Dyno Results (1 Viewer)

[landtank]

As a rule, the japanese programming is MAF input, which has a lot of limitations.

This was my conclusion as well while reverse engineering my MAF. However I couldn't back it up when challenged with another source other than my own.

There was a site out there where a guy documented the early Toyota ECUs. He was mostly working with the early Supras that used Carmen Vortex meters and OBD I.

His approach was to broaden the range of the AFM to encompass the boost areas and then tune by injector sizing and fuel pressure.

Clumsy by today's standards but it got the job done reasonably well.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Scott, I definitely agree.

Back to the original post, what we are looking for here are the Dyno results and what a given mod may provide (or what a stock truck is producing). Once my exhaust system is in, I will be posting an additional set of curves to see how much is gained (or lost) under similar conditions on the same dyno.

As a motor-head, I will be looking at further modifications down the line to help get more power, and perhaps more mileage if I am lucky. Up for consideration include the LandTank MAF, and tuning should that be necessary to sort out the fuel dumping at high RPM and load...since the 80 ECU is so far proving not an easy nut to crack, I may need to go the piggyback fuel management-route (modify the MAF signal to fool the ECU maps via a Splitsecond PSC1-001 Data Sheet).

Plenty of tweaks out there to help gain more power, I just want to always back things up with real data. I am lucky that there is a great dyno facility near me, and I only am charged $75 per session, as it is worth it to me to know what is really going on with the truck, not just via the butt-dyno.

BTW my Audi is actually a S/C 2.8 with the MAF sensor-type system (factory NA also)...ECM has been reprogrammed to accomodate, and I can do minor tweaks to the system via the OBDII, a dongle and my Laptop...just wish that flexibility existed for my Toy!

Steve

Steve
A couple more comments here... You are doing the right thing regarding documenting exhaust gains/losses, my more general comments directed at the stock vs SC/turbo side in the thread. You could always do the 034EFI IIc system, seems like you are really close to them, and that setup works on 6cylinder engines too. BTDT.

WRT the Split Second - not sure that's going to help you much without program ability of the chip itself. If you really are going that route, remember it just replaces the MAF signal all-together. But, if you look at the MAF signal voltages that the ecu programming accepts as valid, I'm not sure it matters if you are using MAP voltage vs MAF voltage. Specifically, if 5v input is WOT@4500rpm gives x fueling and x timing, that voltage coming from the MAF or the MAP isn't going to matter? That input voltage has to be rescaled in the tabling.

BTW, WRT the Audi S/C on a N/A engine, I have one of those in my possession for failing emissions right now, a PES kit on a 30v 2.8liter v6 motor. AFAIK, you can 'monitor' values via OBDII port just like an 80, but there's no tuning anything with that port. What minor 'tweeking' are you inferring you can do? Normally Aspirated motronic is MAF input only, but IMO/E, that system suffers the same problem that the F10 would, it's a N/A ecu trying to handle boost, and it's tabling does not do it well. IME to date, with PES marginal programming changes, and overly-optimistic fuel injector sizing (>output claims), the PES system has the same fuel dump problem we see in the 80. I've spent a lot of time working on this PES system to get it to pass emissions, and found that LTFT DTC is not only common, it's the norm. IL EPA doesn't like to see CEL at the test station....

With that experience in hand, I see no great advantage to spending a lot of time 'fooling' the antique N/A F10 ecu in the 80 to be 'boost friendly', by definition it's not. And see no value in 'cracking' the tabling... Why bother when there are a plethora of new modern standalone systems that can do the job, and you can build the individual tabling on the dyno. And pass emissions just fine.

There was a site out there where a guy documented the early Toyota ECUs. He was mostly working with the early Supras that used Carmen Vortex meters and OBD I.
His approach was to broaden the range of the AFM to encompass the boost areas and then tune by injector sizing and fuel pressure.
Clumsy by today's standards but it got the job done reasonably well.

That seems like it could almost work in early OBDI, the problem I see is the LTFT in OBDII. As WOT is a function of STFT (closed loop 02), you might be able to get WOT Open Loop fueling 'better', but far from optimal. The biggest problem is WOT tables in RPM vs MAF. The tabling can't differentiate between boost at 4500rpm and partial/no-boost at 4500rpm. In this approach, the hardware is accommodating given software, that's expensive and frustrating, btdt. Even with the ability to tune the turbo motronic chips, I chose VEMS standalone for my turbo audi project. VEMS, 034, Megasquirt and others make some pretty cool toys to address the problems of programming. The only issue I see with standalone vs the F10 series will be the ECU>Trans ECU interface of data. But the FZJ80 trans functions to the ECU seem limited, read it appears mostly mechanical interface other than the overdrive conditions.

More .02 arbitraged thru the peso

Scott J
94 FZJ80 Supercharged

 

[CycloSteve]

One of the moderators is going to move this one...

Yes, 034 is the shop who has done the Dyno testing, and suggested that I find a Toyota tuner to help with the fueling issues. Next Dyno run later this month, I will test the waters with them to see if they have any interest in working on a non-VAG car (plus some fine-tuning on my Audi).

While I am not a tuner, nor do I play one on TV, I understand the basic principles behind fooling the ECU with modified sensor signals, either from the MAP, MAF or even now the O2 sensors. Without any internal solutions available, I would consider any options to help bring a more-tunable solution to the table for the Cruiser.

CEL from the fuel trims with with the Audi?...not the problem with mine. Now, crappy 91 octane fuel in PRK is more of an issue with the PES tune. Lemmiwinks offers very basic changes to things like warmup mixture, idle speed, etc. Nothing major, just "tweaks" as I said for that ECU. The scaudi.com site is the best place to sort out any issues with that community and may be able to help your customer.

...time for a new thread yet, Romer? I am more than happy to start a new one.

 

[SUMOTOY]

One of the moderators is going to move this one...

Yes, 034 is the shop who has done the Dyno testing, and suggested that I find a Toyota tuner to help with the fueling issues. Next Dyno run later this month, I will test the waters with them to see if they have any interest in working on a non-VAG car (plus some fine-tuning on my Audi).

While I am not a tuner, nor do I play one on TV, I understand the basic principles behind fooling the ECU with modified sensor signals, either from the MAP, MAF or even now the O2 sensors. Without any internal solutions available, I would consider any options to help bring a more-tunable solution to the table for the Cruiser.

CEL from the fuel trims with with the Audi?...not the problem with mine. Now, crappy 91 octane fuel in PRK is more of an issue with the PES tune. Lemmiwinks offers very basic changes to things like warmup mixture, idle speed, etc. Nothing major, just "tweaks" as I said for that ECU. The scaudi.com site is the best place to sort out any issues with that community and may be able to help your customer.

...time for a new thread yet, Romer? I am more than happy to start a new one.

Good luck finding a Fujitsu 10 friendly "tuner"... The MAF>MAP conversion might be better to work with, than the MAF, but you still need to come back to changing hardware to solve a software problem. Your Lemmiwinks Channel 2 adaptation value (Fuel enrichment under load) is the only change I could see realistically benefitting a N/A to S/C conversion. IME doing that, you still have the problem of the tables identifying 'load', and nor btw, did additional hardware (fuel injectors and RRFPR) solve the problem I'm addressing. I've been on the boards, to PES, and I'm back to the same problem. In the end, I'll be adapting hardware to the given software. I see no difference in addressing this same concept/application to the F10ecu in the 80. And it's expensive and time consuming, btdt.

Fooling automotive computers - fools them. The question is: Into what? The Answer: Into hopefully doing something they were never designed to do.

Scott J
'94 FZJ80 Supercharged

 

[landtank]

sorry about my part in the high jack, but this has been the most civil discussion we have had on the topic of tuning for as far as I can remember.

If part of this is saved and moved I've got more to add as fas as tuning via the MAF signal.

 

[NKP Garage]

New thread for ECU tuning here: https://forum.ih8mud.com/80-series-tech/323437-ecu-tuning-options.html

 

[CycloSteve]

Thanks Baktash, a subject which definitely can live on it's own. Will keep my comments here to the Dyno discussion henceforth.

Romer, if there is a way to move some of the related posts to the new topic, please do so.

 

[CycloSteve]

OK, Dyno-Day #2 post-exhaust installation results are in...drumroll please.

10-15hp and 15-20ft-lb across the whole RPM range. Pretty good indeed. Remember these are also figures at-the-wheels! The atmospheric and truck conditions were almost identical to the first run, and no changes were made whatsoever other than the addition of the exhaust system.

The details

For those wanting to "see and hear" the run.

YouTube - FZJ80 Dyno

So, my next dyno will be later this month after installing and running a week or so and a few hundred miles with the LandTank MAF. Being a believer in hard-evidence, looking forward to the results of Dyno-Day #3 at 034!

Steve

 

[wearsabrowncoat]

Thanks Steve. The exhaust is a proven performer. Looking forward to the LT MAF results. For dyno run #4 you should add an intercooler.

 

[torfab]

This is a great thread! I know the drivetrain is a horsepower thief, but how much is lost due to the auto tranny and AWD?

How much will be gained by adding a manual trans and 2/4wd transfer? I put a 5 speed NV4500 behind my turbo diesel FJ60, and it is a strong performer compared to my sluggish 80.

 

[mot]

This is a great thread!

x 50!!

You can see how much exhaust is getting pumped out by seeing the straps on the wall flapping!

 

[SUMOTOY]

So, my next dyno will be later this month after installing and running a week or so and a few hundred miles with the LandTank MAF. Being a believer in hard-evidence, looking forward to the results of Dyno-Day #3 at 034!

Steve

Steve:
Before you put that next mod on the dyno, you may want to ask 034 about plugging the FPR as part of the MAF mod. Assuming they will even allow you to do the dyno run that way, it might be good to have them do it with the FPR hooked up, and without the FPR hooked up. IIRC, 034 has the ability to give the fuel readings on the dyno chart too.

Good work on the exhaust

Scott J
94 FZJ80 Supercharged

 

[landtank]

Not unplugging the FPR will shift the FT% away from ideal and can cause the ECU to generate a fault.

I'm not sure why people will ZERO experience with this mod keep insisting on doing this. Of course Steve, it is your's to do what you want with but if it's not installed per directions I'm not sure what will be achieved.

And people routinely modify Fuel pressure to achieve desired fueling results. I'm not sure why it's a continued concern with my housing.

 

[NKP Garage]

lack of a functioning rising rate FPR on a forced induction setup will completely throw off the fueling and it may end up running dangerously lean

 

[bpassmore]

 

[SUMOTOY]

Not unplugging the FPR will shift the FT% away from ideal and can cause the ECU to generate a fault.

I'm not sure why people will ZERO experience with this mod keep insisting on doing this. Of course Steve, it is your's to do what you want with but if it's not installed per directions I'm not sure what will be achieved.

And people routinely modify Fuel pressure to achieve desired fueling results. I'm not sure why it's a continued concern with my housing.

LT
The biggest problem is the force induction guys. If you run the FPR capped, and a guy runs 10psi, you've reduced the Fuel Injector Flow rate by 15%. And you've reduced the resolution of the spray pattern in doing so.

At this point it doesn't matter what your MAF is doing, the 'additional' mod is reducing fuel flow and resolution by definition.

Scott J
94 FZJ80 Supercharged

 

[bpassmore]

Scott, buy a MAF and test it your way.

 

[Ebag333]

Scott, buy a MAF and test it your way.

x2

 

[SUMOTOY]

Scott, buy a MAF and test it your way.

I'm not speaking to the MAF, this is strictly how the FPR circuit works. I don't need to test any MAF, if it's 0-5 volts, it operates the same. If you plug a 3Bar FPR and run 10psi, the rock bone stock 1FZFE fuel injectors flow 15% less fuel, it doesn't matter what the MAF is doing! The best hope is that after the software tables the new MAF, and takes the other inputs, it can adjust for that 15% less fuel. That in no way accounts for the difference in spray pattern due to the lower fuel pressure.

Scott J
94 FZJ80 Supercharged

 

[landtank]

lack of a functioning rising rate FPR on a forced induction setup will completely throw off the fueling and it may end up running dangerously lean

multiple trucks have been tested using a Wideband O2 sensor and they have all shown that it is still running on the rich side with my housing and the FPR capped. Not as much as the stock setup but still rich.

If Steve will only install this with the FPR still active I would not recommend installing it.