Alternatives to custom cals for the 3L V6

[c2xejk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mopar3.0 ever think about trying to wire in a stealth or mistu ecu?

Not sure how well they would interface to the rest of the vehicle. I would still have to do something to add more fuel, especially with a turbo.

[BAKES]

any one tried a map adjuster works by changing the 5v ref voltage , saw the over on a jeep 4.0l site they had plans on how to make one

[mopar3.0]

your probley gona get mad at me, but you can use megasuirt just for fule control
but i guess its still a lot of work, ecu runs the ignition and megasquirt takes over fule, but then again you still gota run the air intake temp sensor, tap in to tps and and all that crap

[c2xejk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAKES any one tried a map adjuster works by changing the 5v ref voltage , saw the over on a jeep 4.0l site they had plans on how to make one

There are several of the interceptor boxes that will lie to the ECU about the airflow. HKS AFR Type D is one example. The problem (especially with a speed density approach) there are limits to how much you can lie to the ECU. Then what do you do?

That said, I have wondered if one of these interceptor boxes (AFR Type D, e-Manage, SMT6, etc.) might help idle when running a big cam (which reduces idle vacuum.)

[c2xejk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mopar3.0 your probley gona get mad at me, but you can use megasuirt just for fule control but i guess its still a lot of work, ecu runs the ignition and megasquirt takes over fule, but then again you still gota run the air intake temp sensor, tap in to tps and and all that crap

The problem is much of the cals I want to keep are fuel cals... During idle, closed loop, and moderate TPS/RPM the ECU does just fine. Running mega-squirt for fuel would require me to redo those too...

[Ntrain2k]

You can tune the Emanage with a laptop with the software and the right cable.

I have both, but have not had time to touch my project for the past couple of years.

[BAKES]

MAP_schematic.jpg

MAP_adjuster.jpg

[mwinkle353]

Ok folks, I've been standing on the outskirts of this thread. And it's about time I put my 2 cents worth in here.

The cost/effectiveness of a piggyback or intercept/signal modifier had it's pro's and con's.

First:
The Speed density system of our PCM's rely on vacuum and barometric pressures for initial calibration (pre-start) parameters. Once we start messing with this setup, all goes out the window.

Second:
Along with the pre-start, once you modify the map sensor's values to the stock PCM calibrations, you may be able to adjust a percentage of fuel adjustment (but only at the risk of altering the ignition output (ie stock calibration's internal map) and chance over or under compensation of timing.)

You can add a second controller (or just use a single, more expensive unit that allows programable ignition advance/retard). But at wich point would it become more cost effective to use a stand-alone system?



These are just two of my concerns with "band-aide" solutions to fuel/ignition calibrations. I have plenty more. But I reserve the right to hold back for now, until I can figure out my own plans of attack for my turbo 3.0L setup.

None of which I've read within this thread is a "great" solution for our wants and needs. At least none past getting our PCM's with the proper calibrated software/hardware setups or a stand-alone fuel/ignition computer controller. I just don't trust the negative effects that will occur with these methods of "fooling" our stock PCM.


I had once messed with the idea of using mechanical methods of fuel augmentation. But I noticed it would only get me a portion of what I really needed. I then thought I'd add a programable map sensor to the mix. I only needed fine tuning of the fuel injectors pulse width to compensate for the crude mechanical methods I was going to use. Then I realized that my setup also needed a source for controlling ignition advance while on boost. Here is yet another electronic component (or ignition control such as MSD or Crane Cam's Boost timing master). Now are you finally seeing what I am seeing? All these "Band-aide" solutions add up to cost you more than a "good" stand-alone system with proper sized fuel pump and injectors.

[c2xejk]

Wink,

Not sure if you are referencing the MAP modifier circuit above or full scale piggyback/interceptor systems.

What you are saying is why I am looking at e-Manage and SMT6. Both handle spark and fuel tweaking. So no need for the MSD or Crane Cam's Boost timing master type box.

I personally don't have any real interest in the airflow modifier portion of said controllers. I don't think they are going to be all that effective on the scale I need.

Stand-alone systems are generally more expensive than the piggyback/interceptor systems I am looking at. Then there is the durability question. How long will they last under normal daily driving? With the piggyback setup, you have a means to limp home one the stock ECU.

[mopar3.0]

one of my buddies used megasqiurt 3 summers in a row for his daily driver, and never had a hitch, most of the problems with ms is shady wirring and some time problems with the coil drivers,, i think a msd box is the answer there as there is no strain on the chip

[mightymulhern]

I don't think anyone would disagree that a stand alone system would ultimately bet better once set up... assuming no durability issues. HOWEVER the amount of time and effort required to get it completely set up and calibrated and working with the current gauges FAR EXCEEDS what Ed is trying to do.

The goal here is not to re-invent the wheel, ie. reinvent what the ECU does outside of boost. The goal is to add some supplemental fuel in an accurate measured way under boost without just using some kind of mechanical method to raise fuel pressure.

Substituting in the suggestion of a stand alone is like me saying, "you know.. porting your plenum will help your power but you should just install a turbo". The effort level isn't even in the same ballpark.

[irocelectric93]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightymulhern I don't think anyone would disagree that a stand alone system would ultimately bet better once set up... assuming no durability issues. HOWEVER the amount of time and effort required to get it completely set up and calibrated and working with the current gauges FAR EXCEEDS what Ed is trying to do. The goal here is not to re-invent the wheel, ie. reinvent what the ECU does outside of boost. The goal is to add some supplemental fuel in an accurate measured way under boost without just using some kind of mechanical method to raise fuel pressure. Substituting in the suggestion of a stand alone is like me saying, "you know.. porting your plenum will help your power but you should just install a turbo". The effort level isn't even in the same ballpark.

Well said mike. I will say this though....alot of these piggybacks seem to be a little pricey for what megasquirt costs....although like you said the time and effort for megasquirt exceeds a piggyback greatly.

[Ondonti]

But what is being talked about here? Fooling the computer....or modifying signals that come FROM the stock ECU to the coil/fuel injectors. I would rather do the later because it can actually work. People seem to be talking both ways, but fooling just doesnt work for our ECU as far as I am concerned. Way different then people who run MAS systems or have cars that have 2-3 bar map sensors from the factory.

[c2xejk]

My intent is to focus on the signals from the ECU (fuel and spark). Both the e-Manage and SMT6 can do this. However, I am trying to chart alternatives somebody else might be interested in trying.

[irocelectric93]

I was looking at Emanage and honestly i couldnt even pick out what i would need in the jumble of junk there.