tjwasiak Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 So why you do not use TunerpPro internal checksum plugin?I was asking because I am using your knowledge and experience with M4.4 on M2.8.1 (basically same architecture but you will not get any DAMOS for it) and I am using internal checksum plugin... BTW Why are you cutting B40 and connecting connector (car) side to power ground when converting from M4.3? I thought cutting B25 and feeding input from B6 into board side of B25 would be enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venderbroeck Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Can the internal TP plugin do 2 checksums? Either way, the current method works, so I don't really see a problem. Maybe the internal plugin works too. Try it and let us know. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjwasiak Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I am quite sure it can do as many checksums as you define. I am reading this thread from 1st post and saw some people had issues with that custom checksum plugin so it might be just easier to use default one. I am not able to test on Volvo ECU so it must be some else who will check if default plugin works - but I believe it wil as it works on my ECU just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorx Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Not too important. I never liked the 16x2 Ostrich connector to a 32 pin DIL male IDC connector. A 16x2 to 16x2 cable makes more sense to me. 16x2 headers are widely available and te conversion board could look like this: (Imagine the 16x2 header as angular, the PCCC32 chip is the PLCC32 plug in this quick and dirty 3D simulation of an other conversion board alternative.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorx Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I posted this because I am fantasizing about something else. Most beautiful would be a sort of interface board on top op the ECU. Using the existing mount points or holes. This board would be equipped with the following, not mandatory, options: -Interface to the Ostrich 32 pin connector. -Placeholder for external USB connector on top of the ECU case. Ostrich use. -Placeholder for external connector op top op ECU. LPG/ Gasoline signal, wideband signal, turbo pressure, switched 12V (engine running) and many more. We seem to keep up with the same use of signal pins, so I think such a board is possible. It would highly ease the implementation. and will avoid the need to modify the standard cabling. Better convert the ECU cabling to the car than the opposite. Maybe add the extra switching circuitry for the AC to suport 850's as well. As well as the stepup boost converter Turboforslund suggested.for in car flashing. All on the same board no piggybacking. An idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turboforslund Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I made a wiring diagram of my M4.4 S/V/C70 to 850 "A/C conversion on/off by a switch". Diagram can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jx49ve4l9xvgpez/M4.4%20X70%20to%20850-switch.png?dl=0 I ordered a slim 2-channel relay module from ebay that would fit into the ECU (I also ordered a 4-channel module in a previous post but only 2-channels are needed): http://www.ebay.com/itm/12V-Two-2-Channel-Relay-Module-With-optocoupler-For-PIC-AVR-DSP-ARM-Arduino-Best-/161558291964?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item259d9fe5fc#ht_7627wt_1071 Let me know if you have any questions. // Turboforslund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorx Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 OK, I'll go on fantasizing about a universal interface. With or without Ostrich and all the options I mentioned before. Such a board will have a higher weight than a simple PLCC32 to DIL32 conversion board. Fixation to the ECU becomes more and more important. For long term reliability, you simply do no want to put forces on the ECU side of the original EEPROM. If you use a socket in between: You do not want to have mechanical vibrations to make the connection between the ECU and the Ostrich unreliable. Maybe today it will work well, but not after a few years. I overlooked an interesting hole on the ECU PCB. Under the EEPROM. It has been made with a purpose. I am sure. Just to mount an EEPROM emulator rigidly and safe while engineering. So let's use that hole. But: the clearance between that hole and the adjacent traces is very small. A spacer or whatever you call it may not touch the traces around it. Anyway, it steers us towards a better Ostrich connection, and more important: A universal full option interface, with or without Ostrich. The other long term solution to connect a larger size PCB with on board connectors would be a flex cable to the ECU. For assembly reasons I concider this a suboptimal solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I now have an alternative laptop for logging. I need to install the driver for the vag-com; I tried the drivers linked on the wikia without success. I would happily copy the driver from the old laptop to the replacement, if I knew where to find the fucker. I'm a Mac user, so none of this PC stuff ever sticks in my head. Can anyone provide the file path for the ftdi driver? With that I can copy it to a flash drive & install myself, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinitlarge Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 W7 C:Windowssystem32drivers or C:Windowssystem32driversDriverStore Connect your old laptop drive via usb and point the driver installation to one of those folder. Thats what I normally do Or there is this I had on my computer https://www.dropbox.com/s/mbvzlc9looc0211/FTDI%20USB%20Drivers.rar?dl=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjwasiak Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 OK, I'll go on fantasizing about a universal interface. With or without Ostrich and all the options I mentioned before. Such a board will have a higher weight than a simple PLCC32 to DIL32 conversion board. Fixation to the ECU becomes more and more important. For long term reliability, you simply do no want to put forces on the ECU side of the original EEPROM. If you use a socket in between: You do not want to have mechanical vibrations to make the connection between the ECU and the Ostrich unreliable. Maybe today it will work well, but not after a few years. In my opinion one should only use Ostrich/other emulator enabled ECU when tuning. When your tune is ready just reflash normal ECU or flash your stock (unsoldered) PLCC32 flash memory using programmer and insert it into a socket/solder it to the ECU. It is much safer that way. For example I had issues during this winter with Ostrich connected to original Bosch DIP28 socket on M2.8.1 ECU - the humidity was too high this year and my ECU can not be 100% hermetic when altered to accept Ostrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 What happens when you're never done tuning your car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjwasiak Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Then most of other people insist you're mad Guess why I had been trying to keep using Ostrich enabled ECU in my daily driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S70-R Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Piet, I still didn't try your boost my gear app. However, it would be interesting if we could have the same app to do the boost by gear and ignition map by gear. Usually and even for the same load we can get away with more agressive timing on lower gears than on higher gears, essencially because in higher gears we'll get higher EGT. So, if we could have a map for 1 and 2 gears and other maps for 3, 4 and 5 gears we wouldn't have to give up on power on lower gears (i.e. reducing timing) just to compensate the EGT effect on knock in higher gears. It would be nice if we had timing by gear as well. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I have never had an issue with encountering knock in one gear and not in another, given the same load and RPM. I think that if your ECU is properly calculating load (not maxing out the MAF) then ignition maps by gear would be pointless. The only time I could see it being beneficial is if you were maxing out load in 2nd gear, and needed lower ignition advance in later gears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piet Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.