Author Topic: Megasquirt in m42/ pics of my build (Read 38157 times)

Master · « **Reply #30 on:** June 26, 2007, 03:49:21 PM »

Whoa� :eek:
What kind of board version is that?
I haven't seen a lot of MS I v2.2 boards, but this looks nothing like them�

Whatever, It's still MS I, I'm planing on running a MS II V3 board with the Extra code, as it allows for much better tuning accuracy, has larger injection table etc.

Also I'm planing on going another route with the wiring, as contacts on the stock ECU are really close together, and you don't want them short-circuit�

One guy had the board wired up similar on a M52 motor, and one day his crank position sensor caught fire!

P.S.
If anyone is interested here's how a MS-I v2.2 board looks like:
http://www.volvo300.dk/Resize%20of%20Megasquirt%20board%20-%20top.JPG
MS-I v3.0 board:
http://www.teglerizer.com/fi/megasquirt/ms_parts_defined.jpg
And a fully blown MS II v3.0 board:

Alibi · « **Reply #31 on:** June 26, 2007, 04:59:50 PM »

As I said ... this is Customm made

If I compare it with MS1 V3 ... I have the same extras. MS2 will come probebly somewhere in the future ... when I need something more.

tim_s · « **Reply #32 on:** June 27, 2007, 11:19:49 AM »

alibi's board looks like an old microsquirt board, but i might be wrong, it's certainly a cut-down board with no onboard MAP sensor. Looks like a really neat install, i like! does it control the standard clocks etc too?

Master, you don't seem to have realised that MS1 and MS2 boards are the same, MS2 is a daughterboard.

Quote from: Master;28575

Whatever, It's still MS I, I'm planing on running a MS II V3 board with the Extra code, as it allows for much better tuning accuracy, has larger injection table etc.

MS2 extra does not have a larger VE table, and doesn't allow for better tuning accuracy as far as the VE table is concerned either. you should be running MS1 extra for the moment.

tim_s · « **Reply #33 on:** June 27, 2007, 11:24:43 AM »

on another note, who's gonna be the first to get a spectre then!

Master · « **Reply #34 on:** June 27, 2007, 11:46:35 AM »

Tim, yes I know that V2.2 and V3 boards are the same between MS I and MS II, the MS II just has a separate add on board for the processors, so they look a bit different…
What about MS I being better, look at MS II Extra feature list:
http://www.msextra.com/ms2extra/MS2-Extra_general.htm#features
Also development of the MS I extra code is officially ending;
MS II code on the other hand is still being developed…

Alibi · « **Reply #35 on:** June 27, 2007, 01:24:27 PM »

Tim_s .. my MS has a MAP Sensor on board

tim_s · « **Reply #36 on:** June 27, 2007, 02:51:49 PM »

Quote from: Master;28633

What about MS I being better, look at MS II Extra feature list:
http://www.msextra.com/ms2extra/MS2-Extra_general.htm#features

You've got a lot to learn about megasquirt, young Jedi!
I don't need to read a spec list thanks, I'm running MS2 extra and have used MS1 extra for years.

MS1 extra: anti-rev, traction control, 6 cyl COP, water injection, boost control, shift lights off the top of my head
MS 2 extra: none of the above

Quote

Also development of the MS I extra code is officially ending;
MS II code on the other hand is still being developed…

exactly.
stable code at the end of devt cycle with hundreds of revisions, or 3 month old code on revision 1.0.2. Oh and I hope you're good at mapping EAE.

i run MS2 extra, but I have good reasons for doing so. I still suggest you run MS1 extra, but am getting tired of telling you.

bmwman91 · « **Reply #37 on:** June 27, 2007, 04:16:37 PM »

I wanna install my MS1-E again SOOO bad! The damn thing was wigging out on me though...whenever it is hooked up to the serial cable the RPM reading goes haywire. There is a ground loop in there somewhere...looks like I will be getting the O-scope out the next few nights.

Tim, I am running a stock-internal M42 with an LC-1. Could you maybe provide me with some of those bins you were talking about for the stock motor? It would be of great help (assuming I ever install it again).

Maybe i have asked this before...but are you stull letting the Motronic control the gauge cluster? I would prefer to do that personally. I was going to design up a PIC-derived input simulator for the Motronic to avoid CEL annoyances. I would just leave the MAF conversion on the car, taking care of that signal. I could simulate the closed-loop EGO signal pretty easily as well. Some dummy-resistors for the fuel injectors and ignition coils would be good too.

Master · « **Reply #38 on:** June 27, 2007, 05:31:57 PM »

Quote from: tim_s;28642

You've got a lot to learn about megasquirt, young Jedi!
I don't need to read a spec list thanks, I'm running MS2 extra and have used MS1 extra for years.
MS1 extra: anti-rev, traction control, 6 cyl COP, water injection, boost control, shift lights off the top of my head
MS 2 extra: none of the above

stable code at the end of devt cycle with hundreds of revisions, or 3 month old code on revision 1.0.2. Oh and I hope you're good at mapping EAE.

i run MS2 extra, but I have good reasons for doing so. I still suggest you run MS1 extra, but am getting tired of telling you.

Ok, I'm not a megasquirt expert, and I don't question your knowledge, but why do I need 6 cyl COP if MS II can provide 4 cyl COP (I'll do wasted spark anyway), why in the earth do I need water injection? Even if I go FI there's no imminent need for water injection, 99% of FI cars do without it, MS II CAN do shift lights (I don't need them also)!

I would gladly went with MS I, but I don't have a good reason in doing so, instead of telling me I should go with MS I because it's somehow better, you could at least provide a valid point why should I.

As you know MS II has a faster processor with more memory etc. So it has larger potential in near future, and already has surpassed MS I in tuning accuracy because it uses larger variables in it's calculations and does decoding of each trigger wheel tooth from the top of my head

Ok, as I was writing it I think I understood why you say MS I is better, I apparently was referring to the MS II Extra 2.0 code, witch was released as beta on the 24th, my bad

Also by the time I get my MS project up and running, the 2.0 extra code should become usable, and then it will be much better than MS I, also I don't want to spend money on MS I if I can go straight to MS II and save a few bucks in the process

BTW here's a good video from the developers of the 2.0 extra code, where they explain all the great things that went into the new code:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3203891044384052237&hl=en

tim_s · « **Reply #39 on:** June 28, 2007, 02:52:50 AM »

Quote from: Alibi;28637

Tim_s .. my MS has a MAP Sensor on board

so go on then, what board is it based on!? i give up!

Quote from: bmwman91;28657

I wanna install my MS1-E again SOOO bad! The damn thing was wigging out on me though...whenever it is hooked up to the serial cable the RPM reading goes haywire. There is a ground loop in there somewhere...looks like I will be getting the O-scope out the next few nights.

Tim, I am running a stock-internal M42 with an LC-1. Could you maybe provide me with some of those bins you were talking about for the stock motor? It would be of great help (assuming I ever install it again).

Maybe i have asked this before...but are you stull letting the Motronic control the gauge cluster? I would prefer to do that personally. I was going to design up a PIC-derived input simulator for the Motronic to avoid CEL annoyances. I would just leave the MAF conversion on the car, taking care of that signal. I could simulate the closed-loop EGO signal pretty easily as well. Some dummy-resistors for the fuel injectors and ignition coils would be good too.

sure, you'll need HR firmware though (worthwhile anyway). i also have some pretty good 029x MAF maps that were pretty cool, but didn't seem to quite react correctly to IAT no matter what i tried - EGo feedback kept it in check though. i also have loads of factory info on the m44 somewhere, including timing map.
I definitely think it's time you dusted off the cobwebs on your MS! what board do you have, a 2.2? You built an (or two!) LM 1815(?) VR amplifier/conditioner circuit?

I've kept my life simple and used motronic for the clocks etc, it seemed the easiest way to go. i know of someone who has run the clocks off MS, but I don't really see the benefit in doing it. there's no dash light on a UK car or anything, so fault codes dont matter at all really. Think I only throw a coil fault though, I'll dig out the carsoft and diag it at the weekend and find out! Why not just use a spare analogue output from your LC1 to feed motronic a narrowband signal?

I might have a go at sorting out the EAE on mine at the weekend, it's not really doing it's stuff at the moment! not really had much time to investigate yet.

bmwman91 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 28, 2007, 03:12:04 PM »

Quote from: tim_s;28690

so go on then, what board is it based on!? i give up!

sure, you'll need HR firmware though (worthwhile anyway). i also have some pretty good 029x MAF maps that were pretty cool, but didn't seem to quite react correctly to IAT no matter what i tried - EGo feedback kept it in check though. i also have loads of factory info on the m44 somewhere, including timing map.
I definitely think it's time you dusted off the cobwebs on your MS! what board do you have, a 2.2? You built an (or two!) LM 1815(?) VR amplifier/conditioner circuit?

I've kept my life simple and used motronic for the clocks etc, it seemed the easiest way to go. i know of someone who has run the clocks off MS, but I don't really see the benefit in doing it. there's no dash light on a UK car or anything, so fault codes dont matter at all really. Think I only throw a coil fault though, I'll dig out the carsoft and diag it at the weekend and find out! Why not just use a spare analogue output from your LC1 to feed motronic a narrowband signal?

I might have a go at sorting out the EAE on mine at the weekend, it's not really doing it's stuff at the moment! not really had much time to investigate yet.

Yeah I built the whole LM1815 dealy and everything. I was damn close to having it all working properly...then I hit a tree. Byebye first car.

I would use the spare LC-1 output, but the Motronic might get pissed if the AFR stays steady and does not change when it thinks it is modulating it...hello error 1222. I would just make a little circuit to oscillate the voltage between an AFR of 14 & 16 twice a second, just like the Motronic does in closed-loop.

EAE? HR Firmware?

16v of Fury · « **Reply #41 on:** June 28, 2007, 07:07:44 PM »

What's the right option to tune ITB's on a standard '91 M42?

tim_s · « **Reply #42 on:** June 29, 2007, 03:32:55 AM »

lol at the tree-hitting, that explains a lot. was wondering why the megasquirt project disappeared!

i don't know whether you'll upset the ECU if you feed it the LC1, geuss there's only one way to find out! i reckon it might not - grounds for this are that my uk car (like most uk ones) doesn't have the lambda feedback circuit but has the CO input from the AFM (basically AFM has an idle screw). With no lambda obv there's no fault code thrown, with no CO input nor lambda input there's no fault codes thrown iether, lambda feedback works if there's no CO input to the ECU and lambda hooked up, and the idle is screwed if there's both CO input and lambda input wired in, but no fault code thrown. hope that makes sense, but basically is a long-winded way of saying i think you can get away with quite a lot wtihout throwing a code.

EAE = wall-wetting accel enrich algorithm. think it requires a really good VE table to work, which is prob where mine still needs some work - my ms2 map is pretty new and i've not had much chance to fine tune - need a test driver and some time so i can do some live mapping. it's not really doing what it should at the moment, also think it's throwing off megalogviewer's VE analyser, so no lazy tuning for me!

HR = high res code; you lose capability of running lo Z injectors, but gain better res on pulsewidth and improved battery voltage correction etc.

tim_s · « **Reply #43 on:** June 29, 2007, 03:33:42 AM »

Quote from: 16v of Fury;28747

What's the right option to tune ITB's on a standard '91 M42?

I used to use MAF and megasquirt, but now i prefer MAP. depends on how good a MAP signal you can get, what cams you're running etc.

Alibi · « **Reply #44 on:** June 29, 2007, 05:30:19 AM »

tim_s .. it is MSVDS Ver 2.13
I am not a MS expert and everything was made by a friend of mine. It is compacter, it fits perfect in the motronicbox. The best part is, that i have everything that MS1 V3 has ... i read from the VR Sensor, Knock, Shiftlight, I can run the Stock M42 Coils and so on ... the best part .. I need only to get s MAP signal to the MS, nothing more, nothing less. The rest is plug n play.
When I install the knock sensor, I will make some fotos of the whole MS system.