TRUTH/MYTH OF LOTUS ECU

[codymac]

Originally Posted by RacyTracy

Well, it doesn't.....is my saying that a problem???

Oh no... thumbs up for the windchill comment.
No dog in the fight for the Celica guy.

Originally Posted by scottyb

Codymac stop hogging all the popcorn and give it back!

There's plenty to go around.

[Dragon]

Also interested in ECU info... My point being that if the ECU truly modifies its fuel map to reach ideal air/fuel ratio's then you should see power gains over time with some add on's, There will of course be some with power losses due to inferior design of some products... There are a few aftermarket ECU's that can learn, but none of them will truly tune and will only get you in the ballpark. It then requires a human to tweak the rest of the map in order to get it to where it needs to be. Now there are a lot of cars that will and can adjust the Idle area of the fuel map to adjust for worn plugs etc. They also control a air valve to get the idle at the desired rpm set in the computer as well and I can see the lotus ECU doing that. I however find it hard to believe that the lotus ecu has the capacity to tune it's self threw out the fuel map area. Now if the ECU sees knock or lean a/f ratio at the O2 sensor it may retard ignition and this would result in power loss and negate any power gains. I've tuned with Motec, Microtec and the Apexi' Power FC using the datalogit with widbands and have a good understanding of tuning and how the ecu's work with offset maps for air temps, water temps, etc and I think the whole Lotus ECU retuning it's self is just phooey... but I'd love to be proven wrong...

[scottyb]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Also interested in ECU info... My point being that if the ECU truly modifies its fuel map to reach ideal air/fuel ratio's then you should see power gains over time with some add on's, There will of course be some with power losses due to inferior design of some products... There are a few aftermarket ECU's that can learn, but none of them will truly tune and will only get you in the ballpark. It then requires a human to tweak the rest of the map in order to get it to where it needs to be. Now there are a lot of cars that will and can adjust the Idle area of the fuel map to adjust for worn plugs etc. They also control a air valve to get the idle at the desired rpm set in the computer as well and I can see the lotus ECU doing that. I however find it hard to believe that the lotus ecu has the capacity to tune it's self threw out the fuel map area. Now if the ECU sees knock or lean a/f ratio at the O2 sensor it may retard ignition and this would result in power loss and negate any power gains. I've tuned with Motec, Microtec and the Apexi' Power FC using the datalogit with widbands and have a good understanding of tuning and how the ecu's work with offset maps for air temps, water temps, etc and I think the whole Lotus ECU retuning it's self is just phooey... but I'd love to be proven wrong...

You would think that, but I've seen the fuel maps completely change within a 100 miles. Yes it also changes the timing and other parameters as well. It appears that these changes only happen when it's at closed loop. At open loop (WOT) it reverts to original parameters and that's where most trouble occurs along with the drop in power and knock. The ecu compensates for the knock by taking out a ton of timing all at once. Of course that's what happens on the 05. The 06 is even more of an animal.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by scottyb

You would think that, but I've seen the fuel maps completely change within a 100 miles. Yes it also changes the timing and other parameters as well. It appears that these changes only happen when it's at closed loop. At open loop (WOT) it reverts to original parameters and that's where most trouble occurs along with the drop in power and knock. The ecu compensates for the knock by taking out a ton of timing all at once. Of course that's what happens on the 05. The 06 is even more of an animal.

Roger that, so the base map is set and is never modified, but it has a offset map that it adjusts and use's in closed loop mode... At WOT is ignores the offset map and runs off the base map alone. So I'm assuming that what the tuners are doing is forcing the computer to always run in open loop mode and adjusting the base map for mods?

[scottyb]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Roger that, so the base map is set and is never modified, but it has a offset map that it adjusts and use's in closed loop mode... At WOT is ignores the offset map and runs off the base map alone. So I'm assuming that what the tuners are doing is forcing the computer to always run in open loop mode and adjusting the base map for mods?

A couple of tuners tried that and still had problems. An example is LotusF1's (aka 1Fast), was locked in open loop and had a spectacular failure, mushroom cloud and all, while doing a pull in 3rd at WOT. I'm not sure the 05 stays in Open loop at Cam Change over. That seems to be the biggest problem. Also, the ECU is looking for feed back from the coils and injectors too. I was seriously looking into all this right before I blew my engine. Then I just walked away because I was so disgusted. That was 2 years ago. CharlieX would probably be the only one who knows for sure what happens on the 05 other than Lotus itself. As far as I know KVerges has been the only one to tune a piggy back long term with any form of success with minimal driveability issues.

[xtn]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Roger that, so the base map is set and is never modified, but it has a offset map that it adjusts and use's in closed loop mode... At WOT is ignores the offset map and runs off the base map alone. So I'm assuming that what the tuners are doing is forcing the computer to always run in open loop mode and adjusting the base map for mods?

I think that's what they were doing for a while. I remember talk of "turning off the learning ability." But I think charliex specifically has figured out how to make the learning ability work FOR him instead of against him.

xtn

[Dragon]

Unfortunately for me I have a 06 FBW... I almost regret not buying the 05 model they had at one of the Lotus shops in Tokyo at least then I could more easily use a motec etc. I got the 06 because it was the only car I could find with TC and a Diff in Japan for sale. I really want to start modding, but the ECU is keeping me from doing anything.. My car is also a daily driver, so I need a ECU solution that is dependable as well. I'm still waiting out for CharlieX's software. I've Pm'd him and posted in a few threads, but I've never gotten a response from him. Not even an ETA of when the software may be available.

I guess there is more $ to be made bleeding the community for reflash's than actually selling the software

[GTsRasta]

The Celica guys had TONS of problems running turbos off of piggyback as well in the beginning days, and getting blown engines. The Celica community went through the same thing. But once people like kverges here (with proper wiring onto the Lotus ECU), and jlitman get a crack at figuring out how to make it work, it destroys the myth of them not being able to work. As of today, there are a lots of greddy supercharged Celicas running around just fine, many 250-300+ whp turbo'd Celicas, and even a built & 1.93 liter stroked Celica pushing 410+ whp all on a piggyback tune. Again, for reference, here's some threads with kverges take on piggyback ECU's and jlitman's TUNING GUIDE that he wrote himself on how to maintain a supercharged piggyback ECU tune from unlearning itself:

Kverges Piggyback ECU thread: That 'ol Black Magic - ECU Piggybacks

Jlitman's Piggyback ECU Tuning Guide: http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=243762

But keep in mind...this thread is for an untrouched STOCK ECU...now lets recap...

1) Can properly designed headers make gains on the stock Lotus ECU? YES
2) Can properly designed exhausts make gains on the stock Lotus ECU? YES
3) Can properly designed intakes make gains on the stock Lotus ECU? ???

If you guys want to shut me up for good, show me a dyno where the gains made from intakes like the Fujita intake becomes lower over time through the WHOLE rpm range. If such a dyno can be shown to me, this thread will be over. If such a dyno can't be shown to me, and power is gained up top with but with power lost down low, it will further prove the need to get rid of the stock airbox for tuned vehicles, and no longer consider a $240 Fujita intake a useless noisemaker.

As I showed you guys in the post before, the Injen CAI for the Celicas LOSES power in the low-midrange, but makes up for that in the top end. And because of this, all of the 180-190+ NA whp dynos use the Injen CAI once tuned...just like how you guys run intakes and not the stock airbox when tuning as well.

[wildwhl]

I, too, believe this discussion has merit.

Some things to consider.

1) Intake gains or not - is it possible the stock intake is already optimized?
2) Exhaust gains or not (see 1 - but I know they are to be had - though likely at a cost of low end torque/noise/etc)
3) Is the ECU so smart it can tune out a pulley swap on a Gotham tune?
4) How?



WW

[scottyb]

Originally Posted by wildwhl

I, too, believe this discussion has merit.

Some things to consider.

1) Intake gains or not - is it possible the stock intake is already optimized?
2) Exhaust gains or not (see 1 - but I know they are to be had - though likely at a cost of low end torque/noise/etc)
3) Is the ECU so smart it can tune out a pulley swap on a Gotham tune?
4) How?



WW

Intake -> Throttle body is the restriction here. If you make the throttle body bigger, it might max out the MAF sensor on the NA cars

Exhaust gains -> I don't think anyone has definitively proven any as of yet.

ECU & Gotham -> need more info, but I bet Charlie can answer any questions about that.

[wildwhl]

We all know Charlie can answer the question(s). The real question is, will he?

WW

[rsnookjr]

I have read all of this and have a very simple question that may apply only to me. The only modification that I have done in this area is to remove the "snorkel" and replace it with a "velocity funnel".

Should I go back to the "snorkel" (aka the OEM part)?

Thanks
Robert

[scottyb]

Originally Posted by rsnookjr

I have read all of this and have a very simple question that may apply only to me. The only modification that I have done in this area is to remove the "snorkel" and replace it with a "velocity funnel".

Should I go back to the "snorkel" (aka the OEM part)?

Thanks
Robert

Only switch back if the sound bothers you. I've seen a 2-3 Hp increase with the velocity stack and green filter. My thought is that it allows for a more laminar flow of air which the ECU program can handle.

[Chili Red]

Originally Posted by wildwhl

We all know Charlie can answer the question(s). The real question is, will he?

WW

I think Charlie is out of town... Im sure he can and probably will answer the question when he gets back.

[charliex]

Sorry i was offline for a while bleeding dry the video game publishers

I thought i had answered Dragons questions in the past too, but i do like the old gambit of saying i'm basically bleeding people dry so that he thinks it'll make me answer questions or give up what he needs, its an oldie but goodie, its not really one thats necessary i believe, i try to answer what people ask if i can add to it, but elisetalk is somewhere i visit from time to time there are a lot of threads and posts to wade through, plus people tend to just ask again and demand answers with these little barbed comments and undertones, rather than search for answers that've already been posted or just ask a simple question without the hostility or social/economic commentary, and unfortunately i can't commit to this fulltime since its just not a viable business model.

I've answered this one a dozen times before too, everytime this same OP posts the same information i try to write the same response.

This is basically the same problem as with most internet or highly contested arguments, you're including too many variables, opinion and emotion to deal with something technical, you can't just come out and say if A is better, and B is a derivative or same family as A, thats its better or worse, each modification has to be evaluated on its own merits and demerits, i've seen people make a modification, the power changes, therefore its directly related to the modification, however they may have altered something else in the interim that really caused it. It takes a lot of work, money and effort to determine what something is really doing.

The CAI problem is that some of the intakes are hardware hacks that alter the MAF signal which in turn causes the ecu to think more or less air is flowing than really is, which it'll adapt for, but since the physics are now all wrong, it might lose power, but most people don't care since the CAI makes a lot of noise, but they'll insist it creates more power.


The calibration on the car is for emissions purposes, good emission settings isn't necessarily power, the ecu cannot tune for modified hardware by itself since it doesn't know whats going on, its trying to keep a status quo, but that status quo is based on stock hardware.

Just saying things like larger TB's flow more air is a gross oversimplification of the problem, it might not, just because its a larger opening doesn't always increase the VE of the engine, as i've said before the reversion pulses from a larger throttle body might hurt performance, you don't know without testing it properly. Someone throws one in, does a power run on a dyno and gains peak torque/hp and therefore its better, however it might have lost everywhere else, and you probably spend 3% of the lifetime of the car at WOT. A power run doesn't show aspects of driveability either, its a terrible test for the most part.

Does a header improve performance, my answer would be, i don't know until its been tested properly, is it possible a header can improve performance, yes it is, is it economically viable for the power?, depends on your wealth and time index.

To answer the question about the tuneable software here which is the underlying agenda for some, its a simple answer, i'm concerned that if someone kills their engine using my software, they'll sue me, everyone who wants it will try to persuade me that its not a concern, but that'd be poor advice for me to take, and i won't, i have lawyers that deal with all that junk. Not the best answer, especially for me as i spent a lot of time developing the damn thing in the first place.

The ECU cannot self tune, it doesn't have the ability to do that, what it is doing is trying to maintain emissions compliancy by trimming air/fuel, its formula is based on whatever hardware it was developed with, if you change that, it may no longer be correct, what the end result of that is determined by testing with the right equipment and setup. A power run on a dyno may not be the correct place to determine whats optimum.

Basically you're trying to attach a best fit rule to something that just doesn't have one, I'm sorry i don't have some panacea that satisfies everyone, but i'm just not that interested in joining threads that try to manipulate answers and involvement with hyperbole. Orginally i wasn't going to respond to this thread at all and just ignore it, but there are some valid questions too, but i still don't really feel i can add more than i've posted before, and its just more commentary on the style of questions and approach than the technical endpoints.

[codymac]

So now the mystery is solved and we know who the Stig is.

[wildwhl]

Thanks for the response, Charlie...points taken.

While it is understood that the ECU does not self tune (nor does any ECU, to my knowledge) would it be fair to say that it constantly *...fine tunes itself...* with data from various sensors to maintain the correct state of EPA tune? I'm guessing baro, fuel trims (long and short), etc. and obviously not VE, timing, etc. (though I'm sure there are timing modifiers based on ECT, knock, and others)?


WW

Edit: For those *waiting* for tunable software - I gotta be honest. The Gotham tune rocks as is...I see no immediate or near future requirement for me to tweak it further.

[charliex]

Yeah its hard to pick the right words, since everyone interchanges them. It adapts the base calibrations all the time, so thats the fine tune part, but its only for keeping stoich, its going to get a lot harder as well as the goverment is stepping in to make it very difficult to alter the ecu's.

Yes, there are safety retards for the spark advance.

There are self tuning ecu's around, i have been playing around with adding a wideband to the car and making it self tune, but its difficult, especially with spark advance, since you tune for the power drop before knock happens, not at knock, and its difficult to determine that. I think the best i can probably achieve is a 'helper' for us when we're on the dyno that generates a base map that a human fine tunes, but the same helper can be created by just punching in the right formula.

The tuneable ecu would be a good thing i'd really like to see it in the wild, but i'm just wary of what'll happen when the inevitable happens, its hard to create something and see it gathering dust on the table.

[wildwhl]

Grassyasses again.

WW

[GTsRasta]

Originally Posted by charliex

The CAI problem is that some of the intakes are hardware hacks that alter the MAF signal which in turn causes the ecu to think more or less air is flowing than really is, which it'll adapt for, but since the physics are now all wrong, it might lose power, but most people don't care since the CAI makes a lot of noise, but they'll insist it creates more power.


The calibration on the car is for emissions purposes, good emission settings isn't necessarily power, the ecu cannot tune for modified hardware by itself since it doesn't know whats going on, its trying to keep a status quo, but that status quo is based on stock hardware.

Just saying things like larger TB's flow more air is a gross oversimplification of the problem, it might not, just because its a larger opening doesn't always increase the VE of the engine, as i've said before the reversion pulses from a larger throttle body might hurt performance, you don't know without testing it properly. Someone throws one in, does a power run on a dyno and gains peak torque/hp and therefore its better, however it might have lost everywhere else, and you probably spend 3% of the lifetime of the car at WOT. A power run doesn't show aspects of driveability either, its a terrible test for the most part.

I understand all of that. But if an intake makes and maintains power in a PART of the RPM range...like lets say the top end...doesn't that DEBUNK the notion of intakes losing power through the WHOLE rpm band...and make the "power loss" statement here only applicable to the low-midrange?

If such top end oriented intake mods are useless, go tell that to all the 180-190+ whp NA GTS's who tune out the low-midrange loses, who have the best top ends out there, and who probably only need cams hit 200+ whp NA.

I'm still waiting for a dyno that shows an intake's power loss through the WHOLE rpm band over time, and not just the low-midrange.

I know low-midrange hp/torque is more valuable than gold here, but such losses can be tuned out with an engine management system if a top end oriented mod takes away from it, especially for our high revving engine. LIFT is where the power's at.