Sequential ignition with Rev MS3 and Fab9 CoPs - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


MEGAsquirt A place to collectively sort out this megasquirt gizmo

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-26-2015, 06:24 PM   #21
I'm Miserable!
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 130
Total Cats: -162
Default

OP

If you want to keep things simple, consider upgrading the crank pulley to like ATI and or the Supermiata but with the OEM crank pulley on your pre-95 miata you are not 100% safe.
StealthNB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 06:27 PM   #22
Sadfab Union President
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,690
Total Cats: 113
Default

If you want to keep things simple, do nothing at all. It's worked for thousands of turbo 1.6 miata and countless other early 1.8 miata.

The only time it don't work is with this pro level tuner. Then you are 100% unsafe.
deezums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 06:31 PM   #23
Junior Member
iTrader: (20)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 494
Total Cats: 15
Default

You don't absolutely need the 99 cam wheel and cam sensor, and use the CAS for the cam sensor signal.

Can get the 99 crank pulley with timing wheel and crank sensor and wire that into the respective wire for the crank signal to the megasquirt. the stock 4 tooth wheel is pretty accurate and a 36-2 or -1 isn't quite necessary unless you want to brag about it.

The CAS o-ring does leak a lot, so deleting it by going with a cam sensor would solve that headache. Would keep the back of the engine a lot cleaner
bmxfuel007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 06:34 PM   #24
Sadfab Union President
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,690
Total Cats: 113
Default

Yes, now lets loose the cam trigger, or buy another extra valve cover, or weld a cam trigger in.

All because this tuner is a moron, and the cas might leak.

Great!
deezums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 06:52 PM   #25
Junior Member
iTrader: (20)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 494
Total Cats: 15
Default

why would you loose the cam trigger? it'd eventually fall out....

Deezums, why do you have so much animosity towards this his tuner? Were you a previous customer that got burned or something? He sounds like someone who runs a business and isn't willing to do a job where he considers it a compromise, whether you consider it one or not
bmxfuel007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 06:57 PM   #26
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 131
Total Cats: 1
Default

Oh, I didn't realize that a cam trigger is different than a CAS.

FWIW, I already had a SuperMiata crank pulley installed as part of this build. So I'm all set there. I refrained from getting a crank wheel and sensor based on Dimitris's suggestion I didn't need it.
aceswerling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 07:03 PM   #27
Sadfab Union President
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,690
Total Cats: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmxfuel007 View Post
why would you loose the cam trigger? it'd eventually fall out....

Deezums, why do you have so much animosity towards this his tuner? Were you a previous customer that got burned or something? He sounds like someone who runs a business and isn't willing to do a job where he considers it a compromise, whether you consider it one or not
Because it's part of the CAS you stupid freaking ****.

I have animosity towards this tuner because from what I've seen and read from him thus far, He's a ******* idiot.

You've clearly no idea what's going on, either. It'd be super easy to mislead you to believing anything, as I believe this shitty tuner is to cover his own incompetence.

Instead of just admitting that a CAS trigger for crank and cam is fine, yet not the pinnacle of automotive triggering, this tuner has chosen to either lie or make **** up about the consequences of not wasting more money for performance that may not be required.

That's why I don't like him.
deezums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 07:09 PM   #28
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,372
Total Cats: 1,333
Default

Holy ****, this thread is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceswerling View Post
I asked Dimitris (Reverant) about running sequential ignition with his ECU, and especially whether I'd need a crank trigger wheel. He said everything would work fine with only the CAS and I wouldn't need the crank wheel. John believed that you *do* need a crank trigger wheel to run sequential ignition because you need to know exactly what the crank is doing to manage timing.
Your tuner is incorrect. The CAS outputs both cam and crank sensors. Every single 1994-1997 Miata uses the pattern from this sensor to run sequential fuel, and every 1990-1993 Miata is capable of doing the same.

In other words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
there's nothing magical about running waste-spark that makes it safer than sequential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceswerling View Post
And as an aside, John was seeing spark blowout when tuning the car with the standard .032 gap and the Denso IK22 plugs. I'm running less than 15psi so those plugs should be fine. But John had to knock down the gap to .022 to keep the ignition firing. The car seems to be running OK except for the idle, which is rather rough. John attributes that rough idle to the smaller gap. Does anybody have a thought on this too?
.022 plug gaps will cause shitty idle. If .022 plug gaps are required to avoid spark blowout, something in the ignition system is malfunctioning. You aren't the first person to have issues with that particular ignition system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceswerling View Post
As I understand things, the difference between batch and sequential ignition is that you're not firing one of the cylinders when it's not needed. That is to say, you're only firing the cylinder that's ready for its power stroke. That extra efficiency seems like it would tax the ignition module less, which could lessen the possibility for blowout.
Yes, which is why sequential ignition is used particular in high-RPM and high-boost applications. Your car is neither, and you should be able to batch-fire your coils without issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmxfuel007 View Post
yes, it's sequential, but it's more of a bandaid. Full sequential fuel and spark needs a crank and cam signal. The CAS gives both the cam and crank signal, but both signals are going off the exhaust cam, and not the actual crank...the whole point of doing full sequential is to get fuel and spark to happen exactly when it's supposed to right? so if you're using a sensor with that much error, what's the point if it's off by so much?
Every 94-97 Miata uses the CAS to run sequential fuel. It's not "fake" sequential or "bandaid" sequential or whatever - it's true sequential fuel. You can use a Megasquirt to run full sequential spark off the 90-97 CAS as well. No qualified statements, no asterisks, no BS. It can be done safely, and people do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthNB View Post
If you want to keep things simple, consider upgrading the crank pulley to like ATI and or the Supermiata but with the OEM crank pulley on your pre-95 miata you are not 100% safe.
The OEM harmonic damper has absolutely nothing to do with the inaccuracy of the 90-97 CAS.


In short:
Quote:
Originally Posted by deezums View Post
If you want to keep things simple, do nothing at all. It's worked for thousands of turbo 1.6 miata and countless other early 1.8 miata.


OP, I rarely run cars with sequential spark. On a race car that sees sustained high-RPM use, or on a car that's running coils that require a lot of dwell (like 6ms+), then yes, it can be beneficial, because you want to give the coil time to cool down between charging/firing cycles. For most street cars, it's just not necessary.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 08:17 PM   #29
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 131
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
.022 plug gaps will cause shitty idle. If .022 plug gaps are required to avoid spark blowout, something in the ignition system is malfunctioning. You aren't the first person to have issues with that particular ignition system.
Thanks again for the help. It turns out I was incorrect about the plug gap. We're at .032, not .022. John said he knocked down the gap to .032 to help prevent the spark blowout. The idle quality got a lot better once I switched to sequential injection and I'm satisfied with how it's running now.

Regarding the Fab9 kit, perhaps in retrospect I should have gotten Savington's Toyota-based CoP system since that avoids the ignition controller. But since I've got this one I'd like to try and make it work.

I'm hearing that sequential ignition isn't really that important at the power levels I'm making. Honestly, that's not too surprising since Dimitris said from the very beginning that it's totally optional. Still, it sounds cool for the reasons I mentioned before. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, but I think it's an interesting experiment. I'm glad to hear the CAS will be sufficient. Perhaps I'll add a crank sensor at some point if I want a project to play with.

Thanks also for the confirmation that the crank pulley isn't going to make a difference with timing. I got that since I was led to understand it'll help dampen crankshaft vibrations. I figured that was also optional based on my relatively low power levels, but I thought it would be a good move for safety.
aceswerling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 09:25 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Purga, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 66
Total Cats: 3
Default

http://members.rennlist.org/951_race...atchFiring.pdf

FUEL-DELIVERY AT HIGH-RPM
Under high-RPM operation, the fuel-injectors have longer duty-cycle periods. At redline, they are close to their maximum capacity and the differences in fuel-delivery is only 20% for a complete 720-degree 4-stroke engine cycle .

Another interesting tidbit is that the sequentially-fired injectors spend just as much time firing fuel at the back of a closed intake-valve as the batch-fired arrangement.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Upon viewing a graphical display of the fuel-injector duty-cycles, one can see that the two methods of fuel delivery are not all that different. At low-RPM operation, the volume of fuel metered is minimal given the time available that these two systems have identical performance. At high-RPM operation near redline (where maximum-power is generated), the two systems are even more similar in fuel-delivery characteristics.

The only difference is really at which time during the closed-intake period to squirt fuel at the back of the intake-valve. Therefore, we can conclude that the differences in maximum power output is similar as well. This is supported in real-world cases of minimal differences.

The last scenario is not often used due inefficiencies in controlling the injectors at idle and low-RPM operations (because of minimum injector duty-cycle). High-RPM operation is also compromized because double the fuel has to mix with the same volume of air flowed making atomization difficult. Race cars that employ this configuration have resorted to pre-heating the fuel prior to injection and some even aim the injectors upstream to face the full brunt force of the incoming air for violent turbulence and maximum vaoprization.

These factors (and others) are probably the reason the majority of fuel-injection systems use batch-fired or semi-batch-fired fuel-injection(pairs staggered 360-degrees).

Another very simple explanation on the Cam/Crank angle sensors: https://www.hpacademy.com/technical-articles/how-does-an-ecu-know-what-cylinder-is-firing/
Eipgam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 10:44 PM   #31
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

For a change, I agree with Savington. This thread makes my head hurt. So much half-correct information...

It's already been said, but I'm going to re-state for clarity:


All Miatas from 1990-2005 are capable of running fully sequential injection and ignition on just the stock sensors, provided that the ECU knows how to interpret the signals produced by the sensors. The output pattern of the NA CAS is a little unusual if you come from the old school of a crankwheel and a one-pulse-per-rev cam sensor, but it's just a different way of expressing the same information.



Adding a crank sensor improves the accuracy of the spark by eliminating the flex inherent in the cam belt (in EE terms, it decreases jitter), but this is a totally separate matter from running fully sequential vs. wasted-spark ignition. The spark will be just as accurate (or inaccurate) on a '90-'97 CAS whether you're running wasted-spark or sequential.



The aforementioned tuner is sadly misinformed. The '90-'97 Miata CAS produces both a crank reference and a cam reference. What the tuner is saying makes no sense at all. It's like he's thinking backwards. It would be impossible to run fully sequential on an engine with on cam sensor (eg: Ford EDIS-equipped engines), but whether an engine has a discrete crank sensor or one integrated into a cam sensor is irrelevant. Saying "you need a crank sensor to run sequential" doesn't make any sense at all. The fact that the engine ran in stock form at all (without a distributor) means that it must, by definition, already have a crank sensor or something equivalent to it.

I'm sure the guy is skilled with some piece of software, but he doesn't seem to know much about how engines work.








Quote:
Originally Posted by aceswerling View Post
Regarding the Fab9 kit, perhaps in retrospect I should have gotten Savington's Toyota-based CoP system since that avoids the ignition controller. But since I've got this one I'd like to try and make it work.
Doesn't really matter whether the ignition controller is built into the coils (eg: Toyota) or in an external box (Fab9). In terms of wiring and configuration, the two are basically the same.









Quote:
Originally Posted by aceswerling View Post
I'm hearing that sequential ignition isn't really that important at the power levels I'm making. Honestly, that's not too surprising since Dimitris said from the very beginning that it's totally optional. Still, it sounds cool for the reasons I mentioned before. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, but I think it's an interesting experiment. I'm glad to hear the CAS will be sufficient. Perhaps I'll add a crank sensor at some point if I want a project to play with.
Pretty much. The theories have already been covered, but the fact is that until you're running such high RPM that your cycle time is less than 2x the required dwell time, there's no signifcant advantage to fully-sequential ignition. If the coils have enough time to dwell, they're going to fire properly. Assuming a 4.5ms dwell time (stock coil), you'd have to run a wasted-spark engine at over 13,000 RPM before the cycle time impinges on the dwell period.



(Fully-sequential injection is a different story. The benefits there are real and observable, and are most significant at idle and low-load cruise. )










Quote:
Originally Posted by Eipgam View Post
This thread is about ignition coils, not fuel injectors. Totally separate discussion.

Attached Thumbnails
Sequential ignition with Rev MS3 and Fab9 CoPs-tumblr_mudb1jbmtp1qcyn0ho9_400.jpg  

Last edited by Joe Perez; 10-26-2015 at 11:06 PM.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 10:55 PM   #32
Elite Member
 
codrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,878
Total Cats: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Pretty much. The theories have already been covered, but the fact is that until you're running such high RPM that your cycle time is less than 2x the required dwell time, there's no signifcant advantage to fully-sequential ignition. If the coils have enough time to dwell, they're going to fire properly. Assuming a 4.5ms dwell time (stock coil), you'd have to run a wasted-spark engine at over 13,000 RPM before the cycle time impinges on the dwell period.
OTOH, there's no real disadvantage to it either. You need to run a couple extra wires, but unless you're cutting the connectors off the factory harness (ick) you're doing that anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
This thread is about ignition coils, not fuel injectors. Totally separate discussion.
Yeah, and the linked page appears to be about some weirdo 944 Porsche thing that doesn't work the way the megasquirt does either.

--Ian
codrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 11:05 PM   #33
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
OTOH, there's no real disadvantage to it either. You need to run a couple extra wires, but unless you're cutting the connectors off the factory harness (ick) you're doing that anyway.
Correct. No disadvantage, unless it causes you to needlessly spend money.




Quote:
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
Yeah, and the linked page appears to be about some weirdo 944 Porsche thing that doesn't work the way the megasquirt does either.
It also contains bad advice. Here's an excerpt from the section discussing the conversion to fully-sequential injection:





Notice where the end-of-squirt is relative to crank and intake valve position.
Attached Thumbnails
Sequential ignition with Rev MS3 and Fab9 CoPs-80-squirt_860fea1d81433324a448a78e395af9b36ce36bd3.gif  
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 10:04 AM   #34
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Port Saint Lucie,FL
Posts: 418
Total Cats: 3
Default

From my own experience, the fab9 coils worked great from NA up to about 10 psi. When I went up to 15 psi, j would get really bad breakup at higher rpm, full boost. I was using MS3 and wasted spark. I tried both versions of the igniter, tightened plug gaps down to low 20s, changed dwell and related settings, 2 different sets of plugs of different heat ranges, and could not get rid of the problem. I ended up cutting the white and yellow wires on the fab9 harness and ran them to the MS, and changed the settings to sequential COP. It helped slightly, but definitely did not make a big difference. I was able to find a set of toyota coils and a pnp harness someone had made up and tried that out, switched settings back to wasted COP and changed the dwell to the generic recommended Toyota COP settings posted on this site, and that finally solved my issue.

I don't think sequential is really necessary for most applications, and I also believe there is a somewhat common problem with the compatility of fab9s COP kit and MS3. I know fab uses his kits on some crazy high hp builds, but he also uses AEM for engine management...
Mech5700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 10:13 AM   #35
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deezums View Post
If you want to keep things simple, do nothing at all. It's worked for thousands of turbo 1.6 miata and countless other early 1.8 miata.

The only time it don't work is with this pro level tuner. Then you are 100% unsafe.

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 10:17 AM   #36
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
I was able to find a set of toyota coils and a pnp harness someone had made up and tried that out, switched settings back to wasted COP and changed the dwell to the generic recommended Toyota COP settings posted on this site, and that finally solved my issue.
Honestly, people would have a lot less issues if they stopped buying FAB9 coils*.


*I'm not saying this to bash a vendor, or to be an ***, but it's a clear fact they are more trouble than they are worth if they can't actually work correctly and provide better spark than stock coils.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 10:21 AM   #37
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Notice where the end-of-squirt is relative to crank and intake valve position.
you don't like to squirt fuel on a closed valve?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 12:53 PM   #38
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 131
Total Cats: 1
Default

Ah, Mech5700 wins the prize! That was the information I was looking for. So the problem sounds like it's the Fab9 kit and not with batch vs. sequential ignition.

Mech5700, I'm sorry to hear about your trouble but I'm grateful you could help me avoid more of mine. I'm also happy if we can help others avoid this problem in the future.

I'll plan to remove the Fab9 kit and replace it with Toyota CoPs.
aceswerling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 12:55 PM   #39
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

and like I asked before, are your FAB9 coils using the new or old module?

They made some sort of revision to the product after all the reports of simple coils not being able to work with MS (even though it can run any other coil on the planet)
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2015, 12:57 PM   #40
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 131
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
and like I asked before, are your FAB9 coils using the new or old module?

They made some sort of revision to the product after all the reports of simple coils not being able to work with MS (even though it can run any other coil on the planet)
I just bought this kit so I assume it's the "new" module. There are no markings on it so it's hard to tell exactly what it is.

I sent an email to Fab9 asking them to comment on this thread.

Last edited by aceswerling; 10-27-2015 at 01:24 PM.
aceswerling is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MS3 or MSPNP Pro konmo MEGAsquirt 22 11-05-2015 03:32 PM
Turbo stuff for sale at [email protected] this weekend gesso Miata parts for sale/trade 18 10-23-2015 10:26 PM
Tuners in birmingham, al gdoehl ECUs and Tuning 10 10-10-2015 10:11 PM
wiring wideband ground to battery terminal btabor ECUs and Tuning 10 09-28-2015 06:33 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 AM.