Yes, you can tune it just with the Palm. You can adjust settings from the Palm (see the photo above), and data log to it. Then later you can hotsync the Palm to a PC and analyze your data logs on the PC.

--Dan
Mach V
MachEVO.com

 

Tom,

What is the resolution on the voltage sampling for the analog inputs? In other words, can I sample voltages down to 0.01 of a volt without any problem?

Also, are you planning on providing unit value labeling and voltage to value scaling for the analog inputs? As far as I can tell, that is the only "user friendly" feature that is missing.

TIA

 

The ECU+ seems to support 3 load points per 1000RPM interval, with interpolation between cells - that seems pretty low-resolution compared to the stock ECU and other piggyback solutions.

What's your sampling rate of the inputs and how are you interpolating between cells in your maps?

How are you replicating the crank angle sensor? Can we see waveforms of the stock CAS and your phase-shifted CAS?

 

The analog inputs are sampled down to a level of about 0.005 volts (that's 10 bits of resolution), though I doubt you'd get that sort of resolution in practice with with a car's noisy electrical system.

Not sure I follow this question. Can you explain a little better?

Tom

 

That's the current resolution, though it'll be pretty easy to change in the future if folks request it. I tried to come up with a reasonable resolution rather than trying to out-spec the competition. If there's a real-world need to provide more resolution, it'll be do-able. Tell me about your needs and what resolution you'd expect to make a difference?

The inputs are sampled at different rates depending on what they're used for. Not sure what you're trying to find out with respect to "sampling rate" - can you clarify?

There's really not a lot to see. You set the ECU+ to x degrees, and the phase-shifted crank and cam sensor signals look just like the input signals, only phase shifted. It's not rocket science. I don't have a PC-based oscilloscope, so the best I could do is take a picture of the scope screen (and last time I tried that I got like 1/4 of a sweep because of the fast shutter on the digital camera). This seems like a strange request - do you have another product whose signals you'd like to compare it to?

Tom

 

I think I know what that means, Tom. "Unit value labeling" would allow you to label one of the auxiliary five-volt inputs. Perhaps you want to analyze the input from an EGT probe, so you could label that input, "Exhaust gas temp." Then voltage-to-value scaling would be a map table that said 1.0 volts = 500 degrees F, 1.1 volts = 550 degrees, etc.

--Dan
Mach V
MachEVO.com

 

Gotcha. Seems easy enough. I'll add it to my todo list.

Tom

 

The ECU+ is ONLY an "offset" from the stock fuel/timing maps. It merely tinkers with the MAS and timing inputs to the ECU, scaling them up or down (or advancing or retarding them in time, for the timing signal). The stock map is still there underlying that, in all its complexity. (Is it complex?)

And remember, there are FOUR load points per 1000 RPM -- low, medium, high, and WOT. A S-AFC, by comparison, only has two load points (low throttle/high throttle) per RPM band.

--Dan
Mach V
MachEVO.com

 

Thanks for the replies Tom!

I guess my thought about load points was that it seems like tuning would be pretty coarse with breakpoints only every 1000rpm and referencing TPS for engine load instead of MAF (unless I read the screenshots wrong?)

I gotta tell you Tom I'm not a big fan of cutting wires and I'd sure like integrated boost control. What are my options if I still want to use ECU+? What kind of total cost am I looking at to integrate electronic boost control and an installation free from wire cutting? About $900? (for an ECU+, Fields harness, and EBC)?

 

Right, I got that.

My bad, I misread the grid originally.

 

I see.

As Dan mentioned, there are four "loads" - the WOT one is based on TPS, because it's kinda hard to figure out when the "T" is "WO" without using the T position sensor. The other three loads are based on the MAS.

Yea, right now the only non-wire-cutting option is the Field harness, which is like $130. There's a good chance that a pretty cheap PnP option for the ECU+ will be available in the future, but these things take time to develop.
I think the quote you mentioned from the web page is accurate, though - you know, what's that hour or so of wire cutting worth to you? $200, $300?

About the boost control, you're right, it's not in the ECU+ at present. But I would like to add it in. If there's no big hardware change, it'll be free.

I dunno. It may be that the ECU+ wouldn't meet your needs now, but it may in the future. And I think it does have a number of cool features for a device in this price range.

Also, please get back to me about the other questions you had. If you're interested in how the ECU+ stacks up to other products, there's a good chance others are as well, so I'd like to get as much information out there as possible.

Tom

 

ez76, the ECU+ is definitely oriented toward a tuner type of customer who isn't afraid to splice a wire or tweak air/fuel ratios. If you're looking for a more powerful, plug and play engine management solution that incorporates boost control, perhaps you should be looking at something more like a UTEC. The ECU+ is not meant to be the be-all and end-all of tuning hardware. It's an affordable, simple product that still has a lot of power and is a great value.

That said, we will be offering Fields harnesses, and we will have the option of a customized Fields/ECU+ harness for easy plug-in installation of the ECU+. That's a month or so out, though.

--Dan
Mach V
MachEVO.com

 

What type of adjustment does it do for larger injectors? Is it just +/- 50% or is there another table that is used to compensate for larger injectors and dead time etc and then you use the fuel tables for tuning differences from the factory maps?

 

There's no other table. You just correct using the +/- 50%. This is a feature that Tom and I have discussed, though. We agreed that most people could probably do the simple math involved, then we proceeded to mess up a sample calculation we were doing by hand. So maybe we can add that in the future.

--Dan
Mach V
MachEVO.com