View Full Version : e-manage vs Soarer
Just fitted an emanage Ultimate to my Soarer, not mapped it yet, as there a couple of things I'm seeing in the logs that are bothering me :blink:
74256 74257
First off, the pressure reading is fluctuating a lot at max boost (~1.15 bar). It's much the same as Ian C describes in this thread (http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=97683&highlight=pulsation), but this is the stock sensor fed from the stock pulsation damper. It's like the damper has stopped damping - is that possible?
Secondly, the injector duration appears to randomly drop to zero when the duty is at 100%. I'm guessing the emanage is having trouble reading the signal sometimes since the off time is so short. I'm pretty damn sure the duration isn't really going to zero! Is this a known thing that the emanage finds difficult?
The EMU is fully wired in for +/- fuel etc., all the maps are zeroed, the only thing the EMU's doing so far is clamping the airflow output to the same voltage that my FCD clamped at. The car runs the same as it did before - fine but rich.
If I could get a better pressure signal, I could reduce airflow to bring the injectors off 100% (although I was hoping to do that using the injector map). Obviously, either way I need a better pressure signal, so that's the first thing I want to get sorted.
Any ideas anyone? :search:
Tricky-Ricky
20-04-08, 18:06
I have tried my PS off both damped and undamped and from what i could see it made no difference, i presume you don't have the Greddy PS? i would be inclined to use that as it will read the higher pressures more accurately, i also scale my maps by it.
I don't have the greddy sensor, I thought the stock one would be good enough for the boost I'm running?
AFAIK, the Soarer sensor has the same range as the stock Supra sensor, quite likely to be identical apart from the casing. Do they get these fluctuations when close to the max they can read?
mrdsukautos
20-04-08, 19:54
Soarer sensor only reads to 1 bar bud ;)
So why did Thor map mine to 1.2 with no issues? I even provided the greddy 3bar sensor and was told not required
Soarer sensor only reads to 1 bar bud ;)
Hi Dean, how's things :)
A Soarer sensor (not mine) has been tested on the bench and found to read linearly up to just over 1.2 bar, giving the same voltages out as a Supra sensor.
Surely if it was a TT Soarer the stock MAP sensor would be 2bar or 2.5bar ?
Surely if it was a TT Soarer the stock MAP sensor would be 2bar or 2.5bar ?
It is a TT, and the sensor is essentially the same as the one on a TT Supra, just in a different package.
I imagine that the spec sheets would call them 2 bar (absolute) sensors, but in fact they can both read up to about 2.2 bar (absolute).
mrdsukautos
21-04-08, 14:12
Hi Dean, how's things :)
A Soarer sensor (not mine) has been tested on the bench and found to read linearly up to just over 1.2 bar, giving the same voltages out as a Supra sensor.
thats very interesting indeed :D
i love learning new things :D:D:D
Im good bud busy but good
you?
thats very interesting indeed :D
i love learning new things :D:D:D
Im good bud busy but good
you?
Pretty good, ta. Been really busy but back to more regular hours now so a bit more time to spend on the car :) I bottled fitting those aussie pipes myself, but they're on now and it's all working, and sounding, great :D
That looks exactly like mine did when I wasn't using the pulsation dampened output. I had a piccy on my webspace that is now the sad red x in the thread of mine that was linked to - I must try to find that again as it was a shot of the two datalogs I took back to back testing this.
They showed clear as day a big difference in the MAP output at idle when damped and non-damped. The non-damped one was all over the place, the damped one was much smoother. I also have many a datalog that shows the fluctuations get much worse the faster the engine is running and the more boost you are running - again very similar to what you are seeing.
And yes, the duration can get confused when you are running 100% duty :)
-Ian
Thanks Ian. I went to take the pulsation damper off the car to see if I could spot anything amiss with it, but I couldn't get it off. Can't think what could go wrong with it though - presumably it's just a chamber with a small entry hole (the pneumatic equivalent of a low-pass R-C filter)?
Swampy's kindly lent me a greddy sensor, so I'll play around with that later and see if it shows the same fluctuations. I'm guessing it will, but at least it will rule out the sensor if so.
I take it the signal at idle should be smoother than this?
74372
(Airflow = light blue)
Sure would make testing changes easier :)
That's annoying about the injectors, because it seems to read it ok most of the time :(
No probs Jon, just let me know how you get on. id really love to go to mapping school, and if mine wasnt my daily driver Id have a fiddle myself.
Tricky-Ricky
22-04-08, 18:27
Thats interesting, here is a couple of my logs, with and without, Lt blue is greedy sensor and orange is std PS in both case's, maybe my damper is fooked, but both seem not too noisy.
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb118/Tricky-Ricky13/LogwithoutPD.gif
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb118/Tricky-Ricky13/LogwithPD.gif
Thats interesting, here is a couple of my logs, with and without, Lt blue is greedy sensor and orange is std PS in both case's, maybe my damper is fooked, but both seem not too noisy.
Thanks, that's very useful :)
Not much difference in the stock sensor trace, but the greddy is definately smoother in the first log (coincidence?). Greddy is notably smoother than the stock sensor in both logs - were both sensors attached to the same point? Your stock sensor looks to be about as un-smooth as mine, at least at idle - what's it like at full chat?
Tricky-Ricky
22-04-08, 19:25
Both my logs are in real time, i don't think yours are, so that may account for it, here is one i did at the weekend, no full chat but, its a bit weired, look at the greddy sensor trace, its like the boost is spiking, but the std one doesn't show any signs, nor do my Innovate logs, which is what i normally use.
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb118/Tricky-Ricky13/LogwithPD01.gif
So far I've been doing all my logs using the 20mS setting, if that's what you mean by real-time?
I've just done a quick test with a greddy sensor on mine at idle, and it's smoother than the stock sensor. I'll go out for a proper run in a bit.
Tricky-Ricky
22-04-08, 20:28
If you look at your logs in the 20ms setting, you are looking at the time scale in 0.2 second increments, you earlier ones are in something like 3 second increments which will tend to make the traces look more noisy, by real time i mean 100ms = 1 second.
Oh, I see what you mean. But... time has been transformed into the horizontal spatial dimension on the screen, so there's no such thing as real-time when looking at the traces like that ;)
I chose the replay timescales because they're the ones that show the fluctuations most clearly (apart from the first pic, which just gives an overview). Because they're rpm related, the idle one needs to be more compressed in time.
Here's my idle log at 100ms/division to allow direct comparison:
74390
Looking again, your idle trace has about the same amplitude of noise, but at a higher frequency. Strange... :think:
Well the greddy sensor is certainly much less affected by fluctuations at high revs, compared to my stock sensor :)
I managed to reduce the fluctuations on the stock sensor a bit, by using a t-piece with a restrictor in it, and hooking the stock sensor up to the connection with the restriction in it. I'm sure a bit more experimenting could get it even smoother.
If the signal from the stock sensor was smoothed out with a filter, it would match the greddy sensor's reading pretty well.
But both of those feel like work-arounds - if I should be getting a cleaner signal from the stock sensor then it means something is wrong, and could be fixed, no? Or maybe it's just that some stock sensors behave better than others above 1 bar gauge (which is probably what they're specified for)?
74396
Tricky-Ricky
23-04-08, 11:13
It may be down to the fact that the Greddy sensor is either 2 or 3 BAR cant remember which, and the stock is somewhat less, 1 or 2BAR??
so presumably the resolution will be better for the greddy at higher boost,
have you tried the restrictor/filter on the stock sensor yet? they obviously need it hence the one in the plenum.
Going back to my earlier comment, thats why i prefer to use and scale my maps on the Greddy sensor.
It may be down to the fact that the Greddy sensor is either 2 or 3 BAR cant remember which, and the stock is somewhat less, 1 or 2BAR??
so presumably the resolution will be better for the greddy at higher boost,
Well the greddy sensor evidently has some damping built into it, which might be useful, but I don't really need the extra range. (Bigger range tends to mean lower resolution, but either sensor has plenty enough resolution for the job).
have you tried the restrictor/filter on the stock sensor yet? they obviously need it hence the one in the plenum.
That last trace is with the t-piece restrictor inline to the stock sensor. I've had the pressure sensor(s) attached to the damper on the plenum all along.
Going back to my earlier comment, thats why i prefer to use and scale my maps on the Greddy sensor.
Yes, ok, but you haven't actually said that you've seen fluctuations like I've got - so I'm guessing that you haven't. :search: Maybe you've still got an FCD fitted so the signal is clamped before getting to the emanage (you wouldn't be the first... ;) ).
Before putting the extra restriction in, it was varying from 0.9 to 1.2 bar at full boost - exactly how Ian C described in his thread when it wasn't attached to the damper. Unless I find out that such fluctuations are to be expected, then the evidence so far points to there being a problem somewhere, which I'd like to fix regardless of which sensor I end up using.
Tricky-Ricky
23-04-08, 16:03
What i meant by the greddy maybe having better resolution, is that if the std sensor is reading at the limit of its ability's/pressure, then it is likely to be less accurate at that limit, as you observation of it varying from 0.9 to 1.2 bar at full boost, would back up.
No i haven't seen fluctuations like you describe, and also i haven't got FCD, other than the built in one in the EMU, which is another reason why i use and scale the maps by the greddy sensor, as then the std sensor voltage is then clamped at 4.40V so the ECU is only seeing an output from the EMU anyway.
Sorry, I was pretty sure I knew what you meant, just making sure. :)
I still think though that if I didn't have the fluctuations, the stock sensor would have reasonable accuracy up to 1.2 bar. Since you haven't seen them either, it does look like there's a problem somewhere.
I'll try the sensors off an undamped point this evening, see if it's any different.
Tricky-Ricky
23-04-08, 18:26
Its strange that there seems to be no info on just what the limit of the std sensor is, there is nothing in the manual, only a general consensus, it would be interesting to find out for sure,
be interesting to see what results you get, when undamped.
Tried it, comparing the logs it's hard to spot the difference at idle. There's a clear difference at full boost but not a massive one.
On both of these logs, there's still the restrictive t-piece affecting the stock sensor.
Sensors fed from the damper (stock position):
74438
and from the port that's normally used for the heater valve:
74439
Thing is, even with the greddy sensor fed from the damper, there's about 1 psi of fluctuation around about 15.6 psi - is that normal?
Tricky-Ricky
24-04-08, 11:58
Its a very slight difference, but yes yours does seem a bit more of a noisy signal, could be electrical? another thing i am noticing is that both your Greddy and std pressure signal seem to pretty much match up as far as scale is concerned, looking at some of mine the std pressure signal is way higher than the greddy:blink: its also the same on another log i have from somebody else's Supra, it would be interesting if somebody could post up there logs, if the have both std and greddy PS lodged, I'm now wondering if the Soarer has a different std PS??
Its a very slight difference, but yes yours does seem a bit more of a noisy signal, could be electrical?
Could be some electrical noise, although I don't see any on other signals (e.g. water/intake temps) so I don't seem to have a problem with noise generally (like with a bad ground or something).
Anyway good to know that's fairly similar :)
another thing i am noticing is that both your Greddy and std pressure signal seem to pretty much match up as far as scale is concerned, looking at some of mine the std pressure signal is way higher than the greddy:blink: its also the same on another log i have from somebody else's Supra, it would be interesting if somebody could post up there logs, if the have both std and greddy PS lodged, I'm now wondering if the Soarer has a different std PS??
So long as the emanage is setup correctly, 'Pressure Sensor PSI' should roughly match 'GReddy Pressure Sensor PSI 1'. 'Airflow Input(v)' is higher because it shows volts.
For both 1JZ-GTE and 2JZ-GTE (non-vvti), the emanage vehicle setup shows the airflow meter type as 'TY_PR-1'.
Tricky-Ricky
24-04-08, 13:25
I agree, but mine doesn't, and the higher the pressure the bigger the discrepancy gets, i was beginning to think one of my sensors was faulty, but looking at someones else's log it seems to be the same, strange, more testing required;) never really used or took much notice of the EMU logs as i map using the Innovate logs, and i don't log the std PS, only the greddy one + the inbuilt one for reference.
Saw this same problem last night on a EMU. It is very worrying how unstable it is.
Also where in oxford are you. Im in Woodstock
Ryan
Saw this same problem last night on a EMU. It is very worrying how unstable it is.
Also where in oxford are you. Im in Woodstock
Ryan
Well at least I'm not the only one! :( Do you think it could just be that some stock sensors behave better than others above 1 bar?
It might be a fairly common problem, but I haven't found much when searching for similar cases. Although I'm not sure how many people would notice - an FCD almost completely hides the problem, reducing airflow with a SAFC or similar would pass the signal to the ecu but it might cope ok (it would only have to average about 80 to 100 ms worth to get a smooth signal), and many emanage users have the greddy sensor.
I'm in north Oxford - I'd be surprised if we hadn't passed by each other on that road before now ;)
Lordy lordy. First off lets clear up some basic clangers so far:
1ms = one millisecond = 1/1000th of a second or 0.001. 1000ms = one second.
A 20ms logging rate is one sample every 20*0.001 or 0.02 of a second, that's one twentieth not one fifth of a second. 20ms is a good speed for a datalog.
"Real time" viewing is when you watch the numbers, it's fairly useless for anything other than keeping an eye on values during testing.
Regarding the stock MAP sensor - The stock sensor is actually quite linear and capable on the Supra, right up to 1.2bar. It will read another 0.05bar but it gets erratic at that point (I'm sure I've typed this in on more than one previous occasion). I once went through the tedious task of going through all my datalogs and getting the pressure sensor reading vs the voltage reading, and thus drawing up one master table of volts-to-pressure of the stock MAP sensor. I have average voltage values for every 0.01kg/cm2 increment so it's as accurate as anyone is ever going to need. (kg/cm2 can be considered the same as Bar for our uses)
Now, regarding the assertation that the dampener doesn't have any effect, I've created and uploaded some graphs. The first two are a grab of my car at idle with (1st) and without (2nd) the dampener in place - note the more noisy effects. It is emphasised if you zoom out, see the 3rd and 4th images.
Still not convinced? Well the 5th and 6th graphs are from datalogs of my car on boost - the first is undamped, the second is damped. I reiterate that "the fluctuations get much worse the faster the engine is running and the more boost you are running" as hopefully has now been hammered home :) Yes, the signal really is that bad on boost, a fluctuation of up to 0.4bar.
Yes the Greddy sensor output is smoother. I think that is because the signal is smoother somewhat by the EMU before it is logged/displayed, because it "knows" the sensor and can deal with its predictable output - just like boost controllers do only to a much lesser extent. Stick on something it has no idea about though, like a.n.other 0-5v output, e.g. your stock MAP sensor, and all it can do it report what it sees every sample interval.
So I'd say that as long as your stock sensor isn't up and down like in the undampened images then it is working normally - these sensors aren't steady state devices by any stretch, not like temperature sensors. The air in the plenum is being knocked around bigtime, hundreds of times a second.
-Ian
Thanks for digging out those pics, now I know exactly what the signal should look like. Pretty much what I thought actually, but it clears up a couple of things I wasn't entirely sure about.
I'm coming to the conclusion that my stock sensor is duff. Trying the undamped point on mine showed a difference, so my damper appears to be working (hard to see how it could go wrong anyway, but I didn't want to just assume it was working).
Tricky-Ricky
24-04-08, 17:02
Fist off if you select the 100ms scale you will notice that the log map itself is marked in one second numerals with 10x100ms increments, which is what I'm referring to, i find this scale more useful for seeing whats happening, and that is what i wrongly refereed to as real time.
As for the EMU logs, I'm not entirely sure i trust them 100% they are certainly quite different to the tandem logs taken with my Innovate LM-1 LMA-3 set up even though they are calibrated the same, and there is no damping/smoothing applied, so as long as the adjustments i make to the EMU show up as intended in the Innovate logs and the AFRs are correct, i don't think I'll worry to much.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.