo8 ECU in a 1G DSM in the works!
Jul 28, 2009, 02:47 PM
#63
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure how different the 2g knock sensor is from the 8/9. The 1g sensor is very different. The thing to note though is that on dsmtuners we have a member named knockgoon who has used the evo8 knock sensor on his 2g and it has not solved the phantom knock issues he had. What has worked has been to raise the knock multipliers to around 22 for the low and mid areas. The high range is just fine as it is.
I picked my knock sensor up used on eBay for $35 shipped. I would have posted in the classifides on here, but I don't that the post count to do that yet.
I really haven't noticed any difference between knock levels of the 2g sensor and the evo sensor. Upping the knock multiplier has been the only thing that has helped, but I'm still seeing knock. I'm actually going to try bumping the low multiplier up even higher than the 21 it's at now. I know it's not real knock because I've run 2g equivalent fuel and timing maps and still have the same knock.
I'm running a tephra mod v5.10 9055 rom.
My biggest problems have been hard cold starts and getting injectors scaled right. I think that I need to go and do the MAF scaling stuff.
Jul 29, 2009, 04:00 PM
#65
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: vienna,austria/scotland
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jul 29, 2009, 06:23 PM
#66
Found some good info regarding the 1G MAF scaling (assuming this stuff is accurate).
Here is the site:
http://www.hwnd.org/#maf%20compensation
According to this data, this is what might be correct for the 1G and 2G maf scaling???
Here is the site:
http://www.hwnd.org/#maf%20compensation
According to this data, this is what might be correct for the 1G and 2G maf scaling???
Last edited by Jack_of_Trades; Jul 29, 2009 at 06:36 PM.
Jul 29, 2009, 06:25 PM
#67
Found some good info regarding the 1G MAF scaling (assuming this stuff is accurate).
Here is the site:
http://www.hwnd.org/#maf%20compensation
Here is the site:
http://www.hwnd.org/#maf%20compensation
Jul 29, 2009, 06:46 PM
#68
F*** that site. I would if I didn't have to jump through hoops to post in their sections. For that reason alone, I could care less what info that site gets from any findings of mine. If someone wants to do it themselves so they have it, by all means, do it.
Jul 29, 2009, 08:08 PM
#69
Evolving Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tables above are from the 1G and 95-96 2G, that use a Motorola cpu.
The 98-99 DSM and Evo5-10 use a Hitachi Renesas cpu.
The different input hardware and ADCs in the ecus, most likely will make the Motorola tables incorrect.
Have you tried anything like this yet?
Its the 98-99 DSM table with correction for an Evo adder.
The Smoothing Table is used in the Injector PulseWidth calculations so it also needs to be changed. From what I've found the Adder is only used with the Scaling Table, not with the Smoothing.
The 98-99 DSM and Evo5-10 use a Hitachi Renesas cpu.
The different input hardware and ADCs in the ecus, most likely will make the Motorola tables incorrect.
Have you tried anything like this yet?
Its the 98-99 DSM table with correction for an Evo adder.
The Smoothing Table is used in the Injector PulseWidth calculations so it also needs to be changed. From what I've found the Adder is only used with the Scaling Table, not with the Smoothing.
Jul 29, 2009, 08:38 PM
#71
Evolving Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they adjust the screw on the bottom of the MAF at the factory, so different year 2G MAFs may be adjusted slightly more/less to match the ecu.
I had to adjust the first couple values of the Scaling Table a lot, when I put a 98 flashable ecu in my 95. But my MAF has always been quirky like that, even when I had a SAFC.
My flashable ecu is so much smoother than my 95 eprom, seems like they improved everything. I wish you lots of luck with your 1G.
Jul 30, 2009, 05:27 AM
#73
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wausau WI
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I did, I didn't see any reason to mess with getting the MAF right when I wanted a 3bar map anyway.
Don't worry about this getting to dsmtuners, it is being watched and cross-posted. Most of this stuff hasn't caught a whole lot of attention yet but it will.
Don't worry about this getting to dsmtuners, it is being watched and cross-posted. Most of this stuff hasn't caught a whole lot of attention yet but it will.
Jul 30, 2009, 06:03 AM
#74
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Willmar MN
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just changed the size and the compensation table as posted on the thread on tuners, and my trims were great when I ran closed loop, and my AFR's were right on when I switched to full time open loop.
I have since switched to speed density.
I have since switched to speed density.
Jul 30, 2009, 09:06 AM
#75
The REAL problemis the variance in 2G MAF's floating around out there. Like someone mentioned, the 95-96 MAF's may be calibrated differently from the factory than the 97-99's were. Then you add the fact that half of the 2G maf's out there have had their calibration screws F***ed with plus the honeycombs may be modified......now you have NO consistency for eople to work with. Safest bet, Evo8 MAF thats unmodified but I still think the speed density conversion will make this a non-issue.