Howard logs everything. Dual knock sensors would be nice. I've been logging everything except egt.

 

"Why are you only concerned with logging knock Howard?

I should think there would be many other, much more important, values that would matter.

I for one would rather be able to log EGT and AFR over knock... "

nowhere, ever, have i suggested knock is the "only" tuning component. i asked about being able to log knock because all the other items (EGT, AFR etc) are easily loggable as they are outputted in either 0-5 or 0-12 V.

the factory knock sensor does not work in that fashion.

it also works very well. i tested 5 OE knock sensors and they outputted similarly.

i also asked about knock because it is, IMO, a necessity in obtaining a really good tune. Knock forms the stop point. variables can effect AFRs and EGTs but knock is absolute.

anyone w alot of time to invest and an interest in acquiring more tuning info might read the 207 PAGES of THREADS starting in 2001 as to the tuning process at

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/for...opane-tech.14/

the Buick V6 Grand National originally came, as most know, w a turbo. it is a 3.8L 231 cu in 2 valve turbo'd intercooled motor. so the tune on the motor evolved much as our turbo'd rotaries... it just started earlier and there are more units outstanding.

currently, the typical dual purpose Buick is making around 800 rwhp on pump and meth AI and is running in the 10s dragging a 3800 pound chassis. not bad for a 2 valve (2 valves make 27% less HP/TQ than 4 valves NA) motor developed in the 60/70s.

while it is a piston engine, the same general tuning principles apply. the Section starts w water in 2001 and is now pretty much methanol as AI injectant. this is not a knock on water. i think water works well and much of the same tuning is applicable especially w regard to knock, timing, boost and AFRs.

so all i am saying is knock is ONE of a number of essential tuning components and if you want to learn more about it check out the Buick board.

as to other ECU suggestions... i am always interested in something new and perhaps better but ATM the last thing i need is to get away from job one which is getting back on the rollers w a number of turbos.

i also do like a number of aspects of the Power FC. i like that it uses the stock excellent factory crank sensors. there have been many horror stories from non factory pickups over the years.

i really like the newer Datalogit as it has EIGHT auxiliaries. currently i use 7.

1. AFR
2. AFR ground
3. Fuel Pressure (essential)
4. EGT front
5. EGT rear
6. Exhaust Manifold Pressure (pre turbo backpressure)
7. Methanol system Pressure

Luke is in touch w AEM and depending on the answer to a particular question we will be installing 2 preturbo (that is in the turbo manifold runners) AFR sensors. it is a new product that employs a heat dispersal element allowing the Bosch sensor to live at up to 1880 F.

this will allow us to monitor front and rear rotor AFRs separately. i will also use a post turbo AFR. i will ditch the AFR ground and then will use all 8 auxiliaries. the older Datalogits only have 4 inputs.

a big envious "Hello" to REDBULLSTX on St Croix, one of the great spots in the world.

and of course i will check out the newer Haltec and Lynx.... always curious as to what'a around the corner.

to answer the data points per second question.... i am getting 11/sec

howard

 

additional Jan 16 info

run 26 (run before failure)... as Tom indicates the secondary injector is reading 11.5 Ms ontime while the primary is at 6. the primary and secondary should be very close together as to ontime. note that the secondary injector spikes w the boost spike.

further, note Fuel Pressure... 66. (66 - 43.5 = 22.5 about right for the non spike level) not effected at this moment by the boost spike. perhaps mechanical lag? however note the next chart. Fuel Pressure at 46! (?) Fuel Pressure had been stable around 66 nominal (43.5 static) prior.



also in the weird column is injector duty cycle... it shows going to 100, as per P20 setting but after the boost spike. injector duty cycle readings are purely electric and as such should be immediate, as in the speed of light. i do have an FJO Peak and Hold module that further drives my secondaries.



here's another perspective. this is not the operative MAP as to P19 line. Luke had made another base fuel adjustment in line P19 (leaning it out a bit V line 18.) since i had a P19 reading on the log of 26.98 and the log is generally a point lower than the MAP let's use 28 Ms as the actual updated MAP P19 setting.

my PIM settings are

p18 28,500
P19 29,500
P20 30,000

so even considering we weren't at a full 30,000, the 29,960 spike reading is very close to P20 and it's 49.24 setting... but the injector ontime reads

primary 6.024
secondary 11.508

double the readings and you get only 35.06 rather than 46.77 (95% of P20 setting)



here's an eye opener... this is the boost reading from the dyno greatly magnified for run 26 at the point of boost spike.

the Power FC/Datalogit MAP shows boost spike at 7629.

note how the dyno shows two rpm reversals!

while it doesn't pick up a boost spike it it shows RPM reversals at 7607 and 7696.

the throttle was 100% and the motor did not continue to make power for those two instants. probable cause: plummeting rich AFRs... 10.6 and going lower.



the second rpm reversal (7696)




run 27 differs as no RPM reversal at the boost spike



let's look at knock.

i have always used advanced and it generally has dropped w boost and as methanol enters the motor. i took another look at a 507 SAE 20 psi run i made in 2009 and the last few readings turned out to be in the same area as the Jan 16, 2012 runs.

i consider this knock level to be fine. i ran these numbers for four years, removed my motor simply to thoroughly spec it. forensics on a completely healthy motor. the motor was pulling the highest idle vacuum in 4 years when i removed it. the faces of the Atkins apex seals were pristine and the sideseal clearance had maybe opened up one thousandth. so i have no problem w the knock level based on my experience.

here's 2009 w my twin TO4 setup at 20 psi



moving to 2012, note the similarity in the 3 waves of knock! BTW, the top line is EGT... max 1600



the peaks and troughs of knock roughly correspond to swings in AFR. lower knock, lower AFR.

my guess is the early knock wave is due to pushing the turbo w the wastegate shut heading to target boost. when the WG opens there is less strain and knock reduces. eventually as the motor does more work (hp) the knock picks up. an interesting hypothesis that i wouldn't put lots of money behind

another consideration as to knock being a factor in either of the runs, and i am leaning towards it not being the culprit, is the fact i run a J&S Safeguard system. the J&S works only in boost and will retard IGL 10 degrees if knock is encountered. it will retard it on the NEXT rotor face! a Bosch knock sensor is employed and is mounted in my rear rotor housing. i have used the system since 04 and it has lit up on rare and appropriate occasions.

the point is my logs show no IGL retard and i greatly respect the unit.

the comment was made re running my engine out RPM wise wasn't getting a payback... actually looking at runs 26, 25 and 24 i see what is happening... the tune goes way rich and this is exactly where the engine power flattens and eventually declines, as well as becoming erratic. it is just way rich. i do think that the BW once properly tuned will make 550 and have a bit more midrange.

running 3000 CC of methanol, we can easily run 11.5 + AFR and we are below that towards the end of the runs. the only reason is we are in an early phase of tuning at these boost levels. maybe 3 runs. EGTs are also nowhere near where they will finish.

here's a run w zero smoothing at 19 psi which supports the rich AFRs as causing the power curve breakdown. the motor should never be below 11.5 and should probably be a tad higher.

looking at the two runs here at 19 psi:

run 24 10.95 442 hp

run 25 10.65 397 hp





howard

 

To be frank thewird PowerFC is not the best ECU out there for FD's. They are realy great for what they are. A "cheap" easy to use plug and play ECU. I have used it alot in cars i have built for others and tuned. But there are a few things i don't like. The fact that it advancec timing from 2-4 degreece at random. That it's not 100% reliable. Over the last year i have seen 2 engines fail due to the PFC's advancing timing and other glitches.

The fact that it's not realy good at tackling diffrent types of ignition systems. The fact that it's old, it's the same as when it came out so many years ago, it def need a version.

For cars with sub 450hp and a safe tune with low timing it's a great ECU to get some more power out of your engine. It's quite easy to tune and responds good, and let's you keep all the stock features in the engine.

I respect Howards choice to go with the PFC as he is quite familiar with it and knows what he's doing with it. And also have found something that works for him.

I have had to much problems with "cheap" ecu systems and "cheap" ignition systems to go with a standalone ECU and CDI ignition to get rid of any "issues"

I respect Howard and i look forward to getting more information on his build and tests of the diffrent turbos.

So for your comment that Power FC is the best ECU for a FD is not correct. The best plug and play ECU yes. Do you know what plug and play was called when it was introduced in Windows 98? Plug and Pray, cause it did not always work

Sorry to mess up your thread Howard but could not let that comment go untouched

JT

 

The advance timing is a non-issue as it advances the timing the same way every time around peak torque and IS NOT random at all. Tuner compensates for it in the ignition map and done. Also, its only 1-2 degrees, not 2-4. I really don't want to start any argument (I don't know how to express this enough online) but anyone who blames an engine failure on the PowerFC randomly advancing timing clearly has no understanding of the powerFC, and if this came from the tuner then I just need to shake my head and keep my comments to myself.

The ONLY failures PowerFC's have had since its release are failed primary injector drivers. Also, this is EXTREMELY rare and considering how long the PowerFC has been out on the market, a lot of these failures are from old used PowerFC's which compared to the problems other ECU's have isn't really all that big of a deal with the extremely low failure rate. Also, this failure is again unlikely to cause an engine failure as your car stops running /barely runs if it does happen.

Name one aftermarket ignition system that will not work with a powerFC. You can wire in both rising and failling edge systems (most of the modern systems have a switch for both so this doesn't even matter). You can't tune coil dwell times but in most cases this does not matter. And if you do need this feature, by all means buy another ECU as that is a feature important to YOU.

I don't understand why 450hp would be some magic number on why you should or should not use a powerFC. Fuel and Ignition control requirements are the same at 300hp or 600hp.

As I said in the previous post, the ONLY reason to use anything but a PowerFC in an FD is if you specifically need features another ECU provides or your tuner does not know how to tune a PowerFC and is not interested/willing to learn (I don't understand why this would be the case, I love learning new ECU's).

Also, I do apologize to Howard but I feel extremely strongly about this and will defend my position every time.

jantore, if you wish for more explanation about anything I have commented on or any question really feel free to PM me or start a thread elsewhere so everyone could chime in as well without feeling like there crapping in someone else's thread.

thewird

 

i have no problem w the ECU comments in this thread which has by necessity ended up including alot of "reality" of the process of getting the project done. and i think we are all interested in learning along the way and that of course includes me.

technology marches along and it would probably be a mistake in not acknowledging that FD ECU might be included. the most amazing thing to me about FD aftermarket ECUs is that the Power FC, given it's age, is still a wonderful instrument. i have the 15th FD Power FC imported into the US (circa 2000) as well as one of the newest (July 2011) and they both work perfectly. yes, i did send them in to Apexi for a check of the injector drivers and Apexi gave them a thumbs up. it apparently was another problem.

when i was discussing my problems last summer w Ari Yellen, who has sold more Power FCs for FDs in the US, he said that he could only remember 2 that had driver problems. i am aware that others may have had problems and fixed them independent of Ari/Apexi but it appears that the Power FC has been pretty dependable and certainly is capable.

that said, tech does march on. i did take a look at the Haltec and Link products last night. i was most impressed w the Link G4. (qualification: it was just a brief look and i have no idea whether it actually does what they say it does)

Autotune!... wow, the holy grail of tuning. input your desired AFRs, do a run, push a button and presto... you have the right Ms. (of course i have an excel spreadsheet that does the same thing)

works w the stock cranksensors etc. nice.

logs knock

instantaneous map switching

separate (front and rear rotors) tuning for fuel injectors

good by wasted spark, hello increased dwell time

i could go on and on and on.

anyway, the Power FC has alot going for it. it is fully capable of properly tuning to whatever hp level you want to run in a dual purpose FD. most tuners speak the lingo. reliable and proven.

fortunately, for a car that is quite a while from production, we have choices and many work well. another option is the AEM which looked good on paper a few years ago but at least for a period of time had users perched on the edge of the bridge... i believe Ray Wilson (PFS) has been successful w it.

it is nice to have options and i still am amazed at what the solid state digital revolution has done for hot rodding. it seems a long time ago i was changing jets in my Weber carbed GT3 12A. today we look at 400 cells of base fuel and tune to the Ms.

hc

 

And why the hell is the PFC advancing timing 1-2 degress ON ITS OWN accepted as ok? It may be normal for the PFC, but I'd rather my ecu stay at what the hell I tell it to. Is that like a built in "feature" or something?

 

"And why the hell is the PFC advancing timing 1-2 degrees ON ITS OWN accepted as ok?"

i doubt if you are going to find the "why" answer... it isn't a major risk if you know that is how it functions. it always adds 1 degree at 4000 and another at 4400. you can just compare your settings and the log and it is evident. obviously you just make the adjustment should you wish.

generally those that aren't familiar w this quirk aren't personally tuning their FDs to a razor edge.

in a perfect world? sure, it should log the map. overall though, the Power FC is a nice piece.

 

the quirk of the haltech is (still) that it has an "internal reluctor" to translate the magnetic crank angle sensor signal into a hall effect signal inside the ecu. for whatever reasons (install, chip quality) some haltechs are not accurate with ignition timing.

also on 3 rotor cars (which use more outputs) the output side of the ecu shuts off

the software is really good, and i'd run one on a hall effect sensor car, but on a rotary, which is sensitive to ignition timing, AND has a complex ignition strategy, its just not a good idea.

the research is easy, look for repeated engine failure without obvious causes, broken dowel pins, etc etc.

 

I thought the whole point of meth, alky, water, whatever it is, is to be able to tune these cars to massive amounts of power without being on the razors edge, as it were. Seems there are a lot of failures here for something that's supposed to be mystical in it's ability to cool intake charges and prevent detonation. On that point, why bother logging knock if there shouldn't be any?

Regardless, any ecu that takes and adds timing for no know reason is a piece of hardware and software that no one should be using. 1 degree of timing on a ecu that isn't very accurate to begin with could be off by 5 or more degrees. Especially in an ecu that has such a slow log rate. Do we even know what the processor speed of the pfc is? I would venture to say that on a high hp engine that the e-shaft is accelerating so fast that the calculations aren't being derived fast enough to give an accurate ignition signal either way.

Not to mention I have done my own personal experiments on 12+1 trigger wheels and found that when I finally did get with the times when the technology became available, one of the first things that I did was add 6* of timing into my personal engine running near 20psi because the resolution just wasn't there with the factory pickups.

It's my opinion that if this project was handed over to someone with about $10k to spend in electronics and proper ecu's injectors, wiring, hall effect sesnors... this would've been a few days on the dyno. Not a few days on the dyno with a handfull of blown engines and years waiting for things to get sorted out.

On that note.... why isn't this being conducted on an engine dyno?

Case and point is the 2 or 4 strands of copper that were firing a secondary injector. Unless my memory is confusing this particular thread with a handfull of other ones out there that share the same failures because we're relying on at best wire that's 17 years old that has been through thousands of heat cycles in the oven that is an engine bay. How old is the engine harness btw? Original?

 

I have to respectfully disagree with those who blame a stock crank angle sensor and wiring harness in good condition. The reason I say this is not because the FD's is particularly advanced--clearly it's old, and is far behind the accuracy of newer production-grade sensors like the Rx-8's (which are still far inferior to lab grade of course).

The thing about the stock harness and stock crank angle sensor is that they were engineered to work with the car. Despite Mazda's overzealous weight reduction (FD harness is flimsy compared to FC) they are consistent. They are the same every time for the most part with the same shielding, crimps, etc. The stock crank angle sensor has a 12-1 design but you KNOW it works. They don't really fail on these cars. If you switch to an aftermarket unit you've got one more thing to worry about. The harness has to be right, the airgap on the sensor has to be right, the trigger angles and all sorts of other stuff need to be right. It introduces more failure points.

The Power FC has many limitations but it has a robust design that results in far less electrical noise and trigger issues. Electrically speaking, it just works. Another alternative to consider would be the AEM EMS, especially since there may be a Series II unit available at some point for the FD.

Dollars I'm sure. If that isn't an issue, I can probably get something set up with Roush which is close to me. They don't just work with Ford... they are a contract engineering/technical firm with full facilities.

 

It's not like its adding timing out of the blue. It adds 1-2 degrees around stock peak torque the same way every time AND it shows it in the logs. It's not like its adding it without telling you. You should be looking at logs when your tuning and compensate for it in your timing map so it is a non-issue. Also, 1-2 degrees isn't that big of a deal. If your trying to tune your engine at the very edge, again you should be looking at your logs to see what its telling you and adjust accordingly with any ECU. Sometimes, even on other ECU's, you may not be getting the exact timing you want at a specific boost level so you adjust your timing map to give you the desired timing. Looking at logs is the holy grail of tuning.

HP has no affect on any requirement really. The slight change in acceleration in "high hp engines" is really insignificant. The log rate is plenty to tune and find car problems and I can never understand why people complain about it.

thewird

 

10-15 samples per second will get the job done usually but there are instances where it would be nice to have better equipment, like when you are trying to figure out the cause of engine damage like this. But many many fast cars have been built on jackstands and tuned in small shops.

 

my 5c
-without being too specific for PFC ( the platform i have least experience with )
most ecus of the last period will have inherent drift with rpm in the reluctor translation ( Vr ) to TTL ( transister to transister logic )
good tuners are aware of this quirk and how its slightly different across different platforms
and especially know with some platforms that what is in the look up table and recorded in the log is not necessarilly what is happening at the timing mark
it may well be thinking and recording a 24 BTDC ,, but the reality with the light is a 26 due to drift in the "cross over zero point " analysis in the ecu algorithm
better ecus have more complicated zero point algorithm and inherently drift less

good ecus allow you to correct the drift
EG - all haltechs from halwin upwards can do this if you bother to fill the correction table
importantly,, most other aftermarket ecus allows you to change to a hall effect or optic pickups ( eliminating a big window of slop in a s4 cas gear and bent crank )
-the natural translation from these to TTL doesnt have the rev smudge of Vr
and - most important of all -- use motronic tooth counts


accuracy with a motronic count is far beyond the 12/1 FD or 24/2 FC in terms of calculation of the trigger angle

eg
36/1 = 1 tooth every 10 degrees of rotation,
60/1= 1 tooth every 6 degrees of rotation
12/1 = 1 tooth every 30 degrees

the ecu has a complicated Ne event acceleration V angle algorithm to work out where it is in between home tooth ( Ge ) [ single tooth ] events
basically looks at the rate of acceleration in the previous history of the count between the Ne ( crank angle referencing many tooth ) events

this to anticipate ( time ) the next timing or injection event
( that may be between Ne teeth timing events )

with 12/1 it has a 30 degree window of fuzzy forward loop anticipated "guess"

with 60/1 it only has to "guess" across a 6 degree crank window


with all this,, a change to a modern ecu especially brings all that great logging at much better sample rates
as already pointed out,,despite the already extensive recording equipment
- some better sample rates may well have highlighted the issue in detail by now already
and also given a better indication as to all the mechanical and electronic process lag

the PFC is showing its limits here,, and the likely replacement candidates (in my book) are ps2000 , and link G4/vipec

 

by no means am i attacking the man or his achievements , for which some credit is deserved

the point of this thread is to compare some big hitting turbos
and its also importantly about the long and expensive path that is to log that and get the engine up in reliablity
he is at the point where he needs to take some advise both good and bad and weigh it all up

- even from the guys who couldnt afford to log it,, and just lived it

big tips for reliabilty
- get rid of the difusers ( for whatever reason of fail ) at higher boosts

big tip for sustainability above that magic 500 rwhp level
-get an accurate and modern ecu that can grow with your need to log,, and to upgrade the ignition trigger system beyond the Vr and 12/1 limitations, set it up well

 

good stuff bumpstart.. i am drooling over the Link G4 setup...

 

Sorry to see all the issues you've had, but I'm sure you've learned a ton. I guarantee you will fall in love with better logging and control abilities of a more powerful ECU. We're addicted to Motec's over here, but there are some other great options available. If you do decide on a Link, we already have a higher resolution trigger kit (rx8 36-2-2-2 pattern) all sorted out.

 

^ kinda off topic, but what pulleys do you guys have on the engines with your trigger kits? Do you make your own or are those camden pulleys?

 

A little off topic, but I run a Link G4 RX and I'm more than happy with it. There is not much you can't do with it, and Links after sales service/tech help is extremely good to boot.
The data logging makes it too easy to tune, much easier than a Microtech or PFC in my experience.

Also worth noting is how stable and consistent the timing is when using a timing light, not that it means much at low rpm of course. And the fact that it allows compensation for the inherent timing retard typical of magnetic pickups.

Between the Knock block, LC1, water injection, 2 step launch control etc etc I'm using all the inputs and outputs bar one digital input. I'm even using 2 virtual inputs and 4D fuel tables.

ECU logging is up to 50hz from memory but 10hz is accurate enough for me.

 

JZG, thanks for the info it is especially valuable considering you are actually using it...

how many data samples per second do you get when you are logging everything?

 

That I don't know sorry Howard, I've never looked. But I should mention the ECU logs a lot of inputs/outputs etc by default, and even more when PC logging.

If you want, download the PC Link software from Links site and I'll send you a log from my own car showing all the usual info plus AFR and knock.

Since I'm used to Microtech logging (or lack of) anything else is awesome in comparison!

BTW my moneys on the BW363, although it would be interesting to see how it performs with the .88 ex housing fitted since this is the housing the turbine wheel was designed be most efficient with. I've had excellent results with the .88 housings, even on S360's which have a divided housing designed wheel.

 

we are doing a bit of an upgrade on the BW, actually the 4 to 3 inch V band adapter. the item that came w it is not properly tapered and i will be replacing it when it gets back on the dyno.

i will download the Link program and get back to you.

hc

 

JZG,

Which exact Link ECU model are you using? I browsed their site and that is a nice ECU. I like the simplicity of the Plug-in model, but don't want to be limited when moving up in HP. I have a street\track setup.

Sorry Howard...just waiting for your tests to finish and I will decide on my single upgrade.

Thanks

 

G4 RX wire in. I'm anti plug-in because I've seen stock engine harnesses in terrible condition.

Worth noting - the G4 RX has peak and hold injector drivers, while the Storm and Extreme have saturated drivers. If you want peak and hold drivers in the Extreme Link will supply a Vipec V88 (it's essentially an Extreme just with peak and hold drivers and a different name).

 

Sorry to interrupt, but why isn't all the ecu talk happening in the Engine Management section? I know it was a spin off the threads original goal and I only bring this up because huge advancement have been made since the PowerFC and other ecu's commonly used in Rx-7s were introduced. I would love to run a much more powerful ecu in my rx7 (mostly because i have seen the power current Bosch OE ecu are capable of) however no good threads have gotten much attention in the EMS section.