Want to go Parallel why shouldn't I?
10-17-2011, 03:09 PM
#1
Want to go Parallel why shouldn't I?
I going to get my ms2 built shortly. It will cost me the same to go parallel or stand alone.
I want to go parallel for stock idle, A/C.
Seeing how parallel will alow spark and fuel to be tuned is there any reason to go stand alone?
Setup will be
FM2 kit
8 psi
Track Speed Engineering radiator
big oil cooler
I want to go parallel for stock idle, A/C.
Seeing how parallel will alow spark and fuel to be tuned is there any reason to go stand alone?
Setup will be
FM2 kit
8 psi
Track Speed Engineering radiator
big oil cooler
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 03:15 PM
#2
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
MS2 standalone did a better job of idle control than the stock computer did in parallel in my 99. Don't know what year car you have, but it looks like the NB stock computer varied ignition timing as part of the idle control scheme more so than varying duty cycle on the idle valve. Allowing the stock computer to control idle valve without allowing it to control spark doesn't work as well as setting up the MS2 standalone.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 03:24 PM
#3
This is a noob question I am sure...
Is it still considered a parallel install if you have the MS taking control of IDLE, AC, Spark, Fuel, etc - leaving the stock computer as basically an "observer" of the whole thing?
At what point does chopping off the stock (2001 for example) ECU's ability to make changes cause it to throw OBDII fits?
I know I am adding a lot of complexity here, but I want to retain the function of my immobilizer in some way but still have the MSIII doing as much as possible.
Is it still considered a parallel install if you have the MS taking control of IDLE, AC, Spark, Fuel, etc - leaving the stock computer as basically an "observer" of the whole thing?
At what point does chopping off the stock (2001 for example) ECU's ability to make changes cause it to throw OBDII fits?
I know I am adding a lot of complexity here, but I want to retain the function of my immobilizer in some way but still have the MSIII doing as much as possible.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 03:43 PM
#4
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
The stock ecu still thinks it's doing something, so it stays fairly happy unless you're causing misfires or something.
what year miata is this for? if idle and a/c are the only concern, then I would still to standalone...if emissions are the reason, then yeah.
what year miata is this for? if idle and a/c are the only concern, then I would still to standalone...if emissions are the reason, then yeah.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 03:47 PM
#5
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,977
Total Cats: 356
MS2 standalone did a better job of idle control than the stock computer did in parallel in my 99. Don't know what year car you have, but it looks like the NB stock computer varied ignition timing as part of the idle control scheme more so than varying duty cycle on the idle valve. Allowing the stock computer to control idle valve without allowing it to control spark doesn't work as well as setting up the MS2 standalone.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 04:01 PM
#6
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
The stock ECU doesnt do an exceptional job at controlling idle once youve put a turbo on.
I had lots of idle dipping problems under braking. Still no clue what exactly was happening...
I had lots of idle dipping problems under braking. Still no clue what exactly was happening...
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 04:31 PM
#7
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
This is a noob question I am sure...
Is it still considered a parallel install if you have the MS taking control of IDLE, AC, Spark, Fuel, etc - leaving the stock computer as basically an "observer" of the whole thing?
At what point does chopping off the stock (2001 for example) ECU's ability to make changes cause it to throw OBDII fits?
Is it still considered a parallel install if you have the MS taking control of IDLE, AC, Spark, Fuel, etc - leaving the stock computer as basically an "observer" of the whole thing?
At what point does chopping off the stock (2001 for example) ECU's ability to make changes cause it to throw OBDII fits?
I know I am adding a lot of complexity here, but I want to retain the function of my immobilizer in some way but still have the MSIII doing as much as possible.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 05:26 PM
#11
But even if it does not shut down the pump, is there a signal that it DOES keep powered when the proper key is inserted? If that is the case, I should be able to rob that signal to power a relay on the fuel pump. No?
At work and without looking at my references this is all hypothetical BS though... Maybe I need to get a non immobilizer key cut for testing purposes.
EDIT: Webernets is saying that it controls ignition? More research needed.
At work and without looking at my references this is all hypothetical BS though... Maybe I need to get a non immobilizer key cut for testing purposes.
EDIT: Webernets is saying that it controls ignition? More research needed.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JesseTheNoob
DIY Turbo Discussion
15
09-30-2015 02:44 PM
