Support for Subaru EZ30 trigger
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2022 4:20 pm
Does this one looks the same as some of 36/x/y triggers that RE already supports?
The most advanced open source ECU
https://rusefi.com/forum/
Excuse me for my rush, the upcoming business trip will slow me down by a week. That's right, my trigger is 36-2-2-2 and so far I don't have the logs from TunerStudio Tooth Logger.AndreyB wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:03 amLet's slow down a bit
Why are we trying to code anything? Do we believe that your trigger is not 36-2-2-2? Do we have _any_ data about your trigger?
Is it Subaru which has nice workshop manual or is it just Nissan? Any photos from the internet? Etc? Overall, what are we trying to change why based on what data exactly?
Code: Select all
2021-11-06_16_49_03_605: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=114 gapIndex=0: gap=2.517 expected from 2.250 to 3.750 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_605: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=114 gapIndex=1: gap=1.000 expected from 0.750 to 1.250 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=0 gapIndex=0: gap=0.587 expected from 2.250 to 3.750 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=0 gapIndex=1: gap=2.517 expected from 0.750 to 1.250 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=2 gapIndex=0: gap=0.674 expected from 2.250 to 3.750 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=2 gapIndex=1: gap=0.587 expected from 0.750 to 1.250 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=4 gapIndex=0: gap=0.995 expected from 2.250 to 3.750 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=4 gapIndex=1: gap=0.674 expected from 0.750 to 1.250 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=6 gapIndex=0: gap=1.007 expected from 2.250 to 3.750 error=No
2021-11-06_16_49_03_620: EngineState: TRG rpm=268 time=822 eventIndex=6 gapIndex=1: gap=0.995 expected from 0.750 to 1.250 error=No
Thank you very much, the redistribution of intervals helped me !!! Synchronization is now clear and without disruptions.
Exactly! Already doneAndreyB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:54 pm@mck1117 how did you come up with the numbers you've suggested for gaps?
@WOOL your tune and log on http://rusefi.online would be the nice next step
In the future please explicitily link relevant tunes and logs. Time will pass and it would be unclear what tunes and logs are relevant for this specific forum thread.
The "perfect" gaps are only any good when the engine is spinning smoothly - basically once it's running. On engines that have the gap in a "bad" spot, plus have lots of cranking speed variation (high compression, few cylinders, weak starter, weak battery, etc), the gaps end up pretty messy during cranking.
This is actually the less interesting part, as it's easy to predict. The gaps we see during cranking are much harder to predict.