lolachampcar

It has been a while since I've been on and just wanted to check in and see how the EFIDude data logger was performing.

Any feedback?

paulmasoner

iTrader: (1)

well, i'm too lazy to read up right now and see what the status of Vista support is.... but if/when it works well with vista it'll be a nice logging alternative to the AP software

lolachampcar

I'll join the chorus of others who say they hate Vista. I bought a laptop with it installed and promptly returned it. Without a Vista machine, I do not get exposed to the driver issue.

Anyway, I've been working on a much faster and more capable Logger/Programmer for another application. The good thing is that, unlike the current Dude logger, this one is using generic WinUSB driver support and thus will work well with Vista. I know Dian is going to have to port the Dude Logger PC application to support this new bit so I will probably get him a version of RX8 logger for the new chip. This will remove the Vista issue (along with giving gobs more speed and program storage). Until then, D tells me Vista support is hit or miss. Sorry..... Legacy crap stinks.

mysql

so you're saying the current logger will not have vista support and will need a hardware replacement?

lolachampcar

Nope... I'm saying-

I hate Vista.

I've been told that EFIDude's current logger has problems with some but not all Vista installations.

The hardware I am using to do a completely new project uses WinUSB so compatibility with Vista should not be a problem.

and lastly-

I'll suggest that the guys at EFIDude try using a WinUSB approach to the current hardware given that they will be adding it for the new product.

I may port the RX8 logger stuff over to the new hardware but that really has no bearing on the subject. The primary benefits would be reduced cost to produce, increased speed (downloads) and the program space to have both logger and reflasher at the same time although I do not think EFIDude is offering the reflasher on a one off basis.

My reason for posting was to look for feedback on what works and what does not. The Vista comment was helpful and hopefully the WinUSB stuff will address that issue. Thanks for the feedback.

Daemos

works on my vista machine.

Not too sure why so many people hate vista...is it because they are afraid of change? Vista IMO is better in everyway than XP, it's faster, better tablet support, runs DX10 games.

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=BgYD6w <-- vista haters remind me of this...

swoope

iTrader: (5)

nice to see you around!

i have been pretty lucky with vista. but it does take some usb plugging and unplugging to get it right.

beers

lolachampcar

Swoop, I've missed (most of) you guys.

I was just causing too much trouble, no one was getting anything out of it, and so I thought it best to take a break.

You should stop by and see the hp we are getting out of the new C63!

I’m also in the process of testing a new flow meter that accounts for direction of flow and supposedly only measures the amount of mass going in the engine. If it works, we should be able to go up on boost with Cam’s kit as the stock MAF limitations (quantity of air and sensitivity to turbulence) will not be there. I’m testing it on my single rotor injected kart engine which acts just like a two stroke without reed valves. You can put your hand a couple of inches away from the carb and feel the reversion pulses. If the meter can survive that, it can survive anything an RX-8 can throw at it.

As for Vista, I’m no expert and only tried it once early on in its release. The machine I bought was completely unusable. It sounds as though that has changed so I should probably give it another try. I’m just getting old and need to choose my learning curves wisely.

Daemos

I found vista to be difficult at first, but once you spend time with it then when you go back to XP, I found many things to be lacking in XP compared to in Vista. It does have a learning curve, just like how the new facebook is =)

swoope

iTrader: (5)

i will see if i can get down before to long..

the thing with vista is memory. you need lots.. the laptop i have with vista has 3 gigs.

beers

Spin9k

As an IT professional I could give you a host of reasons Vista sucks eggs for business..esp. in a typical mixed O/S server based environment...if you're using it at home, it's just OK, not really any better, perhaps a bit 'prettier' than XP. Otherwise than that it continues the braindead trend from MS of massively increasing the 'bloatware' footprint of its O/Ses for little payback.

I think of it as the 5000lb SUV of O/Ses with queasy shocks, straining the engine, while often veering off the road due to gross understeer followed by nasty snap oversteer.

Daemos

vista has way better tablet pc support than xp...id easily say that i perfer vista based on that. i dont know too many modern pcs that would find running vista taxing...

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

Why are normally aspirated cars reporting 175% engine load with this logger? It should be (more or less)between 0-1 or 0-100% depending on scaling....

Spin9k

None of my logs exceed 100%. Are you running boost?

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

I personally don't have one. i was putting together a spreadsheet to help people graph and looking at the data in the first post of this thread - I'm not going to try and figure out how a NA car flowing 210 g/s is reading 178% load....


https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-engine-tuning-forum-63/d-i-y-datalog-graph-your-ap-efi-dude-scanalyser-157648/

Spin9k

The way those numbers read it looks more like engine temp...perhaps he got his labels mixed up.

Mr.&Mrs.Magic

iTrader: (3)

nope! I'm one of those ppl getting loads well above 180 NA. It's deffinatly not engine temp!!

on the vista subject when I got the dude it didn't work for me but after trying it on my computer again the other day it did sooo???

lolachampcar

The logger is showing its roots here. It was originally built to aid in developing a supercharger kit where MAF was significantly higher than stock. The fuel control’s Load Calculation table had to be extended to keep the control from going into limp home mode when maximum load was exceeded. However, this load extension range change to the fuel control’s firmware cut the OBDii reported Load in half.

During the supercharger development, the EFIDude programmer just doubled the OBDii reported Load value for display. That obviously does not work when you start looking at normally aspirated applications and thus the programmer was faced with one of two options (or three if you choose do nothing). He could either put a configuration setting in the software for “blown” or “NA” Load calculation or he could try an automatic approach. He opted for the automatic approach which, as I understand it, says something like – If Load never exceeds X then display Load x 2 where X is something like 90%. The idea was that you will easily see better than 90% load if you stomp on the pedal in a normally aspirated application but the supercharger cars never generated over 180% Load.

Obviously the above approach falls apart when someone does not stomp on the gas during a run. If a high normally aspirated Load number never appears, the logger “goes home” so to speak, assumes a blown application and displays OBDii reported Load times two.

If this bugs enough people, I would think the EFIDude guys could go back and put in a software switch. It never bothered me because I used the thing for tuning and, apart from early on runs where I was first testing radical mixture changes with lighter loads, I pretty much always have a higher load section on my log and the display software always seemed to pick up on it and display the right stuff.

rotarenvy

I think I'm getting a similar problem since my load max's out at 100% and will plateau for a very short period. (0.6s). it should be able to reach 125% load shouldn't it? by my calculations my load at these points should be between 88% and 100% but I could be wrong.

lolachampcar

Your Load is being displayed correctly. In the case of a normally asteriated car, Load will either be correct (you put enough load on the engine for the logger to recognize that application is normally asteriated) or double the actual load at which point you will see numbers well in excess of 100%.

As for what kinds of reported Load you will see from a normally asteriated engine, it helps to know what "Load" is. Basically, Load represents the percent of power being produced versus the maximum available power in "Standard" conditions. So, if maximum torque at 5000 rpm is 100 (bogus number used for example only) and you've placed the throttle such that you are generating 80 then you are at 80% load.

I've attached the load calibration curve for a 04 manual. The amount of power available at a given RPM is a function of Volumetric Efficiency (the ability of the engine to suck or pump air) and Combustion Efficiency (the amount of power the engine can extract from a given amount of fuel you can fudge in things like internal friction and such into this category although things are really more complicated than I have represented them). This curve is generated by Mazda when they do their mapping and represents the maximum the engine can produce at a given RPM in Standard conditions. I was not around for that work and thus I have no idea what Mazda used for standard conditions. However, there are situations on cold days with dense air and low altitudes where you will see Load numbers in excess of 100% as you are working with air that is denser than Mazda's "Standard" air.

It is worth noting that Mazda started off with their Load axis going all the way to 125% in early firmwares. They backed that number way down on later firmwares as they knew the engines would never reach those high a Load value.

One word of caution to people looking at the tuning side of things. I have seen cases where tuners have played with the Load calibration on normally aspirated applications. This is dangerous as it shifts the axis of soooooo many tables. Although anything is possible, I doubt these tuners have gone back and checked every single table that uses Load as one of its axis to rescale the table for the new Load values. I’m sure the tuner had a good reason to make the change but I find it frustrating in that I rely on Load to evaluate performance gains. If you put and exhaust on a car and average reported Load goes up by 3% then you have gained something (assuming atmospheric conditions are similar). When these guys and girls muck with the Load calibration, I loose that frame of reference and have to go back to reported Maf which only tells part of the story or a dyno which is costly and time consuming.

Please take the above as one person’s opinion. I do not claim to know everything or to being right all the time. I do not mind in the least being corrected. I actually appreciate it as we all learn in the process.

rotarenvy

thanks
I know mine goes to 125%, so I guess the load must not be the same calculated load used for the calibrations?

lolachampcar

Would you please post a log of that bad boy getting well over 100%.

rotarenvy

bad boy or sick puppy? I might be misleading you: my maps are tuned to 125% load but my logs are flat lining at 100% I found one at .8 sec width, so it must be spiking higher.
it is supercharged but I'm driving like a girl on a std NA map under 4K rpm with only 33% TPS max. I'll post some logs when I get a chance as they are on another computer.

lolachampcar

How are you handling your mapping? If you have a way to reprogram, I may be able to help you out with a starting point for mapping that would be reasonably safe (you could start going up a bit at a time on load and verifying mixture without fear of burning the engine to the ground).

You also mentioned your maps going to 125% load. The only other SC kit I worked on goes to about 165% load. Where do you think you will end up on load when you are done?