kineticSpicyMSP
Member
Ok something just hit me as typed that. Joe P being the tuner he is..... Why would he call it fuel cut, or FUEL CUT DEFENSER? if it was the spark...
I DONT" KNOW
I DONT" KNOW
kineticSpicyMSP said:Ok something just hit me as typed that. Joe P being the tuner he is..... Why would he call it fuel cut, or FUEL CUT DEFENSER? if it was the spark...
I DONT" KNOW
It will happen anywhere between 9psi to 13psi. Depending on how the ecu "sees" and calculates the airflow thru the meter.1st MP3 in NH said:This topic is speficily about the 10 PSI cut that happens on a stock MSP, is that also the MAF?
The problem Joe's defender solves.
They are not really the same thing. The end result may be but how they come about are are different.1st MP3 in NH said:So the fuel cut and speed limiter issues are one and the same on the MSP?
Why does this happen more so on an MSP pulling less air then say an MP3 with a T3?
Joes fix was somewhat "temporary" it increased resistance inline with the MAF to the ecu. This just delayed the inevitable. In other words the voltage the stock ECU saw would have been less at a given RPM, LOAD and ACTUAL airflow reading. You would be able to increase the boost and show less of a reading to the ecu. That is why the MSP ECU is easier to work with when using a piggyback. But dont forget that the car would go into open loop much sooner than the mp3's and such. It would rely on the MAF for input to achive its A/F goal.1st MP3 in NH said:SO why does it hit cut at 10 PSI at at lower speeds, but can allow you to get to near top speed before cutting with Joes fix or from staying at 9 PSI?
perfworks said:Joes fix was somewhat "temporary" it increased resistance inline with the MAF to the ecu. This just delayed the inevitable. In other words the voltage the stock ECU saw would have been less at a given RPM, LOAD and ACTUAL airflow reading. You would be able to increase the boost and show less of a reading to the ecu. That is why the MSP ECU is easier to work with when using a piggyback. But dont forget that the car would go into open loop much sooner than the mp3's and such. It would rely on the MAF for input to achive its A/F goal.
kineticSpicyMSP said:Ok so why would the colder weather make it Fuel Cut? Cuz with a front mount INtercooler you would be colder also, so why would you want it cooler if it would make you lose to the fuel cut? also i was running 92 octane at the time.. usually do 94. what kind of difference will this have.
BremertonMSP said:Hmm, so the MAF output is being changed throughout the entire range of airflow. If that's how it's being done, I would rather use a voltage clamp circuit. That way, you can limit the the MAF output voltage to say 4.5V at max airflow. Then the MAF signal sends a true voltage reading under 4.5V. But then again, I would think someone else would have thought of that by now.
praetor said:I'm with Bremerton on this. If the Fuel Cut Defenser merely adds an inline resistor to the MAF signal, that would skew ALL the voltages that the ECU receives. Assuming the ECU is continually altering the fuel/timing maps based on the MAF sensor readings, if this signal was altered, you'd potentially be using the wrong fuel/timing maps across the board. Not good.
Therefore, a voltage clamp would be the right solution. All you'd need is a 5V fixed voltage regulator and a diode as a barebones solution. Am I right?
BremertonMSP said:I think a Zener diode is what needs to be added. But it's been so long since I've worked at the component level, I can't remember LOL!! I'll have to ask one of my EE buddies. I suppose I should cut down on the (beer) (thinkbeer (drinks) !!
Correct to a degree. The ecu will see some malfunction at some point as your RPM would increase and the flow would stay the same.praetor said:I'm with Bremerton on this. If the Fuel Cut Defenser merely adds an inline resistor to the MAF signal, that would skew ALL the voltages that the ECU receives. Assuming the ECU is continually altering the fuel/timing maps based on the MAF sensor readings, if this signal was altered, you'd potentially be using the wrong fuel/timing maps across the board. Not good.
Therefore, a voltage clamp would be the right solution. All you'd need is a 5V fixed voltage regulator and a diode as a barebones solution. Am I right?
perfworks said:Correct to a degree. The ecu will see some malfunction at some point as your RPM would increase and the flow would stay the same.
But the real problem is the fueling. What happens when the MAF signal is clamped? How will the ECU know what to do.
It is alot more compliacted then just adding a resistor and such. Myself and Joe have been down this path before.
Again very good points. The whole reason why the joe p FCD was brought on was to offer something to these guys who wanted to boost higher.BremertonMSP said:But the scale isn't infinite to begin with. At some point the voltage max.s out right? My suggestion is that if for example, the voltage max.s out at 5vdc, the clamp it at 4.5Vdc. It really all depends on what voltage level the PCM starts cutting spark/fuel. I don't know what that value is, so I don't know where to clamp the voltage at. Hell, I'm not even sure what type of MAF these cars are using, Hot Wire?
I'm just curios how Joe's FCD works. If it's just a resistor that is dropping part of the MAF voltage, then the PCM won't see full MAF voltage at max airflow either. Also, if FCD is keeping the PCM from seeing the true voltage at any airflow, then the AFR is going to be leaner then what it should be for that given airflow. Right? Or is it scaled the other way? Geez, it's been so long since I've played around with this stuff, I have a bad case of CRS. LOL!!
(crazy)