1st Gen Haltech ECU Discussion

https://ecology.wa.gov/air-climate/air-quality/vehicle-emissions/emissions-check-ends

 

I get it. But I also am concerned. The emissions check was also a means to ensure, and keep in check, folks like me from modifying their vehicle's emissions components. I see (and smell) a significant increase in the number of vehicles who are putting out more emissions than before the check system was removed.

There are potentially other ways to limit us. Like availability of higher octane fuels and enforcement of the laws still on the books about vehicle modifications. Certainly, manufacturers like Haltech are making efforts to keep their industry alive in this changing climate. No pun intended.

 

It's all a sham anyway. If the concern is truly emissions, you need a control variable, not just "does your car have a CEL" and pass OE margins.
As it sits, a 5.0L V8 has the same requirements as a 2.0L 4 cylinder. Somebody who drives their cars spiritedly will produce significantly more emissions than someone who doesn't. Pick any two cars on the road and their average emissions vary wildly. If I "tune" my car to make more power without adding extra fuel, that's inherently more efficient and less emissive. Even if you play with fuel richness, that's no guarantee you're any worse on an average drive than let's say a 30 year old truck or a brand new 5.0 off the lot. I'm preaching to the choir though, I'm sure.
Washington evidently has some rational people making decisions - most people aren't "car guys", most people don't care enough to modify, and most people would fix a bad cat if it means they have a smelly exhaust or CEL - emissions tests make everyone's lives less convenient in order to police a tiny minority.



Oh, and if cities/states really cared that much, they'd invest so much more into traffic light optimization. Nothing kills efficiency more than stopping every mile or two.

 

I might have brought this up before, but does anyone know if a P1300 (igniter) can be related to a spark gap misfire, or is it just thrown because the factory ECU isn't in control anymore? I still get random misfires in boost but right now there's no misfire code, only this.

 

Could this have something to do with the sparkplug gap?

 

Yes but I feel I'm at an ok place for where I'm feeling the issues under 10psi. Had to look up this thread history.. I gapped to 0.032"

 

I gathered some more intel. Shockingly, it appears my RPM drops to a reading of 0 whenever I have high TPS/mid-RPM w/med boost. It seems to be worse the more quickly I open the throttle. Lambda readings look ok. If anyone wants to take a look, log attached. I tried increasing the RPM filter to a 3 and it didn't seem to help at all.



One thing I'm unsure of is if the 0 RPM is the cause or effect.

I'm not sure if I missed the log where like 3 or 4 happened in quick succession or if its absence is a sign of something else

 

I don't even work here bro

 

At least this forum is somewhat active. Trying to get answers on the Trionic forums for my Saab's ECU is like pulling teeth. Most of those guys are across the sea

 

I wish I knew enough to be helpful.

 

I get this code (along with a couple of others) on my scangauge that is connected to the OBDII port. I am fairly certain it is just the OEM ECU being confused by missing data.

 

OK. I think I'm going to reduce the threshold voltages for home and trigger, and add a level 1 filter to both. Hopefully this is an easy fix. It would be nice to floor this thing without worrying

 

Y'all make me glad I never needed my stock computer to hang around, unpairing the triggers from each other and harness ground has caused me to never have a trigger error.

 

Lowered my home and trigger voltages, so far so good after a couple pulls.

Unrelated, 10,000pulses/min @ 65mph works out perfectly for calibrating 35s from a VSS2 input

 

Little PnP trans solenoid amp

 

@treyus30 No heat concerns with those? I would have figured they'd need a heatsink. But if not that's a really nice and compact form factor.

 

I'll have to double check with a dummy load, but I got the lowest rDSon (most thermally efficient) ones I could find within spec. They're good up to 30A continuous with a heatsink so 1.5A should be nothing

https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/irf5305pbf.pdf?fileId=5546d462533600a4015355e370101993

 

Not sure how many of you are running manifold based fuel pressure reference, but if you add a pressure differential axis to your fuel flow rate table, you should be able to get more control over your fuel:lambda corrections. I used a data table I had found for some 80# Siemens injectors for curve estimation (avg % change in flow per rail pressure) and applied it to my 635cc injectors and got the following, which lined up closely with the 3.5 and 4 bar ratings that @Digiratus posted a while ago from his orange paper, but gives the lower pressures as well if you're truly running off manifold (I think down to 2 bar is all that's possible, unless your rail has a problem):




If you're running different sized injectors and you want me to plug it in at rail pressure, lmk the size and I'll post your settings. I've been running off boost port but I might change over.

 

What kind of additional control are you hoping to achieve? It is extremely inadvisable to "create" data for your injectors on speed density setup where this is one of your primary items used for injection calculation. This is all data that should be observed by having a company with a calibrated machine determine all of the characteristics of said injectors. Many companies will do this for you.

 

Curious on my pressures. I have 750cc injectors and my FPR is boost referenced. 3rz though so not sure if that makes a difference in ur calcs