SpecE30 and Megasquirt

#61

It seems to me that a reasonable test of this would be to get dyno data from a legally tweaked built engine, then swap in a plug-n-play MegaSquirt & connect the MAP sensor and get another set of dyno data. The results, including area under the curve, should be very close. A further refinement would be to revert the engine to “average” or new sensors and tweak the tune to result in an A/F match for the tweaked OE configuration. My bet is that the dyno results can be made to very closely match what I have right now. My “tune” isn’t perfect but it is pretty darn close to what one would like to have as far as A/F ratio is concerned.

The step after that would be to see what happens if you max out the MS tune. My guess is that you could improve the area under the curve by eliminating the fuel and timing pull that happens around 5k and by advancing timing. But I’m not sure how much additional performance there is to be had. It may turn out to be that the improvement isn’t all that significant.

#62

This is beyond dumb… there’s nothing wrong with the car as it came from the factory. Adding tuneability will turn this into an arms race. The very idea flys in the face of what SpecE30 stands for, it will never happen.

You want stand alone systems? Start a new class…

#63

My vote:

Drop another 50lbs (free)
Add more camber to front (free)
Allow for further suspension/setup changes
Allow for lightweight flywheel

Skip motor/ECU mods completely.

#64

[quote=“dgorman” post=57900]My vote:

Drop another 50lbs (free)
Add more camber to front (free)
Allow for further suspension/setup changes
Allow for lightweight flywheel

Skip motor/ECU mods completely.[/quote]

Makes sense to me - IIRC Ranger was quoted as saying that dropping 100lbs from the car cannot be felt… he can keep the weight in if he wants to… :slight_smile:

Discussions like this are useful as it gauges interest in a NEW class with less restrictions. I’m in for a Pro3 class too, I have a car ready to go… IMO more HP with the ball point pen springs and soft shocks is wasted effort, get weight out of the car first, add lightness to go faster and minimize wear on components.

#65

To be fair, ranger isn’t pitching this as a way to make more power, but supposedly to make troubleshooting easier. i don’t completely buy that this would make troubleshooting easier and not introduce other issues that we don’t know of yet. I don’t have an issue with his testing it but I would not support a rules change based on his testing either.

#66

Kish - Agreed, however, it’s a huge STRECH to suggest that mega-squirt will help troubleshooting. It only invites a slippery slope of mods, tuning and cheating.

E30’s aren’t that hard to diagnose. Any ~25yr old car will have issues with just about everything and you don’t see mechanics/shops suggesting to their customers that they upgrade their E30’s to mega-squirt because they can’t diagnose the cars :slight_smile:

#67

Herdrock -

True “race” data loggers can log up to 500Hz per channel. If you know what you’re doing you can log just about anything in the car, have integrated shift-lights, alarms and on-board maths. Is it cheaper than a mega-squirt? No, but you don’t need mega-squirt to log stuff in the car. :slight_smile:

#68

You can definitely gain hp with MS.That is not the point. What you do is adjust the timing around 5k,to get rid of the dip and adjust the f/a curve to see 12.5-13 to one across the rpm band. There will be more area under the curve, but as Jim said, 1mph faster in the corner will gain you more. You do not have to tune for maximum power. Chuck

#69

Slippery slope already. :slight_smile: The discussion started off with using MS to log engine parameters and is now discussing getting rid of the 5k dip. :slight_smile:

50lbs drop and additional setup techniques will get you that 1mph faster and it’s free :slight_smile:

#70

[quote=“vmwerks” post=57899]This is beyond dumb… there’s nothing wrong with the car as it came from the factory. Adding tuneability will turn this into an arms race. The very idea flys in the face of what SpecE30 stands for, it will never happen.

You want stand alone systems? Start a new class…[/quote]

Re. adding tunability. I’ve said several times that adding tunability is not the issue. In fact, if tunability becomes evident, that’s an idea killer.

#71

Some of you are kinda unraveling here. The idea is one of adding logging of DME inputs and as a secondary, making tech inspection of DME’s more rigorous.

If you don’t think that logging DME inputs has merit, than you’ve not had enough intermittant engine management problems yet. Be patient, your turn will come.

If you want to talk about individuals creating their own MS tunes with my idea, go find your own thread. One of the charms of this idea was that it’s harder, not easier, to modify than the status quo.

#72

Ranger,
To keep it brief - the issue here is by using MS to log DME inputs is that it invites potential cheating and rules slippage etc because it can be an active system. Instead of using an engine management solution to log DME inputs, my suggestion would be to use a passive data logging solution instead of an (potentially) active solution (all other potential MS issues aside previously mentioned in this thread).

IMHO using MS is the wrong tool for the need.

#73

BINGO.
No rules creep, no added expense for most of us, and those with Rangeritis can diagnose their drivability problems to their heart’s content. There, it’s settled. Now we can go back to lobbying for less weight or a different spec tire.
:slight_smile:

#74

[quote=“dgorman” post=57913]Ranger,
To keep it brief - the issue here is by using MS to log DME inputs is that it invites potential cheating and rules slippage etc because it can be an active system. Instead of using an engine management solution to log DME inputs, my suggestion would be to use a passive data logging solution instead of an (potentially) active solution (all other potential MS issues aside previously mentioned in this thread).

IMHO using MS is the wrong tool for the need.[/quote]

The idea of extensive passive monitoring is interesting. It sound expensive, it sounds like a one-off system would have to be assembled, and I’d be concerned that tapping into analog inputs might distort the signals to the DME. Someone would really have to know what they were doing to set that kind of thing up.

@ everyone. Lets phrase the issue like a question. What if we had access to a helova diagnostic tool that had a secondary bonus of being harder to cheat with? Would this tool interest us enough that we ought to look into testing it?

I don’t want to get run around in circles with folks re. potential problems and potential cheats. That’s what testing is for, for crying out loud. What I’m saying is that it might be a great diagnostic tool and it might have merit as an anti-chipping mechanism.

The software has a “comparison” feature which allows you to compare two tunes. That’s far more rigorous then the current visual DME chip inspection. That’s been said before in this thread, but it doesn’t seem to be sinking in everywhere.

What I ask is that we focus on the merits of the idea, or lack thereof, and try to restrain ourselves from personal attacks and cheap shots.

#75

and who will actually bother to compare tunes? i don’t see how this is closing the door to tuning, it appears to be opening it to me.

#76

The same guy that at CMP in Apr, pulled my DME, opened it and looked at my chip. The difference is that one inspection is rigorous and the other isn’t.

#77

I think this has gotten off topic in the last 2 pages. This thread isn’t about increasing HP or getting another MPH. This isn’t a thread about changing suspensions or dropping weights. This a thread about a Spec engine management solution that will allow us to keep our engines running better by utilizing a better understood ECU with data logging capabilities.

#78

I could make a chip that would be identical to the stock chip as far as a visual inspection is concerned. But it’s contents would be radically different. The only way you could tell it wasn’t a stock chip would be by comparison of the content, which requires special hardware. Contrast that to plugging in a laptop, downloading the tune and computing a checksum to compare with the checksum from a “standard” tune. I submit that it would be far easier to verify compliance with a MegaSquirt than with the OE DME.

But really, there just isn’t that much to gain from tuning unless you’ve done things that aren’t legal inside the engine. And that goes back to the difference in driving being the real factor. Being able to “ask” the DME why the engine is misbehaving is a lot more valuble than many realize.

As to standalone data logging… To capture CPS data for diagnostic purposes, which is a low level analog waveform, you need a logger with a sample rate in excess of 65khz. When I have to do that I use a 100khz time scale on a storage scope if the problem is (as is usual) only occuring at high rpm.

#79

This must be some kind of record 34 hours, 750 views, 77 posts!

edit:78 posts

#80

The same guy that at CMP in Apr, pulled my DME, opened it and looked at my chip. The difference is that one inspection is rigorous and the other isn’t.[/quote]

And what’s to stop me from flashing the stock tune and then re-flashing right after inspection with the cheater tune? its even easier than swapping a chip. if this is solely for diags, it seems a bit overkill. esp since not all of us are even interested in looking at MS log outputs. swapping parts is perfectly acceptable to me and if that fails i will take the car to someone who can diagnose it better. I know my limitations both in skill set and time. I’m not trying to be a BMW Master Tech at this point in my life. Those who want diags could install a passive logger and be done with it, the rest of us will just keep things the way they are now.