Project Cheap
Thread Starter
I'm Miserable!
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,866
Total Cats: 0
From: albany, ga
if I were to redo it
I wouldn't of gotten a megasquirt, I would of saved for better EMS
better turbo manifold or ran the turbo in the rear.
I would of stayed with 2inch piping all around.
Reply
1
1
I don't mean to thread crap, but god damn I'm tired of hearing that.
I'm not saying that MS is _the best_ by any stretch of the imagination, but what makes you think that with a 'better' ECU you'd stand to gain anything with a setup like yours?
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
I'm Miserable!
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,866
Total Cats: 0
From: albany, ga
many reasons, it can be made to work, it just its lacking certain items I perfer to see for a daily driven unit.
error outputs\codes
limp home strategies
sensor fail safes, in case a sensor takes a ----\dump.
features that are said to be in there but are half done or need more work to them.
I've had a GM IAT sensor fail on me that I was using and it just made the ecu dumb ---- tons of fuel because of how the ideal gas law code is configured which I disagree with as well. I don't disagree with the physics of it, just that there is so much more to an engine. the fact that will take out fuel non stop above 80f~ can be determintal to an engine, esp a F\I very quickly if people aren't aware about it, which seems a lot that start tuning and buy these things aren't. Of course there are lot of people that want something on the cheap. I was one, I learned, I realized, forum poltics among other things.
Also its not open source despite what people like to think of it as.
Also the data logging speed is bit all over the place ( ms2extra ) using tunerstudio
and my inputs were limited for ADC's
if\when I were to get another ecu I like to see at least 100hz logging.
For a daily driven car to me I'm really not excited about it.
for a track car I"m not sure I would want it controlling my setup, esp without sensor bounds in case a sensor fails.
With what I want to do I have to keep adding to the systsem, over time I might as well just gotten a system that could of done what I want with no more additions needed.
Heres an example I have a complete 16x16 table that is entriely useless to me in the current state. It sits there doing nothing filled with 100s
Also the closed loop AFR target table is shared with the main fuel map.
so you can't use wide band closed loop unless you share it with the fuel map.
And if you use incorprate AFR target the closed loop map shares itself with the commanded AFR map for the main fuel ve table under speed density.
Which say if you just cruising around and lightly accelerating you may want to keep stoich into boost 2-4psi or so depending on engine setup and turbo, but if you want to get on it you want to drop out of closed loop to your main commanded fuel map. Which can't be done using wide band closed loop operation. You can do it with narrow band CL operation though.
error outputs\codes
limp home strategies
sensor fail safes, in case a sensor takes a ----\dump.
features that are said to be in there but are half done or need more work to them.
I've had a GM IAT sensor fail on me that I was using and it just made the ecu dumb ---- tons of fuel because of how the ideal gas law code is configured which I disagree with as well. I don't disagree with the physics of it, just that there is so much more to an engine. the fact that will take out fuel non stop above 80f~ can be determintal to an engine, esp a F\I very quickly if people aren't aware about it, which seems a lot that start tuning and buy these things aren't. Of course there are lot of people that want something on the cheap. I was one, I learned, I realized, forum poltics among other things.
Also its not open source despite what people like to think of it as.
Also the data logging speed is bit all over the place ( ms2extra ) using tunerstudio
and my inputs were limited for ADC's
if\when I were to get another ecu I like to see at least 100hz logging.
For a daily driven car to me I'm really not excited about it.
for a track car I"m not sure I would want it controlling my setup, esp without sensor bounds in case a sensor fails.
With what I want to do I have to keep adding to the systsem, over time I might as well just gotten a system that could of done what I want with no more additions needed.
Heres an example I have a complete 16x16 table that is entriely useless to me in the current state. It sits there doing nothing filled with 100s
Also the closed loop AFR target table is shared with the main fuel map.
so you can't use wide band closed loop unless you share it with the fuel map.
And if you use incorprate AFR target the closed loop map shares itself with the commanded AFR map for the main fuel ve table under speed density.
Which say if you just cruising around and lightly accelerating you may want to keep stoich into boost 2-4psi or so depending on engine setup and turbo, but if you want to get on it you want to drop out of closed loop to your main commanded fuel map. Which can't be done using wide band closed loop operation. You can do it with narrow band CL operation though.
Reply
1
1
I've had a GM IAT sensor fail on me that I was using and it just made the ecu dumb ---- tons of fuel because of how the ideal gas law code is configured which I disagree with as well. I don't disagree with the physics of it, just that there is so much more to an engine. the fact that will take out fuel non stop above 80f~ can be determintal to an engine, esp a F\I very quickly if people aren't aware about it, which seems a lot that start tuning and buy these things aren't.
this I absolutely agree with.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Reply
0
0
