Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday September 17, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-10-2005, 07:36 PM   #1
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default PTFB questions: fueling, timing, map and maf?

I know what it is, and from the discussions about it being bad, I have a question.

So, CL fueling is based off RPM/MAP, and OL fueling off of MAF? CL timing is mainly RPM/MAP, and OL timing is RPM/?? ?

So PTFB causes problems becase the ECU doesn't have a map location for full boost at that RPM? Or is it a more complicated map based on TPS/RPM/MAP?

If you have MAP and MAF, what use could TPS actually give you, aside from your OL/CL operation point?

(been doing a lot of reading, especially after I got the WRX to det today after a few hard accelerations and the OL/CL delay). Also, I think my boost is a bit wonky (possibly hitting full boost ~14-15 in all gears), but that's another issue/thread for later, after I get some good logging with the output of the MAP sensor.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2005, 08:01 PM   #2
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

The OL/CL switchover can be triggered from MANY parameters, incluidng coolant temp, TPS, RPM, MAP, etc. Some of this are logical AND functions.

The PTFB is not because there isn't a location, but because its going to be using the WRONG location.

With an MBC (or anything that causes PTFB), you end up at full boost, when the ECU is thinking its sendinding the turbo to 50% boost. As such, it choosing a fueling duty cycle to go along with partial boost, not full boost. hence, not enough fuel for the amount of air, and the lean condition.
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2005, 08:15 PM   #3
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcowger
The PTFB is not because there isn't a location, but because its going to be using the WRONG location.

With an MBC (or anything that causes PTFB), you end up at full boost, when the ECU is thinking its sendinding the turbo to 50% boost.
So, they have a MAP sensor, and yet instead of actually using the sensor that tells them exactly what the pressure is that the turbo is kicking out (and the MAF to tell them how MUCH air has gone into the engine), they still run it at some pre-determined, expected boost level? Wow. That's.. Special.

I'm beginning to think that I should have gone into the auto industry for ECU programming instead of silicone valley... It's just not THAT hard to do this kind of programming (and do it right), but then, I don't have to worry about the EPA/CARB with my current code.
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2005, 09:19 PM   #4
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77
So, they have a MAP sensor, and yet instead of actually using the sensor that tells them exactly what the pressure is that the turbo is kicking out (and the MAF to tell them how MUCH air has gone into the engine), they still run it at some pre-determined, expected boost level? Wow. That's.. Special.
NB: MAP = Manifold Absolute Pressure Sensor
map = an ECU map.

Correct - rather than using the input from the MAP & MAF to determine fueling load sites to be accessed, the indexes into the 2D fueling map are RPM and TPS. Same for the boost map.

The MAP is used for a feedback loop for the wastegate actuator to acheive the target boost.

Lemme see if I can get a screen shot to make it a little more clear.
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 02:04 PM   #5
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcowger
NB: MAP = Manifold Absolute Pressure Sensor
map = an ECU map.
I was trying to be consistent with that... Am aware of the difference.

Quote:
Correct - rather than using the input from the MAP & MAF to determine fueling load sites to be accessed, the indexes into the 2D fueling map are RPM and TPS. Same for the boost map.

The MAP is used for a feedback loop for the wastegate actuator to acheive the target boost.

Lemme see if I can get a screen shot to make it a little more clear.
Seems like TPS isn't nearly as useful as the combination of MAF+MAP is. Throttle position will influence each (to a large degree), but inferring results from TPS when you have a direct measurement of those results seems like the wrong way to go about doing things. Unless they are worried about failure modes of sensors, but then, TPS sensors go out all the time on lots of different vehicles, and cause lots of problems when they do.

So air is metered for fueling by the MAF only in OL, and during CL, it makes assumptions about the airflow into the engine based on TPS/rpm, using MAP to operate the wastegate so as to achieve a pre-determined boost for that TPS/rpm load site in the map.

That drives the base maps, and then the fueling/timing are both trimmed based on other sensors (knock, O2, etc.)?

on to performance computers:

The Ecuteck takes over and runs it's own maps after a certain % throttle, but again uses maps for the whole thing, based on TPS/RPM or does it factor in boost directly instead of indirectly?

Cobb's AP obviously can't (or should be VERY cautious about changing the operation of the stock program, but can rewrite the maps as much as it desires, but if the table doesn't have entries in locations, can it work around them? Or does the table information also include the axis values, so that the extent of the data in the maps can be adjusted by the reflashing?

And then these custom flashes (either Ecutech or AP) are generally based on dynoing a car to understand how it behaves, so the computer can continue to make correct assumptions about the vehicle's operation?
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 05:06 PM   #6
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77
I was trying to be consistent with that... Am aware of the difference.
I merely put that in there so that everyone was clear about it - its clear to me that YOU know the difference.

Quote:
The Ecuteck takes over and runs it's own maps after a certain % throttle, but again uses maps for the whole thing, based on TPS/RPM or does it factor in boost directly instead of indirectly?

Cobb's AP obviously can't (or should be VERY cautious about changing the operation of the stock program, but can rewrite the maps as much as it desires, but if the table doesn't have entries in locations, can it work around them? Or does the table information also include the axis values, so that the extent of the data in the maps can be adjusted by the reflashing?

And then these custom flashes (either Ecutech or AP) are generally based on dynoing a car to understand how it behaves, so the computer can continue to make correct assumptions about the vehicle's operation?
1) EcuTek and Cobb are the same thing. The are simply changing parameters within the stock programming model. So no, EcuTek and Cobb do not change the bahvior of WHICH inputs are used to calculate targets for given systems (fuel, boost etc). So for your first question, no, EcuTek doesn't start factoring the MAP to determine targets, its mearly changing the mapping.

2) As far as axis values for the indexes - both the EcuTek and Cobb are table lookups, and quantized to some degree. So if your table has entries for 31% TPS and 34% TPS and you are at 33%, it will choose the 34% entry (not sure of the exact logic - if its a floor, ceiling or round function). So they get around the need for interpolation of the type you mention at the expense of resolution. There is a limit to the number of total table locations that is hardwired. So, you can change it so that there are MANY small changes in indices in the > 70% TPS regions (or RPM for that matter), you will lose some resolution elsewhere in the map.

3) The custom flashes are based around more than assumptions. You start with a base level, and watch the vehicle as well as external sensors (wideband O2, transducer based pressure sensor). See if its hitting safe, desired targets. Adjust as necessary. Of course, once you get off hte dyno, then yes, its based on assumptions that the dyno evironment is similar to driving on the road. This isn't always true, and is why many tuners will do a short road tune after a dyno session for confirmation of parameters being within limits.

I totally agree with your hesitation around the computer NOT directly taking into account ALL the sensors directly, and merely makign assumptions. But you have to rememebr that Subaru has to concern itself with more than performance - emissions and safety, etc. make a big impact too. As an example - the OL/CL delay increase don the WRX from 02/03 levels of sub second timings to sometimes as much as 4 seconds on the 05s (I've seen it myself). Theres no performance or safety reason for this. Its nothing more than an emissions requirement.

There ARE systems out there that CAN be MAP based - Hydra EMS I believe can do it.

Personally, I find the stock ECU programming model to be sufficient for my needs, as long as I'm careful and watch my gauges/datalogs, and don't exceed the calibration/accuracy limits of the stock sensors.
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 05:31 PM   #7
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcowger
1) EcuTek and Cobb are the same thing. The are simply changing parameters within the stock programming model. So no, EcuTek and Cobb do not change the bahvior of WHICH inputs are used to calculate targets for given systems (fuel, boost etc). So for your first question, no, EcuTek doesn't start factoring the MAP to determine targets, its mearly changing the mapping.
Ok, I thought one of the piggy-back computers was capable of completely taking over after a certain TPS%, and that the EcuTek was it.

Quote:
2) As far as axis values for the indexes - both the EcuTek and Cobb are table lookups, and quantized to some degree. So if your table has entries for 31% TPS and 34% TPS and you are at 33%, it will choose the 34% entry (not sure of the exact logic - if its a floor, ceiling or round function). So they get around the need for interpolation of the type you mention at the expense of resolution. There is a limit to the number of total table locations that is hardwired. So, you can change it so that there are MANY small changes in indices in the > 70% TPS regions (or RPM for that matter), you will lose some resolution elsewhere in the map.
Ok, that was what I thought you were saying. The table is 2d, but the actual x/y coordinates are part of the table data itself( with say a 20x20 cell table, and the programmer sets where those 20 rows/columns fall within the TPS/RPM ranges. Interesting that they don't use interpolation. 1D lookup tables with interpolation are cake to implement, but I can see 2D being somewhat difficult, as the 4 points you possibly fall between (two rpm rows and two TPS columns) might not all fall in the same plane, so you'd have to assume two triangular faces, and then which way to pick the diagnal between those two triangles (like a 3D mesh)... definitely would call for a well-written routine, and a well-documented one for whomever is tuning the car (factory tune).

Quote:
3) The custom flashes are based around more than assumptions. You start with a base level, and watch the vehicle as well as external sensors (wideband O2, transducer based pressure sensor). See if its hitting safe, desired targets. Adjust as necessary. Of course, once you get off hte dyno, then yes, its based on assumptions that the dyno evironment is similar to driving on the road. This isn't always true, and is why many tuners will do a short road tune after a dyno session for confirmation of parameters being within limits.
That's what I meant. The dyno creates the test-bed from which the assumptions are drawn, but when in actual use, it's based on assumptions taken from the dyno runs. So you definitely wouldn't want to use extra high octane for the dyno runs, and then normal pump high octane on the street.

Quote:
I totally agree with your hesitation around the computer NOT directly taking into account ALL the sensors directly, and merely makign assumptions. But you have to rememebr that Subaru has to concern itself with more than performance - emissions and safety, etc. make a big impact too. As an example - the OL/CL delay increase don the WRX from 02/03 levels of sub second timings to sometimes as much as 4 seconds on the 05s (I've seen it myself). Theres no performance or safety reason for this. Its nothing more than an emissions requirement.
I'm aware that it's an emission reg for the OL/CL timing. And that the regs probably also call for it to be at stoic. for that period. Where with a proper 02 sensor (wideband?) you could actually run rich in CL mode (changing the setpoint that the fueling trims are based on to give a smoother transition between the CL stoic operation and OL fuel enriched operation that keeps the EGTs down.

Quote:
Personally, I find the stock ECU programming model to be sufficient for my needs, as long as I'm careful and watch my gauges/datalogs, and don't exceed the calibration/accuracy limits of the stock sensors.
*nods*

I'm mainly trying to get a handle on how this thing operates, so that when I've got a logger hooked up, and I'm looking at stuff, I know what it's thinking.

I'm also realizing that I should have started this tread in the EM section instead of Factory 2L... I've gathered that this is a "mechanical" forum, and all EM discussions of any kind should be in EM?
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2005, 01:51 PM   #8
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

And just to confirm.....

part throttle means anything less that WOT, correct?

7psi limit in 1st
10psi limit in 2nd
14psi limit in 3rd+

And going up a steepish hill (5-10%) I shouldn't be able to dig into the throttle in both 2nd and 3rd, about halfway, and get 14psi...?

In case my brand new test-gauge is not working, I'm going to be attempting to datalog tonight (TPS, RPM, MAP, WG duty cycle, injector duty cycle). Will open a new thread then.
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2005, 01:53 PM   #9
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

Part throttle = less than WOT, yes. But, someof maps have the same settings for 90% as 100%, so...

Even on my stage 2 maps, I dont get 14 psi at 50% TPS on a slight grade (10% IS a slight grade for us san franciscans!)
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2005, 02:20 PM   #10
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcowger
Part throttle = less than WOT, yes. But, someof maps have the same settings for 90% as 100%, so...

Even on my stage 2 maps, I dont get 14 psi at 50% TPS on a slight grade (10% IS a slight grade for us san franciscans!)
Bah, my driveway up in the SCruz mtns is a 1/2mile long, one-lane road (paved), with 20%+ grade in spots, with a 700' vertical climb from Hwy9.

But yeah, the 45* roads in SF are just hell on a clutch... Especially in my Z. Not had the WRX up there yet. They were a blast in the 4x4 truck, though...
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 02:08 AM   #11
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default Does this qualify as PTFB?

Using an OBD2 logger, and some math, I was able to get the following, in 3rd gear, slight uphill, cruising at speed and then tipping lightly into the throttle until it started spooling.

tp = rpm = boost

12.2% = -11.8psi = 3420rpm
12.2 = -11.2 = 3347
16.5 = -1 = 3386
65.1 = 8.8 = 3651
65.9 = 12.7 = 4008
64.3 = 12.7 = 4256
53.7 = 11.2 = 4579
12.2 = -8.9 = 3716 <-- curve, needed to back off to make it

These measurements are roughly 1 sec apart. The OBD2 MAP data has units of inHg (absolute), which I've converted (I think correctly) to psi relative to 1ATM (probably slightly off at the 500-1200ft elevation I did this at).
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 09:46 AM   #12
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

you COULD program the oem ecu to either:

a) cross over into open loop at lower tps. works, but not very elegant and wasteful of gas.

b) program the higher load sites (which are MAF based in the oem ecu) such that WHEN the turbo spools up at say 4k rpms and pulls in more air it DOES target a much richer AFR, regardless of TPS.

option b) seems far more elegant to me, but not having ecutek or cobb software i don't know how well it would work in practice. for example, what is the richest closed loop afr target that one can enter? it would be in closed loop since it would be below the TPS crossover. i do know that at high cruising speeds (ie, ~100mph) the oem ecu IS targeting a richer than stoich afr, regardless of TPS. i don't know whether this is due to MAF flow putting the load into a lower AFR target or VSS input enabling a "high vehicle speed" enrichment.

the reason why i prefer option b) is because it is not boost itself which creates detonation, but rather excessive per cylinder charge (and therefore peak cylinder pressure during combustion) for a given afr.

the oem ecu has not been mapped in this way because it would pretty much never happen. you'd have to have a popped boost control hose or boost control solenoid stuck in an open position and that would trigger overboost fuel cut anyway. the driver would certainly know something was wrong!

ken
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 02:09 PM   #13
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride5000
you COULD program the oem ecu to either:

a) cross over into open loop at lower tps. works, but not very elegant and wasteful of gas.
definitely wasteful if it was going for a low afr or high duty cycle on the injectors.

Quote:
b) program the higher load sites (which are MAF based in the oem ecu) such that WHEN the turbo spools up at say 4k rpms and pulls in more air it DOES target a much richer AFR, regardless of TPS.
Where does the stock ECU kick over from MAP to MAF based fueling?

Quote:
option b) seems far more elegant to me, but not having ecutek or cobb software i don't know how well it would work in practice. for example, what is the richest closed loop afr target that one can enter? it would be in closed loop since it would be below the TPS crossover. i do know that at high cruising speeds (ie, ~100mph) the oem ecu IS targeting a richer than stoich afr, regardless of TPS. i don't know whether this is due to MAF flow putting the load into a lower AFR target or VSS input enabling a "high vehicle speed" enrichment.
I don't have the software either (first "big thing" I plan on doing), although I need to decide which. Ecutek seems more tuning friendly, and Cobb more pro-tuner friendly. I've seen bits and pieces on here that seems to imply that the stock 02 sensor is wideband enough to allow closed-loop control of fairly rich afrs. That seems like it would be the best route (for efficiency and your cats), but may not be feasible.

Quote:
the reason why i prefer option b) is because it is not boost itself which creates detonation, but rather excessive per cylinder charge (and therefore peak cylinder pressure during combustion) for a given afr.

the oem ecu has not been mapped in this way because it would pretty much never happen. you'd have to have a popped boost control hose or boost control solenoid stuck in an open position and that would trigger overboost fuel cut anyway. the driver would certainly know something was wrong!

ken
*nods*

For a while I was thinking MAP was going to give you the size of the charge, but then remembered that it can't take into account the backpressure of the exhaust system, so it really doesn't know just how much air is going into the cylinders. Where with MAF it knows the air has to go somewhere...
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 02:22 PM   #14
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77
Where does the stock ECU kick over from MAP to MAF based fueling?
it doesn't. it is ALWAYS based on MAF. the term that the ECU uses is "per cylinder charge" and is a function of MAF and RPM. it is literally the amount of air in grams in the cylinder during the combustion process.

when in closed loop fueling, feedback from the front o2 sensor is used against the per cylinder charge to determine fuel trims. duty cycle is set such that actual manifold AFR matches AFR targets in ecu.

when in open loop fueling, only per cylinder charge + previously determined fuel trims is used to determine duty cycle. the ecu has no idea what AFR its actually achieving.

the MAP sensor on an OEM ecu is basically used for boost control and fuel cut. yes, there are a couple of barometric pressure tables for offsets to correct for fueling and boost control, but basically that's it.

Quote:
I don't have the software either (first "big thing" I plan on doing), although I need to decide which. Ecutek seems more tuning friendly, and Cobb more pro-tuner friendly. I've seen bits and pieces on here that seems to imply that the stock 02 sensor is wideband enough to allow closed-loop control of fairly rich afrs. That seems like it would be the best route (for efficiency and your cats), but may not be feasible.
i've heard it's good to 12.5:1.. maybe 12:1.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 03:01 PM   #15
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77

I don't have the software either (first "big thing" I plan on doing), although I need to decide which. Ecutek seems more tuning friendly, and Cobb more pro-tuner friendly. I've seen bits and pieces on here that seems to imply that the stock 02 sensor is wideband enough to allow closed-loop control of fairly rich afrs. That seems like it would be the best route (for efficiency and your cats), but may not be feasible.
If you want to tune the car yourself (given the depth of your questions, I'll assume you do), EcuTek is not for you. Its NOT user tuneable. Sounds to me like you want StreetTuner or UTEC. ST would actually be better for you if you want to start modifying OL/CL crossover points and conditions.

I have ST, and absolutely love it.
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 04:29 PM   #16
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride5000
it doesn't. it is ALWAYS based on MAF. the term that the ECU uses is "per cylinder charge" and is a function of MAF and RPM. it is literally the amount of air in grams in the cylinder during the combustion process.

when in closed loop fueling, feedback from the front o2 sensor is used against the per cylinder charge to determine fuel trims. duty cycle is set such that actual manifold AFR matches AFR targets in ecu.

when in open loop fueling, only per cylinder charge + previously determined fuel trims is used to determine duty cycle. the ecu has no idea what AFR its actually achieving.

the MAP sensor on an OEM ecu is basically used for boost control and fuel cut. yes, there are a couple of barometric pressure tables for offsets to correct for fueling and boost control, but basically that's it.
So... What are the OEM limits (limitations perhaps) for boost/rpm at part throttle? And when working with something like a OBD2 scanner, what is the valid percentage range for the throttle position (absolute) reported? I'm only seeing 12.2% to about 78%. And I can get 12+psi at only 65% throttle.
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 04:31 PM   #17
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcowger
If you want to tune the car yourself (given the depth of your questions, I'll assume you do), EcuTek is not for you. Its NOT user tuneable. Sounds to me like you want StreetTuner or UTEC. ST would actually be better for you if you want to start modifying OL/CL crossover points and conditions.

I have ST, and absolutely love it.
From looking at Ecutek website, it looked as if it was a user-tuneable setup (or at least user editing of the maps...) And significantly less than an AP (and definitely less than ST).

Chances are pretty good that I'll want to play with this myself, although I'm not likely to do serious tuning without access to a dyno, and at that point, I'd rather a "pro" do it, or at least show me how.

I tend to really geek out on anything that I get into, and end up learning way more about it than I really need to, and spend too much $$, and too much time....
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 07:07 PM   #18
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77
From looking at Ecutek website, it looked as if it was a user-tuneable setup (or at least user editing of the maps...) And significantly less than an AP (and definitely less than ST).
You misread it then. EcuTek will only sell the tuning software to professional tuners, and it is FAR more expensive than AP+ST.

Their DeltaDash software allows for some great logging and VERY MILD modifications. Nothing that will let you truly tune a car or edit the maps in any useful fashion.


This is nowhere near the level of control in ST, where you can access every load point for nearly every map:
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 07:30 PM   #19
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcowger
You misread it then. EcuTek will only sell the tuning software to professional tuners, and it is FAR more expensive than AP+ST.
Ok, I see now. That makes it pretty easy...
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2005, 07:36 PM   #20
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

So, on my post up above, with the throttle positions and boost, that's considered "ok" and not PTFB?

And only getting a range of 12.2% to 78% for absolute throttle position via OBD2 is "ok", as well?
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2005, 08:19 AM   #21
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

woody, does the obd2 scanner you used communicated on the SSM protocol (subaru proprietary) or the generic obd2?

if i understand you correctly it read 12.2 at zero throttle and 78 at wot?
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2005, 10:56 AM   #22
woody77
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 94498
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza WRX
San Remo Red

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ride5000
woody, does the obd2 scanner you used communicated on the SSM protocol (subaru proprietary) or the generic obd2?

if i understand you correctly it read 12.2 at zero throttle and 78 at wot?
Yep, 12.2% at 0 throttle, and 78% at WOT.

Generic OBD2, it's the OBD-2.com stuff. I'll be using it again with Calvin's SSM logger.

MY04 is fly-by-wire throttle? If so, then OBD2 I could see reporting whatever the throttle plates are at, but that wouldn't explain why it won't ever go over 78%....
woody77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2005, 11:19 AM   #23
23b_Rex
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 79394
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: reston
Vehicle:
02 gda
wrb

Default

great thread... i've been wondering the same thing

i vote for this to be stickied
23b_Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2005, 11:26 AM   #24
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77
I'll be using it again with Calvin's SSM logger.
i would be very interested in what the SSM data turned up...
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2005, 11:28 AM   #25
mcowger
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 77483
Join Date: Dec 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
2009 Audi A3 2.0T q
Lava Grey

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody77
Yep, 12.2% at 0 throttle, and 78% at WOT.

Generic OBD2, it's the OBD-2.com stuff. I'll be using it again with Calvin's SSM logger.

MY04 is fly-by-wire throttle? If so, then OBD2 I could see reporting whatever the throttle plates are at, but that wouldn't explain why it won't ever go over 78%....

MY04 is not throttle by wire - still just a cable. Not really sure why you aren't getting a full range of TPS values. Maybe i will do some logging this weekend and see what i see.
mcowger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference between MAP and MAF sensors??? Sushiplate Engine Management & Tuning 15 02-08-2007 07:29 PM
MAP and MAF min/max help VideoGameWrx UTEC 5 08-05-2006 02:28 AM
Effect of Wastegate on MAP and MAF Jon [in CT] Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 2 09-19-2002 12:31 PM
Building a fuel/timing map? Midwayman Normally Aspirated with bolt-on Forced Induction Powertrain 6 09-18-2002 10:49 AM
MAP and MAF V6 General Forum Archive 2 12-26-2000 06:11 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.