LTFT on eManage Blue

[Essex2Visuvesi]

Lee sent me the details for the closed loop thing, i even ahave a copy of the map for reference
I'll post it up later when I get home

[shnazzle]

The simplest way to mess with the closed-loop fuelling is to get a wide-band O2 (such as the Innovate LC-2)with a simulated narrow band output. This can then be programmed to switch at different lambda's fooling the stock ECU into pulling (or adding) fuel using it's LTFT.

Couple this with the eManage playing with the MAF values being fed to the ECU and you should achieve a 0 LTFT

And where have you been all this time Steve? We needed you months ago

[jvanzyl]

Here's a link to the open loop mod that Lee made if it helps...
 m https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QMt ... npaeVg4NFk m

top level files are N/A with mods as described in the forum and it's labelled where the open loop mod is inserted. Then within that folder you've got Lee's Turbo ones (assuming they have the open loop mod on them too).

[lamcote]

Just a comment about open loop mods, if that relates to the TPS being used to force the ECU into open loop I recently found a thread on Spyderchat by Cap Weir where he says the TPS alone does not trip the ECU into open loop. It only happens when the load conditions are right. This was from around 2012, so unless he found something to contradict it later his view is that TPS alone won't force open loop.

That would also explain why your Noble map is undone by the standard ECU, because the map must be changing fueling at some point in closed loop, even at 50% throttle. I believe a remap must avoid making any fueling changes at any point in closed loop to avoid being undone by the standard ECU.

[SteveJ]

TPS being used to force the ECU into open loop

The guy who bought my car off me was playing around doing this (using one of the spare outputs on the eManage) and we all know what ultimately happened to that engine!   s:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: s:crazyeyes:    s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

[SteveJ]

The simplest way to mess with the closed-loop fuelling is to get a wide-band O2 (such as the Innovate LC-2)with a simulated narrow band output. This can then be programmed to switch at different lambda's fooling the stock ECU into pulling (or adding) fuel using it's LTFT.

Couple this with the eManage playing with the MAF values being fed to the ECU and you should achieve a 0 LTFT

And where have you been all this time Steve? We needed you months ago

I've been too busy driving around in a proper Izzy powered car   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

One thing to note - the wideband kludge for closed-loop fuelling is a single setting across the entire closed-loop range of the map. If you use the eManage rewrite of MAF values to achieve LTFT=0 then you will need to adjust your open-loop section of the eManage map to cope as the stock ECU uses the LTFT as the basis for it's fuelling (ignoring the O2 input).

[shnazzle]

.... Can I be bothered?
Haha

You know what... After seeing the logs from my run I'm tempted to wonder if it's even worth having.

The only thing is that the car runs much nicer with the exhaust and intake mods with the emanage installed.

As I sat in the car today I turned down the airflow adjustment for <2000 rpm and the car started doing its lumpy idle again like it used to before I had the emanage.

[lamcote]

Just trying to get to grips with what the eManage does. Is it:
1. Without any optional harnesses it just modifies the airflow signal from the MAF to the ECU ie it intercepts the signal before the ECU  
2. With the injection harness added it can control the injectors directly (intercepting after the ECU?)
3. With the ignition harness it can control the ignition timing (intercepting after the ECU?)

[shnazzle]

That's right.
So without the harnesses I really don't see the point other than to smooth out idling a bit if you've done breathing mods or have a non-standard MAF.

In the case of fueling you can only add. Which is a bit kak but only really plays a role in boosted cars I guess.

Timing you can advance and retard and seems to be the only thing that the car can't compensate for in closed loop

[lamcote]

I guess without the harnesses it's just an expensive way of doing the same as the MAF riser mod? In which case any adjustments impact on both fueling and timing at the same time. Seems best to leave these settings standard and just use the harnesses, do you know how much control over the injectors and timing there is available?

Also does it have a boost input?

[lamcote]

Regarding your question about reducing fueling,  the write up below says you can;

"The e-Manage system is a universal piggy-back type unit which taps into most Japanese factory ECU wiring, by utilizing the existing sensors. Basic functions will allow the user to slightly alter factory injector duty-cycle (+/- 20% at 5 preset RPM points) by intercepting and altering airflow or MAP sensor signals."

[shnazzle]

Exactly. I was told on here once that if I had the Blue, there's no need for the MAF mod... Which is why I sold it.

Although it all becomes a bit more interesting if you have vtec or boosted. Then the emanage is pretty decent at adjusting fueling/timing/air flow based on boost levels.

The Ultimate is miles better.

In my map the timing is advanced by a few degrees as it was mapped on 97.
Runs ok on 95 though so the ecu must draw back timing a bit when I hoof it on 95.

Fueling can be adjusted up to 20% I think. That is, 20% more than the stock signal.

[shnazzle]

And yes it has boost/map input in the front

[lamcote]

If you can't reduce fueling how do you get it to run at low load/idle on a turbo setup using big injectors? Presumably the fuel required at idle is the same whether standard or turbo,  if you are running big injectors for the top end power it would run way too rich at idle without some method of cutting fueling via the Emb? (Unless this is why the airflow adjuster exists??)

Thanks for your help.

[shnazzle]

In the emb you can tell it what the stock injector size is and what size the new ones are. It calculates the percentage difference and applies it to all the maps.

But, as I mentioned on the sc thread, it doesn't allow for changes to the lag times etc

[lamcote]

Oh I see,  handy.

[lamcote]

Can you adjust for lag time by slightly tweaking the size of the injector you enter?

[shnazzle]

Can you adjust for lag time by slightly tweaking the size of the injector you enter?

I'm not sure it works that way.
You might be able to compensate by retarding/advancing timing by 0.1 perhaps.

[lamcote]

What is your concern about lag times? I see you mentioned idle quality in the other thread, what is causing the problem?

[shnazzle]

It's may not become an issue. And to be honest as we're staying amongst the same "branch" of injectors the lag times are likely to be negligible.

But especially during idle if you put in some larger injectors which take longer between receiving the signal and being at full fuel release, it may make very low rpm activity a bit stumbly.

[shnazzle]

Logically it won't make a lick of difference once you're even anywhere about 1200rpm or so.
It's just stumbling idle I was "warning" about.
It's probably best it's ignored  s:) s:)

[lamcote]

I just wondered whether the effect of the longer lag time of a 310cc injector might be say, as follows :

Extra lag time for a 310cc injector means the engine is c. 5% (for example) too lean at idle
Therefore instead of entering 310cc in the EMB settings you enter 295cc.
This should mean EMB gives c.5% more injector signal time than it would have done, offsetting the longer lag time?
Closed loop will look after itself
Open loop might need fueling to be tweaked back a bit

Just a thought?

[shnazzle]

It's more of a timing thing.
So you program it and expect it to have the perfect amount of fuel injected per cycle.
So every minute during idle at 800 rpm it injects X fuel 800 times consistently. Always X amount.
But that's assuming that the time it takes for the injection to take place is perfectly in time with the crank rate.

If there is lag that is not accounted for, you'll have some cycles running lean (ignition before injection is completed) and other times too rich. Because they're out of sync.

So changing the amounts doesn't help, it just makes the issue more noticeable.


Bear in mind this needs verification from someone who actually knows their arse from their elbow. I'm just applying normal temporal logic

[lamcote]

I don't think that's how it works. From what I've seen lag is just the time it takes the injector pintle to react to the electrical pulse driving it, so although the electrical pulse is 3ms long it might take 1ms to react on opening the injector and 0.5ms to close it, so the actual time the injector is open is 3ms - 1ms + 0.5ms = 2.5ms

This means the fueling is a bit leaner than you'd expect for a 3ms pulse and the longer the lag the leaner the mixture.

[shnazzle]

Ah I see what you re saying. So the total time is the same but the "open time" longer/shorter.
That also makes more sense from a timing perspective as it'd be really really hard to get the timing exactly right for each injector.

In that case, yes I suppose it would be possible to adjust the size to make it think it's bigger or smaller than it is