want a utec?
#16
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
Yep, exactly.. Truth is, the XEDE and the UTEC are fundamentally very similar, so what applies to one, would apply to the other. .and as both evolve, they will both have more features out of necessity, and ultimately end up being even more similar.
just my 2c,
shiv
#17
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ATX
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget about the knock detection too with the XEDE, Shiv! It allows the OE ECU to detect and compensate for knock. IMHO, I trust two things...1st, my ears with det cans and 2nd, the OE ECU. That's just my $.02.
-chris
-chris
#18
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by David@Vishnu
The XEDE is very dissimilar to the UTEC. From the start, it was designed to work with the factory fuel and ignition control, not in place of it. I see no real similarities other than they are both plug-n-play.
just my 2c,
shiv
just my 2c,
shiv
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Imyurturboluva
Let's not forget about the knock detection too with the XEDE, Shiv! It allows the OE ECU to detect and compensate for knock. IMHO, I trust two things...1st, my ears with det cans and 2nd, the OE ECU. That's just my $.02.
-chris
-chris
Didn't you say you're going with AEM?
#21
Originally Posted by SoR
Utec also works with factory fuel and ignition controls and you can only offset them. Only with new (not-out-yet) firmware will you be able to choose to take full control. Am I missing something?
But other than absolute vs. offset timing, the UTEC and XEDE are VERY similar...
#22
Originally Posted by Imyurturboluva
Let's not forget about the knock detection too with the XEDE, Shiv! It allows the OE ECU to detect and compensate for knock. IMHO, I trust two things...1st, my ears with det cans and 2nd, the OE ECU. That's just my $.02.
-chris
-chris
#23
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ATX
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SoR
And how does Utec detect knock?
Didn't you say you're going with AEM?
Didn't you say you're going with AEM?
As far as the UTEC detecting knock and utilizing the factory sensor, that's great. However, I use det cans (with headphones) to listen to knock and the UTEC did not pick it up, somtimes, when I heard it. Also, it was detecting when there was no knock. It created a lot of suspension with me from the start. Say whatever you want...I know what I hear and don't. Maybe some of you are having better luck than I did. Flame away!
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigBoogieman
The UTEC monitors the stock knock sensor, and pulls timing when it detects knock. You can even configure how much timing it pulls for how long, and the sensitivity in different RPM ranges. It works very well, and you can see in the logs when the ECU wants to pull timing, and whether the UTEC pulled timing in that spot. In my car, the default UTEC settings are almost spot-on with what the ECU is seeing.
Shiv
#25
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (5)
Well, I really don't want to say too much since this is a bit of a trick question and nobody can really answer this appropriately.
However, my experience so far with the UTEC has been that when monitoring the stock ECU, and seeing (And hearing) how it responds to knock events (and non-knock events, since I found one or two of those) was almost identical to how I saw the UTEC respond. The rate at which the timing comes back (Post knock advance) is different though (it doesnt just suddenly come back though).
On my car, the Stock Engine doesnt seem to produce the same "Racket" that alot of other people seem to have trouble with. Its also not as detonation prone as some other cars that I've heard of. So what is good for me, may not be good for others. In my case what I see the UTEC do, and its sensitivity and retard levels in its knock algorithm, appeared to closely mirror the factory ECU.
There's just no right answer for this.. Because if you allow the factory ECU to do its job, there will be occasions when your fighting with it to get your tune, or tuning on top of non-optimal conditions. If you take complete control over this (which the UTEC does) you have to be comfortable that the configuration of the knock control, And even more importantly, your tuning is going to be appropriate. I'm comfortable with that since I have seen that it works. The other side of the fence is if your offsetting timing from the stock ECU's desired timing.. Well, then your playing with a moving target since you don't have control over the circumstances where it may adjust timing and why. Plus there is a limit to how much adjustment you can make (realistically it makes sense, and is not an important point). But finally, adjusting knock in that environment may require attenuating or desensitising the stock knock sensor so it doesnt pick up every event anymore...
You really can't argue which is better.. Their just... Different..
I do agree on one thing, the stock ECU does have a very complex compensation system for handling less than optimal situations, however if your car is experiencing less than optimal situations, I would think you would be trying to find the problem before it can do damage then just tuning around it or tuning the activity out...
However, my experience so far with the UTEC has been that when monitoring the stock ECU, and seeing (And hearing) how it responds to knock events (and non-knock events, since I found one or two of those) was almost identical to how I saw the UTEC respond. The rate at which the timing comes back (Post knock advance) is different though (it doesnt just suddenly come back though).
On my car, the Stock Engine doesnt seem to produce the same "Racket" that alot of other people seem to have trouble with. Its also not as detonation prone as some other cars that I've heard of. So what is good for me, may not be good for others. In my case what I see the UTEC do, and its sensitivity and retard levels in its knock algorithm, appeared to closely mirror the factory ECU.
There's just no right answer for this.. Because if you allow the factory ECU to do its job, there will be occasions when your fighting with it to get your tune, or tuning on top of non-optimal conditions. If you take complete control over this (which the UTEC does) you have to be comfortable that the configuration of the knock control, And even more importantly, your tuning is going to be appropriate. I'm comfortable with that since I have seen that it works. The other side of the fence is if your offsetting timing from the stock ECU's desired timing.. Well, then your playing with a moving target since you don't have control over the circumstances where it may adjust timing and why. Plus there is a limit to how much adjustment you can make (realistically it makes sense, and is not an important point). But finally, adjusting knock in that environment may require attenuating or desensitising the stock knock sensor so it doesnt pick up every event anymore...
You really can't argue which is better.. Their just... Different..
I do agree on one thing, the stock ECU does have a very complex compensation system for handling less than optimal situations, however if your car is experiencing less than optimal situations, I would think you would be trying to find the problem before it can do damage then just tuning around it or tuning the activity out...
#26
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
I do agree on one thing, the stock ECU does have a very complex compensation system for handling less than optimal situations, however if your car is experiencing less than optimal situations, I would think you would be trying to find the problem before it can do damage then just tuning around it or tuning the activity out...
Unlike aftermarket stand-alone fuel/ignition systems, the factory knock control system is both reactive and proactive. There are two ignition maps (and 2 fuel maps) that it actively "floats" between depending on knock conditions. It is constantly predicting where the knock threshold is and keeping its active timing advance within check. It doesn't simply run a fixed ignition map and pull back timing when knock is detected. This old-school approach is rarely, if ever, done in modern engine control systems when turbo cars are designed to safely run at an always-moving knock threshold for max power with hopes of adaptability.
Just my 2c,
shiv
#27
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
FWIW, running an engine at 20+psi of boost on pump gas is, without a doubt, a "less than optimal situation." A point proven by being able to gain 30-40bhp and greater run-to-run consistency and lower head temps with just the addition of race gas and appropriate remapping.
Unlike aftermarket stand-alone fuel/ignition systems, the factory knock control system is both reactive and proactive. There are two ignition maps (and 2 fuel maps) that it actively "floats" between depending on knock conditions. It is constantly predicting where the knock threshold is and keeping its active timing advance within check. It doesn't simply run a fixed ignition map and pull back timing when knock is detected. This old-school approach is rarely, if ever, done in modern engine control systems when turbo cars are designed to safely run at an always-moving knock threshold for max power with hopes of adaptability.
Just my 2c,
shiv
Unlike aftermarket stand-alone fuel/ignition systems, the factory knock control system is both reactive and proactive. There are two ignition maps (and 2 fuel maps) that it actively "floats" between depending on knock conditions. It is constantly predicting where the knock threshold is and keeping its active timing advance within check. It doesn't simply run a fixed ignition map and pull back timing when knock is detected. This old-school approach is rarely, if ever, done in modern engine control systems when turbo cars are designed to safely run at an always-moving knock threshold for max power with hopes of adaptability.
Just my 2c,
shiv
With 91 octane gas, I can see why you would say 20+ psi is a less than optimum situation. However I'd much rather have the control over how it handles knock and how quick its recovery is.
I do agree that in some circumstances, allowing the ECU to continue to control how it handles timing and knock can be an advantage.
There's no correct answer, just preference..
If I wanted the stock ECU to continue to do all the work, and just intercepted/latered the fuel/timing, I'd probably use the ECU+ or the Emanage. For that matter, I would have just stuck with the S-AFC since it would be pointless to even try to control the timing if it were drifting on a run to run basis. The other big problem with remapping/intercept devices is that they will never be able to bypass the MAF fuel cut without clamping the MAF signal (and potentially running dangerously lean) or using larger fuel injectors (which also works with the S-AFC).
The advantage of the UTEC is that its new firmware takes control of the coil drivers and the injector drivers, so although its altering and clamping the values to the ECU, its not in any way limited by it because its in direct control. To some they may see that as a disadvantage, to others its an advantage.. For my needs its what I think is the better choice. My original choices were always between a full standalone, or the UTEC, I chose the UTEC because I have the option to allow the stock ECU to continue to run in a stock mode if for some reason I don't want or need to adjust the car's tuning.. Or even portions of the tuning.. In my opinion its the best of both worlds.
#28
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your points for the most part.. The one thing is that the prediction is based on a long term and short term knock value, and may take several run cycles for it to drift back into the primary map.
This adaptive fuel/spark strategies were even obvious during our One Lap adventures during the 6000 miles of transits where we were towing 800lbs of supplies, while running 20-22psi of boost on a GT30R turbo, on 91-94 octane in 100+ degree temps through traffic, mountain ranges, texan plains, etc,. After periods of long sustained boost (4000rpm, 15psi, up a hill for 5 minutes), you could watch ignition advance (through a scan tool) float around in a 3 degree range from, say 3 deg BTDC to 6 deg BTDC. I can only assume fueling was floating around with it. The neat thing about this behavior is that it is predictive as well as reactive to knock. In other words, knock retard activity isn't obvious as it would be with an aftermarket computer with reactive knock control where you would suddenly feel the timing being yanked out, torque falling on its face, recovering slowly, going back to normal, then again timing being yanked out, etc,...
It's also interesting to note that even on high octane race gas running 25+psi of boost, this adaptive behavior can be found even without the presence of audible detonation (although audible through det cans if you listened carefully). I still stand by my belief that these features kept our engine in one piece during that week of hell and uncertainty Trying to get a stand-alone tuned to that level of adaptability and safety margin while not giving up big power requires a level of tuning that most people (including myself) aren't capable of without a *lot* of testing time and full access to load bearing dynos and lots of data acquisition, IMHO.
\However I'd much rather have the control over how it handles knock and how quick its recovery is.
I do agree that in some circumstances, allowing the ECU to continue to control how it handles timing and knock can be an advantage.
There's no correct answer, just preference..
There's no correct answer, just preference..
If I wanted the stock ECU to continue to do all the work, and just intercepted/latered the fuel/timing, I'd probably use the ECU+ or the Emanage. For that matter, I would have just stuck with the S-AFC since it would be pointless to even try to control the timing if it were drifting on a run to run basis. The other big problem with remapping/intercept devices is that they will never be able to bypass the MAF fuel cut without clamping the MAF signal (and potentially running dangerously lean) or using larger fuel injectors (which also works with the S-AFC).
Also, there is no reason to ever use a MAF clamp with the XEDE since all boost limit functions (as well as rev limit changes and/or injector scaling) is handled by the XEDEFlash.
Just my 2c,
shiv
Last edited by shiv@vishnu; Aug 22, 2004 at 07:30 PM.
#29
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ATX
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take the challenge, Jack. Try the XEDE for four weeks and see which you prefer. I can, with almost 100% certainty, predict which system you will want to keep. Walk toward the light, Jack. Trust me, I've had both the UTEC and now the XEDE.
-chris
-chris
#30
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
How have you confirmed that you are picking up every instance of knock and that all (or even most) of the knock signal you are picking up is indeed knock? And how can you be certain that the actions you take (with retard to rate of retard per engine event and post-knock advance is appropriate)?
Shiv
Shiv