Ok, heres a company doing the MAF conversion the right way..
-
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
For those who, like me, don't speak Spanish:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... auge_tools
Quanto costo, eh? Looks schweet.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... auge_tools
Quanto costo, eh? Looks schweet.
-
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
- Location: St. Louis
Only problem is that the example they are showing is a s14. There are so many variables with the s14 that a custom chip has to be burned for each specific engine while dyno testing. The s14 engine variables include stock plenum/carbon plenum, stock snorkle/e3 snorkle, stock throttle bodies/48 mm throttle bodies, head intake porting/exhaust porting, cams/cams/cams, stock header/euro header/e3 header, 2.3/2.5. Those are just a couple off the top of my head.
I would prefer to be able to adjust the DME for my engine. This is why the alph-n is so popular with the s14 crowd.
Damon in STL
[Edit by Damon in STL on [TIME]1122478717[/TIME]]
I would prefer to be able to adjust the DME for my engine. This is why the alph-n is so popular with the s14 crowd.
Damon in STL
[Edit by Damon in STL on [TIME]1122478717[/TIME]]
That's why I like the AFM, actually. A simple turn of the wheel and my AFR is adjusted for my slightly leaky seals (don't let Russ tell you that the ECU ingores the AFM at WOT, either) or wintery weather conditions. What do you do with this system when the season changes and you need to change the setting a bit? Burn a winter chip and a summer chip?
I don't know if the MAF takes these variables into account as a matter of course or not (leaky seals I know it can't). This is one of the advantages of the MAP sensor in the TEC3 or Megasquirt systems. It meters correctly given changes in ambient air temperatures. No more winter adjustment and summer adjustment neccessary.
Jeremy
I don't know if the MAF takes these variables into account as a matter of course or not (leaky seals I know it can't). This is one of the advantages of the MAP sensor in the TEC3 or Megasquirt systems. It meters correctly given changes in ambient air temperatures. No more winter adjustment and summer adjustment neccessary.
Jeremy
Hey, I didn't say the solution was perfect for every car, just the "right" way to do it :p
I would presume that anyone with a DME editor(its free here: http://www.atlantisconsultingllc.com/at ... c%20Editor) can still mod the maps for any changes, as I have done.
The Alpha-N stuff is fine also, you can go that route also.
RussC
[QUOTE="Damon in STL"]Only problem is that the example they are showing is a s14. There are so many variables with the s14 that a custom chip has to be burned for each specific engine while dyno testing. The s14 engine variables include stock plenum/carbon plenum, stock snorkle/e3 snorkle, stock throttle bodies/48 mm throttle bodies, head intake porting/exhaust porting, cams/cams/cams, stock header/euro header/e3 header, 2.3/2.5. Those are just a couple off the top of my head.
I would prefer to be able to adjust the DME for my engine. This is why the alph-n is so popular with the s14 crowd.
Damon in STL
[Edit by Damon in STL on [TIME]1122478717[/TIME]][/QUOTE]
I would presume that anyone with a DME editor(its free here: http://www.atlantisconsultingllc.com/at ... c%20Editor) can still mod the maps for any changes, as I have done.
The Alpha-N stuff is fine also, you can go that route also.
RussC
[QUOTE="Damon in STL"]Only problem is that the example they are showing is a s14. There are so many variables with the s14 that a custom chip has to be burned for each specific engine while dyno testing. The s14 engine variables include stock plenum/carbon plenum, stock snorkle/e3 snorkle, stock throttle bodies/48 mm throttle bodies, head intake porting/exhaust porting, cams/cams/cams, stock header/euro header/e3 header, 2.3/2.5. Those are just a couple off the top of my head.
I would prefer to be able to adjust the DME for my engine. This is why the alph-n is so popular with the s14 crowd.
Damon in STL
[Edit by Damon in STL on [TIME]1122478717[/TIME]][/QUOTE]
Huh, are you calling Jim Conforti and Steve Dinan a liar ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 I would say theve forgotten more about FI systems on BWMs than you and I know together (@) That factoid of the WOT and AFM issue is straight from their mouths, don't be pressin that bad info around here.Jeremy wrote:That's why I like the AFM, actually. A simple turn of the wheel and my AFR is adjusted for my slightly leaky seals (don't let Russ tell you that the ECU ingores the AFM at WOT, either) or wintery weather conditions.
True, a stand alone system is better, and is the way to go. But it's definatley a pain in the but, and can be very expensive also. I will be going to a stand alone some time soon, just trying to decide which one.What do you do with this system when the season changes and you need to change the setting a bit? Burn a winter chip and a summer chip?
I don't know if the MAF takes these variables into account as a matter of course or not (leaky seals I know it can't). This is one of the advantages of the MAP sensor in the TEC3 or Megasquirt systems. It meters correctly given changes in ambient air temperatures. No more winter adjustment and summer adjustment neccessary.
Jeremy
RussC
[Edit by russc on [TIME]1122491590[/TIME]]
[QUOTE="russc"]Huh, are you calling Jim Conforti and Steve Dinan a liar ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 I would say theve forgotten more about FI systems on BWMs than you and I know together (@) That factoid of the WOT and AFM issue is straight from their mouths, don't be pressin that bad info around here.[/QUOTE]
Yep, I am. You want to produce real evidence that proves it, please do. Here's my evidence that says they're full of crap.
1) The Bosch injection manual says so.
2) When I put 30 lb injectors in my car, the AFM had to be tightened significantly to produce proper AFR. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, I would be going pig rich when I plant my foot since the ECU would revert to old maps and assume 19lb injectors. It does not. Furthermore, I can change my WOT AFR signifantly by tightening or loosening my AFM spring. Again, the ECU really ignored the AFM, this would not happen. This is confirmed by wideband O2 and an experience not limited to only myself.
3) Many s38 and m88 guys have changed their AFR by tightening or loosening only the AFM. These results are confirmed by wideband on the dyno. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, this wouldn't be possible.
I'll leave it to the masses to determine who's pressing on with the bad info.
Jeremy
Yep, I am. You want to produce real evidence that proves it, please do. Here's my evidence that says they're full of crap.
1) The Bosch injection manual says so.
2) When I put 30 lb injectors in my car, the AFM had to be tightened significantly to produce proper AFR. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, I would be going pig rich when I plant my foot since the ECU would revert to old maps and assume 19lb injectors. It does not. Furthermore, I can change my WOT AFR signifantly by tightening or loosening my AFM spring. Again, the ECU really ignored the AFM, this would not happen. This is confirmed by wideband O2 and an experience not limited to only myself.
3) Many s38 and m88 guys have changed their AFR by tightening or loosening only the AFM. These results are confirmed by wideband on the dyno. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, this wouldn't be possible.
I'll leave it to the masses to determine who's pressing on with the bad info.
Jeremy
[QUOTE="russc"]Huh, are you calling Jim Conforti and Steve Dinan a liar ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 I would say theve forgotten more about FI systems on BWMs than you and I know together (@) That factoid of the WOT and AFM issue is straight from their mouths, don't be pressin that bad info around here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="Jeremy"]Yep, I am. You want to produce real evidence that proves it, please do. Here's my evidence that says they're full of crap.
1) The Bosch injection manual says so.
2) When I put 30 lb injectors in my car, the AFM had to be tightened significantly to produce proper AFR. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, I would be going pig rich when I plant my foot since the ECU would revert to old maps and assume 19lb injectors. It does not. Furthermore, I can change my WOT AFR signifantly by tightening or loosening my AFM spring. Again, the ECU really ignored the AFM, this would not happen. This is confirmed by wideband O2 and an experience not limited to only myself.
3) Many s38 and m88 guys have changed their AFR by tightening or loosening only the AFM. These results are confirmed by wideband on the dyno. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, this wouldn't be possible.
I'll leave it to the masses to determine who's pressing on with the bad info.
Jeremy[/QUOTE]
Jermey, I just typed up a rather large explanaiton(took 35 minutes), but my computer glitched, and it didn't get posted. I will redo it later, but I do have the answers to your statements
RussC
Russc
[QUOTE="Jeremy"]Yep, I am. You want to produce real evidence that proves it, please do. Here's my evidence that says they're full of crap.
1) The Bosch injection manual says so.
2) When I put 30 lb injectors in my car, the AFM had to be tightened significantly to produce proper AFR. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, I would be going pig rich when I plant my foot since the ECU would revert to old maps and assume 19lb injectors. It does not. Furthermore, I can change my WOT AFR signifantly by tightening or loosening my AFM spring. Again, the ECU really ignored the AFM, this would not happen. This is confirmed by wideband O2 and an experience not limited to only myself.
3) Many s38 and m88 guys have changed their AFR by tightening or loosening only the AFM. These results are confirmed by wideband on the dyno. If the ECU ignored the AFM at WOT, this wouldn't be possible.
I'll leave it to the masses to determine who's pressing on with the bad info.
Jeremy[/QUOTE]
Jermey, I just typed up a rather large explanaiton(took 35 minutes), but my computer glitched, and it didn't get posted. I will redo it later, but I do have the answers to your statements
RussC
Russc
OK,
First, the Probst FI book says the AFM is ignored. And this is not a error/typo, as it's been confirmed by said experts. Which book are you reffering to, some other. If so, I'd like to read it so I can egimicated
#2, this is the bigge, I think your missing the fundametal operation of the DME, adaptability. While the ECU doesn't store any parameters, every time it's powered down then up, it re-learns a new inj modifier. As I see it, the AFM sets the load, then the DME looks at RPM and sets the base IDC. It's then modified by all the other inputs, then is trimmed by the maps. So, if you tighten the spring in the AFM, then the ECU sees less air and will lower IDC[injector duty cycle(RPM being somewhat a constant variable, if you will)]. But, theres really isn't less air, is there. The RPM will still be the same, say at idle from startup. Even though the air mass is the same, the flapper is telling the ECU theres less, so it lowers IDC. If the injs are bigger and of the right size, the AFR will be correct. This is important. To dig down on this somemore, at a given RPM, adjusting the AFM tells the ECU theres more/less air mass going in. This is obviously true to a point. There is a point where the flapper is so tight or loose, that the air coming in is effected by the flapper non-compliance. I don't know where that point is, but there is a range of adjustment that can be used to scale the air input to inj size.
It's my opinion that the ECU knows what size the stock inj should be, so if the load signal is out of normal range, then a modifier is used, to properly scale the injs. IMO I believe the Bosch engineers did this purposefully so they didn't have to change the software(big hassle) if they changed inj size. All they has to do was scale the load sensing device.
Anyway, the inj modifier is retained and modified throughout the powered up time to better suit the closed loop operation to some degree. So, with that said, If you change AFM settings and not change the inj size, or vice versa, then you will have problems of rich/lean conditions. If you change both the right way, your OK.
From there, even under WOT, the modifier is used, giving the correct fuel delivery. Remember, there are no base maps that set up IDC, the maps in the ECU only trim the modified IDC after all the other inputs modify it. These maps you see are only fine tuning the system as the calculated IDC isn't perfect and needs the Lamba trim maps to align itself correctly. But, as we know, we use these maps to do more than just fine tune the system, as I have done.
To finish, in your case, after tightened the AFM to match the bigger injs, any adjustment from the direct center of load to inj size, will richen/lean the mixture when your not closed loop. So your AFM adjustments will make a differnece, even though the AFM is ignored under WOT. When closed loop, as long as your adjustments fall within the parameter set within the adjustment window by software in the ECU, closed loop will work fine. Obviously if you exceed this window, your closed loop operation will suffer rich/lean conditions.
#3, see #2. Although I'm not as familar with the S38/M88 DMEs, I believe they will operate in a similar manner.
I use 42lb injs in my car and change the inj size constant so I don't have to tighten the AFM spring so hard, I don't like some of the driveability issues that come with a really stiff spring.
With all that said, I may be wrong also. But this is my experience, since I did the chip development for TCD.
RussC
First, the Probst FI book says the AFM is ignored. And this is not a error/typo, as it's been confirmed by said experts. Which book are you reffering to, some other. If so, I'd like to read it so I can egimicated
#2, this is the bigge, I think your missing the fundametal operation of the DME, adaptability. While the ECU doesn't store any parameters, every time it's powered down then up, it re-learns a new inj modifier. As I see it, the AFM sets the load, then the DME looks at RPM and sets the base IDC. It's then modified by all the other inputs, then is trimmed by the maps. So, if you tighten the spring in the AFM, then the ECU sees less air and will lower IDC[injector duty cycle(RPM being somewhat a constant variable, if you will)]. But, theres really isn't less air, is there. The RPM will still be the same, say at idle from startup. Even though the air mass is the same, the flapper is telling the ECU theres less, so it lowers IDC. If the injs are bigger and of the right size, the AFR will be correct. This is important. To dig down on this somemore, at a given RPM, adjusting the AFM tells the ECU theres more/less air mass going in. This is obviously true to a point. There is a point where the flapper is so tight or loose, that the air coming in is effected by the flapper non-compliance. I don't know where that point is, but there is a range of adjustment that can be used to scale the air input to inj size.
It's my opinion that the ECU knows what size the stock inj should be, so if the load signal is out of normal range, then a modifier is used, to properly scale the injs. IMO I believe the Bosch engineers did this purposefully so they didn't have to change the software(big hassle) if they changed inj size. All they has to do was scale the load sensing device.
Anyway, the inj modifier is retained and modified throughout the powered up time to better suit the closed loop operation to some degree. So, with that said, If you change AFM settings and not change the inj size, or vice versa, then you will have problems of rich/lean conditions. If you change both the right way, your OK.
From there, even under WOT, the modifier is used, giving the correct fuel delivery. Remember, there are no base maps that set up IDC, the maps in the ECU only trim the modified IDC after all the other inputs modify it. These maps you see are only fine tuning the system as the calculated IDC isn't perfect and needs the Lamba trim maps to align itself correctly. But, as we know, we use these maps to do more than just fine tune the system, as I have done.
To finish, in your case, after tightened the AFM to match the bigger injs, any adjustment from the direct center of load to inj size, will richen/lean the mixture when your not closed loop. So your AFM adjustments will make a differnece, even though the AFM is ignored under WOT. When closed loop, as long as your adjustments fall within the parameter set within the adjustment window by software in the ECU, closed loop will work fine. Obviously if you exceed this window, your closed loop operation will suffer rich/lean conditions.
#3, see #2. Although I'm not as familar with the S38/M88 DMEs, I believe they will operate in a similar manner.
I use 42lb injs in my car and change the inj size constant so I don't have to tighten the AFM spring so hard, I don't like some of the driveability issues that come with a really stiff spring.
With all that said, I may be wrong also. But this is my experience, since I did the chip development for TCD.
RussC
And thus you slide down Occam's razor . . . Myself, I prefer to use the simple version.
I'll have to dig into my Bosch manual, I remember this being discussed in the past and perhaps I'm mistaken on my source. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a first generation DME is as smart as you like to think. I really doubt such a unit has the logic circuit neccessary to calculate such adjustments. You've reviewed the DME in detail, is there actually such a logic circuit? AFAIK, the unit checks inputs, consults its table, and sets the IDC. There really is no feedback logic to make sure the output is correct, otherwise you'd think it could automatically correct for the larger injectors when it realized it was running so rich. The O2 sensor doesn't count in this case, it's just another input.
Is there any way to know this for sure? Right or wrong, I'd sure love to get a definite answer instead of arguing over it every now and again.
Jeremy
I'll have to dig into my Bosch manual, I remember this being discussed in the past and perhaps I'm mistaken on my source. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a first generation DME is as smart as you like to think. I really doubt such a unit has the logic circuit neccessary to calculate such adjustments. You've reviewed the DME in detail, is there actually such a logic circuit? AFAIK, the unit checks inputs, consults its table, and sets the IDC. There really is no feedback logic to make sure the output is correct, otherwise you'd think it could automatically correct for the larger injectors when it realized it was running so rich. The O2 sensor doesn't count in this case, it's just another input.
Is there any way to know this for sure? Right or wrong, I'd sure love to get a definite answer instead of arguing over it every now and again.
Jeremy
Russ,First, the Probst FI book says the AFM is ignored. And this is not a error/typo, as it's been confirmed by said experts. Which book are you reffering to, some other. If so, I'd like to read it so I can egimicated
Actually I recall reading a thread a few years back in which Jim C. had posted, stating the Probst Book is incorrect. The ECU ignoring the AFM @ WOT only applies to some Bosch L-Jet systems. Montronic uses the AFM signal throughout it's range. If I run across Jim's comment I'll post it (with link)as an update.
Rich
Update: Found Jim Conforti's response about the AFM being used at WOT with Motronic
http://digest.net/bmw/archive/v8/msg12135.html
Re: Load (not)
* Subject: Re: Load (not)
* From: "Ken Cory" <kcory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
* Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:08:56 -0800
Well, it feels like someone needs to make a record that Jim C.'s masterful
analysis is appreciated by the reader, even if it makes Bobo's head hurt. I
don't mean that I understand all of it (I've often been a screwdriver and
ear man too), just that it really helps sometimes to get the absolute real
explanation, and Jim C. clearly has a handle on that. Thanks, Jim
Ken Cory
kencory@lvcm.com
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lloyd" <Jeff@cyberconceptz.com>
To: "Jim Conforti" <lndshrk@xmission.com>; <944@technologist.com>
Cc: <bmw-digest@digest.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: Load (not)
| Ugg.. Long words make Bobo Brain Hurt...
|
| All Bobo know how to turn round thing and press loud pedal
|
| Bobo like big metal thingy on top of engine and Wire thingy
| Bobo can turn wire thingy and motor make pretty
| Or ugly sound Bobo says computer evil
|
| Bobo needs screwdriver, not computer
|
| Bobo
| (BOBO for president in '04)
| Brought to you by (friends for Bobo and the National Carburetor
Association)
|
|
| (argh back to work)
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-bmw@digest.net [mailto:owner-bmw@digest.net]On Behalf Of Jim
| Conforti
| Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:26 PM
| To: 944@technologist.com
| Cc: bmw-digest@digest.net
| Subject: Load (not)
|
| Unfortunately, you've fallen victim to the disinformation.
|
| The "barn door" aka Vane AFM does NOT "max out" at 3-4000 rpm.
|
| All of this complete BS about Motronic comes directly from
| father Bosch who apparently allowed some writer to copy sections
| verbatim from the L-Jet Manual over to the Motronic Manual.
|
| (bad, BAD plagiarist!)
|
| In Motronic, if your air meter (be it Vane AFM or HFM/etc) maxes
| out inside the operating range, you are hosed good.
|
| Motronic needs exactly three things to calculate LOAD.
|
| 1) A signal from the air meter, normalized to "Q" airflow in kg/hr
|
| 2) A measure of current engine rpm "n"
|
| 3) A programmed injector size constant "Ki" (K sub eye)
|
| LOAD aka Tl (Tee sub ell) is calculated as:
|
| Tl = Q / (n * Ki)
|
| LOAD is not just a representation of cylinder filling, but the
| theoretical Injector Time Open (Ti, Tee sub eye) needed to reach
| stoich (Lambda= 1) with the current injector setup assuming that
| the motor is "perfect".
|
| Which it isn't, hence there are fueling tables which are used as
| multiplicative corrections to LOAD to reach the actual Ti.
|
| Hope this clarifies.
|
| Jim Conforti
| --
[Edit by Rich Euro M5 on [TIME]1122543030[/TIME]]
[QUOTE="Jeremy"]And thus you slide down Occam's razor . . . Myself, I prefer to use the simple version.
I'll have to dig into my Bosch manual, I remember this being discussed in the past and perhaps I'm mistaken on my source. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a first generation DME is as smart as you like to think. I really doubt such a unit has the logic circuit neccessary to calculate such adjustments. You've reviewed the DME in detail, is there actually such a logic circuit? AFAIK, the unit checks inputs, consults its table, and sets the IDC. There really is no feedback logic to make sure the output is correct, otherwise you'd think it could automatically correct for the larger injectors when it realized it was running so rich. The O2 sensor doesn't count in this case, it's just another input.
Is there any way to know this for sure? Right or wrong, I'd sure love to get a definite answer instead of arguing over it every now and again.
Jeremy[/QUOTE]
Well, lets go here, and try to KISS(on my part as well). It's obvious that the DME is adaptable to some degree, what that degree is can be debatable. There is some mechanisms(in software) to scale things in the ECU, otherwise the AFM spring adjustments and inj size changes would never work at all, right???? We can agree on that, can't we? At the minimum there is a band the O2 feedback uses, or it would never work, as theres no hysterisis built into software for it to work over an operating range. There are many feedback loops in software for this ECU to run correctly.
Lets look at what you said first: "Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a first generation DME is as smart as you like to think. I really doubt such a unit has the logic circuit neccessary to calculate such adjustments." Huh, yes it does, and then some. It has all the circuits and software to make every decision a E46 ECU has, it's just slower with less memory, so the amount of info it can process is less, but everyting is there.
Next: :You've reviewed the DME in detail, is there actually such a logic circuit? AFAIK, the unit checks inputs, consults its table, and sets the IDC." Yes, theres a A/D, CPU, memory, boolean logic(digital logic), power circuits, voltage/current converter circuits ect ect that take inputs from the engine and make decisions programmed into software. With all the inputs, it uses the software to make decisions and change it's outputs, mainly timing and fuel control. Every thing is there, it's just a matter to what extent.
Last. I'm assuming you last 2 sentences are reffering to the WOT space, as it's plainly obvious that the system doen run closed loop within boundries with feedback from all the sensors, O2, both temp inputs, air mass etc. My responce is that the system obviously has adaptability in the closed loop space, as I stated earlier. If it didn't, this system would never work closed loop with injs that are ~60% bigger(30lb) and AFMs that are adusted almost the same amount tighter!!! Why is the leap that the DME can't transfer these adjustment from closed loop to WOT open loop, it plainly does, as yours and my car run well with 30lb inj's! Right?
Anyway, don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm just trying to explain my POV. I'm not trying to berate your knowledge base or opinions, I'm just making a point that I feel may be right, and I may be wrong, but so far I need to aleast make these points.
To finish, I can actually test or ideas. I have a Apex-i SAFC-II on my car. I also already have the WOT disconnected. I can make some runs and see if the AFR changes with WOT connected or disconnected. I may have some time for that.
RussC
I'll have to dig into my Bosch manual, I remember this being discussed in the past and perhaps I'm mistaken on my source. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a first generation DME is as smart as you like to think. I really doubt such a unit has the logic circuit neccessary to calculate such adjustments. You've reviewed the DME in detail, is there actually such a logic circuit? AFAIK, the unit checks inputs, consults its table, and sets the IDC. There really is no feedback logic to make sure the output is correct, otherwise you'd think it could automatically correct for the larger injectors when it realized it was running so rich. The O2 sensor doesn't count in this case, it's just another input.
Is there any way to know this for sure? Right or wrong, I'd sure love to get a definite answer instead of arguing over it every now and again.
Jeremy[/QUOTE]
Well, lets go here, and try to KISS(on my part as well). It's obvious that the DME is adaptable to some degree, what that degree is can be debatable. There is some mechanisms(in software) to scale things in the ECU, otherwise the AFM spring adjustments and inj size changes would never work at all, right???? We can agree on that, can't we? At the minimum there is a band the O2 feedback uses, or it would never work, as theres no hysterisis built into software for it to work over an operating range. There are many feedback loops in software for this ECU to run correctly.
Lets look at what you said first: "Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a first generation DME is as smart as you like to think. I really doubt such a unit has the logic circuit neccessary to calculate such adjustments." Huh, yes it does, and then some. It has all the circuits and software to make every decision a E46 ECU has, it's just slower with less memory, so the amount of info it can process is less, but everyting is there.
Next: :You've reviewed the DME in detail, is there actually such a logic circuit? AFAIK, the unit checks inputs, consults its table, and sets the IDC." Yes, theres a A/D, CPU, memory, boolean logic(digital logic), power circuits, voltage/current converter circuits ect ect that take inputs from the engine and make decisions programmed into software. With all the inputs, it uses the software to make decisions and change it's outputs, mainly timing and fuel control. Every thing is there, it's just a matter to what extent.
Last. I'm assuming you last 2 sentences are reffering to the WOT space, as it's plainly obvious that the system doen run closed loop within boundries with feedback from all the sensors, O2, both temp inputs, air mass etc. My responce is that the system obviously has adaptability in the closed loop space, as I stated earlier. If it didn't, this system would never work closed loop with injs that are ~60% bigger(30lb) and AFMs that are adusted almost the same amount tighter!!! Why is the leap that the DME can't transfer these adjustment from closed loop to WOT open loop, it plainly does, as yours and my car run well with 30lb inj's! Right?
Anyway, don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm just trying to explain my POV. I'm not trying to berate your knowledge base or opinions, I'm just making a point that I feel may be right, and I may be wrong, but so far I need to aleast make these points.
To finish, I can actually test or ideas. I have a Apex-i SAFC-II on my car. I also already have the WOT disconnected. I can make some runs and see if the AFR changes with WOT connected or disconnected. I may have some time for that.
RussC
[QUOTE="Matt"]does adjusting the afm spring change the amount or nature of the air getting into the motor ?
matt
[never screwed wth afm, except to unhook it and try driving w/o it connected on an E12 ][/QUOTE]
Yes, it can if the aspring is tightened too much, as now the flap wont open to changes in air flow.
RussC
matt
[never screwed wth afm, except to unhook it and try driving w/o it connected on an E12 ][/QUOTE]
Yes, it can if the aspring is tightened too much, as now the flap wont open to changes in air flow.
RussC
Russ,First, the Probst FI book says the AFM is ignored. And this is not a error/typo, as it's been confirmed by said experts. Which book are you reffering to, some other. If so, I'd like to read it so I can egimicated
Actually I recall reading a thread a few years back in which Jim C. had posted, stating the Probst Book is incorrect. The ECU ignoring the AFM @ WOT only applies to some Bosch L-Jet systems. Montronic uses the AFM signal throughout it's range. If I run across Jim's comment I'll post it (with link)as an update.
Rich
Update: Found Jim Conforti's response about the AFM being used at WOT with Motronic
http://digest.net/bmw/archive/v8/msg12135.html
Re: Load (not)
* Subject: Re: Load (not)
* From: "Ken Cory" <kcory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
* Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:08:56 -0800
Well, it feels like someone needs to make a record that Jim C.'s masterful
analysis is appreciated by the reader, even if it makes Bobo's head hurt. I
don't mean that I understand all of it (I've often been a screwdriver and
ear man too), just that it really helps sometimes to get the absolute real
explanation, and Jim C. clearly has a handle on that. Thanks, Jim
Ken Cory
kencory@lvcm.com
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lloyd" <Jeff@cyberconceptz.com>
To: "Jim Conforti" <lndshrk@xmission.com>; <944@technologist.com>
Cc: <bmw-digest@digest.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: Load (not)
| Ugg.. Long words make Bobo Brain Hurt...
|
| All Bobo know how to turn round thing and press loud pedal
|
| Bobo like big metal thingy on top of engine and Wire thingy
| Bobo can turn wire thingy and motor make pretty
| Or ugly sound Bobo says computer evil
|
| Bobo needs screwdriver, not computer
|
| Bobo
| (BOBO for president in '04)
| Brought to you by (friends for Bobo and the National Carburetor
Association)
|
|
| (argh back to work)
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-bmw@digest.net [mailto:owner-bmw@digest.net]On Behalf Of Jim
| Conforti
| Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:26 PM
| To: 944@technologist.com
| Cc: bmw-digest@digest.net
| Subject: Load (not)
|
| Unfortunately, you've fallen victim to the disinformation.
|
| The "barn door" aka Vane AFM does NOT "max out" at 3-4000 rpm.
|
| All of this complete BS about Motronic comes directly from
| father Bosch who apparently allowed some writer to copy sections
| verbatim from the L-Jet Manual over to the Motronic Manual.
|
| (bad, BAD plagiarist!)
|
| In Motronic, if your air meter (be it Vane AFM or HFM/etc) maxes
| out inside the operating range, you are hosed good.
|
| Motronic needs exactly three things to calculate LOAD.
|
| 1) A signal from the air meter, normalized to "Q" airflow in kg/hr
|
| 2) A measure of current engine rpm "n"
|
| 3) A programmed injector size constant "Ki" (K sub eye)
|
| LOAD aka Tl (Tee sub ell) is calculated as:
|
| Tl = Q / (n * Ki)
|
| LOAD is not just a representation of cylinder filling, but the
| theoretical Injector Time Open (Ti, Tee sub eye) needed to reach
| stoich (Lambda= 1) with the current injector setup assuming that
| the motor is "perfect".
|
| Which it isn't, hence there are fueling tables which are used as
| multiplicative corrections to LOAD to reach the actual Ti.
|
| Hope this clarifies.
|
| Jim Conforti
| --
[Edit by Rich Euro M5 on [TIME]1122543030[/TIME]]
Thanks,Rich Euro M5 wrote:
Russ,
Actually I recall reading a thread a few years back in which Jim C. had posted, stating the Probst Book is incorrect. The ECU ignoring the AFM @ WOT only applies to some Bosch L-Jet systems. Montronic uses the AFM signal throughout it's range. If I run across Jim's comment I'll post it (with link)as an update.
Rich
Update: Found Jim Conforti's response about the AFM being used at WOT with Motronic
http://digest.net/bmw/archive/v8/msg12135.html
[Edit by Rich Euro M5 on [TIME]1122543030[/TIME]]
I have this post on my system. But, it's unclear to me that the non-explicit reference to AFM not used during WOT is not in that post. Just that the flapper is not maxed after 4k RPM. I know that your making the logical next step to JimCs statement that since the flapper isn't maxed, that it is always used. That is unclear to me. Let me do the test to see if I'm right or wrong. I'll let you guys know. It never occured to my to try this runing condition.
RussC
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
I contacted the owner a few months ago after posting this post:
http://www.mye28.com/cgi-bin/forum/foru ... hread=1153
The price of a Motronic 061 conversion (sorry guys no US versions were available at that time) was $650 depending on exchange rate. After some corresponding, he agreed to sell just the chip for ~$270 and let me source a MAF and the plug. He would provide instructions on how to wire the plug. I asked about a group buy and he didn't seem interested.
I wasn't then and am not now, in the right frame on mind or wallet to jump on the cutting edge of archaic technology. But if someone else wants to try it I'd love to see the results.
http://www.mye28.com/cgi-bin/forum/foru ... hread=1153
The price of a Motronic 061 conversion (sorry guys no US versions were available at that time) was $650 depending on exchange rate. After some corresponding, he agreed to sell just the chip for ~$270 and let me source a MAF and the plug. He would provide instructions on how to wire the plug. I asked about a group buy and he didn't seem interested.
I wasn't then and am not now, in the right frame on mind or wallet to jump on the cutting edge of archaic technology. But if someone else wants to try it I'd love to see the results.
[QUOTE="John In Valdosta"]I contacted the owner a few months ago after posting this post:
http://www.mye28.com/cgi-bin/forum/foru ... hread=1153
The price of a Motronic 061 conversion (sorry guys no US versions were available at that time) was $650 depending on exchange rate. After some corresponding, he agreed to sell just the chip for ~$270 and let me source a MAF and the plug. He would provide instructions on how to wire the plug. I asked about a group buy and he didn't seem interested.
I wasn't then and am not now, in the right frame on mind or wallet to jump on the cutting edge of archaic technology. But if someone else wants to try it I'd love to see the results. [/QUOTE]
Interesting, but....
the issue with the 059 DMEs is that half the software is in the CPU itself and the other half in the EPROM. If I remember correctly the 061 euro DMEs has all the code in the EPROM. This would make the MAF conversion possible on the euro and not the US version. It's possible to modify the 059 to read exclusively from a EPROM with a jumper on the CPU.
Oh, another draw back, the euro DMEs don't run closed loop anywhere, and don't use O2 input, that would kill your gas milage comparatively.
I have a ROM image of a euro EPROM, I'll have to go back and look at it to see if it's a full 8k byte version. I don't believe that a 061 code will work in a 059, I THINK......
I'm with you, I don't want to spend $270 to find out.
RussC
[Edit by russc on [TIME]1122663963[/TIME]]
http://www.mye28.com/cgi-bin/forum/foru ... hread=1153
The price of a Motronic 061 conversion (sorry guys no US versions were available at that time) was $650 depending on exchange rate. After some corresponding, he agreed to sell just the chip for ~$270 and let me source a MAF and the plug. He would provide instructions on how to wire the plug. I asked about a group buy and he didn't seem interested.
I wasn't then and am not now, in the right frame on mind or wallet to jump on the cutting edge of archaic technology. But if someone else wants to try it I'd love to see the results. [/QUOTE]
Interesting, but....
the issue with the 059 DMEs is that half the software is in the CPU itself and the other half in the EPROM. If I remember correctly the 061 euro DMEs has all the code in the EPROM. This would make the MAF conversion possible on the euro and not the US version. It's possible to modify the 059 to read exclusively from a EPROM with a jumper on the CPU.
Oh, another draw back, the euro DMEs don't run closed loop anywhere, and don't use O2 input, that would kill your gas milage comparatively.
I have a ROM image of a euro EPROM, I'll have to go back and look at it to see if it's a full 8k byte version. I don't believe that a 061 code will work in a 059, I THINK......
I'm with you, I don't want to spend $270 to find out.
RussC
[Edit by russc on [TIME]1122663963[/TIME]]