Tuning ITB off Stock ECU????
02-17-2007, 10:19 PM
#21
Please check this thread for possible Cable TB conversion solution
https://my350z.com/forum/intake-exhaust/250245-possible-cable-tb-solution.html
https://my350z.com/forum/intake-exhaust/250245-possible-cable-tb-solution.html
02-20-2007, 11:27 PM
#23
I think that the best solution would be to attacth an electrical servo that operates at the same voltage range that the original throttle body to the mechanical operator that opens the 6 butterflies...
02-21-2007, 02:40 PM
#25
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill, South Carolina
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
I too am thinking about doing something like this, except I was thinking Dual TBs with inverted headers, but here are my thoughts.
A MAF only reads how much current it takes to keep the platnum wire at a certain temperature. You could relocate the MAF element in one of you intake runners. It wouldn't be completely reliable for all 6 cylinders, but you could probably tune off it. I would try it once to see, I'll put a cold beer that it will give feedback to the ECU/UTEC. WHether it is enough to get a reliable tune off depends on the location and laminar flow acrros it, Choose wisely. I wouldn't jump on it hawg wild first time it starts up.
THe Z TB uses pulsed DC to maintain position, voltage level = battery voltage, best I can tell. You might be able to snoop around and find a linear motor that will run on low voltage, just watch the current draw, you don't want to hurt the ECU. I had thought about using a Motor drive, that would act as a follower. Basically use the 0-14V signal from the ECU as an reference input and then control the linear motor with the drive. YOu would still have to use a resistor to fool the ECU. Perhaps a cable setup would be easier.
TPS you sound like you have covered.
Good luck, BTW, subscribing
A MAF only reads how much current it takes to keep the platnum wire at a certain temperature. You could relocate the MAF element in one of you intake runners. It wouldn't be completely reliable for all 6 cylinders, but you could probably tune off it. I would try it once to see, I'll put a cold beer that it will give feedback to the ECU/UTEC. WHether it is enough to get a reliable tune off depends on the location and laminar flow acrros it, Choose wisely. I wouldn't jump on it hawg wild first time it starts up.
THe Z TB uses pulsed DC to maintain position, voltage level = battery voltage, best I can tell. You might be able to snoop around and find a linear motor that will run on low voltage, just watch the current draw, you don't want to hurt the ECU. I had thought about using a Motor drive, that would act as a follower. Basically use the 0-14V signal from the ECU as an reference input and then control the linear motor with the drive. YOu would still have to use a resistor to fool the ECU. Perhaps a cable setup would be easier.
TPS you sound like you have covered.
Good luck, BTW, subscribing
02-21-2007, 03:20 PM
#26
^^^^
I have been conversing with Function Tuned for a bit and I have learned quite a bit regarding this.
First off, you actually need two TPS sensors as the stock TB has two of them. One is 0-5V and one is 5-0V. One is used for opening and one is used for closing.
The other issue is the pedal position sensor. From my talks with Dave at Function, you could possibly do this and and the only issue would be syncing the pedal postions sensor and the TPS sensors.
After putting further though into it I think that the next step would be to actually see if the the ECU really needs the resistance of the TB motor or if it just give an output and has no input for the motor. This means that a cable conversion would be as simple as having the correct TPS sensors and syncing them with the pedal position sensor (aside from any fabrication tasks that would be necessary).
If the above is true and all that is necessary there is not reason that a nice cable setup ITB could not be made (as long as it utilized a manifold with a common collector) and it could run on the stock ECU.
The only other obstacle that I could really see would be the vacuum ports for things such as the breaks. I have a feeling that you would not be able to put the vacuum ports before the ITB's (i.e. the manifold) as you may not get much for vacuum when at idle or with the ITB's closed on decel.
Please give input.
I have been conversing with Function Tuned for a bit and I have learned quite a bit regarding this.
First off, you actually need two TPS sensors as the stock TB has two of them. One is 0-5V and one is 5-0V. One is used for opening and one is used for closing.
The other issue is the pedal position sensor. From my talks with Dave at Function, you could possibly do this and and the only issue would be syncing the pedal postions sensor and the TPS sensors.
After putting further though into it I think that the next step would be to actually see if the the ECU really needs the resistance of the TB motor or if it just give an output and has no input for the motor. This means that a cable conversion would be as simple as having the correct TPS sensors and syncing them with the pedal position sensor (aside from any fabrication tasks that would be necessary).
If the above is true and all that is necessary there is not reason that a nice cable setup ITB could not be made (as long as it utilized a manifold with a common collector) and it could run on the stock ECU.
The only other obstacle that I could really see would be the vacuum ports for things such as the breaks. I have a feeling that you would not be able to put the vacuum ports before the ITB's (i.e. the manifold) as you may not get much for vacuum when at idle or with the ITB's closed on decel.
Please give input.
02-21-2007, 03:41 PM
#27
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill, South Carolina
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Did not know about the dual TPSs, good info to have. Is the foot pedal the same way? That might take care of the TPSs.
I'm willing to bet that Nissan Engineering is using soem sort of Armature feedback to ensure that there is a motor on the other end. Just think of it as a shunt and the current monitoring accros that shunt should be within some tolerance.
Looking at the top secret unit, it looks like they used a 1/4" piece of polyflow tapped into each velocity stack and are taking all of that vacuum into a common chamber for the brake booster and other vcuum related stuff. If that logic works for them, it might also apply here as well.
Depending upon how far along you are with the fabrication, what I would probably try to do is:
1. leave the stock TB hooked up for the ECU stability
2. build your ITB setup and go with a cable drive setup
3. install the MAF element in a velocity stack or intake pipe.
4. try tuning off of the MAF with the UTEC
5. if you get al of that workig then I would try to ween the ECU off of the TB by trickery or skill
I'm willing to bet that Nissan Engineering is using soem sort of Armature feedback to ensure that there is a motor on the other end. Just think of it as a shunt and the current monitoring accros that shunt should be within some tolerance.
Looking at the top secret unit, it looks like they used a 1/4" piece of polyflow tapped into each velocity stack and are taking all of that vacuum into a common chamber for the brake booster and other vcuum related stuff. If that logic works for them, it might also apply here as well.
Depending upon how far along you are with the fabrication, what I would probably try to do is:
1. leave the stock TB hooked up for the ECU stability
2. build your ITB setup and go with a cable drive setup
3. install the MAF element in a velocity stack or intake pipe.
4. try tuning off of the MAF with the UTEC
5. if you get al of that workig then I would try to ween the ECU off of the TB by trickery or skill
02-21-2007, 04:12 PM
#29
I decided not to start fabrication a while back because I did not feel that I had enough research to ensure that I was not wasting the money to do so.
I think that the easiest solution to the vacuum would be to have some nipples welded onto the lower collector to the heads and just run it to a distribution manifold similar to the Top Secret ITB and most ITB's in general.
If I can get the motor low enough to run a 3" pipe in between it and the hood this would be a sinch. I wonder if I lower the engine a 1/2" and cut out the middle brace in the hood and reinforce that area with somthing that can clear the pipe (or just omit it). I wonder if that would be enough.
I think that the easiest solution to the vacuum would be to have some nipples welded onto the lower collector to the heads and just run it to a distribution manifold similar to the Top Secret ITB and most ITB's in general.
If I can get the motor low enough to run a 3" pipe in between it and the hood this would be a sinch. I wonder if I lower the engine a 1/2" and cut out the middle brace in the hood and reinforce that area with somthing that can clear the pipe (or just omit it). I wonder if that would be enough.
02-21-2007, 04:29 PM
#31
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill, South Carolina
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
for now I wouldn't sweat the vacuum body, I would simply go the easiest (cheapest) route for the moment, get the idea working and the flush out the details. Sometimes going in without a clear defined output lends itself to some remarkable endings. Stay open minded, stay calm, and go with what you know, and don't blow the motor.
I think the vacuum would be the easiest thing to over come. I think if you fabbed in a lower 'galley' you might loose some of the gains and cool factor of the the ITBs.
BTW, what kind of length were you looking at for the runners? I'm still toying around with my inverted headers and I'm not entirely sure as to the length to make the runners.
I think the vacuum would be the easiest thing to over come. I think if you fabbed in a lower 'galley' you might loose some of the gains and cool factor of the the ITBs.
BTW, what kind of length were you looking at for the runners? I'm still toying around with my inverted headers and I'm not entirely sure as to the length to make the runners.
02-21-2007, 04:35 PM
#32
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill, South Carolina
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
a ghetto solution/thought I had to try and cram more air in to the motor was to take make a ~2.5" plenum spacer and then a piece of plate on top of that. Mount the stock TB on it some where, nowhere specific yet, and then since I would have flat metal to work with, take a Ford cruise control module and wire it to the solenoid output of the UTEC. at a programmed setting use the output to enable the cruise control module to activate a couple of Lightning TBs that would be mounted on the 'spacer'. They are dual 57mm each in a pretty small package.
Granted it is redneck as hell, but being that I'm cheap I can live with that as long as it make me go faster. I would proably have to be above 4k to do it without bogging the motor, and it would be hell to tune, but as long as it doesn't blow, tuning is cheap and easy.
I'm looking at a track solution (road course) where I would be keeping above 4k anyway, I wouldn't dare call it streetable or even pretty.
Granted it is redneck as hell, but being that I'm cheap I can live with that as long as it make me go faster. I would proably have to be above 4k to do it without bogging the motor, and it would be hell to tune, but as long as it doesn't blow, tuning is cheap and easy.
I'm looking at a track solution (road course) where I would be keeping above 4k anyway, I wouldn't dare call it streetable or even pretty.
02-21-2007, 06:27 PM
#34
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill, South Carolina
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
the lower gallery would take away from the limited space you already have to work with, isn't it ideal to keep the runners as straight as possible. added any unnecessary bends would reduce the efficiency.
if you are planning on FI, then why wouldn't run the HKS stand-alone? It can do it all and you can do all of the tuning. personally I don't think an open deck aluminum block will take the abuse of FI, for long anyway, but that is another topic all together.
If you are planning FI, then the shroud over the ITBs like top secret has done is the ideal solution, IMO.
if you are planning on FI, then why wouldn't run the HKS stand-alone? It can do it all and you can do all of the tuning. personally I don't think an open deck aluminum block will take the abuse of FI, for long anyway, but that is another topic all together.
If you are planning FI, then the shroud over the ITBs like top secret has done is the ideal solution, IMO.
02-21-2007, 06:49 PM
#35
The "galley" is not what I would do then. I would just weld some nipples into the stock runners that meet the head heads but do it under the collector and then run all the hoses out the back side and to a universal distribution block.
Also, in regards to the manifold desing, the ITB's, if I make them, will be completely integrated into the manifold and will be fully sealed so that all air has to be taken in through a tube containing a MAF. My manifold would be a billet multipiece design something like that of the K&N intake mandifold on their time attack G35.
Also, in regards to the manifold desing, the ITB's, if I make them, will be completely integrated into the manifold and will be fully sealed so that all air has to be taken in through a tube containing a MAF. My manifold would be a billet multipiece design something like that of the K&N intake mandifold on their time attack G35.
02-21-2007, 06:54 PM
#37
I have a way that will allow me to reduce the hieght of the manifold yet not decrease airflow and will allow me to put the stepper motor above the intake manifold and essentially take the guts out of the the stock TB and put them into my manifold. Again this is a money and time permiting project.
04-08-2007, 12:02 AM
#39
New Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jersey, New
Posts: 7,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you still working on it? Ive been trying to engineer teh setup my self. I know I want to use the stock throttle body motor and make a new housing for it and connect the motor to the six throttle bodies. I did the math and found the proper length so the motor makes power at 8k RPM for a 3.5 liter engine using stock sized valves, rods and pistons. Its going to require pretty long piping even at that redline, and I dont know how its going to fit.
I plan on having atleast the engineering done by the end of the summer. Ive been very interested in an N/A motor, and I dont know how cams or headers will change the requirement for the length of the piping since I dont know how VVEL or w/e nissan uses changes teh timing.
You're still trying to figure out how you're going to wire the bodies, while I'm trying to figure out the proper dimensions to make power.
There was an idea thrown out that would allow one to make a motor that would change the runner length depending on oil pressure (effectively RPM)- once again, I dont have the know how on how to design a module that would control it on RPM, which would be ideal. This would require a whole in the hood lol. I guestimating 11-13 inches of piping at its max length, and 7.32 inches for 8K redline. Once again, I dont knowhow cams change the resonance of the pressure waves...
I plan on having atleast the engineering done by the end of the summer. Ive been very interested in an N/A motor, and I dont know how cams or headers will change the requirement for the length of the piping since I dont know how VVEL or w/e nissan uses changes teh timing.
You're still trying to figure out how you're going to wire the bodies, while I'm trying to figure out the proper dimensions to make power.
There was an idea thrown out that would allow one to make a motor that would change the runner length depending on oil pressure (effectively RPM)- once again, I dont have the know how on how to design a module that would control it on RPM, which would be ideal. This would require a whole in the hood lol. I guestimating 11-13 inches of piping at its max length, and 7.32 inches for 8K redline. Once again, I dont knowhow cams change the resonance of the pressure waves...
Last edited by plumpzz; 04-08-2007 at 12:05 AM.
04-08-2007, 05:37 AM
#40
i disagree, the runners wouldnt have to be that long at all, i changed my motor from the 287 lower to the rev up lower and it moved my whole powerband from 6250 to 7000. to reach 8000 while still making power, they would have to be shorter.
i am thinking about robbing a the TBs off a M3 and trying to make it work somehow. im sure the voltage would be similar.
also, i have been running my motor basically without a maf sensor NA. just using the a map sensor and speed density with vacuum figures and it runs perfectly.
in case you havent seen
https://my350z.com/forum/na-builds/255966-performance-factorys-15-to-1-compression-all-motor-project.html
i am thinking about robbing a the TBs off a M3 and trying to make it work somehow. im sure the voltage would be similar.
also, i have been running my motor basically without a maf sensor NA. just using the a map sensor and speed density with vacuum figures and it runs perfectly.
in case you havent seen
https://my350z.com/forum/na-builds/255966-performance-factorys-15-to-1-compression-all-motor-project.html