is it really a full solution maximising the engine interms of fuelling advance efficiency and optimisations for battery voltage change, lambda feed back etc - no its not. Its a halfway house, in my opinion halfways houses arent akin to doing the job properly.

A piggyback is only ever a comprimise, and if you dont want comprimises then you cant complain at the piggyback for not offering a full solution. It doent matter how many people use them, that irrelevant.

Rich

There are lots more maps than just a simple ignition and fuel map. There are a bunch of compensations and other things going on in the ECU, related to things like temps, barometric pressure, throttle position, throttle movement etc. etc. If I told you there were at least 20 maps in the ECU that might make you think again about the simplicity of it

The problem is that most of the 'live mapping' is done on equipment that can only affect a coupe of maps (e.g. Millenium OBD), therefore it is unable to take into account things like larger injectors satisfactorily. To fit larger injectors you don't just change the fuel map, you change throttle enrichment, possibly airflow compensation/calibration, impact of different temps, barometric pressures etc. just as you do on any aftermarket ECU.

However you live map the car you will not make more power than with a Unichip unless someone reprograms (and not reconfigures) the knock circuit. But it will mean that at least the ECU is consistent with what is really happening with the engine, something that cannot be said with the Unichip, especially with larger injectors. Many Unichip maps have taken out the whole knock circuit by forcing the ECU to its most backed-off point and then dialling in advance with the Unichip.

As I mentioned on another thread, I have run a couple of cars on an emulator (with a lot of help from Graham!) and made live changes to maps. I believe the standard ECU is as good as any standalone ECU up to a point - that point being that you cannot add on functions like anti-lag or like traction control. But to its credit the knock circuit is better than pretty much all aftermarket ECUs, and the provision of sequential injection etc. makes it a very powerful ECU.

John, I've seen you mention this a few times, its not something I've come across and would be of big concern if it were the case, in mapping all the Coupes I've known at PTS, the knock sensors appear to still be very much active and retardation seen?

If the Unichip just adjusts the timing of the phase sensor signal, how can it force the ECU into its most backed off state??

for example, the ECU detects knock, (it is suggested that with the two sensors it can even tell which cylinder is affected), it then pulls back 4 degrees of timing,.. it waits one second,..still knock, another 4 degrees and so it goes on.

As the ECU fundamentlally still *thinks* it is running standard igniton, then the fact it reduces the ignition advancee by 4 degrees will remain the same as the Unichip will only give a fixed compensation at that particular rev point?

As the mapper still errs on the side of safety, then surely the safety and integrity of the knock circuit remains intact?

Joe

There are always compromises...

Big Turbo vs Small Turbo
Race Fuel vs Pump Fuel
2 litre vs 3 litre
FWD vs RWD

Within the amateur tuning scene you will have to make more compromises than most. Even with your race car you will have made compromises. Your flowed head is not as efficient as it could be, why 95% when you could have 100% or more? Why not bore and stroke the motor beyond two litres? Why not make it AWD? The reason is you have to find a compromise between time and money!

The Unichip is not a perfect solution and nobody would argue any different. That said like the Motec, DTA, AFC etc it all comes down to air, fuel and how efficient the burn is. If you take the same engine i.e. the same mechanical limitations, and run both back to back I would hazard a guess that you would get the same power from both systems. OK, like John said it can't take into account other dynamic variables therefore it may not be 100% but lb for lb it's pretty damn good! So the compromise comes down to time and money e.g. £500 on a Unichip or £1500-4000 on a standalone system, and where, who can map the chosen system easily and locally?

So it's not a perfect solution but it doesn't have to be like any other compromise. It's not always about taking it to the nth degree! If it get's the job done, which it does, then for amateur tuners it's a great system <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The knock circuit doesn't allow you within 3 degrees of knock. It has a standard position a fully advanced position and a fully retarded position. It cannot go beyond those. A few cars have been observed to be pinking, that means the knock circuit is not operating.

The backing off is done by
- I advance the ignition on the unichip to near det
- The ECU backs off
- I add even more advance
- The ECU backs off more
- I carry on until the ECU cannot move the position anymore
- I am able to dial in more advance than the knock circuit will accept ordinarily because it cannot retard the ignition any more.

Common sense tells you it cannot back off indefinitely as it doesn't retard that far before the fuel would not burn in the cylinder and instead ignite in the manifold (i.e. like antilag). Therefore there has to be a hard stop at some degrees after TDC, and in fact there is a limit some way before that.

The mapper errs on the side of safety by backing the advance off 2 degrees or whatever before det, at that point the knock circuit would ordinarily still back the advance off some more. The mapper cannot get anywhere near det if the knock-circuit is actually working though

It's not all bad, a lot of cars do not even use knock sensors, but it is the removal of an important safety system

Hmmm, interesting this John but it's not how PTS have adjusted the ignition irc. I think both Joe and I have been on the rollers where they had advanced it too much and the ecu backed off to the point where we made less power i.e. it was detting PTS would then take out a couple of degrees and hey presto the lost power and more is back. If it were a case of inducing det to where it can't back off anymore then this wouldn't have happened. If I am understanding you correctly then the ecu automatically advances ignition to the max i.e. within 3 degrees of det, then you wouldn't need to alter the timing as the ecu would be able to always run it to the max. In this instance it could automatically take advantage of higher ron fuel and methanol injection. This would mean all any mapper could do would be to add an extra 1-2 degrees of advance.

Yes the engine was box standard. It was when I first put it in my Bravo. The mappers didn't want to map it because there was a slight air leak but I insisted as I travelled all the way from London and didn't want to go back empty handed, so they did. This was mapped running at 0.6Bar of boost. The only mods were an air filter and de-cat. When I phoned back for a second re-map a year later he told me that he could no longer map European cars as he would have to spend thousands on the software and he mainly only does JAP stuff now. You can give them a try there are very good. Sorry my scanner is really poor but here is my map and receipt. Here charged me for 2hours dyno time even though it took him two and a half:

http://jayman.bulldoghome.com/photos/bdres/jayman_bulldoghome_com/Standard/Thourrecipt.JPG

http://jayman.bulldoghome.com/photos/bdres/jayman_bulldoghome_com/Standard/ThorBravo20VTMAP.JPG

If Perfect Touch wants 3 times the amount I would suggest unichip. By the way how much is a complete unichip kit?

err ... I'm no expert, but that would appear to be flawed logic? It could be operating but not effective (maybe due to excessive charge temps etc.) or am I being pedantic?

Strange, as that's not how my car was mapped, as you could see how knock was retarding the ignition on the power curves.

What I have seen would imply a far finer level of adjustability within the ignition circuit via the knock sensors.

I have also seen when severe knock has been detected and dramatic ignition retardation, efectively knocking engine power by a good 1/3 or so.

Joe

They want even more for the unichip !! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I think for the unichip its £395 + VAT plus £110 per hour mapping.

Live Map £450 + VAT all in.

What did Thor Racing say have you called them?
http://www.thor-racing.co.uk/

Whoi just deleted that post about the price in southern ireland as i think thats a bit unfair to do that!

Also trying to call them for last 10mins but always engaged <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

They dont offer it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Thats a shame as they were really good <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />. Guess i'll be getting them to map my DTA instead <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

He said yes and no.

They offered it years ago as it was the only real way with some cars to get a proper map sorted for them but they now use something called LINK from Newzealand which fully installed and mapped is about £1400.....

They offer dyno time at £100p/h and laptop/engineer time at £50p/h so it may still be worth seeing if they could do something with the coop as that would be 3.5hrs on the dyno itself or 7hrs at the laptop doing the work to be £30 cheaper than perfect touch.

Ah well next one please! Looks like the place in blackpool and perfect touch are only ones to offer it so far but i dont know how much the place in blackpool charge sorry <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I did it myself, thought it was a bit off topic and not relevant to 99% of the people on here! Price was around £560 (inc vat) for supply fitting and mapping of Unichip AND MAP sensor - I think this is approx what PTS are charging? I'm thinking, why dont people go back to PTS and demand a free remap and with Det Cans being used, surely they have a responsibility if they let a car out that is allegedly deting ?

Surely common sense would dictate that if somebody done a bad job you won't go back for them to re-map again. They shouldn’t make such a fundamental mistake in the first place.

I think people have to be careful about making generalizations about a particular tuners expertise.

I know one particularly influential coupe owner on here has had problems, but if you read through the lines, it is hard to reach any conclusions as this particular owners car had a faulty eprom amongst other significant faults.

If you stick to the facts at hand

PTS have mapped many Coupes, probably 20-30, although I do not know the exact number.
They have done numerous Unichip installations as well as Aquamist and dual ignition maps.
They have mapped three of the most powerful 2-litre coupes in this country without problems with the Unichip.
How many Coupes have suffered problems from going there? how many?, I can't think of any except one.

Now, Perfect Touch, thanks to Simon are a new name , and they have mapped a few Coupes now, tbh, the results between theirs and PTS are hardly what you would call significant.

However ,it appears that Claudio is a very nice and knowledgeable mapper and the setup sounds like a professional outfit. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, and I hope that this continues, as competition is often a healthy thing!

Joe

Well just wrote a long a boring post which timed out(even longer that this), doesnt that just take the wid out of my sail <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Anyway Leighton, I am expressing the my feeling about what is the neglect of the what is potentially the most significant link in a modified injected car(engine) the engine control. It seems that people will spend hundreds or thousands on a different turbo, cams, boost control, but then baulk at the idea of spending a grand on an ECU. Now I know motec costs more, but its not the only option, and sometimes other options need to be investigated, cetainly beyond the realms of catalogue wading. I appreciate people are doing things on a budget but wh does the engine management always get the short straw?? I do feel many ask too much of the piggy back, and complain when it doesnt work out well - if you want the optimum you'll have to pay for it, and if it costs too much then perhaps a longer term plan is needed for funding.

Now to address you reference to me, I would say firstly I did not skimp on the management by keeping a std ecu and hoping for the best, this makes no sense to me, like steel wheels on a porsche, it would sell the rest of the car short.

Even with your race car you will have made compromises. Your flowed head is not as efficient as it could be, why 95% when you could have 100% or more?
[color:"blue"] <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> How are you measuring head efficiency, how do you know what my head flows? Are you talking about VE, thats not soley dependent on the head; cams, rpm, overlap come into this. I can however tell you my head was modified and tested for improvement, quantifiable improvemnt on the flow bench. Secondly I went to the best person I could for this, and had the work done that was inline with my std cam choice. [/color]

Why not bore and stroke the motor beyond two litres?
[color:"blue"] Ignoring the nonesense of stroker cranks, the car runs in a max cc class of 2000 [/color]

Why not make it AWD?
[color:"blue"] It runs in production class, there is no such 4wd tipo in european production [/color]

The reason is you have to find a compromise between time and money!
[color:"blue"] You have to have a plan, rationalise that plan, set a budget, and allocate the budget accordingly. Dont leave the managment to last!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> [/color]

rich

Very ture i feel that the managment is the third most important part of a morden engine. Most people seem to throw it to the bottom of the pile.
1st = Cylinder Head
2nd = Turbocharger
3rd = ECU

Rich could you not pop the engine into a Panda 4x4 and lower it?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

ah the voice of reason KP........ <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

rich

.. kind of what i was getting at. btw, in addition to Nigel's problems, one other coop came out of their shop deting (allegedly).

turbos, exhausts etc. expire and it makes sense to replace them with uprated items, ecus don't!

Can people please be careful of what they are saying, else this will turn into a witch hunt on PTS or will turn into handbag sessions bewteen users, so nice pleasant comments please <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But more than one person has said that they take the car to det, and that is not possible without forcing the supression of the knock circuit. What you are seeing on your power curve it could only be pinking=less than optimum ignition of fuel and therefore less power. You would not see the knock circuit operating as it operates much faster than would be noticeable on a curve, we are talking about a number of cycles within a second used for that circuit in the ECU not something that would be visible as a trend over a number of seconds.

When we change the injectors adjusting the injector offset is very important. Maybe this is just the issue here. Injectors have a short delay before starting to spray fuel and this timing depends of injectors types, brands etc. The offset is set according to voltage, it's also called voltage compensation. The value is added in the pulse width calculation formula.

I think 16VT injectors offset is about 0.6 ms at 14V. 20VT injectors are newer so maybe they have a shorter response time. If you can access to the voltage compensation table of the 20VT ecu, could worth to try increasing the values and then adjust afr with the main fuel table.

Jerome