Notices
MEGAsquirt A place to collectively sort out this megasquirt gizmo

DIYPNP + VVT + R8 Coils

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 02:44 PM
  #1  
elior77's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 650
Total Cats: -480
From: Israel
Default DIYPNP + VVT + R8 Coils

How I got VVT control and R8 Coils running using DIYPNP

VVT Control:

I used ALED (can use WLED too) output to enable 12v+ to the VVT solenoid and set a trigger like that:



Actual rpm trigger was 2000rpm.

Many dyno runs showed that the engine want the VVT enabled at very low rpm and disabled at around 5300rpm.

Works great and no real need for transitions area that are used in a "real" vvt control.

R8 Coils control (low impedance):
DIYPNP does not support low impedance coils - like the R8 for example.
In order for the DIYPNP to support them we need to add two TC4427 chips and 4 15ohm 1/8W resistors,
Use the PROTO area, use the GND next to it, feed the TC4427 with 12v+ and use IGN1 (and IGN2) as input on both inputs on each chip, the output legs are combined too and go to the correct pin on the adapter board (on 97 it's 1H and 1G)

Some pictures:











Check my blog for more details.

Elior
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 03:07 PM
  #2  
Savington's Avatar
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

I think most people here would disagree with your assessment that VVT doesn't need "real control". My VVT maps bleed off advance across a ~2000rpm band. You are giving up power by controlling the VVT like that.
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 03:22 PM
  #3  
elior77's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 650
Total Cats: -480
From: Israel
Default

The dyno runs I did with real vvt control show full advance is needed between 2000 to 5500rpm the diypnp can do the same, I would love to see why a controlled vvt is better then on off at the right rpms
Reply
Leave a poscat -2 Leave a negcat
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 03:29 PM
  #4  
18psi's Avatar
VladiTuned
iTrader: (76)
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 35,821
Total Cats: 3,482
Default

Old Oct 16, 2017 | 03:53 PM
  #5  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

hey.. it's better than nothing...
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 03:54 PM
  #6  
elior77's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 650
Total Cats: -480
From: Israel
Default

very noticeable change
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 04:34 PM
  #7  
Savington's Avatar
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

Originally Posted by elior77
The dyno runs I did with real vvt control show full advance is needed between 2000 to 5500rpm the diypnp can do the same, I would love to see why a controlled vvt is better then on off at the right rpms
I assume you did a pull with your VVT switch off, then another with it on. All that shows is that at 5500rpm, full retard is better than full advance. In reality, there is a middle ground that is better than either. Your controller and your testing will never show that.

There are plenty of dyno graphs showing full VVT control floating around here. I would rather have a 99-00 head with a BP5A cam than a switch-controlled VVT setup.
Old Oct 16, 2017 | 04:40 PM
  #8  
elior77's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 650
Total Cats: -480
From: Israel
Default

I run a Haltech and MS3 basic with full VVT control, I started with zeroes all across the map and then 10,20,30,40,50 after analyzing the data the conclusion was that full advance will put out the max torque up-to 5500rpm~.

Any other way to get more torque ?

Thanks
Old Oct 21, 2017 | 01:23 AM
  #9  
elior77's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 650
Total Cats: -480
From: Israel
Default







All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 PM.