Which path to take OBDII "Compliant" EMS option
 

I'm in the planning stages of building a low to moderate power ( sub 200whp ) 2002 NB
I understand that MS is the first choice however I want it to remain OBDII "Compliant" I don't want the hassle of swapping stuff out once a year for inspection.
the plan so far is
-GT2560-ish sized turbo (maybe a 13t or 14b)
-Sch40 Log-ish manifold
-Injectors ? not sure yet 450cc+?
-Intercooler..yes just not sure what yet..

what are my options ?
-MS side by side with the factory ecu (Seems Like a pain)
-E Manage (outdated?)
-F/IC-6 (Works but quirky)
-FM VooDoo box (no tunability ?)
-TDR Fuel and timing cards ?

Something else ?

You won't find anything that is OBD2 complaint that support larger injectors.

Welcome to 2019, we've been pursuing the "cake and eat it too" yellow brick road for over 30 years.

Maybe "Compliant" isn't the best description

Thats why I was looking at the injector signal modifyers my thought as foolish as it maybe is let the OEM computer take care of everything out of boost and the doohickie to handle in boost signal modification
I understand that is not the optimal setup but a safe workable option is what Im look at
If said doohickie has no effect (save for injector scaling correction) out of boost the car shouldn't have any issues with TX DPS inspection or the like .
or am I missing something else

I'll be nice, so here's the bottom line: do you want to suffer with a terrible setup for 364 DAYS OF EACH YEAR to avoid about 1-2 hours of work ONE DAY PER YEAR

I had an nb2 running a begi Xede with RC550 injectors

I mean if you want to deal with a project that Shiv gave up on without finishing, and then rely on Stephanie@Bell Tuning then sure the Xede is an option. I can say back in 2009/2010 when I was trying to help a friend out with it in MD it was complete trash. He ended up swapping to a MS and was much happier over all.

I would bet you invest less time swapping back to stock once a year and then back to boost, then trying to get a Xede to work without throwing CEL's or any other parallel ecu.

SonoftheHill can convert from 300whp MKTurbo setup back to stock in about 2 hours, and then another 2 hours back to boosted.

oh, i totally agree with you on the trash part, that setup sucked, had un predictable afr in boost, and did throw CEL's.
I got rid of that car in a hurry, for the above and some other issues it had.
Out of boost was oem silky smooth though.

I run a speeduino in parallel with the factory ECU on a 98 F150. Works just fine on there. If I had to keep OBD on my miata I would go parallel with MS3.

The only significant downside I see is the lack of documentation when compared to standalone setups.

I still haven't figured out why everyone hates on the parallel arrangement.

How long have you been working for the EPA Partsguy?

If it pleases the crown, might we modify the vehicles we pay taxes to own, taxes to drive, taxes to fuel and taxes to modify?

So with that said I guess MS3 it will be, with the day of conversion a year

I guess that would mean swap ECU and injectors, re-install the MAF, reinstall the stock O2 sensors and wire the waste gate open ? is there anything else that Im missing

I in no way shape or form work for the EPA
I was attempting to avoid the parts swap dance once a year
My last project involved that and I wanted to avoid that this time if at all possible .

re-read your own post
repeat
:party:

the "road less traveled" is almost always for a reason. any time you add oe ecu into the mix, at least with this platform, the result is two systems that are full time fightin each other

What does the law say about an ECU swap to one from another car that supports OBD codes - eg. find a factory ECU from a 4 cyl turbo car that can be reflashed to do whatever like some of the more modern mitsubish / subaru ECUs?

I would guess it's not legal, but would return the relevant OBD codes when queried?

here in CA, where it's probably the strictest, it says you cant modify anything at all, ever, for any reason. even if you set it up such that the car ran cleaner, more environmentally friendly, and returned all smog compliance protocols, they are by law required to fail you and deem you a "gross polluter" if they see anything other than OEM or CARB EO certified components.

I'll save everyone some time here: it's all about the laws, which exist primarily to make more money. no one actually cares about the environment or even safety for that matter

Good to hear.

0 previous posts and your first thread deals with gathering information about what ECU or what methods can be used to defeat EPA mandates.
Believe it or not, they do things like this.

*dons tinfoil hat and stares at sky looking for black helicopters*

My simple advice: Move to a state that encroaches upon your freedoms less. Vote with your tax dollars. Actually voting doesn't do shit anymore.

I can see where i came off like that and I apologize
its just that this is the part of this project that had me wondering the most
The parts and fab side of things are trivial , its the making it run and stay in one piece
as far s moving to a free state ...90+% of Texas has no emission testing I am just lucky enough to live in part that does

Building a speeduino, installing it in parallel, and tuning it for my f150 was not any harder than building and tuning the MS3X for my miata.

I haven't done a miata in parallel but from what I've seen it would have been even easier. I haven't done it though so it's entirely possible for me to be wrong.

I'll leave it at that.

A ton of us ran MS in parallel with stock ecus from 2006-2009. When I first went the MS route we couldn't run standalone at the time. Y8s spent a a ton of time trying to get a MS3 to run in parallel on his NB2 and not throwing CELs and had very little success. You can search his post history in 2010-2012 and possibly find some of his old threads about the troubles he had.

The thought occurs that if given enough outputs from MS you could in theory send a "conditioned" signal to the original ecm to keep it happy .

Maybe ?

???

What signal?

I fear the parallel life is not the life for you. Either start reading a lot, or forget I suggested it and do what everyone else does.

It was just a thought
not actually in parallel but using MS to output certain data (clt , iat ,cam ,crank and what ever else )in a way that would keep the OEM ecu happy and let it think its everything is fine
I guess it would be in series not parallel

Like I said it was just a thought, I dont even know if it would be feasible...kinda like using an arduino to output a set test loop to the OEM ecu while MS actually handles everything

...not saying that it's a good idea just a random thought somewhat related to the current topic

You leave the oem ecu connected to those sensors in parallel with the aftermarket ecu.

I think I failed to consider the level of knowledge that someone asking your original question has. Unless you're looking to spend a lot of time learning how things work you should probably ignore this route entirely.

Here is a thread you can check out for some info on running parallel. While it was being done with an adaptronic, you will face the same issues.

Thanks for the link Lars that was an excellent read.

Yep I remember our adaptronic days. BTDT. The level of effort to get all this to work and play nice still makes the 1 day of emissions and swapping back a drop in the bucket.
But those with the appropriate knowledge and desire should most definitely pursue this route and post their results, it is highly encouraged.

That was very helpful and explained a lot
This isn't my first venture in to this its just my first time doing it on an OBDII car
This is a bit different than 1g DSMs, 3S cars and early turbo Dodges so I appreciate the assistance on the learning curve

Don't think for a second you need an adaptronic. Any system that can run in parallel and share sensors and has enough outputs can handle the work.

Honestly everything is easy except dialing in the front O2 sensor behavior. If it's off even slightly, the car's ECU will attempt to correct and wind up the long term trim until it throws a code.

A smarter dude than I would find a way to read OBDII trims and make an O2 simulator with a feedback loop.

Don't a bunch of wideband controllers have a narrowband output as well? Seems like that would be the easy button.


Or is the issue just that the fueling is so different from what the ecu expects that it shifts the trims and throws a code?

I haven't had an issue on my f150 but it's not boosted yet either so fueling should be similar to stock right now

the ECU expects that when it sees the car is lean and adds fuel, the O2 sensor will read less lean. If that feedback loop is not respected, then yes, you throw a code. Simulating a narrowband with a wideband doesn't matter to the ECU, results matter.

Got it. I'm surprised it cares.

Maybe an arduino monitoring injector duty off the OEM ecu and outputting an appropriate signal to simulate the O2 sensor.

Living in Maryland—where cars are eligible for emissions exempt Historic status at 20—what I would do if I had a 2002 I wanted to turbo is build my car with the Voodoo Box or the TDR cards. After enjoying Some Turbo and getting OBD2 checked for 2.5 years, I would register it as Historic on January 3, 2022, and do whatever I wanted with MS3 and get More Turbo. Actually, depending on when my emissions test was due, I could do it sooner, since the test is only required every other year. So I could install a MS3 after the test date if it was 1/3/2020 or later. If that was the case, given the speed at which my projects get completed, I might not even have to bother with the Voodoo Box.

YMMV depending on your location—where do you live, OP?

It cares because that's part of OBDII. In an effort to ensure low emissions, efficient operation, the ECU monitors the O2 sensor and constantly adjusts the trim. It has limited ability to do real time trim so over time if the trims are skewing one way, it stores them to the long term trim and uses that as a new baseline.

some reading:
https://www.obd-codes.com/faq/fuel-trims.php

The arduino is a good idea. You could set it to respond to OBDII trim data and make corrections to the lean/rich duty cycle to avoid codes. It doesn't have to be fast or optimized, it can just be proportional to the size of the trim to keep it from winding up in either direction.

Aaaaand full circle.

https://www.miataturbo.net/ecus-tuni...m-trims-61113/

My coding skills are no where near what's required to do this and I have no pressing need to do it as I don't have to pass an OBDII test. Certainly looks doable though.

Fort Worth TX
25 years for "classic car" status

I guess I forgot about that post AFTER EIGHT YEARS.

But yeah, what Jason said. Just have the Arduino remember the most used correction value.