• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Tuning the NSX 3.0L Using the OEM ECU

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see why you'd want to try to disable only the long term fuel trims. The ECU doesn't apply any fuel trims during open loop operation as shown in the thread I linked above and disabling fuel trims removes the ECU's ability to detect issues such as vacuum leaks or clogged injectors that could potentially cause a dangerous lean condition. I could see an argument for shrinking the region the ECU operates in closed loop for better part throttle power, but getting rid of it altogether seems pointless at best and dangerous at worst since it's pointless to run richer under low load cruising most cars spend most of their time.

I was merely responding to a comment from a few days ago that long term fuel trim was being treated as a global scaler to all fuel map cells which is a common feature in OEM ECUs. If the long term trim is not applied to the portion of the fuel map that operates in open loop, then the suggestion is moot because there is no concern about the values in those cells being modified by the trim value. The comment is perhaps doubly moot if Honcho is intending to run cats.
 
Very interested in seeing where this goes.
 
I was merely responding to a comment from a few days ago that long term fuel trim was being treated as a global scaler to all fuel map cells which is a common feature in OEM ECUs. If the long term trim is not applied to the portion of the fuel map that operates in open loop, then the suggestion is moot because there is no concern about the values in those cells being modified by the trim value. The comment is perhaps doubly moot if Honcho is intending to run cats.

I've read so much at this point, I can't remember where it all came from! I'm pretty sure this issue came out of my general research on Honda OBD-I ECU logic. There is a TON of info on B and D-series tuning in this regard, so I assumed this behavior ported over to the NSX. However, Matt's fueling tree is clear- there is no LTFT (BLM) factor applied to the open loop pulsewidths. That's good news.

Very interested in seeing where this goes.

At this point, I have enough info to tune the car (or anyone elses) with a Demon2 or Ostrich + wideband and run it safely with any injector I want to use. It looks like [MENTION=16951]sparky[/MENTION] got the RDX injectors tested for correct latency, and Andreas applied this data to his RDX tune, which completely solved the idle/start issues he was having. So, I'm kind of leaning back to the RDX 410cc as my baseline, as the R&D is already done for me and would save time and $$ from sending out and testing the Denso 310cc. But to really do it right, I need datalogging. I have some of the PIDs figured out, but not enough. And, I don't have the kind of time needed to learn assembly so that I can reverse-engineer the MCU to find out where it is looking for various PID fields. At this point, I may just do a "rough" tune on the car to get it running safely, e.g., the same thing that [MENTION=12723]greenberet[/MENTION]'s tuner did- just adjust the pulsewidths in the base maps until I see an ideal power AFR and then adjust timing for additional power and safety on 91 octane. I also think I have enough of the definition figured out to shrink the closed loop region of the maps so that I am running ideal power AFR in more of the range. This should really help with part throttle and mid-range power, while preserving the many benefits of running 14.7 during light throttle cruise.

This thread is going to slow down now that I can tune the car. Time to focus on getting the car completely apart and turning it orange. :D We'll pick back up once it is re-assembled with the Comptech heads and it's time to hit the dyno. Of course, by then, I'll be helping tear down [MENTION=34522]NSX_n00b[/MENTION] 's car.

I believe I've resolved the issues I was having with the Demon, I think it should be working nearly flawlessly now based on my test setup. I will know for sure once my engine is back together in a few months.

That's great news, John! I love the idea of the Demon having its own analog headers for a wideband, etc., but not sure if that justifies the increased cost over the Ostrich. What do you think?
 
I prefer the Demon, with a single USB cable you can both tune and log in real time so it's just a lot cleaner, and it's also much better suited to being permanently installed in an ECU than an Ostrich which is just meant to be used as a tuner before making a ROM chip, as well as the analog inputs you mentioned for hooking up widebands or other aftermarket sensors.
 
It looks like sparky got the RDX injectors tested for correct latency, and Andreas applied this data to his RDX tune, which completely solved the idle/start issues he was having.

Please note: With modified injector latency values (see this thread), my NSX can now idle stably AFTER the PGM-FI has learned how it needs to adjust the fuel trims or whatever it does behind the scenes. If I disconnect the battery and the PGM-FI forgets the adjustments it had learned to make for my specific engine, the engine will stumble and die at idle unless I continually massage the gas pedal. After the PGM-FI has re-learned whatever it needs to, then the idle is fine again.
 
Please note: With modified injector latency values (see this thread), my NSX can now idle stably AFTER the PGM-FI has learned how it needs to adjust the fuel trims or whatever it does behind the scenes. If I disconnect the battery and the PGM-FI forgets the adjustments it had learned to make for my specific engine, the engine will stumble and die at idle unless I continually massage the gas pedal. After the PGM-FI has re-learned whatever it needs to, then the idle is fine again.

Interesting. Just so I understand:

Cold Start; No Learning = Dies without throttle
Warm Start; No Learning = Dies without throttle
Cold Start; Learned Trims = Starts normally
Warm Start; Learned Trims = Starts normally

Is that right?

I ask because there are different phases of the starting process regarding injector pulsewidth. When you first turn the key, the ECU applies the cranking pulsewidth to the fuel injectors, which is set out in the "CTS vs. Cranking Base Pulsewidth" chart in the definition. It's a simple 2-row chart that increases fuel as coolant temp decreases. For example, on a cool fall day when the coolant temp is 46.4 F, the ECU will apply a 50ms base pulsewidth. That's a ton of fuel, relatively speaking. Like everything else, this base pulsewidth is modified before a final pulsewidth makes it to your injector. One modifier is the barometric pressure, though the scaling is a little odd. Apparently, if you are starting your NSX somewhere where the barometric pressure is 19.47 In/hG or lower (e.g., over 10,000 ft altitude), it will reduce the cranking pulsewidth by 16.47%. But, I'm guessing you're not starting your NSX at the top of the Alps. :) So, let's assume we're still at a 50ms final pulsewidth. Next, the ECU will look for RPM. If the RPM is less than 152, the ECU will apply a multiplier ("CTS vs. CrankingFuelMult Under ThreshA"), which is apparently 0% for all temperatures. LOL. Between 152 and 399 RPM, nothing seems to happen, but once the RPM hits 400, another multiplier hits ("CTS v.s CrankingFuelMult Over ThreshB"). On our cool fall day at 46 F, that means it will reduce the pulsewidth by 10.2%, so the injector will see 44.9ms. What's interesting here is that there appears to be no multiplier related to fuel trims. I suppose this explains why your NSX fires up and THEN dies.

I think your problem lies in the after start phase of the starting sequence. At a certain RPM (which I still can't find), the ECU will determine that the engine has started. At that point, it looks like the ECU will apply a multiplier to the pulsewidth ("AfterStartEnrichMult") and then decay it over time as the engine transitions to idle. At 46 F that is 239%. What is not clear is WHICH pulsewidth is being adjusted. Is it "CrankingFuelMult Over ThreshB"? That was the last pulsewidth the injector was getting. If so, we're now at 107.311ms (44.9 x 2.39). This seems unlikely to me, since again, LTFT/BLM is not taken into account. Instead, maybe the ECU switches over to the base fuel tables and applies the multiplier to those pulsewidths. It's not clear in the definition. Either way, the intent appears to be to dose the cylinders with a burst of fuel to "catch" the engine to stop it from dying and then gradually decay it off until it gets to the idle pulsewidths. I think your problem is here. When unlearned, the "AfterStartEnrichMult" is just running off the table and it's apparently not enough gas to keep the engine from dying unless you add fuel via the throttle. If the ECU is adding the learned BLM multiplier to the base able first and THEN enriching it further via the AfterStartEnrichMult, you're getting enough gas to keep the engine from stalling. Of course, this assumes the ECU is applying the fuel trims to the base idle tables, which is not evident from the definition. I really wish Matt would release his fueling chart so we could know what is truly going on.

In light of the above, you could try adjusting your AfterStartEnrichMult higher in 5% increments, resetting the ECU each time to make sure there is no LTFT interference in the pulsewidth. That might add enough fuel to avoid you having to use the gas pedal when starting. Question: did you tuner re-scale all of the pulsewidth tables in the definition, or did he just adjust the base fueling tables?
 
After reading the thread briefly, I can only understand maybe 50%. Please excuse my "low level" questions below.....

But, I am interested because currently I have RDX injectors with Prospeed chip installed.

- Is MCU, referred in this thread, the chip that prospeed provided? If so, did Prospeed use Ostrich to create the ROM chip (MCU)?
- Members here said the OEM ECU is still not possible to tune. I assume that statement has a different meaning because Honcho (Matt?) said he can now tune it with Ostrich or Demon2?
- And if the OEM ECU is still not tuneable, does that mean my prospeed chip is not really providing any benefit at WOT because the ECU will go back to open loop mode?
- Is Demon the unit I need to re-tune my car to make improvements (custom to my car) over my current installed Prospeed chip?
 
- Is MCU, referred in this thread, the chip that prospeed provided? If so, did Prospeed use Ostrich to create the ROM chip (MCU)?

No, the MCU is the main processor within the ECU. What Prospeed sells is the external ROM chip that the ECU reads tune information from such as fuel maps, ignition tables, rev limiter, etc. that they've modified to work with the RDX injectors.


- Members here said the OEM ECU is still not possible to tune. I assume that statement has a different meaning because Honcho (Matt?) said he can now tune it with Ostrich or Demon2?

It is possible to tune the OEM ECU, sr5guy (Matt) released a definition of the ROM file several years ago that allows pretty much every configurable ECU parameter to be tweaked and modified, however, he did not release his datalogging solution which is very helpful for proper tuning.

- And if the OEM ECU is still not tuneable, does that mean my prospeed chip is not really providing any benefit at WOT because the ECU will go back to open loop mode?

The ECU is tunable as I mentioned above, I believe Prospeed used Matts definition file to tune the chip that they sell. If the tune was done properly, which is always questionable with off the shelf tunes like that, it should be making all the necessary corrections for the car to run properly with RDX injectors.

- Is Demon the unit I need to re-tune my car to make improvements (custom to my car) over my current installed Prospeed chip?

You can use a Demon to tune the ECU but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're comfortable with a soldering iron as it needs to be reworked a bit to properly fit within the NSX ECU case.
 
Demon is here, plus RDX injectors. Now, I can tune the engine. A bit of work required first, though.

DX1hrGQhX_QdMN7I_nc8Hb0Gy2SuHf48u21jGTHbAfUXx4ve3p8iObG24qx5y6lyVQFo3vT2XtjTj_Y1k4jsQWZwy543GvYmcefVrX24AYG2zZE0mcNFrKzyS_hM8z5MP3ePacao3f56BBdnCwNvqm4BDDtYjRMY_D1LYBHI3AsIEJTCLNvXa6IYqx47ICffYxch1EDeujEITDmxZlJehTeUtWcwvLzjkcRM4ugaIIJVYjJfPr85cHVWLxlQge2PYi3A73Bt7B4NubZMQ53SzXval2Pwb63J6Iev4ijEQ67FRcnJleLqESS486SxSBzcyFt4z3c3Xfx3qLxF05MrYvLRwHtzjHhK5v6PU_HfsjFnw7PR0SPSbLLmAvJk9DVy_pSW3x9Mx_PO-uZ2npRQV6ZW6g93CiJIy-8N38kFG5TJkoQZLHo360dMVPRxTMlwJuuhDXDYLzlmZStd_1yoBCIy1qxq7-TfIIcp3H9ZIc_60EuJI4QXM8h1bqc5V3O72ybWau4wRwg6HHMNSKtx8yOC9RBk1MR7_4X0l39Y312570AW1BZNG-2_JufZip0l97LBfLgh_A9qBigol0GCSvjBaxxozxp47M4A5z44imAwR9dDFF5VNyd3mmocxpmAe95Dl2hzUDH7QWIwkVu8zybaAOay4p0bM3jzLZNRw1IlDZRplqs7X4E=w973-h1297-no


TTf56sHe3GROCemrga9Cw9xbd3X-hDooDbKsLwltUZwTdSTzmOuQi8g2ssJWKu7-vkZwktyIH_QznmixVaKb0DpO-XB4pSW-ytNAxCgFV83QV21rgy9QwD9ksFKBTjwNjDjTiEqohophw2Nk0bXsoCuPgkTtBob2c3bU-0e-f-orKYke_uYbyryIe94k_ReNg5itErjxvFGBRy9qthXtGwSuJGe85Nq6ieACqJ3b1X_QNEDIJezJ2cg14TqMQI5fObQbkVHLh1zY5ynKLv-wMHYg7MrdmCCbyghlPwYef95yxFr9itsGfiZR9QuJ7uQ8Cm53KYABXL4B3t3_RvwhI-hlnvQz_zUPuxFk_2_4LQV91kZGaWHpj1W2we9cGeby8m4Y32KH_umszcIAFQT1BSxQhu-gB6uFM6HLBANoVyffs-0JgeEknLfgA-3fsGd5wUa9ic7w9ViCmPBWAhs-cYnMxNahnCQjLAEki1_gONsIP4Lxks_BxvVkZ0lYioH9lv1UgveCeGL5hdyYBc7Ovd_jLXcXr1YW_pLtk3_nn1YBJTLnl1fqHgpJ5ToK7TOq6dHjMFsrdlDMei4_6sbVs7n2Rz8dy08E6NMdMB5IPBPbMaVyOidy34Qu9HXnhBTyjikVPgrnyjJAF0mOUH-cgSjBGFiw3nZfKqcamTUxH7GQbejWPFgA5mJuHSK7_tst09ZcGO9wOswx0KONaWdic_HfKyA5x1cRWFXuHi7JGp_NPiyy=w1730-h1297-no
 
I'm interested to see how far the 3.0 engine can be pushed with simple add-ons/tune. I am still running RDX injectors with the original Prospeed chip after 8 years of reliability.

Would upgraded ignition coils affect performance?
 
i shoulda keep my chipped ecu darn it. i i have the aem series 1 version2 box , and the base map for this is just to start up thats it. anyway anyone can copy the info from tunrepro to aem?
 
At this point, I have enough info to tune the car (or anyone elses) with a Demon2 or Ostrich + wideband and run it safely with any injector I want to use. It looks like @sparky got the RDX injectors tested for correct latency, and Andreas applied this data to his RDX tune, which completely solved the idle/start issues he was having. So, I'm kind of leaning back to the RDX 410cc as my baseline, as the R&D is already done for me and would save time and $$ from sending out and testing the Denso 310cc. But to really do it right, I need datalogging. I have some of the PIDs figured out, but not enough. And, I don't have the kind of time needed to learn assembly so that I can reverse-engineer the MCU to find out where it is looking for various PID fields. At this point, I may just do a "rough" tune on the car to get it running safely, e.g., the same thing that @greenberet's tuner did- just adjust the pulsewidths in the base maps until I see an ideal power AFR and then adjust timing for additional power and safety on 91 octane. I also think I have enough of the definition figured out to shrink the closed loop region of the maps so that I am running ideal power AFR in more of the range. This should really help with part throttle and mid-range power, while preserving the many benefits of running 14.7 during light throttle cruise.

Since I am spending so much money to have SOS rebuild my engine after spending so much money for Paul Z to tear down and then roughly reassemble the engine to send it to SOS, I'm considering spending even a bit more to have SOS turn it into a 3.2. SOS rebuilds includes new pistons, rings and alters con rods for full floating wrist pins as part of their service. The extra cost would be in the cylinder sleeve removal and re-installation (assumedly with new sleeves.) I understand the heads are transferable, but I could be wrong.

How much fuel trim work do you suppose would be required to safely run a 3.2 litre with the 3.0 ECU? Can you think of any downsides, besides cost, to do this. Would you let me use your equipment to dial this in if it needs considerable work? At this point I am just thinking about this, nothing is set in stone.
 
Since I am spending so much money to have SOS rebuild my engine after spending so much money for Paul Z to tear down and then roughly reassemble the engine to send it to SOS, I'm considering spending even a bit more to have SOS turn it into a 3.2. SOS rebuilds includes new pistons, rings and alters con rods for full floating wrist pins as part of their service. The extra cost would be in the cylinder sleeve removal and re-installation (assumedly with new sleeves.) I understand the heads are transferable, but I could be wrong.

How much fuel trim work do you suppose would be required to safely run a 3.2 litre with the 3.0 ECU? Can you think of any downsides, besides cost, to do this. Would you let me use your equipment to dial this in if it needs considerable work? At this point I am just thinking about this, nothing is set in stone.

You can run the 3.2 bottom end with the 3.0 heads and intake manifold on the stock ECU without tuning. [MENTION=4282]docjohn[/MENTION] does and has had no issues for 15 years IIRC. In closed loop, the ECU will self-adjust to trim the fuel and there apparently is enough fuel margin in open loop at high loads to stay safe. That said, I'd probably bump fuel by 5% or more in the open loop range just to be safe. Actually, your Prospeed RDX chip should have enough fuel already added to run the 3.2 safely. Once I get my tuning rig set up, we can tune your car. But you will need to add a Moates Demon II to your ECU in order to talk to Tunerpro on the laptop and a wideband sensor to your headers to tune the AFR. [MENTION=33247]MotorMouth93[/MENTION] is much closer to showtime than me, since I am stalled out waiting for paint.
 
compression is bumped a Little with that combo.
 
Assuming volumetric efficiency between the 3.0 and 3.2 is similar, the 3.2L will be sucking in about 7% more air at any given time. In theory, this is enough to bump the AFR up by nearly a full point but I assume in practice it ends up being lower. The stock NSX ECU runs fairly lean in open loop, I was seeing AFRs of 14-14.7 in open loop at high load with just headers and exhaust, if running the same maps on a 3.2L motor that number would be in the mid 15s. Adding 8% fuel across the board brought my open loop AFRs down to around 13:1, when I switch to a 3.2L motor later this year my plan is to use a 10% increase as a starting point and make adjustments from there.

I have some ECU log plots posted in my build thread if anyone wants to see them.

@docjohn have you looked at your AFRs using a wideband? I'm curious to see how close the theoretical numbers are to reality.
 
I think there is some confusion with my motor...I have a 3.2 long block I bought from woody years ago...I was going to have my comptech heads repaired and then put on the 3.2 but decided to just use woody's as is...so honcho has those heads and I never did run the 3.0 heads on the 3.2 bottom..
 
yes 96 wiring harness and all the electronics...I'm reasonably trim...but alas I have not had any wideband data collection
 
From this conversation, it appears as I might by trolling down an unknown path by using 3.0 heads with a cable throttle on a 3.2 block. I do have Brian’s RDX injector kit on my car with IHE. I have had three different chips with this kit, as I was sort of a guinea pig for some of the early development. (Frankly I liked the first chip the best as it had the best mid range performance.) The current chip has such a downright ferocious upper end (7000 – 8000 RPM) that I don’t run it in that range very often as I am concerned about the AFRs. Brian always wanted the previous chips back, so I don’t have the first two.

Is there any point in going down to Colorado Springs and liberating my ECU, pulling the chip and reading it in TunerPro? Is there anything to compare it to? It might also be a time to add the Moates Demon II to the ECU. Would I need one or two wide band sensors? Where should they be located?
[MENTION=4282]docjohn[/MENTION]: It appears you did no tuning with your 96 3.0 ECU. Have you had any issues with the slightly bumped compression ratio?

Thank you to everyone for your knowledge and interest.

Mark
 
Widebands should be added between the upstream O2 sensor and the cat, pointing upwards between the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions in the pipe to prevent condensation from building up in the sensor.

I have one wideband in my car but extra bungs in each header so I can put it in the front or rear header. Have bungs welded into your headers while the motor is still out of the car.

If you're running RDX injectors IMO its a good idea to watch the AFRs, and since you're upping the displacement I'd go ahead and install the Demon so you can easily log and make changes, the Prospeed tunes are of... questionable ...quality from what I've seen.
 
If you're running RDX injectors IMO its a good idea to watch the AFRs, and since you're upping the displacement I'd go ahead and install the Demon so you can easily log and make changes, the Prospeed tunes are of... questionable ...quality from what I've seen.


Yes!


Frankly I liked the first chip the best as it had the best mid range performance. The current chip has such a downright ferocious upper end (7000 – 8000 RPM) that I don’t run it in that range very often as I am concerned about the AFRs. Brian always wanted the previous chips back, so I don’t have the first two.


I just finished reading your entire build thread -- only slightly shorter than War and Peace -- and picked up on one of your last posts:


Once I got the wideband set up and configured Tunerpro to read it, I went for a few drives and logged the results and played around with different ways to plot the data. What I found is that the ECU is running a full point or 2 leaner than I'd like in open loop mode, under heavy acceleration the ECU stops applying fuel trims and reads from the open loop power enrichment fuel tables and I'm not sure if Honda set them up lean from the factory or if my headers and exhaust are causing it to lean out a bit but there is definitely some improvement to be made here and probably some torque to be gained by richening the mixture. As a baseline I experimented with just scaling the open loop tables and found that just multiplying the full open loop tables by 1.08 resulted in much better AFRs of around 13 for the most part but there's still a few peaks and valleys to smooth out.


The blue line is load %, the red line is throttle position, the yellow line is AFR, pink is RPM, light pink is injector duty cycle, and the green indicates that the ECU is operating in open loop mode. You can see here that with load at 92 (load maxes out in the low-mid 90s at WoT so this is for all intents and purposes a wide open throttle pull even though TPS is at 85%) and you can see the AFR is right around 14.7 give or take a few 0.1s which is not good at all. Maximum torque is created at around 12.5-13 so adding fuel here could result in some mild gains.
Maybe the gains were mild with the original chip, but they were immediately noticeable -- and very welcome. It was much, much more flexible just driving around in non-hooligan mode. There was, however, little to no noticeable difference in VTEC, so I inquired about getting a little more top RPM performance, just assuming (When you assume you make ...) that the mid-range would remain the same. It wasn't -- in fact it was gone. Brian's third try is what I'm running now, the one which somewhat frightens me.

Even if I decide against the additional cost and potential complications for 3.2 sleeves, I think I will ask Paul Z to install a bung and get a wide band O[SUB]2[/SUB] sensor and play with the tune.

Thanks again,

Mark
 
I have never messed with any tuning..Although I have watched Dark city like 20 times....:eek:
 
Back
Top