# External crank trigger & sensor: who's done this? who's open to trying?



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Last month ForceFed Engineering installed an external crank trigger to the FrankenTT project car. Here are some pix to show the parts involved in this mod:
















































As you can see, placement of the trigger wheel and sensor externally allows for something new: adjustment. In other words, tuning. So, given the 14-tooth Motronic specification for sensor placement, has anyone experimented with adjusting it? As an example, what effect is there if the sensor sees the trigger tooth at 15 before TDC? Or even 16?

This much I know: the stock Motronic ECU will tolerate as much as a two-tooth alteration before throwing an "incorrect correlation" code. So that's 12 degrees of crank rotation to play with (in either direction!). Quite a bit. And since this modification has no impact on the mechanical timings of valves vs. cylinders, there's no risk of bending metal. Rather, an alteration of the G28 sensor's signal timing will impact timings for only the electronically-controlled components, e.g. fuel injector and ignition timing.

So in the 10+ years of tuning the 1.8T, what precedent is there for tuning the crank sensor placement?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Why would you ever want to mechanically "tune" the ignition timing? 25 years of advance on programmable ECU's and you are basically going back to "turning the distributor"... 

I don't want to be a dick, but this makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Well, heck, Pete. If you don't want to be a dick then simply put some effort towards that goal. As for me, I generally don't ask questions here without having put some thought into the answers. Anyhoo, so this notion makes no sense then. 

Huh. 

Well, how do you explain this then?











And just to be sure I've got the comparisons down right, here are the timing advance figures as conducted by the good ole ECU.











Also, as an added bonus, that 2+ sec faster pull came at 100˚c lower EGTs.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

I don't understand how or why this would work better than electronic timing advance. Very interesting though.

By chance, does your external trigger wheel + sensor (what sensor did you use) put out a nicer (cleaner) signal for the ECU?

Why does the factory ECU allow for that much 'play' before throwing an incorrect correlation code? Why would the factory trigger be off at all being that it's bolted firmly to the crank and the sensor is bolted firmly to the block casing.

...

Just questions from a guy who wants to understand more.

Thanks.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

I'll throw out an ill-informed guess here. 

Maybe what is happening is that you are correcting for crank twist at the upper rpms. Seen something like this on a NASCAR engine where they place a rotational torque on the crank and cams as they grind them to compensate for the crank twist at speed....maybe?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Atomic Ed said:


> I'll throw out an ill-informed guess here.
> 
> Maybe what is happening is that you are correcting for crank twist at the upper rpms. Seen something like this on a NASCAR engine where they place a rotational torque on the crank and cams as they grind them to compensate for the crank twist at speed....maybe?


Interesting theory.

http://www.kennedysdynotune.com/Crankshft Tech Tips.htm


> The crankshaft is a part that illustrates one of the conundrums frequently encountered in any kind of practical engineering. The stronger the crank, the better. But the crank also needs to be as light as possible. And it is very difficult to "add lightness" without adding cost or sacrificing strength. Ultimately, the strength of the crank depends on the design (especially the journal size), the material used, and the care taken in machining and installation. To discuss the crankshaft as it relates to blower or nitrous motors we need to analyze what causes a crank to fail.
> 
> All crankshafts twist during operation. As each piston goes through a power stroke, a twisting force (torque) is applied to the crank through the connecting rod. As each cylinder fires, torque is applied and relieved and as a result, the crank twists and untwists. Crankshafts also experience bending during operation, but this is usually of less significance than twisting. The most twisting load is on the rear of the crankshaft. The drive belts on the crank snout (power steering and AC, or a supercharger) also adds load, but to the front of the crankshaft. These loads on each end add to the twisting forces working against the crank, and as rpm and power levels increase, so do these stresses. Both nitrous and a SC add power and thus increase the stress on the crank with the added loads of driving the SC. When a blower car experiences crank failure, it is often at the snout area due to the added stress of driving the supercharger. Also, since a performance engine is often operated at high rpm, there is further loading the crank.
> 
> ...



This article has a graph of harmonics and twist. 
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/engine ... _windsor2/ 


> Cast steel, like cast iron, has higher self-damping properties than are seen with forged or billet cranks.
> 
> Read more: http://www.popularhotrodding.com/en...ord/smallblock/0306mm_windsor2/#ixzz23qHm3oZa



This article states that if there is more than 1/2 degree of twist "this" crank will fail. 
http://www.dalemfg.com/harmonicbalancer_008.htm 



> ...Our own testing of used GM harmonic balancers has shown that as the factory rubber begins to harden with age and temperature, the tuned frequency of the harmonic balancer increased as much as 26% with the unit still appearing to be intact and serviceable.
> ...A look at the test data above reveals that if a balancer started out at 220hz when new, an increase of only 10% will put it at 240hz which is the 1/2 degree crankshaft twist safe limit.
> ...One might conclude that many apparently serviceable used factory harmonic balancers no longer are capable of protecting against excessive radial (twisting) crankshaft vibration.



It seems that torsional vibrations are very significant and that's why high-hp motors use something like a fluidampr or a custom crank dampener customized to that spinning parts combination

...

But I think the idea of a larger torsional rotation due to different stresses at one end of the crank vs. the other could very potentially lead to different torsional deflections of the crank. To add to the conundrum, these torsional deflections, under the same conditions, will differ depending on the build of the crank (cast steel or billet steel)

...

Hmm...

....

As to this graph:









If essentially what we're doing here is mechanically increasing timing advance, what degree timing advance does each of those settings correlate to?

Once you know that, I'd like to see another run done with the mechanical timing set to the stock location and timing advanced using electronic means. See if it correlates to the mechanical timing bump.

...Cool stuff here


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

^
Well, two teeth is going to be way more than 1/2 of a degree twist, so that blows my theory out the window.

Isn't the 14 teeth on the graph above the stock timing setting?


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

i thought ignition timing was already adjustable in the ECU? and i thought these things were made so you dont have to keep the stock one inside the engine incase it would "explode" from harmonic vibrations at high rpm.....


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

groggory said:


> I don't understand how or why this would work better than electronic timing


It shouldn't. What you'd still need is the same method as the first time to speed graph w stock crank wheel with: 0, 6, 12 deg timing added. 

For all we know you have retarded the timing 12deg with the new wheel accidentially and are just getting it back to "right."


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> For all we know you have retarded the timing 12deg with the new wheel accidentially and are just getting it back to "right."


Yes. That's a SOLID and sensible idea. But I've run the 14th-tooth spec by Ed at FFE and Bill at Badger5. And I've scoured the internet for any hint that the "trigger" should be anywhere other than 14 teeth beyond the sensor at TDC. It's a dead end. 

So 16 teeth is just wrong. Yet why is it working? My guess: it's got to do with the ECU's model for torque requests. You see, the ECU decides whether torque request (made by your heavy, heavy right foot) is being met by sampling timing advance along with a load of other parameters. To meet the request, it establishes a level of timing advance that's necessary. And it will stick to that timing calculation no matter the degree of CFs forced by other inputs. So the net result of this mod is a forced "goose" of actual timing. 

And that's completely separate from what's happening with injector pulse timing. That too is impacted by this. And are we really supposed to believe an EV1 or EV6 injector will have the same exit speeds at their nozzles? Not to mention the newer EV14 or USRT's G2 units. They will all have different timings for the fuel "dose" to reach the valve opening.

Interesting, eh?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Yes. That's a SOLID and sensible idea. But I've run the 14th-tooth spec by Ed at FFE and Bill at Badger5. And I've scoured the internet for any hint that the sensor should be anywhere other than 14 teeth before the "trigger" at TDC. It's a dead end.
> 
> So 16 teeth is just wrong. Yet why is it working? My guess: it's got to do with the ECU's model for torque requests. You see, the ECU decides whether torque request (made by your heavy, heavy right foot) is being met by sampling timing advance along with a load of other parameters. To meet the request, it establishes a level of timing advance that's necessary. And it will stick to that timing calculation no matter the degree of CFs forced by other inputs. So the net result of this mod is a forced "goose" of actual timing.
> 
> ...


If I ever make it big I'm going to invest heavily in expensive measuring tools and budget to fly people like you out to my lab regularly so you can go to town


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Its definitely 14 teeth, I have verified that myself. I personally cannot verify how well you can count. Its easier to line up the leading edge of the first tooth after missing in any case. 

The timing logs do show something going on but its not huge in relation to the respective 6 and 12deg of advance you are adding. Overlay the time to speed w timing at that time under to show the difference. 

Also, I still want to see how the stock setup reacts to the same amount of timing add. 

Interesting thought on the injectors, but I have my doubts that has anything do do with the "power" found. Injection should be done by IVC and advancing would just let the fuel sit longer if anything. Might help w larger then stock cams but not oem. Again this could be checked by varying the injector timing in the tune.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Its definitely 14 teeth, I have verified that myself. I personally cannot verify how well you can count.


Hehe. No kidding. Nor can I. But here's the METHOD of the count. Starting with the first tooth after the gap I placed the sensor on the declining edge of the fourteenth. I have checked and re-checked that multiple times -- hoping to find an error that'd explain things away.




need_a_VR6 said:


> Also, I still want to see how the stock setup reacts to the same amount of timing add.


I agree. A proof will be in applying a map-wide 12˚ advance to the software while the trigger is at the stock 14-tooth position.



need_a_VR6 said:


> Again this could be checked by varying the injector timing in the tune.


You lost me there. How can the injector timing be altered in-software? I am using Maestro.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

There is a map for injection timing, you just don't have access to it. It makes very little difference to power at medium to high rpm. 

The point is, anything you can adjust by cranking the trigger wheel around, can be adjusted via software / the tune / inside the black box. 

Of course changing the trigger wheel position changes the acceleration rate- you are cranking the ignition timing back and forth a huge amount. 

I think what you would really enjoy, is a standalone ECU. You can play with anything in there, log muuuuch better, and do it very quickly and without any bugs*. 



*depending on what ecu you buy.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I would check at the first present tooth after missing in the block vs your external wheel. Line up the edge of the first tooth in the block hole and verify the other. 

I would also do the blanket timing add with the stock and external wheels. Might dispel a crank twist theory. 

Pete is spot on, the maps are there just not in Maestro. 

I agree standalone is much more "fun" then any of the me7 stuff. It at least can told to do what you want easily instead of having to vary a multitude of maps, some of which might not be well documented or available in the std tuning software. 

"Bugs" are an interesting topic, I would be pissed if I bought an off the shelf brand name unit if they werent resolved quickly. Lucky I got my standalone from a bunch of yahoos on an old mailing list.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Put the OE crank trigger and your trigger on 2 channels of an oscilloscope and load it up on the dyno at various RPM to measure the crank deflection. It will not be much. Crank is too short, too heavy duty, and not very heavily loaded / high rpm.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I would check at the first present tooth after missing in the block vs your external wheel. Line up the edge of the first tooth in the block hole and verify the other.
> 
> I would also do the blanket timing add with the stock and external wheels. Might dispel a crank twist theory.
> 
> ...


Mega squirt eh?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

I would use the vipec plug in ecu, but that's just me.


----------



## Rac_337 (Sep 24, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I would use the vipec plug in ecu, but that's just me.


Is the tt plugin box compatible with all mk4's?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I would check at the first present tooth after missing in the block vs your external wheel. Line up the edge of the first tooth in the block hole and verify the other.
> 
> I would also do the blanket timing add with the stock and external wheels. Might dispel a crank twist theory.
> 
> ...


Mega squirt eh?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Rac_337 said:


> Is the tt plugin box compatible with all mk4's?


Pretty much, I just need to verify a few more things. It also works with haldex. Something is back feeding the ECU on dave's 337 and keeping it powered up when it should shut down- but it doesn't do that on a stock TT... So, I need to figure that one out then we will be good to go. 

Everything works though, even the A/C, OE tach, etc.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

groggory said:


> Mega squirt eh?


Yep. If it did dbw control it would be in my car already.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Yep. If it did dbw control it would be in my car already.


And in mine too!  

As far as the timing, I also fail to see the point of mechanically change timing, when there is full access to it via software. It still won't increase the upper limit of advance/retard since it is mostly a factor of combustion chamber design and fuel used.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> And in mine too!
> 
> ...I also fail to see the point of mechanically change timing, _when there is full access_ to it via software....


I'm not so sure of that assumption. And that's the question underlying this experiment. Remember, I am approaching this from the perspective of Maestro-level command of the ECU. And Maestro is no slouch. Furthermore, the vast majority of readers here are stuck with far less ability to re-direct timing advance in-software.

Vacuum at idle is a touch better on the 16th tooth as well. 15-16 had been typical before this change.

Now:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Put back to 14 and add 12deg an check again


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Does the Fluid Damper have a TDC line on it? Better yet, is marked off in timing degrees. If so throw a timing light on it and see what your static timing at idle really is. This counting teeth business is nonsense with an adjustable CFI sensor.

If the Fluid Damper only has a TDC mark on it use a Dial Back timing light to figure out your static timing at idle.

One thing to remember. A Dizzy actually adds advance to the timing curve via the mechanical advance cams and Vacuum advance. An ECU controlled timing curve can *NEVER EVER* advance timing. It can only delay the spark event by retarding the timing. It can't alter the space time continuum and fire the coil(s) before the crank sensor is triggered.

So the base static timings for an engine that requires 10 degrees initial ( static timing ) and 30 degrees total timing would look like this.

Static timing + advance/retard = Total timing.

With a dizzy your timings would be:

Idle: 10 + 0 = 10 BTDC 

High RPM: 10 + 20 = 30 BTDC

Same engine, but with the ignition controlled by an ECU would look like this:

Idle: 30 - 20 = 10 BTDC

High RPM : 30 - 0 = 30 BTDC

But what if you modify the engine? Lowered compression ratio, high Octane Fuels ( IE: E85 ) and high overlap camshaft all require more ignition timing to be dialed in. This engine may now require 15 degrees at idle and 35 degrees total advance ( Probably not that high on a Turbo motor..but common on NA )

But if your CFI sensor is locked at 30 degrees BTDC..then that is the maximum you can ever get out of it. And you are losing power. And if the software won't allow you to * subtract * less than 10 degrees at idle, then you will lose low rpm torque as well.

This is where an adjustable CFI sensor comes in handy. You can now add the increased timing required at the high RPM range mechanically and then subtract it with the software to get the curve you need. It puts your software back in it's " Operational window " ( if enough adjustment range is not available )

What Doug's results are telling me is that comparing the 14 tooth setting ( Lets say that equates to a static setting of 5 deg BTDC ) and the 16 tooth setting (Lets say that equates to a static timing of 10 deg BTDC ) is that the engine wants more ignition timing down low and up high. Makes sense with the modifications that he has done.

What must be done is to establish the definitive position of the crank sensor in relation to crankshaft position. And to do that you bring out the timing light and a marked damper.

Once you move away from the the stock crank sensor usage, you can no longer trust that software. The ECU has no actual clue where the crank trigger is mechanically positioned. ( Actually it does..with certain limitations. It does compare the Cam sensor and crank sensor values...but a variation of X degrees is allowed. You can also modify the Cam sensor positioning to coincide with the new front mount CFI if necessary ). All of the ignition maps are based on the stock positioning of the crank sensor.


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Put back to 14 and add 12deg an check again


ECU software can never ADD timing. It can only subtract it. See my post above. A small technical point..but an important one.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You can definitely "add" timing (increase spark advance) as long as your max advance is less then the total trigger angle (14 teeth x 6deg on motronic) minus any internal delays. 

Don't overcomplicate things, you might get confused.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Chickenman35 said:


> Does the Fluid Damper have a TDC line on it?


One thing I'd forgotten to note: I pulled a spark plug and confirmed the TDC mark on the FluiDamper does coincide with actual TDC on piston 1. I'd hoped to find it was off two teeth, closing the mystery. Nope again.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Ok. Here's some "red meat" for the thread:

Driveway logging​

Data blocks with car at idle with crank trigger at 16th tooth











Data blocks with crank trigger at 14th tooth and timing map advanced 12˚ globally











My impressions:​Blocks 93 shows the altered cam-to-crank correlation. Twelve degrees of change between logs
EGTs and airmass are higher at the 14 position. So is engine load. But all are within spec for this car. And 28% load at idle is nominal for just about any 1.8T


Street Logging​
Timing advance compared to 16teeth:










Well, obviously the software is doing it's part, wouldn't you say?


Airflow compared to 16teeth:










So we've got a nice bump in the airflows at the top end. That's promising too.



But here's the Time-To-Speed:











Basically we're at parity with the 15-tooth position. But at the cost of 11˚CFs and a 50˚c EGT increase. 

Puzzling.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

I feel like you're on to something, but I'm not sure what that something is, lol


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

^^^^what he said. Subscribed:beer:


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> You can definitely "add" timing (increase spark advance) as long as your max advance is less then the total trigger angle (14 teeth x 6deg on motronic) minus any internal delays.
> 
> Don't overcomplicate things, you might get confused.


Typical Vortex response I was expecting. 

I am NOT confused or over complicating things :banghead: It is a VERY simple concept and one that trips up software tuners all the time. You even pointed out the problem yourself. Your Max advance MUST be less than the total trigger angle...but if it isn't then you can have a problem. 

So I take it you understand and agree that ECU's can never actually " add" timing..you're just being precocious? :laugh:


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> One thing I'd forgotten to note: I pulled a spark plug and confirmed the TDC mark on the FluiDamper does coincide with actual TDC on piston 1. I'd hoped to find it was off two teeth, closing the mystery. Nope again.


Throw a dial back timing light on the damper and see what the actual timing figures are. Obviously the engine seems to like the additional timing. It would be interesting to see what the actual figures in real life are.

How many teeth are on that FE trigger wheel? 72? If so then each tooth = 5 degrees. So you are advancing the timing 10 degrees when you move the CF sensor two teeth.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Lets just say I know exactly how it works. I am not quite sure how you think you are not adding spark advance by lessining the time between the main trigger and the spark event.. but whatever. 

On that graph of time where the two curves diverge only at high revs it would be good to see commanded timing at the same point. Maybe the stock trigger setup retards there for some reason. 

The FE trigger HAS to be 60 teeth with two missing.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> The FE trigger HAS to be 60 teeth with two missing.


This external crank assembly is really just a simple transplant of the stock parts. Same trigger wheel. Same sensor. Here's a pic. It's homely enough I guess.


----------



## speeding-g6O (Nov 22, 2011)

i dont have anything positive to add, other than i am watching and digesting.

but this is the type of material that the id=27 forum NEEDS to have in it.

today, i have a much better grasp of "who" knows "what" than i did 5 years ago.

and there are a good many "whos'" here today in this one.


----------



## AmIdYfReAk (Nov 8, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> *snip*


That internal tooth wheel shot freaks me out, definitely watching this however...


Trying random and at times pointless/stupid stuff is how some of the best things have been made/done..

Keep it up!


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Without trying new ideas there will never be advances. Even though the platform is old by tinkering with it and " Frankensteining " it there could always be something interesting to find. That was a big thing in the DSM world and always has been big in the Honda world. Sometimes it works, sometimes, no. But, you always learn SOMETHING from the travels, even if it had nothing to do with what you intended on accomplishing.


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Lets just say I know exactly how it works. I am not quite sure how you think you are not adding spark advance by lessining the time between the main trigger and the spark event.. but whatever.
> 
> On that graph of time where the two curves diverge only at high revs it would be good to see commanded timing at the same point. Maybe the stock trigger setup retards there for some reason.
> 
> The FE trigger HAS to be 60 teeth with two missing.


Yes..I know that you know exactly how it works..as do I. The only point I was trying to make, and maybe I didn't make it clear enough, is that when building a CFI from scratch you do have to ensure that sensor is positioned so that you can have a static timing position ( mechanically ) equal or more than what your total timing requirement of the engine is. That is the small, but important point, that can get overlooked.

Anyhoo.. no need beating on a dead horse..but I just never trust software and instrumentality 100% :beer:

If it was me, I would still throw a timing light on that thing just to make sure that the ECU and the software are doing what they say they are doing. As far as the ignition circuit goes, it's a well known fact that some aftermarket ignition boxes have a hysteresis problem that adds retard as RPM rises.

Different types of magnetic triggers can also retard with RPM as you mentioned. It all depends on what is used.

So yeah..I would definitely be checking things with a timing light.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Chickenman35 said:


> Yes..I know that you know exactly how it works..as do I. The only point I was trying to make, and maybe I didn't make it clear enough, is that when building a CFI from scratch you do have to ensure that sensor is positioned so that you can have a static timing position ( mechanically ) equal or more than what your total timing requirement of the engine is. That is the small, but important point, that can get overlooked.
> 
> Anyhoo.. no need beating on a dead horse..but I just never trust software and instrumentality 100% :beer:
> 
> ...


Ya, but- back to my original point- if you stick this on there, then adjust it with a timing light so that the ECU requesting say- 10 degrees BTDC really gives 10 degrees BTDC, what are you accomplishing other then a bunch of work? Then if you are clocking it somewhere else, why aren't you just changing the timing in software. 

Basically, even if it's performing better with random trigger angles- all that is telling you is that your ECU tune is not optimum, and needs to be adjusted.


----------



## thom337 (Oct 13, 2007)

:facepalm: to this whole thread.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

thom337 said:


> :facepalm: to this whole thread.


Eh...


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Ya, but- back to my original point- if you stick this on there, then adjust it with a timing light so that the ECU requesting say- 10 degrees BTDC really gives 10 degrees BTDC, what are you accomplishing other then a bunch of work? Then if you are clocking it somewhere else, why aren't you just changing the timing in software.
> 
> Basically, even if it's performing better with random trigger angles- all that is telling you is that your ECU tune is not optimum, and needs to be adjusted.


Never mind.. Point is lost now. So just skip it... I guess everyone trusts their software 100% and knows that the ME7 is 100% accurate has no built in hysteresis. :beer:

I won't waste any more of anyone's time on this. Continue along. eace:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Chickenman35 said:


> Never mind.. Point is lost now. So just skip it... I guess everyone trusts their software 100% and knows that the ME7 is 100% accurate has no built in hysteresis. :beer:
> 
> I won't waste any more of anyone's time on this. Continue along. eace:


Keep going, the previous poster was just a nay sayer


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Chickenman35 said:


> Never mind.. Point is lost now. So just skip it... I guess everyone trusts their software 100% and knows that the ME7 is 100% accurate has no built in hysteresis. :beer:
> 
> I won't waste any more of anyone's time on this. Continue along. eace:



I never said one should trust their software 100%. In fact, if you read my reply, you will see that I explicitly state that any gains from this mod would be from an error in the original mapping- eg- not enough / too much timing to start with. 

As far as timing drift etc due to the sensor angle versus rpm- even the most basic ECU's have correction numbers or tables for this... Also, even if it does not, that does not stop you from achieving optimal results via standard mapping, it just means that the indicated numbers on the ideal map- would not be correct versus reality. 

:thumbup::beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I adjusted the crank trigger a touch more -- just to push the envelope of the ECU's tolerance for this. With the crank sensor forcing a 13˚delta between the two sensors, VVT remains active. So it will clearly accept a 2-tooth alteration. Here's a snapshot:










Reading the day's posts I want to reiterate the original question: _anybody tried this?_ The whole notion here is of trial. If there's error, well, that's business. But at this point I don't yet see another route to the 16-tooth performance at EGTs. Not short of a whole standalone ECU system.

Who reading this thread has that? Standalone software people, lemme hear you!!

[crickets]

Thought so. For everyone else, this is just a twist of the dial.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Nice test you have here. I started broaching a stock crank pulley a couple of years back to run this very test. Didn't want to add any bit of weight to the crank end. Anyhow, you're not experiencing any implausible signal codes? As the center hub and mounting holes aren't what I would call concentric and sensor spacing is very crucial.


----------



## thom337 (Oct 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I adjusted the crank trigger a touch more -- just to push the envelope of the ECU's tolerance for this. With the crank sensor forcing a 13˚delta between the two sensors, VVT remains active. So it will clearly accept a 2-tooth alteration. Here's a snapshot:
> 
> Reading the day's posts I want to reiterate the original question: _anybody tried this?_ The whole notion here is of trial. If there's error, well, that's business. But at this point I don't yet see another route to the 16-tooth performance at EGTs. Not short of a whole standalone ECU system.
> 
> ...


Why would it not accept the alteration? (thow a code) You have removed the correlation w/ reality of its most important sensor. It won't throw a code for being out of alignment because it can't detect it. Phase errors are generally to detect cam installation errors...a crank trigger that was not designed to be adjusted can't be out of phase to the ECU because it is meant to be physically fixed to the crank, right?

Also...I still don't understanding why you are doing this. If you want to add a raw offset to timing (which is the wrong way to tune anyways) just use adaptation channels...takes all of 2 minutes?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Odd still. Timing logs of 14 tooth +12ign vs 16 +0, not just cf but comanded timing. 

Maybe because the ecu thinks there is less timing there are different parameters to enable knock retard?

ME7 makes my head hurt. It makes me want a distributor locked at 30 and good race gas. 

Edit: phase errors are detected between the missing crank teeth and the cam trigger pattern, once you are off the right cam edge it will get detected. Move the cam trigger and see what happens next?


----------



## thom337 (Oct 13, 2007)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Edit: phase errors are detected between the missing crank teeth and the cam trigger pattern, once you are off the right cam edge it will get detected. Move the cam trigger and see what happens next?


How is the ECU to know there is a bad crank/cam relationship? It will always assume TDC on crank is correct (unless there's a signal processing error) and he can move the crank trigger wherever he wants and the ECU will never know...it is an issue of where the cam phase signal is in relation to crank signal.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

If it is out of sync, it's out of sync. The ecu will not know whether it is fixed or not. It relies on trigger positions. If the crank is out of position, so is the cam for all intents and purposes. Now, the question remains... How will the ecu tolerate this static base timing and compromised correlation values?


----------



## thom337 (Oct 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> If it is out of sync, it's out of sync. The ecu will not know whether it is fixed or not. It relies on trigger positions. If the crank is out of position, so is the cam for all intents and purposes. Now, the question remains... How will the ecu tolerate this static base timing and compromised correlation values?


Yeah, you are correct it will throw a cam fault as the system will stay mechanically in time but electronically out...typing before thinking... 

ECU won't do anything unless it sees knock, in which case it will pull timing (as he saw). If the knock sensors aren't going off it won't care / won't know.

...but again, why? Especially if its harder and more expensive than doing it electronically? (talking about a pure timing offset)


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

Was more of a rhetorical question. I would also stick to programmatically playing with timing. Starting off with static retard/advance is not a good practice in modern engine management systems. I always wanted to do it for the purpose of bringing it closer to the other CPS :thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

thom337 said:


> ...but again, why? Especially if its harder and more expensive than doing it electronically? (talking about a pure timing offset)


That's what has been stated and asked a few times in this thread. Although mechanically altering the timing curve makes for some cool technical discussion and maybe some interesting byproducts like increased vacuum at idle etc, the end goal is still to optimize timing (something that can be achieved even past the optimal point aka MBT via software). 

Obviously if the timing curve wasn't optimized in the tune, mechanically changing it will net some results. But why go such an expensive, difficult to change and monitor way about things, when it can be done so easily with a software (even people without maestro level can alter overall timing with free software like Unisetting)?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> ... How will the ecu tolerate this static base timing and compromised correlation values?


Al -- I'm confused by the question. Because it seems you're asking about the correlation between G28 and G40 signals. As I covered above, the Motronic ECU will tolerate up to ~15˚ of (crank) deviation between the two. Any higher than that, you get codes. And VVT locks out.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Al -- I'm confused by the question. Because it seems you're asking about the correlation between G28 and G40 signals. As I covered above, the Motronic ECU will tolerate up to ~15˚ of (crank) deviation between the two. Any higher than that, you get codes. And VVT locks out.


Just a general question of both being separate conditions that the ecu must interpret under every condition. Of course, I don't expect an answer to this.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Not short of a whole standalone ECU system.
> 
> Who reading this thread has that? Standalone software people, lemme hear you!!
> 
> ...


Uhh- almost every race engine I build is on standalone. Vipec, usually. With that- there's certainly no reason to move the crank sensor around. I could put it 187.3 degrees out of phase and tune it to exactly the same power numbers. Or 93.9, or 47.1, etc. Doesn't matter. 

A lot of the ME7 tunes are - not really very tuned. Especially when they are running with half the sensors unplugged.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> A lot of the ME7 tunes are - not really very tuned. Especially when they are running with half the sensors unplugged.


 :thumbup:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> .... or 47.1, etc. Doesn't matter.


You might want more then that if you like lean burn, high advance induced fuel economy, but other then that, you're spot on.

I have to say that "whatever it is" that is happening seems to have benefits that you just need to recreate "proper" once they are discovered.

Also, I didn't see a method/sampling for your time to rpm, this a single run, average across a few, etc? Could be a lot of error lurking there unless it's in very controlled conditions, eg dyno, etc.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

the trigger wheel is 60-2.. so 58 teeth - 6 degree's per tooth for simple maths

stock position is 84' btdc

no more advance than 10' before TDC from ign would be possible - not that thats likely lol

I run standalone on mine, and when confirming I had the trigger wheel programmed in correctly, I fixed base timing at 10' and strobed the tdc marks (confirmed tdc marks) to check they all lined up. 84' BTDC is its position.

the cars run sequential injection, so injector timing relative to actual TDC (84) vs up to 2 teeth different will skew things... +12 degree's

In my stand alone I can run seqential or batch, but I run batch currently.. but in sequential I can change the time I tell the injector to fire. I need to search in me7 if there's a table I can access which allows such an adjustment and is not hardcoded.

Its clear Dougs stumbled onto something which has some evidence of accelerating faster, and lower egt's..... one thing which just occurs to me is the reported CF is based on windowed knock sensiing, which of course is also being effected by the 12 degree's difference. Runs less egt, but reports 11deg pull? kinda contrary dont ya think?

If you've not used nef logger to log raw parameters, then this may guide some explanation on to whats occuring here.

I'll have a gander at the function diagram and see if I can find anything usefull.

thanks for sharing doug..


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I never said one should trust their software 100%. In fact, if you read my reply, you will see that I explicitly state that any gains from this mod would be from an error in the original mapping- eg- not enough / too much timing to start with.
> 
> As far as timing drift etc due to the sensor angle versus rpm- even the most basic ECU's have correction numbers or tables for this... Also, even if it does not, that does not stop you from achieving optimal results via standard mapping, it just means that the indicated numbers on the ideal map- would not be correct versus reality.
> 
> :thumbup::beer:


I agree 100% with this..which was kinda my original point. It just got lost in translation. I do like to know if the indicated numbers in software actually do correlate properly with reality :thumbup::beer:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Chickenman35 said:


> I agree 100% with this..which was my original point. It just got lost in translation. I do like to know if the indicated numbers in software actually do correlate properly with reality :thumbup::beer:


I am going to throw out my guess at what the conclusion of this thread is going to be...

The manual trigger being used here is going to be used to verify what's actually going on between the relation of hardware to software.

The conclusion of that will feed back to how to tweak the software better or it will lead back that our software can't be tweaked in the ways necessary for these gains. In other words, how to translate that physical change back to a software change, and whether you need standalone to make that change or if ME7.5 can handle it.

And in conclusion, no one in the future will need to use an external trigger if they don't want to because the built in trigger will work fine, but with the new data you'll be able to write a better tune.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

badger5;78669927Runs less egt said:


> I have never seen increasing advance raise egt, always lower, even when massive knock is present. Its one of the few things here that makes sense!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

groggory said:


> I am going to throw out my guess at what the conclusion of this thread is going to be...


Well, I am thoroughly capable of second-guessing myself. So for that reason I've dropped the FrankenTT off with Ed at FFE for a "bonehead check". That and a new timing belt. So the car will emerge with fresh timing parts and a triple-check of the registrations. Let's see if FFE simply punches a hole in this whole question.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

The original reason the external crank trigger mount was made was because we had an internal failure of a stock placement crank trigger wheel. (it came loose and fell off like many have in the past due to harmonics and other issues)

We created this piece to also make room for the internal engine parts that doug designed and has been testing for almost a year on a daily basis.

The aluminum adapter was machined in an order to have perfect concentricity. Bored on a lathe and then all outer diameter, face and center hub machining done on an arbor that was machined to size and never removed from the machine afterwards until the piece was finished. During the process the tool arbor and part were checked with a dial indicator.

The reason the trigger disk and sensor mount looks crude is because we started with an 034 "bolt on kit" unfortunately not for this engine, crank cog, crank pulley, snout diameter or adapter depth. It was simply for a AEB style accessory system, eventhough doug was told it would bolt on and work, but I digress. So after jerking around with it for a few hours trying to make it work I threw it out and kept the disk itself.

After having several errors at higher rpm with the generic 034 trigger disk and also an issue with runout - concentricity (verified with another arbor on the lathe) I machined the disk down to a size and then welded the 034 disk hub to a factory crank trigger disk in a way so that it was also concentric.

The reason we uses the 034 center is so that we still had the possibility to dial it in, and furthermore because I didnt have any 6" solid round aluminum bar to make a new adapter from at 2am. This adapter was made from 3.5" aluminum round bar, to create and OEM based trigger disk mount it would have no adjustability to find the exact point where the oem ecu needs to see the missing tooth (as it is not adjustable like a standalone engine mangement can with crank angle index position) and the bolt spacing is so large that it would have to be ~6" diameter to mount the disk using the OEM bolt holes.

It is snug on the crank timing gear snout, at the very base, opening up slightly at the head of the timing gear bolt to allow for engine rotation with any popular 19mm 12 point deep or shallow sockets as well as removing the timing cog to do a timing belt without having to remove the trigger disk and adapter, essentially losing your timing mark.

It is also snug at the outer edge to locate the trigger disks ID without any chance for the gear to run out and hit the OEM sensor.

The adjustments made by doug were on his own tinkering with his associated findings. Realistically the part was made as a prototype for a portion of dougs drop in engine parts package. This way it can be installed by an experienced technician without needing pistons or expensive machine work/shop labor. The premise was to install it at the same time as rods/clutch install.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

With all of that said, I am still unsure as to what is exactly happening when you move the trigger wheel.

Unlike moving a distributor, where you are simply advancing or retarding ignition phasing (timing) there is no feedback to the ecu. You are ONLY affecting timing with modifying a distributor.

When you adjust the trigger wheel (which is an input to the ecu) you are altering more things other than just the ignition system.

Most likely the egt is down because the direction of the trigger wheel adjustment is lowering actual load, and we all know that this ecu is load based using the multiple input signals (maf,map,crank/cam, vvt position if enabled etc etc) to create an actual load percentage. And we also know that load percentage (spec and actual) affects timing and fueling at a minimum.

Do I think this may be a trick (after more testing to ensure there are no tremendous downfalls) to squeeking some more power out of a stock framed turbo configuration? Yes I do, but do I think that people should be blindly advancing the ecus crank angle input signal skewing all of its calculations, absolutely not.

What doug is doing is cool, and when controlled might actually give us something, but I am pretty sure bosch set that angle and tooth configuration up precisely when initially designing the system.


----------



## thom337 (Oct 13, 2007)

EdsGTI said:


> With all of that said, I am still unsure as to what is exactly happening when you move the trigger wheel.
> 
> Unlike moving a distributor, where you are simply advancing or retarding ignition phasing (timing) there is no feedback to the ecu. You are ONLY affecting timing with modifying a distributor.
> 
> ...


Changing the trigger shouldn't be lowering the ECU's load so long as it is not putting anything in an error state (sync/phasing error, etc). Its current load is almost entirely a function of air mass flow (MAF or speed density MAP based + some correction factors) and the load is controlled based on what filling quantity is requested. Since we are only changing phasing and its not actually getting a different filtered speed signal, requested and calculated load should remain as they would be if the wheel were not changed. The maps lookups will not differ due to this kind of shift.

It is lowering EGT because you are directionally shifting combustion earlier into the cycle. For a given air load as you get more power from the same fueling quantity ( via timing advance), you gain thermodynamic efficiency, and reject less heat to the exhaust (assuming other combustion factors held constant). For whatever angle he has advanced the system w/ the trigger wheel, you would get the same response from running the same actual timing in software. Knock regulation will be active as well in either case if it is pushed too far.

This will not let anyone get any more power out of their setup than they would get from advancing timing in maps or adding a raw offset in adaptation channels. And as has been stated, adding a raw offset to timing is the wrong way to do it.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

As far as I was told (as I have not done any testing of this for other purposes than getting it running on it) Tooth changes have shown increase or decrease in actual load percentages. Like I said, thats what I was told. And if thats the case then it very well could be changing things beyond timing.

A perfect example is if you have a car that is running very low ignition timing (5deg btdc rather than say 25deg btdc), physical engine load will change, like blocking out cells in an idle speed timing map in a standalone ecu to get a car to idle consistently on huge injectors/cams at a reasonable speed. 

The car wont be idling at ~50kpa, it will be higher, aka less vacuum, aka load changing.

Timing has a direct correlation with load. I understand the ecu is based off of air mass flow, but when you load the motor differently with something like ignition timing or excessive fuel it will change the load on the engine.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

I would love to know if load is a closed or open loop system. Obviously fuel/02/lambda is closed loop and making adjustments.

But is the actual load percentage a corrected table to mirror the expected or spec load percentage? Is there a background table that we are not able to see in an editor like maestro? You look at a log from say idle and you can have a target of 20 degrees and it will be 20-5-12-5-16-2-15 etc, its not a fixed solid number it bounces around. 

So maybe there is a closed loop load correction table somewhere that we cant see, or maybe its a function of the dbw, but I know from what doug has told me and that is that the physical load change in the ecu when adjusting the trigger wheel. From looking at logs in the past the timing may be bouncing around but the load is sitting quite steady in an idle state.

Im not disagreeing with you at all, I am just concerned that what is being done may be affecting more than just timing. But without seeing the logs it may just simply be that changing the timing, is changing the g/s which is changing the load.

The only thing that I dont understand then is what happens on a car with no maf, only a map if the ecu is air flow based only? I have had instances where there was a selection on the maestro timing maps that was incorrect, and the car was running very low, at times atdc timing, and the cars load was through the roof at idle 50-60+%, no maf, only map. I would think this physical change to the trigger disk orientation would affect load directly.

Maybe we will try to settle the actual effect this adjustment has on a car with the ability to see both.

Install the adjustable setup on a car with the crank mounted trigger still, and dyno the car stock, then with the external wheel adjusted retarded, on time and advanced and see if there is a consistent noticeable power change and just what tables and load sites are altered from the modifications.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thom337 said:


> For whatever angle he has advanced the system w/ the trigger wheel, you would get the same response from running the same actual timing in software. Knock regulation will be active as well in either case if it is pushed too far.


I don't understand why you're discounting the information I have already posted. Testing in the car clearly shows that we are NOT getting the same result from simply adding timing. If it did, I myself would just say "case closed!"


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

All your doing is effecting how the ecu is viewing the minimum timing table. By changing the crank sensor you effectively would need to remap the minimum timing table. Basically what you can shown is the minimum timing table isn't optimized for power, which is always the case. 

This is one of those tables that the "3 map tuners" tend to get scared of and never really change, they try to manipulate timing solely through the timing advance table.

This is a little secret in the Hondata flashpro tuning world to get rid of phantom knock in modified K series engines.

Too be honest I'm still trying to learn all the ins and outs of it myself but from what I can draw is a table where timing values are set, this table is to compare with the current values the sensors see or the ecu is requesting. If the value the ecu is requesting is too far from the MBT value it starts to pull timing. Now this MBT table is set up for a stock engine, start throwing in larger turbos, IM,exhausts etc etc... you all the stuff we like to throw on our cars and the MBT table is no longer a true MBT table for your engine.

So Pete is right in saying this can all be done in the software, it's just through a table not many understand but a lot are afraid to change because your basically setting parameters for your safety net(knock control).

Something like this would really aid in tuning the minimum timing table, easily. That combined with people moving away from MAFLESS tunes and such is really going to start bringing big numbers out of what for a long time has been considered small number set ups. That or we all start getting plug and play vipecs from IE when they introduce them and start making numbers like honda guys do =P


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Are you saying the Minimum Timing Table will truncate the ECU's timing adjustments? In other words, create a timing "floor" which the ECU can't punch through? Even if there's heavy knock?

Regardless, how is that minimum value map relevant to this when the runs showed comparable timing advance?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I didnt catch the tt was missing the internal wheel. The lack of comparisons and the motivation for the external wheel are much more understandable. 

As far as idle, timing is an ecu varied parameter to maintain a steady ifle speed. The tb angle sets the main (slow change) speed but any quick adjustments are through timing changes. 

One thing thats bothering me is what exactly is defining load? Just maf/rpm or are there many more parameters (map, temps, throttle angle, etc), tat all end up in the calc? 

Also in the logs any changes to requested or actual lambda as the trigger is varied?


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Are you saying the Minimum Timing Table will truncate the ECU's timing adjustments? In other words, create a timing "floor" which the ECU can't punch through? Even if there's heavy knock?
> 
> Regardless, how is that minimum value map relevant to this when the runs showed comparable timing advance?


no, the label, like more maestro labels:banghead:, is misleading. Basically(from my understanding could be wrong) this table is the ecu looks at to decide how much timing to pull if it thinks your knocking, this also, along with other tables, let the ecu make the determination on if you are even knocking or not. Think of it as more of a mean best timing table, rather then minimum, because I know for a fact it doesn't limit the amount of timing the ecu can pull cause I've purposely gone below the numbers on this table. 

Like I said I don't fully understand the table, but I do know it's set at the factory for a stock motor, stock boost levels, etc. and it has to do with timing pull, the amount and when it happens. Also this table needs to be changed as hardware/software modifications are done to the car since the characteristic of the motor are changing, mostly to improve high end power/flow.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

This thread is full of awesome:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> As far as idle, timing is an ecu varied parameter to maintain a steady idle speed. The tb angle sets the main (slow change) speed but any quick adjustments are through timing changes.


Well, that's interesting. I'd wondered why timing bounces around so much at idle. I wonder if the running averages would show a change between configurations...



need_a_VR6 said:


> One thing thats bothering me is what exactly is defining load? Just maf/rpm or are there many more parameters (map, temps, throttle angle, etc), tat all end up in the calc?


Ed brought up the same point. But the _chicken and the egg_ dynamic has one factor: the MAF calibration is NOT colored by software changes. The flowmeter is reading accurately no matter what. And it definitely is seeing more air going into the engine when the ECU has everything retarded. 



need_a_VR6 said:


> Also in the logs any changes to requested or actual lambda as the trigger is varied?


I'll look. Yesterday I compared the "actual torque" curves among the files. All are pretty similar, which points back to the idea that the ECU isn't seeing the added power and isn't able to self-regulate like it's designed to do.


----------



## thom337 (Oct 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I don't understand why you're discounting the information I have already posted. Testing in the car clearly shows that we are NOT getting the same result from simply adding timing. If it did, I myself would just say "case closed!"


You are getting generally the same physical spark angle either way minus the effect of knock regulation which should be quite similar if the true advance is the same. If load changes some due to torque regulation, you may see some deviation if knock regulation is pegged.

To really dig into the source of that airflow deviation up top I'd have to see better logs, not just pictures (actual spark, speed, load, knock CFs, lambda) and a number of maps (base spark and optimum spark). When you set up the 14 tooth (+12 timing) to match your 16 tooth timing, how exactly did you go about doing it? Adding an offset in adaptation or adding it to the base spark map? 

The problem that comes up here is that the ECU no longer knows the distance from the current spark angle to MBT because you have shifted the trigger wheel. So it has broken the usefulness of the spark efficiency curve. This can have a lot of effects on the whole torque structure. In addition, when you twist the mechanical advance up your max timing is no longer limited by the optimum spark map. For example: ECU retards spark 12 degrees due to knock...if it thinks base spark is some value, but it is actually something more advanced than that it will incorrectly calculate spark efficiency. This will then cascade into the torque structure as it will change the modeled torque, EGT and therefore likely the requested lambda for component protection. Air flow should remain largely unchanged if you are riding the maximum filling curve @ WOT. If you are not, the ECU can potentially request more airflow to make up for the torque decrease due to timing and rich condition. 

In regards to idle: Doing this in the software will have a different change than doing it mechanically for the reason stated above. I don't see anything beneficial or good about this. The spark efficiency curve gets messed up so it tends to settle at a different air flow. It can also promote idle instability as the PID was calibrated w/ a fairly accurate spark efficiency curve. For whatever spark advance you do mechanically, you could do the same thing in software without upsetting the system. 

Again, I just don't see what this gains. Do it in the software, do it right. Its easier and it will prevent errors discussed above w/ the torque structure. While we all know once you modify the engine hardware the spark efficiency curve will change, a good guess at its general shape is a lot better than shifting it 12 degrees...if you take a look at it you'll see how steep it is in this area -12 of MBT. Even the stock curve on a modified motor will be much better than that.

Above all I just can't understand why anyone would want to go down this road when the right choices are so easily available. :sly: Its certainly interesting to examine the effects of this on the torque structure and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it just makes me shake my head when everyone is talking about this like its going to be some kind of new tuning tool or performance modification.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

thom337 said:


> ... it just makes me shake my head when everyone is talking about this like its going to be some kind of new tuning tool or performance modification.


Let's not lose track of what's being said, Thom. Thus far, with the data still coming in, I think Ed's statement is the most level-headed:



EdsGTI said:


> ... do I think that people should be blindly advancing the ecus crank angle input signal skewing all of its calculations, absolutely not...
> 
> ... I am pretty sure bosch set that angle and tooth configuration up precisely when initially designing the system.


----------



## RaraK69 (Jan 16, 2001)

Hmm im with Thom

You are skewing the optimal timing maps, which are super key in the torque management routine. They "should be" calibrated with cylinder pressure sensors at the factory which is the true way to calculate MBT. 

Cysler was talking of "phantom knock" there are maps for knock sensitivity(changed when runnign solid mounts usually) and there is an rpm/load table for amount of timing to pull on knock as well that can be tuned.

Then there was talk about maybe a less than optimal factory calibration of timing, well dont forget there is a strict guideline called EPA and their requirements for emissions, timing will have an impact on this greatly, so of course you will see less than optimal values at idle for instance. You can pump timing at idle situations to smooth out injectors for instance, which lowers the vacuum(or increases depending on how you look at it), which therefore is increasing load, part two is to make sure you have enough idle torque reserve as well for this to work.

Thats my input on what is relevant to what [email protected] is seeing, and possible places to investigate to reproduce this via software alone. Im surely not dismissing Dougs findings, however i need to digest it a bit on free time and think it through to really narrow down exactly what the Motronic is doing.


Glad to see somebody trying something different, thinking outside the box.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I have never seen increasing advance raise egt, always lower, even when massive knock is present. Its one of the few things here that makes sense!


the point was.. it retarded 12 degrees of pull, which would have brought its timing back again, yet had a change in egts

Also, is this fixation on the 12 degree shift being purely thought of in terms of ign advance and timing maps.. ign timing, the ones which are used in calculating torque reqeust to actual torque hence loads the ecu's busily doing the maths for.

What actual parameters are being logged? In terms of the me7 function diagram I mean.

Timing.. and I mean ALL Timing, is relative to crank and cam position angle interms of firing injectors sequentially etc...

There are a bunch of guys on nefmoto who would be quite knowledgable to me7 workings.. Perhaps worth posting your findings there doug


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

My apologies for opening this thread back up, but I’m still learning from this thread and I’m interested in what Doug found out when he re-checked everything. Was the time-to-speed improvement just a simple case of “bumping the distributer”, or was there something else gleamed from this testing?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

The car's got a new timing belt on it (as of yesterday) and I'll be re-testing with the 14, 15 & 16 tooth positions.

But I'm hoping to have possibly found that the 14-tooth position on the trigger is now working as it should. I'll have more info shortly. :beer:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Interesting.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> The car's got a new timing belt on it (as of yesterday) and I'll be re-testing with the 14, 15 & 16 tooth positions.
> 
> But I'm hoping to have possibly found that the 14-tooth position on the trigger is now working as it should. I'll have more info shortly. :beer:


Thanks Doug, 

Appreciate all of the effort to educate the masses.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I have collected some data with the car running at idle under a few different settings. Below is a graph showing the engine's response to various trigger locations -- before and after the timing belt got replaced. I feel the comparison sheds some light on things:










Most salient is the before/after when the trigger is oriented per OEM spec. Clearly, the engine load value is far better. It's down by a good 5-6 value points. And it's now a mere kiss away from where the car was before the trigger wheel was moved. By contrast, the 16-tooth position is now looking inappropriate. Its load values are really out of the ordinary (spending most of the time sub 20), and there's a good deal of eccentricity during the sample time. That sure smacks of being the wrong place for the trigger.

After a bit of minute adjustments, I have gotten the values to closely match those from the internal trigger. It's modded perhaps 2-3 crank degrees, no more. And I'd say that small amount can simply ascribed to the margin of measurement error.

Tomorrow, I'll road test. But I'm really leaning towards the idea that the earlier results were being caused by some kind of mechanical fault. 14 teeth is looking like the ticket. And I'm all for that.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I have collected some data with the car running at idle under a few different settings. Below is a graph showing the engine's response to various trigger locations -- before and after the timing belt got replaced. I feel the comparison sheds some light on things:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


is this indicating the cam belt timing was just 'off' from the start then?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> is this indicating the cam belt timing was just 'off' from the start then?


Before the new belt went in, we checked all the timing marks & confirmed #1 piston was at TDC. Everything was in time. The same is true now.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Belt srretch?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

With the newly-released FrankenTurbo file from Eurodyne, the whole picture is now changed. Bottom line: _who needs trigger 16?_ 

Here's a look at the timing curve I set up within Maestro 










The car is perfectly happy with a radical increase in timing - just as it was when on the old software and the 14th trigger. But now, the car is at parity with 16teeth on the roadway: 











The newly-configured setup, with the trigger at the proper spot at 14 teeth and a brand-spanking file from Eurodyne, is very close to the best achieved when tinkering mechanically. And that's at a lower mass airflow rate. Check it: 











I have to say that C.Tapp swept in at the perfect time with a properly-set up file for this turbo. Clearly, a good tuner can deliver anything a hardware hack can. Thank you Chris!! :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Fixed for you my old friend, and I think your final conclusion was proposed several times in the thread  



[email protected] said:


> Clearly, a good *tune* can deliver anything a hardware hack can.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

Color me *un*surprised.

I'm glad you got to the bottom of this, though :thumbup:


----------



## forcefedjetta (Aug 14, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> With the newly-released FrankenTurbo file from Eurodyne, the whole picture is now changed. Bottom line: _who needs trigger 16?_
> 
> Here's a look at the timing curve I set up within Maestro
> 
> ...


 Wait is there an f23 file now available ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

I seen the update in maestro with the F23 file:thumbup: I don't quite understand how the original issue was solved..... Can someone elaborate on this?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Here's a summation: 



External crank trigger wheels work just fine when set up per OEM specs 

Tuning support from a solid programmer is the best route to get your hybrid turbo working like it should


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Here's a summation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 so what is done in supplied software from chris vs whats possible to adjust in maestro? 
I thought masetro was fully adjustable.... inc optimal timing tables as well as running timing tables etc etc.. Is that not the case?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

badger5 said:


> so what is done in supplied software from chris vs whats possible to adjust in maestro?
> I thought masetro was fully adjustable.... inc optimal timing tables as well as running timing tables etc etc.. Is that not the case?


 Probably just a better base timing map that is more optimized than the "tuned" one that Doug was running before. Maestro is great because it gives adjustability, but the limitation is always going to how appropriatly done the end-user tweaks are.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> so what is done in supplied software from chris vs whats possible to adjust in maestro?
> I thought masetro was fully adjustable.... inc optimal timing tables as well as running timing tables etc etc.. Is that not the case?


 Actually this incident highlighted for me just how many discreet adjustments there are beyond the usual suspects. And I'm sure a number of them aren't available to a typical Maestro user. For example, timing at idle is completely different now. Before the car was averaging -6˚ when sitting in the driveway. Now it's running +9˚ at idle. So engine load values are way lower now. What did Chris modify in the software that results in a such a big change in ignition timing? I can't tell. 

Another example of "behind the scenes" changes is in the cold startup routine. This new file advances the intake cam to speed warm up. Just like a stock ECU would. But the previous one had that behavior removed. The cam stayed in its normal position, which netted a smoother idle on my modified car. To restore that I'll need Chris' help. I have no idea where such commands would be in the Maestro maps. 

I think for an "Enthusiast" level Maestro user like me, a good base map is a tremendous help. Now I'm free to tackle the sexier parameters like ignition timing and air/fuel mix. Whatever is going on in the background isn't something I've got the time for understanding. I just want it to work. And now it does.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Maestro seems like such a puzzle to me. So many ways to do something... And usually only one optimal way.

Maestro is awesome, but it really only shines in the hands of a knowledgable and talented tuner in that skill


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Me7 is a giant puzzle and Maestro only lets you see some of the pieces. Chris is an excelent tuner but this thing highlights why its not the end-all be-all of tuning.. Yet.


----------



## Budsdubbin (Jul 14, 2008)

badger5 said:


> so what is done in supplied software from chris vs whats possible to adjust in maestro?
> I thought masetro was fully adjustable.... inc optimal timing tables as well as running timing tables etc etc.. Is that not the case?


 

Exactly what I was looking for.... And sadly this thread really doesn't answer the question as to what the original problem was with the software other than "something to so do with timing adjustments" and a conclusion other than nothing bets a good tune and problem solved, we have no idea what Chris did.lol Doug you should do a bit more reading into maestro its not impossible to understand. Knowing how me7 will react changing certain tables or going about a certain way to tune working around the ecu's logic such as the torque model influence.... That's the difficult part.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Budsdubbin said:


> Exactly what I was looking for.... And sadly this thread really doesn't answer the question as to what the original problem was...


 I've been thinking about that. And I hate a thread that just dwindles down with no resolution. So my explanation would be that a hardware fault in the car opened my eyes to a whole new dimension of tuning for these ECUs. Fixing the fault was no more difficult than replacing an old, worn timing belt. And that could easily have happened without my ever even being aware of an issue. But this occurred while tinkering with an unusual modification, and I mistakenly took the symptoms to be due to the trigger wheel mod. Turns out: no, that wasn't the case. The trigger works just fine at 14 teeth, whether it is mounted internally or externally. 

A second bit of good luck was having this come up just as C.Tapp was developing a ground-up file for FrankenTurbo. It wasn't written for a BEA engine. And it wasn't even written for an F23. But I took a chance on Chris' fundamental skill at tuning, and I now see the benefit. In one ECU flash I have swept out the cobwebs of countless "newbie" tweaks from the last months. So this really highlights the value of the Maestro "web library". There's a lot of really good groundwork laid there. 

:thumbup:


----------



## Rosten-Performance (May 15, 2010)

Never mind


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Glad to hear things have gotten better, seriously though, Tapp needs to poke his head in here once in a while and give us something...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

l88m22vette said:


> Glad to hear things have gotten better, seriously though, Tapp needs to poke his head in here once in a while and give us something...


 Agreed. If he'd spend 5 minutes a week in the very forum that launched his product, and probably gave him more free marketing than all other forums combined; it would go a long way.

When I had maestro Arnold walked me through it. Thank God I spent an entire day at pagparts with him, or I would've been lost when maestro was first released; as the forum was lost as well. 

Maestro will be on my next project for sure, and the forum has developed quite an effective support system. It's a shame tho; as we could've been where we are now 2 years ago if Tapp pulled his head out of his áss, and supported the forum that has supported him..

I hope he's reading this..


----------

