What is the ETA for boost control???

 

If there's one thing that I've proven that I suck at, it's estimating when things are going to get done. But here's what I would say: if...

1. I didn't sell (and thus have to build) any more ECU+'s, and...
2. No one posted anything to the forums that I had to read and reply to, and...
3. No one had any technical support questions, or problems...

I'd be getting started on it in a few weeks. There are about four things ahead of boost control in my queue, and each of the three bullets above get first priority. It's the downside of being a one-man business.

Tom

 

Thanks for the reply Tom.
Just wanna pick up an ECU+ as soon boost control is available.

 

would this be a load table type boost control?

 

Could be. Now's a good time for people to start talking about how they'd like it to work. I'll just sit back and listen...

Tom

 

per gear and per 1000rpm taper increments

 

Load x RPM table just like the other maps, each element being BCS duty cycle. Easy breezy!

 

another vote for load X RPM

 

Hi

Maybe a duel method, one, a simple target boost like 15psi all gears & all rpm, easy to set up for novices. Second different boost for RPM & gears.

MB

 

Come on get a boost control function that works well. That's all i'm waiting for to buy an ECU+. Would buy now but dont want to take a chance of it not being backwards compatable. "If you build it...........they will buy"

 

The rest of us are discussing boost control algorithms, I have no idea what you're rambling on about.

Target boost would require a MAP sensor, but it's not a bad idea. I'm wondering if the feedback loop would be fast enough for effective boost control. You'd also have to make sure you have some safety logic to detect a disconnected or failed MAP sensor, so that it doesn't go to unrestricted boost (kaboom) in such cases.

Gear-sensing would require the ECU+ figure out what gear you're in based on the output shaft (speedo) signal and the RPM. I can already tell you that's not a highly reliable way of determining gear--for example it doesn't work if you're clutched in, or your clutch is chattering/slipping. So I don't think you could really have maps on a per-gear basis. Anyway, I'm curious why anybody would want different boost in each gear? The engine doesn't care what gear you're in, so it seems to me you would want the same boost profile regardless of gears.

I've tried the XEDE's boost control feature. It uses a Load x RPM table of BCS duty cycle. Seemed to work great.

 

Different boost for RPM & gears, that can be handled implictly via load x rpm. When you change gears the load changes as does the RPM. The only issue is that you would need more granularity to load instead of low, medium, high, and WOT. You'd need to handle by 5KPa variances at a minimum, if using a MAP sensor. The boost would be referenced from one table, just different points in that table.

 

Hi

Well the MAP sensor idea is great, it just wasen't what I was trying to say! Still proves these sorts of threads are a good way to get ideas going.

My though was, that for the novice user, rather than having to fill out a total map, in the way that the fuel & ignition maps are done, a simple drop down, with say standard, low , medium, advanced settings ( maybe just standard & low & advanced). This would help reduce the learning curve to new users. The advance load x RPM map could be accessed from the advanced part.

Other things that spring to mind are , when changing boost control from the simple function ( standard & low for example) the software could warn the user that changing boost with out altering timing & fuling can damage the enging & give tham the option to set all timeing & fueling maps to stock.

Just a couple of ideas that I've no doubt could be refined, or may have already been thought of.

MB

 

You would still need a base boost map to work from, even if you also had scaling settings for "low-medium-high". You do bring up a good point though that whereas with the fuel and timing maps, "zero" maps are the correct starting point, that's not the case with the boost map. My suggestion would simply be to have the software incorporate a "default" boost map that more or less mimics the stock boost profile, or maybe default or sample low-medium-high boost maps.