Well Phunk you scope the signals and see what you find out................it's nothing to do with the Unichip this scattered timing problem

Peter

 

ill create a new thread with my findings. I have a feeling that depending on how bad this noise is, it may not be easy to see in the scope... i am hoping its fairly obvious so i dont have to spend hours/days looking for random anomalies... then spend more hours/days making sure they have gone away for good.

There is only one way to know for sure.

 

I made a simple wiring schematic for the APS harness, and there isnt much to it really. Here are the basics of what the two unichip boxes splice up into:

Larger Box:
P120 = IGN+
P13 = POS output to ECU (Crank Angle Sensor, delayed to retard timing)
P67 = Sensor Ground
Shielded POS Input x 2 = My best guess on why there is two... one for RPM reference and the other for ignition timing input... you would think one would be enough, but since the unichip seems to be very dynamic it probably wants 1 for RPM reference seperate than how it wants one for timing alteration.
P51 = MAF Signal Input from Sensor

Smaller Box:
P120 = IGN+
P67 = Sensor Ground
P51 = MAF Signal Output to ECU

Then there are 3 wires goes from the Large box to the Small Box. This makes sense since the MAP sensor is in the small box. One of the 3 is the MAF signal leaving the Large Box and going across to the smaller one so the MAP intelligent box can have its say on the voltage. The other two are possibly just the crank trigger signal going to the MAP sensor box then back to the larger box for MAP based timing retard.

I dont promise any of this to be correct... but it probably all is anyway. I am not sure if anyone planned on using the Unichip in the Z anyway... but it seems easy enough. I think I actually prefer how the E-Manage extends pulsewidth to increase the fuel... but the Unichip has tons of other cool features that the E-Manage doesnt... almost all of which no one here will ever use.

The only reason I care to look into this stuff is cause I want to see if there is any important reason the POS signal enters Unichip in 2 pins. I highly doubt the Unichip is capable of doing any type of filtering or cleaning of the POS signal... but I wanted to double check.

I still plan on running a car on a scope, but I am not positive that I will even pick anything up. So I am looking at other things to ensure that what I am working out for everyone will be correct.

Im trying guys. Imma make this work and be affordable for all non APS kit owners.

-Charles
CJ Motorsports

 

Welcome back Peter!

 

hey its great to see you again peter.....perhaps everyones b*****ng paid off......

 

I've not seen the crank angle sensor on a scope (yet), but this issue doesn't surprise me at all. I'm an EE, and I've seen lots of noisy signals, both on car wiring and in the lab. An engine bay is an EXTREMELY harsh environment with a lot of EMI (electromagnetic interference) and RFI (radio frequency interference).

The solution here is just as Phunk and his EE friend have suggested. Shielded twisted pair wiring with the shield grounded at the signal source (the sensor). I would also definitely agree with Phunk's assessment that it is a good idea to shield the Cam Position Signal (PHASE) as well. The PHASE signal is just as critical to proper sequential engine management as the Crank Position Signal (POS).

 

Its a ghost!

 

Well look who's back! Glad your here again Peter I'm really pleased with my APS kit and it's not even on my car yet. lol Sure looks badass though. I've decorated my living room with it. My wife really loves it also....espeacially in the living room! NOT

 

If you put your kit in the bedroom it'll be better than Viagra.

 

O Yeah...that's a given! Unfortunately I think it might have the opposite effect on the wife. So I would have all that "horsepower" with no where to go

 

Charles,

Thanks again for all your efforts on this. Not to flame APS on this, but why has there been such big secret about all this stuff until lately?? I mean, it's not like someone going to go with an APS kit because of some shielded wire over another FI solution.

The reason I throw this out there is tghat I would hope that the techno-weenies at APS would be willing, even eager to collaborate with you on your efforts and get this sorted out for all modders....anything that makes all FI on the Z more reliable makes for more potential modders that may go the APS route.

Am I pulling a Forrest Gump on this or something?

P.S. This mod will still be relevant for those of us using eManage right?

 

This was addressed earlier. APS put a ton of work into R&D for this kit. If the other kit makers did not do their homework then why should APS share their info. Anyone who buys the APS kit gets the benefit of their knowledge. You get what you pay for.

 

Yeah APS...why don't you just phone all your competitors with all your lastest R&D and tell them what they missed while they rushed their products to market to capture market share. And give future competitors seeking a part of the market share a "heads up" for their ventures also.... if they have not discovered this problem yet ( taken the time to read this forum ).
Give me a break. Would people even be saying this if Peter never came to this forum to offer ANY knowlege about the 350 and F.I. ( yeah Peter is here to sell his product also ). Give me a break. You better believe I would buy the APS kit because of this issue we speak of. Shows me that APS took some time to consider quality and reliability.

 

I do not blame APS for keeping it a secret until now... and the only reason its not a secret now is cause it was leaked out by someone else.

APS is not given any further details on this right now because the harness I am building as a cost effective solution for you guys is in direct competition with the harness that they are getting ready to sell. APS will be putting out their own standalone harness for this.

I am not doing this to make money, I am doing this as a service. If my harness is not any most cost effective for you guys than the APS one is when it comes out, I will discontinue making it after their release. However, I am willing to bet theirs will be on the expensive side since they have a large company of employees to feed and have to ship all the way from austrailia and then attempt at making their dealers money on top of it.

Ill go over my current estimate... say I get the connectors with seals and terminals for $15 per assembly, and the cable at $3.00 a foot, x8 feet... and $1 for a nice eyelet ground... thats $40. Give me 10 min to assemble each one, if I can do 6 an hour my labor rate is 70 an hour... so thats $12 to professionally assemble it and use heat shrink and what not. I want to keep it under $60.

 

Thanks Phunk...for your efforts

 

phunk,

Thanks for you efforts on this. Not many people go out of their way to help an entire enthusiast community like this.

 

Pretty cool of you to do all of this Phunk. Kudos.


maybe you can whip us up some ecu patch cables that are being sold for $250 each too ....j/k of course

 

Phunk, you should work for nissan or something. Good job.

 

If we only have more of you

I salute you, Az

 

I use Belden 9461 to shield the knock signal, so it should work in this application. It's easy to work with, too, since the foil shield is bonded to the jacket. It comes off in one operation when you strip it.

http://www.newark.com/product-detail...D121/6038.html
http://bwccat.belden.com/ecat/pdf/9461.pdf