My Emanage Ultimate is here! -Part 2- *MAJOR UPDATE*
04-03-2006, 05:32 PM
#41
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
There is more good news that I can mention. The update as it stands now should be only software/firmware. It was up in the air for a while as to whether hardware would be required but now after these results it's evident. So no extra cost for anyone. As to when it will be available, I still need to find out from Greddy. The beta tester I have has bugs that need to be fixed (nothing major though so I expect the update will be publicly released very soon).
.....
Icey - the RLC map questions and several other issues are on my list; I haven't forgotten. Just haven't been able to connect with Greddy yet.
Jeff - yes you can run the car and have the EU do nothing but pass the stock signals (ie no adjustments=stock tune). On the unit itself you can toggle easily between 2 sets of ignition and fuel maps. And if you have the laptop hooked up, you can switch maps to your heart's content - no limit.
.....
Icey - the RLC map questions and several other issues are on my list; I haven't forgotten. Just haven't been able to connect with Greddy yet.
Jeff - yes you can run the car and have the EU do nothing but pass the stock signals (ie no adjustments=stock tune). On the unit itself you can toggle easily between 2 sets of ignition and fuel maps. And if you have the laptop hooked up, you can switch maps to your heart's content - no limit.
04-03-2006, 06:08 PM
#43
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
Haha I knew you'd give me flak for that. But I only had a working update late Friday night... less than 12 hrs before I started testing. So that's not exactly holding back. When I first posted on Thursday about receiving it that version was actually too buggy to run on the computer and it had to be revised before I could even begin testing on the car.
But more importantly, I was specifically asked not to distribute it yet. I gave them my word and I'm not one to break it. We're so close to the end of this crank signal saga, after 8 months of waiting a couple more days isn't going to kill anyone. Plus it's going to be a freely available update, so there's no need for me to lobby to get a few "prototype modules" like I first thought I'd have to.
But more importantly, I was specifically asked not to distribute it yet. I gave them my word and I'm not one to break it. We're so close to the end of this crank signal saga, after 8 months of waiting a couple more days isn't going to kill anyone. Plus it's going to be a freely available update, so there's no need for me to lobby to get a few "prototype modules" like I first thought I'd have to.
04-03-2006, 06:23 PM
#45
Also, not trying to nit pick yet because it is still in the works, but look at what happens after your RPM peak and begin back down, you see the INJ output spike, which makes the timing spike between 9.7-9.8s. Any idea why?
04-03-2006, 07:03 PM
#46
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
Yeah I'm not yet sure why we see all those timing spikes occuring. This is one of the things I want to discuss with Greddy. If you look to the left of the red vertical line (6438 rpm), the timing is much less jaggedy. It is that way (less jaggedy) for most of the acceleration log except once we get past the stock limiter. The question is, is the timing really spiking up and down like that, or is it the datalogger that's not keeping up/reporting correctly? I did not adjust timing at all on this run (stock timing), so it's nothing I did directly to the ignition. But based on how the car felt I don't think the stock ECU was really producing that kind of jaggedy timing. It was pulling pretty smoothly and consistently. And IIRC I have seen this kind of jaggedy thing on other cars too... it bears more investigation.
As for the fuel spike after the peak, that's just a result of me setting things up coarsely and not doing the tuning thoroughly and precisely. You can't tell it as easily on that pic as I don't have some of the other parameters turned on, but I think what happened there is that as I let off the gas, the EU hit a cell in the INJ map where I didn't have any fuel added (high rpm but low airflow due to throttle closing). So the fuel drops to nothing but then spikes up again the next instant because I didn't come off the gas fast enough to disengage the RLC map (it makes a difference at what TP % you set the Fuel Cut to I think), and so the RLC map was cycling back in again at the specified IDC it interpolated (between the hold and limit points for the given airflow - again probably just coarse tuning on my part and could have been avoided).
As I said before, don't look too closely at the fueling. lol. I definitely didn't tune it other than to make sure I was rich and that I got up to 7500. With some playing I'm sure it can get better than what I did there being pressed for time. My only goal on Sat was to show it working that far up past the stock limiter. At some point in the near future I should be able to post a better RLC example when I'm actually tuning it for real.
As for the fuel spike after the peak, that's just a result of me setting things up coarsely and not doing the tuning thoroughly and precisely. You can't tell it as easily on that pic as I don't have some of the other parameters turned on, but I think what happened there is that as I let off the gas, the EU hit a cell in the INJ map where I didn't have any fuel added (high rpm but low airflow due to throttle closing). So the fuel drops to nothing but then spikes up again the next instant because I didn't come off the gas fast enough to disengage the RLC map (it makes a difference at what TP % you set the Fuel Cut to I think), and so the RLC map was cycling back in again at the specified IDC it interpolated (between the hold and limit points for the given airflow - again probably just coarse tuning on my part and could have been avoided).
As I said before, don't look too closely at the fueling. lol. I definitely didn't tune it other than to make sure I was rich and that I got up to 7500. With some playing I'm sure it can get better than what I did there being pressed for time. My only goal on Sat was to show it working that far up past the stock limiter. At some point in the near future I should be able to post a better RLC example when I'm actually tuning it for real.
04-05-2006, 06:37 AM
#48
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
Workin on it Matt... I haven't forgotten, but one thing about this whole process that has been a constant is that it can often be hard to get hold of my contact(s) at Greddy for days at a time. They are just extremely busy.
But we'll get the answers we need, might just have to be patient for a few days. (Believe me, these 8 months have been an exercise in patience for me, something I'm not overly gifted with. lol)
But we'll get the answers we need, might just have to be patient for a few days. (Believe me, these 8 months have been an exercise in patience for me, something I'm not overly gifted with. lol)
04-05-2006, 10:43 AM
#49
seems like i have an idea wat my next mod is going to be....i'll just be waiting until u list wat we need to buy and wat not.
im sure u answered this before but, do u think that a wideband is a good move to help us tune? also does the EU have an input for the wideband to help the EU find a target a/f that we are looking for
im sure u answered this before but, do u think that a wideband is a good move to help us tune? also does the EU have an input for the wideband to help the EU find a target a/f that we are looking for
04-05-2006, 11:14 AM
#50
Originally Posted by liqidvenom
im sure u answered this before but, do u think that a wideband is a good move to help us tune? also does the EU have an input for the wideband to help the EU find a target a/f that we are looking for
x's 100000000There's tons of reading material around concerning the EU. Leave this thread for questions that haven't been answered yet.
04-05-2006, 04:06 PM
#51
Originally Posted by nismology
Yes there is an autotune feature and a WBo2 sensor can be used in conjunction with the EU has long as it has a linear output. x's 100000000
There's tons of reading material around concerning the EU. Leave this thread for questions that haven't been answered yet.
x's 100000000There's tons of reading material around concerning the EU. Leave this thread for questions that haven't been answered yet.
04-05-2006, 07:00 PM
#52
Originally Posted by liqidvenom
ease up a bit guy....ive read everything he had to say on it since day one i just forgot. u make it seem as if i wasted ur time with a question that wasnt even directed towards u
04-06-2006, 03:09 AM
#53
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada
Posts: 5,437
Originally Posted by MaxInProgress
if ur going n/a i wouldnt spend all the money on it, i think this is more for the fi guys.
But the 2-step is what has me sold. Should make for ultra-consistant drag launches.
04-06-2006, 08:55 AM
#57
04-06-2006, 09:12 AM
#58
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (54)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Northern Jersey
Posts: 10,166
New the EU is $500 and the harness runs another $100. If you want the optional pressure sensor then thats another $140 with the pressure sensor harness(boosted only) Havent really found a better price than www.ForgedInternals.com with Free Shipping
-matt
-matt
04-10-2006, 11:07 AM
#60
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
Ok the word as of today is that Japan is working on bug fixes etc and the update should be released in about 2 weeks. It will likely be released as version 1.16.
Icey I have been following up on the RLC map also. At this point they don't have answers but are talking with Japan about our particular situation (constant fuel cut) and I'll update things as I know more.
Icey I have been following up on the RLC map also. At this point they don't have answers but are talking with Japan about our particular situation (constant fuel cut) and I'll update things as I know more.
04-10-2006, 09:15 PM
#66
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
Hmm ok well I guess people could just install it and wait to see if a CEL pops up before doing anything. As time goes on it would be interesting to track how many have needed the resistors, and what year their ECU is. But my gut feeling is that 97-01's will need them, maybe not 95/96's.. but hey I've been wrong before.
04-11-2006, 08:44 AM
#67
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
Sorry, missed a couple questions before...
Originally Posted by JeEvE
Do you have it running with a J&S Safeguard? Just want to see how people have it set up with an EU.
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Also, any difference in idle/shifting using the crank inputs vs. ignition signals that you could tell?
Originally Posted by WielkiWaac
nice job.
wiil it work on 99 maximas??
wiil it work on 99 maximas??
04-11-2006, 08:51 AM
#69
I thought that also, but removed it recently and the EU definitely makes the idle a bit more choppy/bouncy and on shifts the RPM don't fall down as fast. No biggie, but just something I've noticed after having it installed and then going back to stock.
I figured the crank input would help somewhat, but I probably need to try some different grounds to see if it makes any difference.
I figured the crank input would help somewhat, but I probably need to try some different grounds to see if it makes any difference.
Originally Posted by DandyMax
Not that I remember; my car was normal and quite smooth before, and it still was with the crank input. However, I did notice the rpms seemed to track more smoothly and accurately on the EU, which should help when doing fine tuning.
04-11-2006, 09:00 AM
#70
3.5 in the works
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,477
I wasn't looking for it specifically, but I don't remember much difference between coils/crank or EU/stock as far as idle/shifting. But it had been 5 months since I'd driven the car too, and several months with the EU in vs stock before that last fall also. So take what I say loosely. lol.
But I will say that my grounds are in excellent shape. It's something I maintain, plus I put in new ground wires and cleaned everything up last spring when I did the 00VI swap.
But I will say that my grounds are in excellent shape. It's something I maintain, plus I put in new ground wires and cleaned everything up last spring when I did the 00VI swap.
04-11-2006, 10:53 PM
#71
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
I thought that also, but removed it recently and the EU definitely makes the idle a bit more choppy/bouncy and on shifts the RPM don't fall down as fast. No biggie, but just something I've noticed after having it installed and then going back to stock.
I figured the crank input would help somewhat, but I probably need to try some different grounds to see if it makes any difference.
I figured the crank input would help somewhat, but I probably need to try some different grounds to see if it makes any difference.
for some odd reason i'm still having the shifting rpm problem that you're talking about. what i mean to say is my rpms do not drop down below 1k like it used to with the emanage in place. and after i converted it back to stock, my rpms have been dropping more normally but not like how it used to, it lingers a bit over 1k for a second or two.
04-12-2006, 10:00 AM
#72
I asked you before, but I forget, did you tap or cut the TPS wire? Are your logs of TPS voltage smooth on transitions or step like?
Also, how did you revert back to stock on the wiring?
Also, how did you revert back to stock on the wiring?
Originally Posted by mingo
for some odd reason i'm still having the shifting rpm problem that you're talking about. what i mean to say is my rpms do not drop down below 1k like it used to with the emanage in place. and after i converted it back to stock, my rpms have been dropping more normally but not like how it used to, it lingers a bit over 1k for a second or two.
04-12-2006, 11:44 AM
#73
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
I asked you before, but I forget, did you tap or cut the TPS wire? Are your logs of TPS voltage smooth on transitions or step like?
Also, how did you revert back to stock on the wiring?
Also, how did you revert back to stock on the wiring?
for some reason, i lost my logs.
04-12-2006, 11:59 AM
#75
Yeah, somewhere...let me look or I'll take another when I get a chance. Why?
I actually haven't used yours yet, I planned on building another with yours.
I actually haven't used yours yet, I planned on building another with yours.
Originally Posted by Kevlo911
Alex, this is kinda off topic, but do you have a pic of what you did with the harness(connector) I sold you?
On a side note, the SMT might be for sale soon
On a side note, the SMT might be for sale soon
04-12-2006, 12:01 PM
#76
I believe you only tap the TPS for the basice install, however I intercepted mine for the analog map.
If it is tapped, not an issue, if it is intercepted, I'd make sure that connection isn't adding resistance.
If it is tapped, not an issue, if it is intercepted, I'd make sure that connection isn't adding resistance.
Originally Posted by mingo
i built a harness kit that reconnects all wires that were intercepted and just leaves the tapped wires untapped. pretty much a ghetto version of those 350z quick disconnect harness kits. i forgot whether or not i tapped or cut the tps wire. but i know i did what ever the manual said to do.
for some reason, i lost my logs.
for some reason, i lost my logs.
04-12-2006, 12:03 PM
#77
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Yeah, somewhere...let me look or I'll take another when I get a chance. Why?
I actually haven't used yours yet, I planned on building another with yours.
I actually haven't used yours yet, I planned on building another with yours.
