Better fuel economy in CRUISE
I've never heard or seen a voltage reference table but there is an Evap Map 1 & 2 as well as a Cylinder Fuel Trim 1, 2, 3 & 4. I have no idea if anyone has tested if making changes on those tables will lean things out but assuming that the Evap Map 1 has some method of leaning things out when triggering Evap functions there is a possibility.
I'm wondering if all those maps were changed to 15.5 or 16.0 that it would shift the target values in closed loop.
I'm wondering if all those maps were changed to 15.5 or 16.0 that it would shift the target values in closed loop.
in previous Evo's the ECU used a 0v ground to pass to the 02 sensor.
this ecu uses a 0.5v signal, so if you were at stoich you would get 1v back (assuming a 0.5v signal for stoich)
the ECU then subtracts the reference voltage and you end up with a normalised value..
so Gunzo's hypothesis is if you modify the subtractor then you can artificially change "stoich"..
but like i said this sort of feedback loop gives my brain lots of hurt
this ecu uses a 0.5v signal, so if you were at stoich you would get 1v back (assuming a 0.5v signal for stoich)
the ECU then subtracts the reference voltage and you end up with a normalised value..
so Gunzo's hypothesis is if you modify the subtractor then you can artificially change "stoich"..
but like i said this sort of feedback loop gives my brain lots of hurt
in previous Evo's the ECU used a 0v ground to pass to the 02 sensor.
this ecu uses a 0.5v signal, so if you were at stoich you would get 1v back (assuming a 0.5v signal for stoich)
the ECU then subtracts the reference voltage and you end up with a normalised value..
so Gunzo's hypothesis is if you modify the subtractor then you can artificially change "stoich"..
but like i said this sort of feedback loop gives my brain lots of hurt
this ecu uses a 0.5v signal, so if you were at stoich you would get 1v back (assuming a 0.5v signal for stoich)
the ECU then subtracts the reference voltage and you end up with a normalised value..
so Gunzo's hypothesis is if you modify the subtractor then you can artificially change "stoich"..
but like i said this sort of feedback loop gives my brain lots of hurt

yeh i know how it works
I was just giving an example..
We wouldn't change the reference voltage, we would change what the ECU thinks is the reference voltage... ie the subtractor voltage..
I am happy to find it for anyone that has a WB and wants to test?
I was just giving an example..We wouldn't change the reference voltage, we would change what the ECU thinks is the reference voltage... ie the subtractor voltage..
I am happy to find it for anyone that has a WB and wants to test?
It would be great if the substracting in ECU worked. Unfortunatelly I do not have WB, so could not test the changes. Anyone´s help would be appreciated!
Don't think the reference voltage is shared for the O2 .. its shared between the front and rear O2 though
..
You can also shift the 0% value for the idle fuel trim .. helpful especially if you have big lumpy cams ..
Alot of similiarities between our ECU and the Keihins
.. You can also shift the 0% value for the idle fuel trim .. helpful especially if you have big lumpy cams ..
Alot of similiarities between our ECU and the Keihins

in previous Evo's the ECU used a 0v ground to pass to the 02 sensor.
this ecu uses a 0.5v signal, so if you were at stoich you would get 1v back (assuming a 0.5v signal for stoich)
the ECU then subtracts the reference voltage and you end up with a normalised value..
so Gunzo's hypothesis is if you modify the subtractor then you can artificially change "stoich"..
but like i said this sort of feedback loop gives my brain lots of hurt
this ecu uses a 0.5v signal, so if you were at stoich you would get 1v back (assuming a 0.5v signal for stoich)
the ECU then subtracts the reference voltage and you end up with a normalised value..
so Gunzo's hypothesis is if you modify the subtractor then you can artificially change "stoich"..
but like i said this sort of feedback loop gives my brain lots of hurt

Of course while enjoing the car on a curved road economy does not metter
5% of the $2000 I spent on fuel in the last year is still $100 free dollars in my pocket and a happier earth... but I'm one of those fools who runs a cat.
Hi guys,
according to theory, the best fuel economy can be achieved at lambda 1.2 (AFR about 17.6)
Has anyone tried this in low load, cruising (40-80 load, 2000-3500 RPM):
1) setting open loop
2) fuel map 1.2 (17.6 AFR)
3) increased timing due to leaner mix
EDIT 4) +increasing exhaust valve retard for higher EGR
Can this setup (due to probably high EGT) hurt vlave seats, catalysator or something else?
Martin.
according to theory, the best fuel economy can be achieved at lambda 1.2 (AFR about 17.6)
Has anyone tried this in low load, cruising (40-80 load, 2000-3500 RPM):
1) setting open loop
2) fuel map 1.2 (17.6 AFR)
3) increased timing due to leaner mix
EDIT 4) +increasing exhaust valve retard for higher EGR
Can this setup (due to probably high EGT) hurt vlave seats, catalysator or something else?
Martin.



