No need to re-flash with APS TT per Peter
Well I'll throw my 2 cents in here as well. From my perspective we can be assured that there are multiple maps in the ecu. It is a proven fact with many other car manufactures already (notably Subaru) and can be logged by a dedicated and vigilant individual if they feel the need to prove or disprove a point.
So....having said that I think it would be good to discuss "Why" the factory ecu would use multiple maps and "How and when" it uses multiple maps.
Why-Emissions, Fuel Economy, Performance, and Reliability concerns are what Nissan must factor into their product. These responsobilities fall mainly on the ecu as the mechanical portions of the motor and drive line are taken to their most developed iterations (based on budgets as always). The factory must meet emissions over the expected life of the vehicle. Everyone wants to save a few bucks so fuel economy is important, but also Nissan has to appease government regulators and have their entire fleet meet stringent MPG standards, as a whole and individually. Everyone bought a Z/G because it’s a cool car and it’s quick. Performance is a major concern of every owner on this board and we all like "Big Bang for the Buck Factor". Reliability tuning in a NA vehicle is much less stringent then a Turbo car, but remember this as it plays into the discussion a little later.
When and How- does the ECU decide to "advance the map" or use different timing and fuel strategies. Well, just as any EFI race vehicle will tweak their setting after a few runs at the track the factory also realizes that a different set of variables will allow or require a different set of "tweaks" to ensure consistent performance and response from the motor.
The ECU takes a set of signals and based on predetermined logic adds "X" amount of fuel and "Y" amount of timing advance. Electromotive illiterates this using the following equation:
'Pulse Width After All Enrichments =
{(MAP Voltage÷5)×UAP×(VE Absolute% ÷100)× TPS% × CLT% × MAT% × EGO% ×SE%} + POT + BTO'
Some of the terms above are specific to Electromotive, but generally this is the logic used by all ECUs to determine fueling requirements. Ignition trims tend not to be as extensive as fuel trims, but if ignition trim control is present they tend to use the same determining factors as the fuel trims (i.e.-coolant temp, iat, idle offsets, knock, and others). I've attached a screen shot of the AEM EMS software to display graphically the trims (I hope it’s large enough).
So this leads us back to the original "How and Why". Based on the information the ECU is receiving from its sensors it will "decide" on certain timing and fuel adjustments.
Whether the following examples are correct or not they are just meant to give a visual idea of "How" the ECU "thinks"
Example 1: Cold day (Inlet Air Temp(IAT) is low, Mass Air Flow (MAF) is High), motor is able to ingest a larger volume of air and fuel per revolution because the air is denser. ECU adds a predetermined amount of fuel. Now depending on the engines overall design and efficiency the timing may be a lower number in some areas because a denser Air/Fuel mixture tends to have a faster flame front speed.
Example 2:Warm day (IAT is high, MAF is low), less fuel, higher timing number.
Example 3:Cool day High Octane Fuel (IAT is MED, MAF is MED, Knock is LOW) Med fuel, Higher Timing because low count of knock to obtain better performance (This is where the ECU would decide to "Advance the MAP").
Again it comes back to striking a balance of Emissions, Fuel Economy, Performance, and Reliability (warranty or longevity issues) for the manufacturer. So again this is the "Why". A balance of all of the above issues in an extremely complex and expensive machine that has had thousand or millions of hours of engineering time poured into it that is heavily regulated by the government and must drive in a suitable manner for a very very wide range of drivers and in an even wider range of conditions.
So maybe the question should be “How the hell do they do that will only 3 maps?!” Its almost mind boggling to believe that we have such an astounding vehicle with a limited amount of management options.
The multiple map or highly modifiable timing map is an even larger issue with cars that are turbocharged from the factory. The Subaru WRX and Mistubishi EvoVIII are perfect examples. These vehicles are very well supported by the aftermarket and have a host of plug and play piggy backs, fuel computers, and stand alones. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE to tune these vehicles with a piggy back after a certain point due to their conservative ECU fuel and timing strategies. The amount of effort and frustration that is involved with tuning these cars using a factory ECU is unbelievable. Most piggy back owners will relieve themselves of the piggy back after just a few attempts. This is mostly due to timing control, not fuel issues. TurboXS, Vishnu, Unichip, Greddy, Apexi, and a slew of others produce piggy back computers for these vehicles. There is no way to “Outsmart” or “Out tune” the factory ecu after a certain point. Resolution of fuel becomes too distorted. Timing is pulled by the factory ECU at the slightest hiccup. Air Temps and octane reek havoc on the tuners nicely designed maps. It is well known that Subaru ECU’s have such a dynamic amount of timing trim that most owners opt for a standalone or just don’t modify the vehicle past a certain level.
All this was meant to help the understanding of why a reflash should be thought of as a “safeguard” and a “first line of defense”. Sure the Unichip controls some of the major inputs the ECU uses to determine timing, namely Crank, Cam, and MAF signals. But there is always the “What if?”. Until someone is able to take the factory coding, disassemble it and make an equation similar to the one from Electromotive above then there is no possible way of safe “X” piggy back is “100%” safe.
I can say that I know for myself that we do have control of the factory timing maps and fuel maps and that we know where the three maps are located in the thousands of lines of hex code. We know what hex values equate to what number of degrees of timing. This allows us to create a safe level of timing for any FI vehicle. This new base timing can then be tuned and trimmed through the use of a piggy back without concern of phantom timing numbers as described by MIAplaya. Essentially the question is, “Why risk a $X,XXX or $XX,XXX motor because we assume we have factored in all the possible options.” Its kina like Microsoft saying Windows will never crash again.
PS-I hope I haven’t come off as a peter
So....having said that I think it would be good to discuss "Why" the factory ecu would use multiple maps and "How and when" it uses multiple maps.
Why-Emissions, Fuel Economy, Performance, and Reliability concerns are what Nissan must factor into their product. These responsobilities fall mainly on the ecu as the mechanical portions of the motor and drive line are taken to their most developed iterations (based on budgets as always). The factory must meet emissions over the expected life of the vehicle. Everyone wants to save a few bucks so fuel economy is important, but also Nissan has to appease government regulators and have their entire fleet meet stringent MPG standards, as a whole and individually. Everyone bought a Z/G because it’s a cool car and it’s quick. Performance is a major concern of every owner on this board and we all like "Big Bang for the Buck Factor". Reliability tuning in a NA vehicle is much less stringent then a Turbo car, but remember this as it plays into the discussion a little later.
When and How- does the ECU decide to "advance the map" or use different timing and fuel strategies. Well, just as any EFI race vehicle will tweak their setting after a few runs at the track the factory also realizes that a different set of variables will allow or require a different set of "tweaks" to ensure consistent performance and response from the motor.
The ECU takes a set of signals and based on predetermined logic adds "X" amount of fuel and "Y" amount of timing advance. Electromotive illiterates this using the following equation:
'Pulse Width After All Enrichments =
{(MAP Voltage÷5)×UAP×(VE Absolute% ÷100)× TPS% × CLT% × MAT% × EGO% ×SE%} + POT + BTO'
Some of the terms above are specific to Electromotive, but generally this is the logic used by all ECUs to determine fueling requirements. Ignition trims tend not to be as extensive as fuel trims, but if ignition trim control is present they tend to use the same determining factors as the fuel trims (i.e.-coolant temp, iat, idle offsets, knock, and others). I've attached a screen shot of the AEM EMS software to display graphically the trims (I hope it’s large enough).
So this leads us back to the original "How and Why". Based on the information the ECU is receiving from its sensors it will "decide" on certain timing and fuel adjustments.
Whether the following examples are correct or not they are just meant to give a visual idea of "How" the ECU "thinks"
Example 1: Cold day (Inlet Air Temp(IAT) is low, Mass Air Flow (MAF) is High), motor is able to ingest a larger volume of air and fuel per revolution because the air is denser. ECU adds a predetermined amount of fuel. Now depending on the engines overall design and efficiency the timing may be a lower number in some areas because a denser Air/Fuel mixture tends to have a faster flame front speed.
Example 2:Warm day (IAT is high, MAF is low), less fuel, higher timing number.
Example 3:Cool day High Octane Fuel (IAT is MED, MAF is MED, Knock is LOW) Med fuel, Higher Timing because low count of knock to obtain better performance (This is where the ECU would decide to "Advance the MAP").
Again it comes back to striking a balance of Emissions, Fuel Economy, Performance, and Reliability (warranty or longevity issues) for the manufacturer. So again this is the "Why". A balance of all of the above issues in an extremely complex and expensive machine that has had thousand or millions of hours of engineering time poured into it that is heavily regulated by the government and must drive in a suitable manner for a very very wide range of drivers and in an even wider range of conditions.
So maybe the question should be “How the hell do they do that will only 3 maps?!” Its almost mind boggling to believe that we have such an astounding vehicle with a limited amount of management options.
The multiple map or highly modifiable timing map is an even larger issue with cars that are turbocharged from the factory. The Subaru WRX and Mistubishi EvoVIII are perfect examples. These vehicles are very well supported by the aftermarket and have a host of plug and play piggy backs, fuel computers, and stand alones. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE to tune these vehicles with a piggy back after a certain point due to their conservative ECU fuel and timing strategies. The amount of effort and frustration that is involved with tuning these cars using a factory ECU is unbelievable. Most piggy back owners will relieve themselves of the piggy back after just a few attempts. This is mostly due to timing control, not fuel issues. TurboXS, Vishnu, Unichip, Greddy, Apexi, and a slew of others produce piggy back computers for these vehicles. There is no way to “Outsmart” or “Out tune” the factory ecu after a certain point. Resolution of fuel becomes too distorted. Timing is pulled by the factory ECU at the slightest hiccup. Air Temps and octane reek havoc on the tuners nicely designed maps. It is well known that Subaru ECU’s have such a dynamic amount of timing trim that most owners opt for a standalone or just don’t modify the vehicle past a certain level.
All this was meant to help the understanding of why a reflash should be thought of as a “safeguard” and a “first line of defense”. Sure the Unichip controls some of the major inputs the ECU uses to determine timing, namely Crank, Cam, and MAF signals. But there is always the “What if?”. Until someone is able to take the factory coding, disassemble it and make an equation similar to the one from Electromotive above then there is no possible way of safe “X” piggy back is “100%” safe.
I can say that I know for myself that we do have control of the factory timing maps and fuel maps and that we know where the three maps are located in the thousands of lines of hex code. We know what hex values equate to what number of degrees of timing. This allows us to create a safe level of timing for any FI vehicle. This new base timing can then be tuned and trimmed through the use of a piggy back without concern of phantom timing numbers as described by MIAplaya. Essentially the question is, “Why risk a $X,XXX or $XX,XXX motor because we assume we have factored in all the possible options.” Its kina like Microsoft saying Windows will never crash again.
PS-I hope I haven’t come off as a peter
Originally Posted by dynamic6er
Example 3:Cool day High Octane Fuel (IAT is MED, MAF is MED, Knock is LOW) Med fuel, Higher Timing because low count of knock to obtain better performance (This is where the ECU would decide to "Advance the MAP").
so in the situation of timing advance...can it just advanc e the timing a few degrees (increments of 4 i would assume)...or does it switch to a different map...
the reason i ask, i am assuming that even though I had my ecu reflashed to copy the standard map into the advanced map location to prevent any undesireable timing advance that the ecu can still advance timing a bit if a higher octane fuel is used and less noise is picked up by the knock sensor..
what is the case????
ALTERED ATMOSPHERE: thanks again for your excellent customer service!!!
Originally Posted by 350zDCalb
great post!
so in the situation of timing advance...can it just advanc e the timing a few degrees (increments of 4 i would assume)...or does it switch to a different map...
the reason i ask, i am assuming that even though I had my ecu reflashed to copy the standard map into the advanced map location to prevent any undesireable timing advance that the ecu can still advance timing a bit if a higher octane fuel is used and less noise is picked up by the knock sensor..
what is the case????
ALTERED ATMOSPHERE: thanks again for your excellent customer service!!!
so in the situation of timing advance...can it just advanc e the timing a few degrees (increments of 4 i would assume)...or does it switch to a different map...
the reason i ask, i am assuming that even though I had my ecu reflashed to copy the standard map into the advanced map location to prevent any undesireable timing advance that the ecu can still advance timing a bit if a higher octane fuel is used and less noise is picked up by the knock sensor..
what is the case????
ALTERED ATMOSPHERE: thanks again for your excellent customer service!!!
Originally Posted by SUD
I don't think this is incorrect at all. I would agree however that it is not the only reason and personalities and such come into play. Nevertheless, they are in different businesses which is a root cause of some of the conflict. Sharif is a tuner and retailer. He will sell anything that he can and rep anything he thinks can sell. He will also bundle product with other valuable services. Retailer and tuner tinkerer. He will try to be as fair as he can to all his products and try to present the different possibilities as close as he can to the wants of his specific customers. He will naturally support big HP Greddy solutions knowing that he can devise a safe powerful path. He will naturally support 400WHP solutions with APS or Turbonetics. Or superchargers. His loyalty is to his end customers. He will have no long term loyalty to any product line/manufacturer. He will drop them like a hot potato if they don't sell or go out of vogue or whatever...and be off on to the next product that comes along. If any of his product/solution manufacturers go out of business it is no big/catastrophic deal. Perfectly natural given his business.
Peter reps a product/solution manufacturer. He doesn't sell other things. He doesn't sell to end customers. He sells his product through other wholesalers and retailers. He is going to aggressively defend his product and seek to differentiate it from all other products/solutions as best he can. He will try to fit his product/solution into as many possibile scenarios as he can. He is definately not going to actively promote other options. He is going to bore you to death with all of the features and benefits of his product/solution. He is going to go over it again and again. What else does he have to talk about except his product/solution? If his product goes down the drain it IS a big deal/catastrophic.
If Sharif says something good about APS products, Peter is going to say: yep. yep, right on man now yer talking.
If Sharif says something good about another product/solution Peter is going to find something comparably good about the APS system. That's his job, not to be your independent I'll do anything tuner tinkerer. That's Sharif's job.
This is all perfectly natural. It is the nature of business and competition and it is at the heart of what is happening. Undoubtably it is amplified by personalities, the internet sucking as a medium for tone etc. But for a lot...it cannot be any other way...else one or the other is not doing their job.
Peter reps a product/solution manufacturer. He doesn't sell other things. He doesn't sell to end customers. He sells his product through other wholesalers and retailers. He is going to aggressively defend his product and seek to differentiate it from all other products/solutions as best he can. He will try to fit his product/solution into as many possibile scenarios as he can. He is definately not going to actively promote other options. He is going to bore you to death with all of the features and benefits of his product/solution. He is going to go over it again and again. What else does he have to talk about except his product/solution? If his product goes down the drain it IS a big deal/catastrophic.
If Sharif says something good about APS products, Peter is going to say: yep. yep, right on man now yer talking.
If Sharif says something good about another product/solution Peter is going to find something comparably good about the APS system. That's his job, not to be your independent I'll do anything tuner tinkerer. That's Sharif's job.
This is all perfectly natural. It is the nature of business and competition and it is at the heart of what is happening. Undoubtably it is amplified by personalities, the internet sucking as a medium for tone etc. But for a lot...it cannot be any other way...else one or the other is not doing their job.
SUD, I was with you until this point. You should refrain from putting words in people's mouths...namely MINE!
First of all, my business model is a little bit different than most. I dont sell "anything I think I can sell". People that have done business with me know this, and in fact, we state this clearly on our website. We ONLY sell products that we have tested, and feel very strongly about. I have tested products, and continue to test products, and only after that point, will I offer them to customers. A perfect example is the ATI dash gauge pod. They retail for $149 and people were very excited about this product. We installed it, and it didnt meet our quality standards, so we never sold one of them, even though the demand was there. We are doing the same thing with the eManage Ultimate. People have been BEGGING me to sell them one now, but I will not process any transactions until all the testing is completed. My value proposition, is offering excellent PROVEN products, and combinations of products to my customer; rather than selling everything under the sun, as you have implied.
Second, as Nis mentioned, I sell and support all of the turbo kits. You will notice in my signature, I have an APS TT kit in stock for sale. And the funny thing, is that we make more money off the APS kit, yet you still seem to think I only support the Greddy+mods solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Call me anytime, and I will explain the research process I go through, before recommding a kit. I ask about 10 questions first.....
The reason Peter and I disagree (and I happen to agree with about 87% of what he says), is that he fails to recogonize that there are different segements of the market, which desire different things in a kit. There is no "one size fits all" with any F/I application. Of course, I would expect nothing less from a manufacturer's rep, such as Peter. But I perfer to offer various options to the consumer, and let them decide.
I really didnt want to get into this debate, but this thread took a turn that I just had to correct, SUD. No hard feelings, but lets just end it please.
Originally Posted by dynamic6er
I can say that I know for myself that we do have control of the factory timing maps and fuel maps and that we know where the three maps are located in the thousands of lines of hex code. We know what hex values equate to what number of degrees of timing. This allows us to create a safe level of timing for any FI vehicle. This new base timing can then be tuned and trimmed through the use of a piggy back without concern of phantom timing numbers as described by MIAplaya. Essentially the question is, “Why risk a $X,XXX or $XX,XXX motor because we assume we have factored in all the possible options.” Its kina like Microsoft saying Windows will never crash again.
PS-I hope I haven’t come off as a peter
1) It reduces timing at WOT to a reasonably safe level
2) Eliminates the chances of an ECU map change cause unwanted timing advance.
A middle solution, is to have timing reduced slightly, (as a safegaurd in case your piggyback solution fails), and then retard the rest of the way via eManage, Unichip, or Split Second.
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Yes it can and does....this can be seen by running 100 octane fuel on several dyno passes for a reflashed car. Chris Danzio from www.danzioperformnace.com did this on a Turbonetics car he ran the car on the dyno with 91 till empty then filled with 100 octane. After about 4-5 passes the hp started to climb and he picked up near 10 RWHP as a result of the ECU advancing the timing. And yes he datalogged the timing.
Originally Posted by dynamic6er
Do you know how many degrees? I would assume one....maybe two but it would be good to have hard numbers. We have not done this testing ourselves.
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Yes it can and does....this can be seen by running 100 octane fuel on several dyno passes for a reflashed car. Chris Danzio from www.danzioperformnace.com did this on a Turbonetics car he ran the car on the dyno with 91 till empty then filled with 100 octane. After about 4-5 passes the hp started to climb and he picked up near 10 RWHP as a result of the ECU advancing the timing. And yes he datalogged the timing.
this would help explain why by my running higher octane it goes a bit leaner...it's running a more advanced timing map with the same fuel values
(I'm assuming that this friend of yours had the reflash for timing that copied the middle map to the advanced map location and the timing could STILL advance just a bit with higher octane fuel---correct????)
Originally Posted by 350zDCalb
good to know this has been tested, please keep us informed with how many degrees it typically (or has been show to) advance with higher octane fuel...
this would help explain why by my running higher octane it goes a bit leaner...it's running a more advanced timing map with the same fuel values
(I'm assuming that this friend of yours had the reflash for timing that copied the middle map to the advanced map location and the timing could STILL advance just a bit with higher octane fuel---correct????)
this would help explain why by my running higher octane it goes a bit leaner...it's running a more advanced timing map with the same fuel values
(I'm assuming that this friend of yours had the reflash for timing that copied the middle map to the advanced map location and the timing could STILL advance just a bit with higher octane fuel---correct????)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bcoffee20
Zs & Gs For Sale
5
Nov 19, 2015 06:39 PM
BlinkerFluid
Engine
0
Sep 8, 2015 10:06 AM
