Throttle Control: TPS x MAP or TPS x RPM?
08-21-24, 05:14 AM
#1
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Throttle Control: TPS x MAP or TPS x RPM?
Which setup do you guys prefer to help give better throttle modulation? I don't want to have to lift my foot dramatically to reduce the power.
TPS x Torque is not an option that is open to me.
And just to clarify, this is not for main fuel mapping. This is to use as a moderator for a DBW throttle body to help give better modulation.
TPSxRPM:
For example, 100% pedall at 4k rpm, the engine only uses ~50% of the full TPS flow from the throttle body. So 50% pedal @4krpm gives 25% TPS, 100% pedal @4krpm gives 50% TPS, and as soon as I lift the pedal engine power reduces in this scenario.
MAPxTPS:
100% pedal is 100% boost target, 50% pedal is 50% boost target. As soon as you lift, the gate cracks and boost is reduced.
TPS x Torque is not an option that is open to me.
And just to clarify, this is not for main fuel mapping. This is to use as a moderator for a DBW throttle body to help give better modulation.
TPSxRPM:
For example, 100% pedall at 4k rpm, the engine only uses ~50% of the full TPS flow from the throttle body. So 50% pedal @4krpm gives 25% TPS, 100% pedal @4krpm gives 50% TPS, and as soon as I lift the pedal engine power reduces in this scenario.
MAPxTPS:
100% pedal is 100% boost target, 50% pedal is 50% boost target. As soon as you lift, the gate cracks and boost is reduced.
Last edited by FD Wheel Covers In Carbon; 08-21-24 at 06:55 AM.
08-21-24, 01:15 PM
#2
Junior Member
Which setup do you guys prefer to help give better throttle modulation? I don't want to have to lift my foot dramatically to reduce the power.
TPS x Torque is not an option that is open to me.
And just to clarify, this is not for main fuel mapping. This is to use as a moderator for a DBW throttle body to help give better modulation.
TPSxRPM:
For example, 100% pedall at 4k rpm, the engine only uses ~50% of the full TPS flow from the throttle body. So 50% pedal @4krpm gives 25% TPS, 100% pedal @4krpm gives 50% TPS, and as soon as I lift the pedal engine power reduces in this scenario.
MAPxTPS:
100% pedal is 100% boost target, 50% pedal is 50% boost target. As soon as you lift, the gate cracks and boost is reduced.
TPS x Torque is not an option that is open to me.
And just to clarify, this is not for main fuel mapping. This is to use as a moderator for a DBW throttle body to help give better modulation.
TPSxRPM:
For example, 100% pedall at 4k rpm, the engine only uses ~50% of the full TPS flow from the throttle body. So 50% pedal @4krpm gives 25% TPS, 100% pedal @4krpm gives 50% TPS, and as soon as I lift the pedal engine power reduces in this scenario.
MAPxTPS:
100% pedal is 100% boost target, 50% pedal is 50% boost target. As soon as you lift, the gate cracks and boost is reduced.
Scale the max throttle by boost control target pressure. Then use your boost control target pressure table to have the power ramp in as desired. My preferred method is undriven wheel speed.
TPSxTorque is 100% possible.
Create 2x generic output tables for the torque with rpmxmap and torque command as an output for the boost control.. Dyno the car and find out how much torque is made where and model the torque to the table. Scale the boost target pressure target by the torque command table however you want it to scale.
The following users liked this post:
FD Wheel Covers In Carbon (08-24-24)
08-24-24, 02:48 AM
#3
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Well, I have a FuelTech at the moment, but since I made this post the S2/S3 exists which has traction control, so I might be making the switch. Too many hurdles to get over with the FT, and the future plans will just get more complicated without the open CAN.
I really appreciate your input. Talk to a few other people, it sounds like RPM x TPS will get me as close as I can get with the flexibility I have at the moment.
I really appreciate your input. Talk to a few other people, it sounds like RPM x TPS will get me as close as I can get with the flexibility I have at the moment.
08-24-24, 10:36 AM
#5
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Can be rigged for it?
I thought the defining difference of the 2500T is the traction control.
And it’s one of the marketing points for the S2/S3
I thought the defining difference of the 2500T is the traction control.
And it’s one of the marketing points for the S2/S3
08-24-24, 01:16 PM
#6
Junior Member
The T in the 2500 stands for 'Torque Management'. Which is a very specific feature for drag racers. Torque Management =/= Traction Control. 1500/2500 have traction control. 550/750 do not, but there are strategies you can do to make something similar work. I would get at the minimum an S2 now. The S2 is overally cheaper than the 1500 is now. Was just clarifying the 1500/2500 have had it for at least 5 year, if not the entire time.
08-25-24, 12:48 AM
#7
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Maybe it had a limited version of traction control?
FT has had selectable wheel slip target, which is way superior to most other methods, on all their ECUs for a long time. The S and R series now have that. Allowing a slip target of say 5% set table by RPM and/or speed and/or gear, and allowing it to ignore the table during shifts, launch or other events is much better than “slip detected, cut power”.
Looking at S3, UC10 combo. Running 20 inputs and 4 k type temp sensors on CAN. UC10 seems worth the upgrade vs an expander and ic7. Wish they listed the actual # of inputs instead of saying “11 voltage, 6 DPO” etc. gonna have to make a base map and plan this out.
Glad Haltech is closing that gap. FT still has the screen, but that closed CAN system is just such a roadblock it’s not worth pursuing. And the idle always sucks ***, which I would say is a tuner issues but it’s a common complaint and I kinda need a proper idle in a street car!
FT has had selectable wheel slip target, which is way superior to most other methods, on all their ECUs for a long time. The S and R series now have that. Allowing a slip target of say 5% set table by RPM and/or speed and/or gear, and allowing it to ignore the table during shifts, launch or other events is much better than “slip detected, cut power”.
Looking at S3, UC10 combo. Running 20 inputs and 4 k type temp sensors on CAN. UC10 seems worth the upgrade vs an expander and ic7. Wish they listed the actual # of inputs instead of saying “11 voltage, 6 DPO” etc. gonna have to make a base map and plan this out.
Glad Haltech is closing that gap. FT still has the screen, but that closed CAN system is just such a roadblock it’s not worth pursuing. And the idle always sucks ***, which I would say is a tuner issues but it’s a common complaint and I kinda need a proper idle in a street car!
Trending Topics
08-25-24, 07:55 AM
#8
The Elite series has had slip target TC for many years. Believe they brought it out before Fueltech. The Elite and Nexus have similar abilities for user defined targets and methods of controlling wheel spin. Options not available in the FT range.
CAN is still limited with the Haltech ECUs. You’re locked in to the protocols Haltech gives you. Not sure what you actually want to do but, if you need the ability to send and receive anything outside of what is baked into the Haltech stream, you’ll need to do some work with a translator. There are better platforms that Haltech in this regard. What exactly are you wanting to do with CAN?
I’d also say there are better dash products on the market than what Haltech has. If you don’t feel a need to keep it all in one brand family, the ECUMaster ADU, for one, has a good number of benefits over the Haltech stuff.
CAN is still limited with the Haltech ECUs. You’re locked in to the protocols Haltech gives you. Not sure what you actually want to do but, if you need the ability to send and receive anything outside of what is baked into the Haltech stream, you’ll need to do some work with a translator. There are better platforms that Haltech in this regard. What exactly are you wanting to do with CAN?
I’d also say there are better dash products on the market than what Haltech has. If you don’t feel a need to keep it all in one brand family, the ECUMaster ADU, for one, has a good number of benefits over the Haltech stuff.
Maybe it had a limited version of traction control?
FT has had selectable wheel slip target, which is way superior to most other methods, on all their ECUs for a long time. The S and R series now have that. Allowing a slip target of say 5% set table by RPM and/or speed and/or gear, and allowing it to ignore the table during shifts, launch or other events is much better than “slip detected, cut power”.
Looking at S3, UC10 combo. Running 20 inputs and 4 k type temp sensors on CAN. UC10 seems worth the upgrade vs an expander and ic7. Wish they listed the actual # of inputs instead of saying “11 voltage, 6 DPO” etc. gonna have to make a base map and plan this out.
Glad Haltech is closing that gap. FT still has the screen, but that closed CAN system is just such a roadblock it’s not worth pursuing. And the idle always sucks ***, which I would say is a tuner issues but it’s a common complaint and I kinda need a proper idle in a street car!
FT has had selectable wheel slip target, which is way superior to most other methods, on all their ECUs for a long time. The S and R series now have that. Allowing a slip target of say 5% set table by RPM and/or speed and/or gear, and allowing it to ignore the table during shifts, launch or other events is much better than “slip detected, cut power”.
Looking at S3, UC10 combo. Running 20 inputs and 4 k type temp sensors on CAN. UC10 seems worth the upgrade vs an expander and ic7. Wish they listed the actual # of inputs instead of saying “11 voltage, 6 DPO” etc. gonna have to make a base map and plan this out.
Glad Haltech is closing that gap. FT still has the screen, but that closed CAN system is just such a roadblock it’s not worth pursuing. And the idle always sucks ***, which I would say is a tuner issues but it’s a common complaint and I kinda need a proper idle in a street car!
08-25-24, 10:14 PM
#9
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
So then what is special about the 2500T? And why doesn’t Haltech list traction control as an available feature with their elite ECUs?
With the S2/S3 I’ll need more inputs than what’s available, the UC10 does that. But a different display + expander might be the way to go.
Need CAN to communicate with Turbo Lamik to run an 8HP. Turbo Lamik can read FT CAN, but it can’t make torque requests so drivability and shift times suffer. It’s possible to set it up with analog connections but the CAN will save a ton of time and share more data.
I’ll have a look at some other display options.
Also looking at Link, a lot of the shop cars are running it. But Haltech seems to be dominating the market with more information available
With the S2/S3 I’ll need more inputs than what’s available, the UC10 does that. But a different display + expander might be the way to go.
Need CAN to communicate with Turbo Lamik to run an 8HP. Turbo Lamik can read FT CAN, but it can’t make torque requests so drivability and shift times suffer. It’s possible to set it up with analog connections but the CAN will save a ton of time and share more data.
I’ll have a look at some other display options.
Also looking at Link, a lot of the shop cars are running it. But Haltech seems to be dominating the market with more information available
08-26-24, 10:15 AM
#10
Junior Member
So then what is special about the 2500T? And why doesn’t Haltech list traction control as an available feature with their elite ECUs?
With the S2/S3 I’ll need more inputs than what’s available, the UC10 does that. But a different display + expander might be the way to go.
Need CAN to communicate with Turbo Lamik to run an 8HP. Turbo Lamik can read FT CAN, but it can’t make torque requests so drivability and shift times suffer. It’s possible to set it up with analog connections but the CAN will save a ton of time and share more data.
I’ll have a look at some other display options.
Also looking at Link, a lot of the shop cars are running it. But Haltech seems to be dominating the market with more information available
With the S2/S3 I’ll need more inputs than what’s available, the UC10 does that. But a different display + expander might be the way to go.
Need CAN to communicate with Turbo Lamik to run an 8HP. Turbo Lamik can read FT CAN, but it can’t make torque requests so drivability and shift times suffer. It’s possible to set it up with analog connections but the CAN will save a ton of time and share more data.
I’ll have a look at some other display options.
Also looking at Link, a lot of the shop cars are running it. But Haltech seems to be dominating the market with more information available
Haltech is your best option for the price by a long shot. The only ECUs that would work better for you would be custom firmware motec or other higher end options like Syvecs etc.
haltech does list the number of inputs. Some are digital switched inputs and others are 0-5v analog voltage inputs. DPOs can be used as ON/OFF SPIs on the nexus ECUs. Normal SPIs can be used as 0-5V inputs as well. When you understand the hierarchy of how the inputs work, you’ll realize different inputs can’t all do the same thing/not all inputs have pull-ups, etc.
Last edited by Kenny McKee; 08-26-24 at 10:19 AM.
08-26-24, 10:42 AM
#11
Also, I don't think what he's asking for lands him in the realm of custom firmware, Motec, Syvecs, or Emtron. It may mean, however, that sticking with the semi-neutered (a stretch) CAN definitions provided by Haltech make it less than desirable.
08-26-24, 10:43 PM
#12
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Maxxecu 8HP support uses the stock TCU, which won’t allow me to add a digital clutch which means I’m stuck running the torque convertor. So the benefits there are not useful to me.
Link would be my other option. But the S3 adds more over any of the G4x choices and the G5 I’d another $1000 that is rather put into a screen.
The downside is selling all the FT stuff, but that should go easily enough
Link would be my other option. But the S3 adds more over any of the G4x choices and the G5 I’d another $1000 that is rather put into a screen.
The downside is selling all the FT stuff, but that should go easily enough
08-27-24, 09:33 AM
#13
Maxxecu 8HP support uses the stock TCU, which won’t allow me to add a digital clutch which means I’m stuck running the torque convertor. So the benefits there are not useful to me.
Link would be my other option. But the S3 adds more over any of the G4x choices and the G5 I’d another $1000 that is rather put into a screen.
The downside is selling all the FT stuff, but that should go easily enough
Link would be my other option. But the S3 adds more over any of the G4x choices and the G5 I’d another $1000 that is rather put into a screen.
The downside is selling all the FT stuff, but that should go easily enough
Ah, that's certainly a pain point though I do believe I've seen Natanael mention that there goal is to integrate some sort of clutch kick functionality. I've still been a fan of Maxx recently due to their very transparent CAN communications though, so take that for what its worth.
08-27-24, 11:11 AM
#14
I have a new Syvecs S6+ ECU listed with a decent discount on the Marketplace forum if interested. I bought it pre-Covid but the pandemic and other life happenings put my planned build on hold during that timeframe.
The unit is considered "new, old stock", and has only been used to perform a power & diagnostics check on a running FD; otherwise, never installed. Anyhow, something to consider if planning to go the path of a higher-end performance ECU.
From the Syvecs website:
S6+ Inputs:
22 x General Purpose Analogue Inputs: 4 x 5V/Bipolar, Sensor/Sync/Speed, Programmable Trigger Voltages
10 x 5V/Thermistor, Sensor/Sync/Speed, Fixed Trigger Voltages
4 x 5V Sensor Input
4 x Thermistor Sensor Input
2 x Lambda Inputs Including:
- 1 x NTK, Bosch LSU4.2/4.9 or Denso AF Lambda Circuit
- 1 x Bosch LSU4.2/4.9 or Denso AF Lambda Circuit
2 x K-Type Thermocouple Circuits
2 x Knock Inputs
S6+ Outputs:
24 x High/Low Side Driver Outputs:8x Half Bridge Outputs (Max 10 Amps)
16 x Low Side Injection/PWM Outputs (Max 10 Amps)
6 x TTL Ignition Driver Or Direct Coil Drive IGBT (Solder Bridge Settings on Board)
Comms:
1 x Can 2.0B
The unit is considered "new, old stock", and has only been used to perform a power & diagnostics check on a running FD; otherwise, never installed. Anyhow, something to consider if planning to go the path of a higher-end performance ECU.
From the Syvecs website:
S6+ Inputs:
22 x General Purpose Analogue Inputs: 4 x 5V/Bipolar, Sensor/Sync/Speed, Programmable Trigger Voltages
10 x 5V/Thermistor, Sensor/Sync/Speed, Fixed Trigger Voltages
4 x 5V Sensor Input
4 x Thermistor Sensor Input
2 x Lambda Inputs Including:
- 1 x NTK, Bosch LSU4.2/4.9 or Denso AF Lambda Circuit
- 1 x Bosch LSU4.2/4.9 or Denso AF Lambda Circuit
2 x K-Type Thermocouple Circuits
2 x Knock Inputs
S6+ Outputs:
24 x High/Low Side Driver Outputs:8x Half Bridge Outputs (Max 10 Amps)
16 x Low Side Injection/PWM Outputs (Max 10 Amps)
6 x TTL Ignition Driver Or Direct Coil Drive IGBT (Solder Bridge Settings on Board)
Comms:
1 x Can 2.0B
Last edited by Topolino; 08-27-24 at 01:03 PM.
08-27-24, 11:27 AM
#15
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Don’t have the support for Syvecs. It’s basically Haltech or Link. I thought we had support for the FuelTech but it’s just not working out, don’t want to be back in that boat.
Maxxecu for 8HP relies on the internal TCU in the trans, while Lamik replaces it. The internal TCU won’t allow a clutch, same reason CANTCU won’t support it. Unless they replace the TCU, clutch support is just a pipe dream.
I don’t need fully open CAN, I’m not trying to interface with a new car. I just want decent support for normal things, egate control, traction control and DBW. This build isn’t going to break the internet or sleep with a Kardasian, just want a functional FD that idles predictably when I turn the key and can hit the track occasionally.
Maxxecu for 8HP relies on the internal TCU in the trans, while Lamik replaces it. The internal TCU won’t allow a clutch, same reason CANTCU won’t support it. Unless they replace the TCU, clutch support is just a pipe dream.
I don’t need fully open CAN, I’m not trying to interface with a new car. I just want decent support for normal things, egate control, traction control and DBW. This build isn’t going to break the internet or sleep with a Kardasian, just want a functional FD that idles predictably when I turn the key and can hit the track occasionally.
08-27-24, 01:30 PM
#16
I feel your pain, my friend. I suspect there's only a handful of Syvecs users here stateside for the FD platform. And I'm actually 1000 miles away from where my tuner is located; although, there is someone quite reputable who is only 3-hrs away if I'm ever in a pinch.
My goals were very similar to yours; egate functionality for my 8374 IWG turbo, DBW, & TC. My tuner added a flex fuel option should I choose to go that route. And we also incorporated WMI (both pre-turbo compressor & post-IC) for the specific occasions when I run boost settings greater than 16 psi. But low to mid-teens is my usual sweet spot, and the engine runs great overall.
The egate goal was eventually dropped/ postponed. But that had more to do w hardware constraints than anything software related. Moreover, I'm certain my tuner could've made things functionally effective had we made the necessary efforts to make room for the aftermarket egate kit.
Like you, I'm also intrigued by potentially adding DCT to my setup. But w roughly 5 years remaining before heading to SEA for retirement life abroad, it sadly doesn't make much sense for me to incorporate the DCT upgrade; especially considering the low rpm driveability issues still being ironed out by current users as we speak.
My goals were very similar to yours; egate functionality for my 8374 IWG turbo, DBW, & TC. My tuner added a flex fuel option should I choose to go that route. And we also incorporated WMI (both pre-turbo compressor & post-IC) for the specific occasions when I run boost settings greater than 16 psi. But low to mid-teens is my usual sweet spot, and the engine runs great overall.
The egate goal was eventually dropped/ postponed. But that had more to do w hardware constraints than anything software related. Moreover, I'm certain my tuner could've made things functionally effective had we made the necessary efforts to make room for the aftermarket egate kit.
Like you, I'm also intrigued by potentially adding DCT to my setup. But w roughly 5 years remaining before heading to SEA for retirement life abroad, it sadly doesn't make much sense for me to incorporate the DCT upgrade; especially considering the low rpm driveability issues still being ironed out by current users as we speak.
Last edited by Topolino; 08-29-24 at 07:19 AM.
The following users liked this post:
FD Wheel Covers In Carbon (08-29-24)
08-27-24, 03:56 PM
#17
The internal TCU won’t allow a clutch, same reason CANTCU won’t support it. Unless they replace the TCU, clutch support is just a pipe dream.
I don’t need fully open CAN, I’m not trying to interface with a new car. I just want decent support for normal things, egate control, traction control and DBW. This build isn’t going to break the internet or sleep with a Kardasian, just want a functional FD that idles predictably when I turn the key and can hit the track occasionally.
I don’t need fully open CAN, I’m not trying to interface with a new car. I just want decent support for normal things, egate control, traction control and DBW. This build isn’t going to break the internet or sleep with a Kardasian, just want a functional FD that idles predictably when I turn the key and can hit the track occasionally.
Given what I've seen in backchannels, I wouldn't be so sure - there is hackery involved and yes it would require a second reflash of the TCU. Anyway, I'm only making suggestions - if you have support for both of those platforms have at it.
With regards to not needing 'fully open CAN', no you're not asking to interface with a new vehicle however you are asking to interface with a few bespoke items - as much flexibility as possible is desirable.
Go forth and build!
The following users liked this post:
FD Wheel Covers In Carbon (08-29-24)
The following users liked this post:
estevan62274 (08-28-24)
08-29-24, 01:26 AM
#19
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Luckily the “bespoke items” ie Turbo Lamik is well supported on Haltech.
Haltech is telling me I need an R3 for the 3 full bridge outputs, because CAN uses one for power supply, Egate uses one, and DBW uses one as well. Until now I’d never heard of CAN using a bridge output.. is anyone here using the HBO to power CAN? That sounds like a massive waste to me and a bit like they are upselling me… don’t want to rewire the whole car just to use the PDM outputs, I already have all the relays in place. What’s the consensus here?
And then I need an expander for all the stuff I have on the FT. Was looking at getting a UC-10, but they are saying I shouldn’t use those inputs for engine sensors… I think I have enough chassis side stuff to move to it and keep the rest on the ECU.
Has Haltech put out an S3 wiring diagram yet?
Haltech is telling me I need an R3 for the 3 full bridge outputs, because CAN uses one for power supply, Egate uses one, and DBW uses one as well. Until now I’d never heard of CAN using a bridge output.. is anyone here using the HBO to power CAN? That sounds like a massive waste to me and a bit like they are upselling me… don’t want to rewire the whole car just to use the PDM outputs, I already have all the relays in place. What’s the consensus here?
And then I need an expander for all the stuff I have on the FT. Was looking at getting a UC-10, but they are saying I shouldn’t use those inputs for engine sensors… I think I have enough chassis side stuff to move to it and keep the rest on the ECU.
Has Haltech put out an S3 wiring diagram yet?
08-29-24, 06:31 AM
#20
#garageguybuild
iTrader: (32)
Luckily the “bespoke items” ie Turbo Lamik is well supported on Haltech.
Haltech is telling me I need an R3 for the 3 full bridge outputs, because CAN uses one for power supply, Egate uses one, and DBW uses one as well. Until now I’d never heard of CAN using a bridge output.. is anyone here using the HBO to power CAN? That sounds like a massive waste to me and a bit like they are upselling me… don’t want to rewire the whole car just to use the PDM outputs, I already have all the relays in place. What’s the consensus here?
And then I need an expander for all the stuff I have on the FT. Was looking at getting a UC-10, but they are saying I shouldn’t use those inputs for engine sensors… I think I have enough chassis side stuff to move to it and keep the rest on the ECU.
Has Haltech put out an S3 wiring diagram yet?
Haltech is telling me I need an R3 for the 3 full bridge outputs, because CAN uses one for power supply, Egate uses one, and DBW uses one as well. Until now I’d never heard of CAN using a bridge output.. is anyone here using the HBO to power CAN? That sounds like a massive waste to me and a bit like they are upselling me… don’t want to rewire the whole car just to use the PDM outputs, I already have all the relays in place. What’s the consensus here?
And then I need an expander for all the stuff I have on the FT. Was looking at getting a UC-10, but they are saying I shouldn’t use those inputs for engine sensors… I think I have enough chassis side stuff to move to it and keep the rest on the ECU.
Has Haltech put out an S3 wiring diagram yet?
Yes, S2 and S3 diagram is on the Haltech site.
For the R3... You have 6, HBO(8amps).. DBW, CAN, and such.
4 HCO(25amps), Fuel Pumps, Thermo Fans, Coils/Injectors.
Check out the R3 Haltech Quick Start Guide also, great info.
They are all configurable, I know just enough to be dangerous.
Steve
08-29-24, 09:46 AM
#21
Luckily the “bespoke items” ie Turbo Lamik is well supported on Haltech.
Haltech is telling me I need an R3 for the 3 full bridge outputs, because CAN uses one for power supply, Egate uses one, and DBW uses one as well. Until now I’d never heard of CAN using a bridge output.. is anyone here using the HBO to power CAN? That sounds like a massive waste to me and a bit like they are upselling me… don’t want to rewire the whole car just to use the PDM outputs, I already have all the relays in place. What’s the consensus here?
And then I need an expander for all the stuff I have on the FT. Was looking at getting a UC-10, but they are saying I shouldn’t use those inputs for engine sensors… I think I have enough chassis side stuff to move to it and keep the rest on the ECU.
Has Haltech put out an S3 wiring diagram yet?
Haltech is telling me I need an R3 for the 3 full bridge outputs, because CAN uses one for power supply, Egate uses one, and DBW uses one as well. Until now I’d never heard of CAN using a bridge output.. is anyone here using the HBO to power CAN? That sounds like a massive waste to me and a bit like they are upselling me… don’t want to rewire the whole car just to use the PDM outputs, I already have all the relays in place. What’s the consensus here?
And then I need an expander for all the stuff I have on the FT. Was looking at getting a UC-10, but they are saying I shouldn’t use those inputs for engine sensors… I think I have enough chassis side stuff to move to it and keep the rest on the ECU.
Has Haltech put out an S3 wiring diagram yet?
Yeah that just sounds like a ridiculous marketing upsell/ploy, or it's just how they're building their plug and play harnesses so it's their SOP. I wouldn't waste a bridge on something that needs both zero control and very little current capacity.
The following users liked this post:
FD Wheel Covers In Carbon (08-29-24)
09-01-24, 03:57 PM
#22
The R3 doesn't use a HCO for CAN power and you DON'T NEED to use a HBO for can power. You can source that elsewhere if you want.
Egate and DBW use two HBO's since they are bi directional. In the default layout R3 only uses one HBO for CAN. You can set the power supply pins to 0 and free that up.
Also R3 don't have plug and play harnesses, their terminated harnesses have CAN power coming from a HBO since it's better use of the pdm rather than wasting a HCO for CAN power since they are 25AMP.
For most 2 rotor installs, I used one 25AMP HCO for Injector, Coil. CAN, Idle speed, Boost control etc
That works for up to 4 coils 8 injectors up to 10000rpm 50psi of boost. gets close to 25AMPs at 10000rpm. (4ms dwell at 10000rpm on the coils)
Egate and DBW use two HBO's since they are bi directional. In the default layout R3 only uses one HBO for CAN. You can set the power supply pins to 0 and free that up.
Also R3 don't have plug and play harnesses, their terminated harnesses have CAN power coming from a HBO since it's better use of the pdm rather than wasting a HCO for CAN power since they are 25AMP.
For most 2 rotor installs, I used one 25AMP HCO for Injector, Coil. CAN, Idle speed, Boost control etc
That works for up to 4 coils 8 injectors up to 10000rpm 50psi of boost. gets close to 25AMPs at 10000rpm. (4ms dwell at 10000rpm on the coils)
The following users liked this post:
FD Wheel Covers In Carbon (09-03-24)
09-03-24, 03:00 PM
#23
Sponsor
RX7Club Vendor
Thread Starter
Ok, so using the HCO outputs for engine power makes the R3 worthwhile. I was taking a step back and looking at the S2 seeing as it is just a 2 rotor.
But using the R3 HCO for all the engine related relays makes a ton of sense and could potentially really clean up the wiring.
How much control do we get over the HCO outputs? I'm assuming it's just a PWM capable 25a relay driven as an ECU output. Is it current reversing like the HBO outputs? Still leaning all this stuff
But using the R3 HCO for all the engine related relays makes a ton of sense and could potentially really clean up the wiring.
How much control do we get over the HCO outputs? I'm assuming it's just a PWM capable 25a relay driven as an ECU output. Is it current reversing like the HBO outputs? Still leaning all this stuff
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fc3schick87
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
3
04-09-10 02:14 PM
nn20b
Haltech Forum
2
04-21-09 11:01 PM