[Success Story] 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Your chance to introduce yourself and your vehicle
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

scramblr wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:41 am
Also, I'm having trigger issues at rpms above 2k which prevents me from ever getting over 3k rpm.
Can you please record a video?
With miata simple trigger we never had issues revving due to trigger. Even if you have some trigger errors it does not mean that's the reason of not revving. Could it be fuel or timing not letting engine rev?

I have no idea what could be wrong here :( Do you have a $8 ebay logic analyzer?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

One thing I've wondered is if it has anything to do with me using an iverted trigger signal?
I found that with the normal signal, the car won't start, sparks erratically and so on.
I switched to the inverted signal, and all those issues went away.
However, I can't figure out what would be different from a processing standpoint.

Also, I have my fuel injection timing set to 180 degrees prior to TDC, which is at the bottom of the compression stroke.
Therefore the fuel would have to sit on the valve for 420 degrees of rotaion before the intake stroke happens and could potentially be consumed by other cylinders via the intake plenum, which might not be an issue at idle, but becomes more of a problem as RPM increases.
It seems like I should be injecting somewhere around 400 degrees prior to TDC so that it gets injected onto the valve just prior to it opening for the intake stroke.

I haven't been able to test this yet but do you think this could potentially have anything to do with it?

Also, does the injection timing algorithm schedule the start of the injection pulse or the end of the pulse?
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

inverted timing is only needed if you hardware setup is requiring it. Are you using MAX9926 chip for hall input or op-amps for hall input on Frankenso?

MAX9926 I believe you are expected to use normal (default Frankenso setup)
op-amps you are expected to use inverted (unusual Frankenso setup if your MAX9926 was destroyed)

I would expect that your car would read cranking RPM only one way, not both ways. Can you disable injection & ignition and crank with both setting values? Would you have reliable RPM reading in both modes or only with one setting value?

So far I have no seen anyone caring or interested in injection phase, looks like so far people just ignore this setting.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

Do you have a timing light to confirm ignition timing?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

Honestly I know very little about the hardware components on my Frankenso board.
I'm pulling hall input directly into pins 2b and 2d, and do nothing else with that circuit(keep in mind this was a fully populated board I bought)

I have a timing light and confirmed that my idle timing matches my cal(~14 degrees of advance).

I will have to confirm the RPM reading with the non-nverted signal. From recollection, I do get a realistic RPM but not a reliable one.
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

Something sound off here. With your assembled board without weird mods, you should not be using inverted trigger signal.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

Made a little progress...
I figured out that I can switch just the crank signal to be non-inverted and get good performance for startup, idle, revving, etc., although it still wont go over 3k.
However, If I switch the cam signal to be also non-inverted, it won't start. It only fuels every other cycle for some reason.(this is my guess, due to audible combustion about every 4th compression stroke)
I also figured out that I can switch the cam signal to be non-inverted while the engine is running and I get normal behavior.(console log attached)

However, with each of these configurations, the engine still wont spin over 3000 rpm. I have another data log with trigger counter debug mode enabled and see good trigger counter increments, but get the message in console saying "trigger not happy current 6/16/0 expected 6/14/0"

I also took a video of the behavior.

Note, as soon as I get to 3000 rpm it goes crazy lean, no matter what I set the VE to.
Basically the fuel isn't combusting so the AFR will read lean.
Attachments
2019-10-16_21.22.03_3000rpmStop_invertedCamOnly.msl
(314.99 KiB) Downloaded 476 times
2019-10-21_20_12_54_513rpm_1319_non_inverted_crankAndCam.png
2019-10-21_20_12_54_513rpm_1319_non_inverted_crankAndCam.png (47.94 KiB) Viewed 23220 times
2019-10-21_20_11_13_000rpm_1362_non_inverted_crankTrigger.png
2019-10-21_20_11_13_000rpm_1362_non_inverted_crankTrigger.png (46.51 KiB) Viewed 23220 times
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

Have you ever used set engine_type 9 to set base NA1 settings?

because as of right now this hard-coded configuration has

Code: Select all

void setMazdaMiataNb1EngineConfiguration(DECLARE_CONFIG_PARAMETER_SIGNATURE) {
	// set_rpm_hard_limit 3000
	engineConfiguration->rpmHardLimit = 3000; // yes, 3k. let's play it safe for now
I have started https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1634 thread to have an overview of different NA1 vehicles to see if I can figure out your trigger issue, but so far I am pretty confused. While I am pretty confused, there is good evidence to support that both channels should NOT be inverted in your case of default Frankenso hardware.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

I went over https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1095 topic and the answer is 5K pull-up resistors instead of Frankenso default 1.5K resistors.

I am sorry I have forgotten about this NB pain we apparently had :( I've highlighted a couple of relevant pieces red in that topic and mentioned 5K right on https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1634#p34798

Also first post of my https://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1095 now has my engine sniffer picture which also explicitly mention 5K in the image name:

Image

I am printing USPS shipping label as I am typing this, I hope you would have your 5K resistors in the mail in a couple of days. Please forgive me for this snafu, I am just a software developer :(

Also https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/issues/987 created to improve user experience in this area
Attachments
Frankenso_MAX9926_pull_up_resistors.jpg
Frankenso_MAX9926_pull_up_resistors.jpg (84.32 KiB) Viewed 23215 times
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

russian wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:28 am
Have you ever used set engine_type 9 to set base NA1 settings?

because as of right now this hard-coded configuration has

Code: Select all

void setMazdaMiataNb1EngineConfiguration(DECLARE_CONFIG_PARAMETER_SIGNATURE) {
	// set_rpm_hard_limit 3000
	engineConfiguration->rpmHardLimit = 3000; // yes, 3k. let's play it safe for now
I have used "set engine_type 9."
So does this override the rpm limit set in tuner studio for base engine settings? I set this to 6500

I will install the 5k pull up resistors and report back on the results.
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

this does not override TS, this only sets initial values.

sounds like you have bumped this rpm value up and rpm hard linit is not the issue here.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

I experimented with this rpm limit, by dropping it to a value lower than 3000.
The result is a much cleaner rpm limit than the misfiring and popping that I get with the unintentional limit.
That made me confident that there isn't a config setting/tune value that's keeping me from going over 3000.
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

The 5K pull up resistors were installed and I can now exceed 3000rpm, but get stuck at 5000rpm.
So it looks like I may need to try a slighty larger resistor?
Also, I still am unable to use a non-inverted cam trigger signal.
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

scramblr wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:50 am
Also, I still am unable to use a non-inverted cam trigger signal.
That's unexpected. Can you please post engine sniffer screenshots of cranking both NOT inverted?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

I attached a console log of trigger showing the behavior during cranking.
It appears to me that it is acting as if there is 1440 degrees of engine rotation.
In other words, it is only fueling and igniting every other 720 degree rotation.
The little hiccup at the end of the recording is a momentary engine stall during cranking due to the bad ignition timing.
Attachments
2019-10-29_15_32_27_NonInvertedTriggers_5Kpullup.png
2019-10-29_15_32_27_NonInvertedTriggers_5Kpullup.png (39.16 KiB) Viewed 23110 times
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup

Post by AndreyB »

scramblr wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:29 pm
The crank trigger offset is 369 degrees in your cal.
Is this about what I should expect for my car too, or was this with a different trigger wheel?
Miata NB1 is a well-known trigger wheel. It is my understanding that there should be no reason to have any trigger offset with it.

Also 369 is so close to 360... Looks like 360 and 9.

360 is either doing nothing or maybe flipping your coil outputs? Probably just doing nothing since wasted spark and engine starts. Remaining offset of 9 is too small to be making any significant difference just makes timing a bit weird.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

Understood. I verified with a timing light and it runs the same with either 9 or 369 since it is wasted spark.
The only difference is when the fuel gets injected, which shouldn't affect the trigger issues.
How do you explain the odd behavior with non inverted cam trigger?
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

scramblr wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:31 pm
How do you explain the odd behavior with non inverted cam trigger?
I am currently looking into this. In rusEfi console please type
enable trigger_details

and post some of the additional text you would get in "Messages". It would post a bit more details on how it is synchronizing and what data it is getting.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

I attached a non-inverted cranking event with trigger details enabled.
Note, I installed 10K resistors instead of the 5K I previously installed just to see what would happen, and the result is that I can go up to 5400 rpm.
Just another bit of data. This was with an inverted cam trigger.
Attachments
2019-10-29_17_09_27_10K_pullup.png
2019-10-29_17_09_27_10K_pullup.png (46.68 KiB) Viewed 23103 times
NB1_Miata_nonInveted_triggers_TriggerDetails.txt
(27.64 KiB) Downloaded 344 times
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

I wonder what has changed between https://rusefi.com/forum/download/file.php?id=5241 and https://rusefi.com/forum/download/file.php?id=5273

both file names say "no inverted" and the older one show proper engine cycle.

Also lower "engine sniffer size" or zoom-in would show things a bit better, as is narrow gaps on the signal are just too narrow.

Just to confirm that you have saved ECU settings & rebooted ECU between each inverted/not inverted setting change. Worst case scenario this could be messing things up.

As for bigger resistor value, I am not sure why would your car ask for a higher resistor value comparing with my VVT - sensor part numbers seem to be the same. But technically as a short-term solution you can take two or three 5K resistors and make yourself a 7.5K or 10K, but this is shooting blindly since no one needed above 5K so far and we do not have oscilloscope to confirm that's the issue.

At this point I am pretty confused :( I am playing with simulator

NB1
set engine_type 9
NA
set engine_type 41
NB2
set engine_type 47

and looking at https://rusefi.com/wiki/index.php?title=Manual:Software:Trigger#Mazda_Miata_NB1
and I am only getting more confused.

If timing light confirms proper timing advance with one or both channels inverted maybe I am mistaken about something here :( Maybe best to leave things as is if it works.

Do you get sync warning / error counter going up with 5K revving? Can you please post a log of failed 5K revving?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

https://rusefi.com/forum/download/file.php?id=5241 is when I switch to non inverted with the engine running, so that probably explains why it behaved normally.
I dont have a log, and wont be able to get one soon, but yes I get trigger errors.
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

Verbose trigger messages were broken - just fixed, it would take 30 minutes for fresh binaries to be produced.

But there is a report of other issues in latest firmware - maybe broken idle control - https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/issues/986

I am sorry this is all a cluster fuck :( I am not happy with how much you've wasted on something trivial.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

I'm glad you found something and I'm glad you're so willing to help me out.
So this will be fixed in the next firmware release?
Do you expect this to help with my rpm limit issues, or do I need to keep playing around with resistance?
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

Unfortunately all the fix is doing is printing proper data in verbose mode :( Would not help with your RPM issue directly, would help us see what is going on hopefully.

Please update firmware and post fresh trigger verbose messages.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

So now I have discovery board outside of Frankenso with real electrical self-stimulation

PD1 jumper to PC6
PD2 jumper wire to PA5

in some configurations of flipped signal rusEfi detects out-of-order coil events and turns coils down

also I was unable to reproduce 1440 cycle with real electrical self-stimulation

also reverted signal would totally synchronize normally and current firmware does not have advances shape error detection to distinguish between valid and invalid options here

in perfect conditions the following is trigger synchronization message cycle (note that I've filtered to index=0 messages)
2019-10-29_21_23_23_915: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-29_21_23_23_995: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=8.50 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-29_21_23_23_995: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=0.99 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No

2019-10-29_21_23_24_006: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-29_21_23_24_097: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=8.51 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-29_21_23_24_098: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=0.99 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No

2019-10-29_21_23_24_100: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-29_21_23_24_192: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=8.50 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-29_21_23_24_193: EngineState: time=33 index=0: gap=1.00 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
I wonder if in real life your 0.11 is outside of 0.08 to 0.13 range ever?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

I updated the firmware and attached the trigger messages from cranking with non inverted triggers.

Note, I also experience idle control issues with this firmware.
I'm using manual control, and not getting any response when I change duty cycle.
Engine speed hangs out at around 450rpm, hardly running.
Attachments
NB1_Miata_nonInveted_triggers_TriggerDetails_30OctFirmware.txt
(20.21 KiB) Downloaded 345 times
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

scramblr wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:08 pm
Note, I also experience idle control issues with this firmware.
I'm using manual control, and not getting any response when I change duty cycle.
Engine speed hangs out at around 450rpm, hardly running.
Sounds like you are confirming that https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/issues/986 is about idle not about 60/2 trigger. I was trying to check this yesterday but my battery has died so I will look into this today hopefully.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 14292
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by AndreyB »

I think I have just fixed https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/issues/986 - will hopefully test on real hardware in a couple of hours.

also your log is very valuable! see how sometimes your magic gap is outside of expected range. Let's try to expand the range in latest firmware and see if this would help? that's https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/issues/990

give it an hour to refresh on build server and it would be ready to test
2019-10-30_17_04_42_413: EngineState: time=72 index=0: gap=0.96 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_42_415: EngineState: time=72 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_42_602: EngineState: time=73 index=0: gap=8.38 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_42_927: EngineState: time=73 index=0: gap=1.00 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_42_934: EngineState: time=73 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_43_228: EngineState: time=73 index=0: gap=8.53 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_43_415: EngineState: time=73 index=0: gap=0.66 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_43_514: EngineState: time=73 index=0: gap=0.07 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_43_616: EngineState: time=74 index=0: gap=8.51 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_43_822: EngineState: time=74 index=0: gap=1.53 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_43_832: EngineState: time=74 index=0: gap=0.16 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_44_026: EngineState: time=74 index=0: gap=9.21 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_44_337: EngineState: time=74 index=0: gap=1.07 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_44_440: EngineState: time=74 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_44_747: EngineState: time=75 index=0: gap=8.50 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_44_964: EngineState: time=75 index=0: gap=0.86 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_44_965: EngineState: time=75 index=0: gap=0.12 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_45_259: EngineState: time=75 index=0: gap=8.52 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_45_579: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=1.05 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_45_584: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=0.10 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_45_771: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=6.20 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_45_981: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=1.02 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_45_991: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=0.07 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_46_071: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=8.93 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_46_386: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=1.66 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_46_396: EngineState: time=76 index=0: gap=0.14 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_46_695: EngineState: time=77 index=0: gap=8.60 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_47_013: EngineState: time=77 index=0: gap=1.05 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_47_015: EngineState: time=77 index=0: gap=0.11 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_47_308: EngineState: time=77 index=0: gap=7.92 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_47_514: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=0.99 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_47_519: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=0.12 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_47_832: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=8.26 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_48_055: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=0.75 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_48_066: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=0.07 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=No
2019-10-30_17_04_48_158: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=8.82 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_48_383: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=1.66 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_48_499: EngineState: time=78 index=0: gap=0.14 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_48_715: EngineState: time=79 index=0: gap=8.49 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_49_045: EngineState: time=79 index=0: gap=1.03 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
2019-10-30_17_04_49_051: EngineState: time=79 index=0: gap=0.12 expected from 0.08 to 0.13 error=Yes
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

It works! Sort of...

I flashed in the latest firmware, set both triggers to be non-inverted, and it started great!
Best cold start I've ever had.

On the other hand, I'm still limited to a 5000rpm :(

Logs attached.

Also, idle seems to be fixed.
Attachments
NB1_Miata_nonInveted_triggers_TriggerDetails_31OctFirmware_engineStartedAndRunning.txt
(27.67 KiB) Downloaded 343 times
2019-10-31_20_15_50_681rpm_31OctFirmware_noninverted_working.png
2019-10-31_20_15_50_681rpm_31OctFirmware_noninverted_working.png (41.08 KiB) Viewed 23044 times
scramblr
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 99 miata 1.8 turbo PnP setup #53

Post by scramblr »

I played around with pullup resistors a bit to see how RPM limit responded and found that when I went from 10K to 20K, I was still limited to around 6000rpm.
So I decided to just go big and see what happens, and I tried 100K resistors.
The result: Able to rev all the way to 7000rpm hard limit :D
Now, I could probably get by with less, but if it works, is there any reason not to proceed with this?
I get no trigger errors all the way up.
Are there other potential side effects that I'm not aware of?
Post Reply