ModAddict

Will we even want to change our VTEC? Both tuners that did the Si said it was just right where it was and did not change it.

scalbert

Good question, maybe 300 - 500 RPM lower so that we are sure to still be on the hot lobe aftera shift...

ModAddict

I'll watch where the 5AT shifts at.

scalbert

BTW, just got confirmation that my order for the plugs and connectors was entered. So if FROG can't come through I will make my own. However, no delivery date was given. All items except the connector are shipping from PA; the connector is coming from Japan. :o

I also have basic maps done based on assumptions and using the stock FPR. I'm assuming that the fuel needs will be linear with boost and RPM but I know they won't. But we have to start with something and then tune from there. I did make it a bit conservative though with 53% (58% on the hot lobe) more fuel being added at 7.5 PSI boost. I know we will be backing off on this but it is better to err on the rich side.

The biggest questions I have is related to the stock pulse width and what it is at WOT. But I'll know this by the weekend as I will test fit it just to monitor the pulse width and to make sure the RPM is reading correctly. If the pulse widths are already up around 60+% we are immediately in trouble and will require larger injectors or still run a, albeit the ratio reduced, rising rate regulator. I still think a combination of the two will be needed in the end; larger injectors and a 4:1 FPR.

ModAddict

Will you be able to guestimate what size the stock injectors are once you set up and monitor the pulse width?

scalbert

Yep, that is the plan...

fuzzy02CLS

iTrader: (2)

What is this thing? What does it do?

typeR

its a piggy back ...gives control over parts of the ecu...timing,a/f, vtec..ect.

fuzzy02CLS

iTrader: (2)

so it's like a ECU programmer? Cool!

scalbert

Not really, it is a piggy back computer which intecepts input and outputs from the ECU and alters then. The nice part is that it is programmable via the optional software and interface cable and costs $450...

ModAddict

With the '03 5AT, after a redline shift, I'm at 5,000 RPM

JaDia4

I read ModAddicts post about harnesses costing between $165-210. Will these be added onto the cost of the unit? I guess it doesn't matter much 'cause I'll probably get it anyways.

ModAddict

Yes it's an added cost but will keep you from cutting up your factory wiring and eliminate mistakes in wiring. Steve is working on a custom set up that would be pre-wired for a plug and play situation, and available for purchase by others. The cost is still unknown, but it won't be long. I went ahead and ordered a "straight thru harness", ($165), and will wire it to the e-manage myself, not to save money, just to get it going, plus I enjoy the tinkering.

ModAddict

Steve, when you powered up your e-manage to download the firmware from the e-manage unit, did you just hook up the power and ground wires to the e-manage, and the cable from the support tool?

We might be able use a USB connector to download it with WinXP, and I'd like to try that. I have the origional battery out of the TL-S I could hook it up to, to try to get the firmware downloaded. Is wiring straight to the battery a bad idea?

scalbert

My initial harness is costing me $0.00... Well excluding my time.

Yes Brad, I did just hook it up straight and baring any shorting with another circuit, it would be fine. And yes, all I did was hook up the power leads and then the communication cable.

scalbert

The unit is testing out great. I hooked it up on the bench and grabbed some screen captures of the readings. The nice part is that everything has worked exactly as it has expected to, particularly the timing control.

I simulated the RPM, ignition and MAP signals and monitored them via the software and a dual channel scope. Below are some screen captures of the data with a brief description. The ignition was great, I have the following table values set, I used the same for all RPM cells so far until I get on the dyno. But most likely I will be able to run more timing at the lower revs:

MAP VDC / Boost / Retard
3.0 / 0 / 0
3.2 / 1.5 / 0
3.4 / 3.0 / -1
3.6 / 4.5 / -2
3.8 / 6.0 / -3
4.0 / 7.5 / -4
4.2 / 9.0 / -5
4.4 / 10.5 / -6
4.6 / 12.0 / -7
4.8 / 13.5 / -8
4.8 / 15.0 / -9

As I turned up the simulated MAP voltage, right when it hit 3.4VDC the unit registered -1 degrees on the output. I looked at the scope and the signals had offset from one another. As the voltage increase the offset continued to grow as expected and in a linear fashion. Since this worked I decided I would try to advance the timing so I went in and entered all cells below 3.0 VDC to +6 degrees. I dropped the voltage and the output signal in the program showed the advance but the scope showed differently. The output was tracking the input exactly, no advance offset.

So that partially, but not completely confirms that we cannot advance the timing. There may have been issues with only one ignition signal being hooked up not allowing it to advance the timing. So we'll have to wait to make a final judgment but it does look like what was expected is true.

Here is the first screen capture when testing the Boost Cut feature which would eliminate the need for the ESM. I had it set for 2.8VDC and the Fluke meter confirmed what the software was showing; it didn't go above 2.79VDC.




This one I tested the Larger Injector setting putting the stock injector size at 240cc and the new one at 310cc (these are hypothetical numbers). As you can see the output signal was altered by about the same percentage difference as the injector size change.




This last one was testing the timing retard, and it works:



BTW, yesterday I tested the VTEC inputs and outputs with the e-Manage controlling them and it worked as expected turning on at 4500 RPM and not turning off until 4200 RPM on deceleration.

Later I will verify the RPM signal is reading from the car correctly. Other than that it is good to go once the harness is done.

RUF87

I still think an Acura mods show would be cool, but this stuff is

Ruf

ModAddict

Steve,



Nice work, and great results!

allmotor_2000

Good stuff Steve. Question: What happens when you plug in 400cc for the upgraded injector value? Does the software barf or accept it? Thanks!

scalbert

It took it fine, but I don't know how the car would run though.

Plugging in 310cc untis with 2.69VDC In returned 2.12VDC Out.
Plugging in 440cc units with the same 2.69VDC In returned 1.54VDC.

scalbert

Hey Ramanan, with this active interest in the e-Manage, when will we be seeing the next iteration of your turbo kit??

Ant7701

Is there any way possible to advance the timing...what is preventing this but allowing the retardation of ignition timing.

ModAddict

There have been a few posts on the e-manage forum regarding the larger injector conversion maps, creating negative results with the stock ecu timing. This is just a shot in the dark but,... maybe the positive entries you are able to input into in the timing map, that don't actually advance timing, can offset the negative effects, the injector conversion has on the injector conversion, in the stock timing maps, to the point where it crosses over,...??? probably not,....but maybe?

I know it's a stretch but,..... Im just sayin'.....

Ant7701

Huh...Allright as an Acura tech...in english please..I just wanna know if it could be possible...The uni-chip seems like a lot of money and I don't trust anything that comes pre=tuned, not adjustable, ya know. I like to see for myself what is going on and even play w/ it myself...thats how i learn more about this shit. And for half the price the e-manage seems pretty cool. What exactly would I be able to adjust w/ e-manage. Is it basically the same as the apexi vfac just more refined...

ModAddict

everything but advance timing

I don't know anything about the Apexi, but it's been said it's useless on our cars.

ModAddict

read this, then ask again.

http://www.mohdparts.com/emanage/EmanageFAQ.htm

scalbert

Because there is no reference (or enough math inside) to determine when to trigger the ignition in advance. They can retard timing by just delaying the timing between receiving the stock signal and triggering the coil output. With timing settings of 0 the output is triggered when the input turns on such as with the below chart:



The unit knows RPM and can somewhat determine relative degrees based on time. As such it can determine how much time to wait before triggering the output when retard values are entered. 6000 RPM = 100 Crank Rotations per second or 10ms. 10ms / 360 degrees = 0.027ms per degree. If -10 degrees is entered the system will delay the output signal 0.27ms. But this is a relative timing matter and based on when the input (output from the ECU) trigger occurs. See the retarded graph below:



The problem with advancing timing is that it doesn't know when to expect the input from the ECU. To do this it would need to guess at the absolute timing; where the engine is at in its rotation and cycle. This is practically impossible with our ignition system.

scalbert

Most people using the e-Manage are also using a MAF. So we will need to see how it will affect us using a MAP.

Are you saying to add negative values in the additional ijection map?? If so, that would not work, it can only extend the fuel injector pulse width.

Or did I misunderstand your question??

scalbert

The Unichip can advance timing since it is intercepting the crank position sensor signal. This has many pulses per revolution along with a reference point.

The VAFC just alters the MAP signal to control fuel but does no ignition control. Both the e-Manage and Unichip do this (but provide better RPM resolution) with the e-Manage also providing the ability to extend the stock injector pulse width.

ModAddict

I'm saying that putting positive numbers in the ignition map won't actually advance timing, but might prevent the negative timing effects that the using the larger injector conversion map might cause. Having said that again, I don't think it's possible as we would be asking the e-manage not allow the ECU to pull timing when it wants to.

ModAddict

because,

A few have said that using the larger injector conversion map, which changes the air flow signal, will cause the ECU to pull timing, as compared to using the alt fuel map that changes the pulse width and won't.

scalbert

I see where you were going and we will have to wait to see how it is functioning. Actually, I have seen more timing when there is less absolute pressure so we may actually see the opposite effect. But who knows (except for ECU engineers within Honda) until we try it.

scalbert

I tried a few things today and quickly hooked it up to the car for testing. I found that the RPM was not reading correctly with the previously mentioned switch settings. At idle the software showed about 190 RPM. So I played around with different ones and found that if SW1 is set to D, E or F it reads correctly. However, when I selected the Additional Injection Map check box I got an error stating I had incorrect Switch settings.

I proceeded with it anyway and it took the settings. So I hooked everything back up on the test bench and it is seemed to work correctly. The display showed additional injection being added; refer to the below screen capture.

Also below are the new switch and jumper settings I have implemented.

SW1: D
SW2: 8
SW3: D

JP1: 1-2
JP2: 2-3
JP3: 2-3
JP4: 1-2
JP5: On
JP6: On
JP7: Off

scalbert

Got some bad news here, the factory is probably using 240cc injectors stock. I just hooked up one of the injector signals and went for a run; 77% duty cycle at red line.

I ran some basic calculations using the following to determine what the factory was shooting for:

Crank HP: 260 HP
BSFC: 0.47
Max Duty Cycle: 80%
System Rail Pressure: 55 PSI

The calculated fuel injector size is 238cc.

This is with my ESM turned down to 2.8VDC; if up at 2.9VDC I would have seen a point or two higher. In addition, cooler air would have raised it some too. In other words, there is no room for extending the pulse width with the stock squirters.

We could go to larger injectors but to support the HP we might be making would require 440cc units. That is significantly larger than what we currently run and would most likely result in very poor idle and light load fueling.

We could also run larger squirters with a 4:1 regulator and try to balance the two. This might work fine but there are still some limitations in that fuel pressure isn't always consistent in the system with rising rate regulators not to mention the need to again run higher fuel pressures.

Another option may be to run additional injectors; the system has the ability to control multiple extra squirters. This would allow us to leave the stock system intact and add fuel only under boost and as needed. This would also keep costs down as only two larger (maybe 660cc) squirters would be used. Also, since I am installing my intercooler, I have the freedom of having it prepared for installation of two additional injectors. This idea is sounding better, IMO.

I do need to think about this a bit though and sort out all of the pros and cons for each possible scenario

allmotor_2000

Scalbert.

Something to keep in mind with additional injectors is positioning. The worst thing is unequal fuel-distribution. Under boost, things tend to get distributed fairly evenly if the injectors are positioned well. I thought of making welding two injector ports in the manifold (left and right of the TB's) for AIC, but am not sure if Cylinder 3 and Cylinder 6 will get the same extra fuel as #1 and #4.

I think 400cc units would suffice, IMO.

If duty cycle is77% at redline... you are assuming these things are pretty saturated at 80% duty cycle? On a FI car, the BSFC is probably 0.55 or 0.60... so I suppose 440cc would be required... hmmm!

allmotor_2000

Also, doesn't the E-manage help with idle problems... by modifying the MAP output to make the ECU run leaner?

scalbert

True, location is critical for additional injectors. But with my plenum/intercooler, the additional injectors would be firing just above the runners so distribution should not be a problem.

There may be unknown issues with running too large of injectors other than idle issues which may be paramount. Idle will be a problem as it is already at only 1% duty cycle. It is hard too control 55% larger injector not to mention making the ECU think there is only 4 inHg absolute pressure.

But the big problem may come in with the way the ECU will act in dealing with timing as Brad has mentioned. We don't know yet and will simply take an attempt.

I'm going to mull this one over for a while before making a decision. Since I have the perfect location for additional injectors, which might be my best bet. But maybe the best approach will be to run 310cc squirters (or 370cc) along with additional injectors.

The nice part is having these options.

scalbert

To a point, but there are limitations...

ModAddict

So I guess the way we're doing it right now is squeezing the living sh!t out of them, right to the edge of the universe!
We'll call that Stock

If we're at 240 cc now, 370 cc should be ok with the e-manage.

If we keep the current boost pulley, and get rid of the rising rate FMU, and run the larger 370 cc injectors, and are able to tune it at that level w/o problems,....That would be Stage 1

Now with the Intercooler, and the stock high boost pulley, we might still be ok with the 370 cc, or are we allready done and need more fuel here at Stage 2.

Stage 3 is what you're looking for,...Type SC intercooler with the maximum RPM on the blower, and how the heck do we get enough fuel in this thing!

scalbert

In retrospect, ours maybe larger and I was being too conservative. Honda runs rich at WOT, that is why the Unichip gained some by leaning out the mixture. As such our stock squirters may be larger than stated earlier. I say this because how could we make an assumed 310 - 315 WHP with the HBP with 100 PSI fuel pressure. This would require 310cc units to make this power at this pulse width provided.

If that is the case we might be fine with larger injectors. 440cc might work then.

More testing will be needed to determine what we can and can't run not to mention more thought on the matter.