Instructions to change fuel maps on 14CUX Griffith, Chimaera

[Peter66]

Hi MPO,

Yes I had my 123ignition set up on a rolling road. It is optimized for 95 Euro now. The tuner explained that because the fuel has changed so much compered to when the cars were introduced, especially the ignition timing needs to be changed to make the car run optimally. I now have 261 BHP and a very flat 400NM torque curve! It made a big difference. The vacuum advance setting was not touched, because this can best be set up during road driving. I am very happy with the 123ignition and prefer the original distributor look.

It would be nice to have a comparison table of RPM versus ignition timing/advance for standard (including the Land Rover specifications that Davep posted) and optimized maps. I expect that each car will be different and you need a rolling road to get a safe maximum performance. I hope the light throttle and drivability settings are less critical and you can optimize it yourself like you did.

Cheers,

Peter

[stevesprint]

Peter66 said:

Hi Steve and MPO,

Steve does your improved 14CUX EPROM require a different 123 ignition curve setting or can both fuel and ignition settings be optimized independently?
Peter

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been distracted by the differences between a Lucas 20AM and a Sagem 20AM or maybe I've had the same 20AM bad luck as Glyn.

No doesn’t require a different ignition curve, I don't actually have mappable ignition and all my work is based on my standard 4.3 with a standard dizzy. I would be happy to work with Gyln to create a special version of my prom for mappable ignition.

What engine do you have??? CATs???

[MPO]

davep said:

MPO fascinating results from Ignition123 but those advance figures for idle seem a bit high, also were you after some vacuum and valve timing numbers recently? If so I found these which might be of interest, I'm not sure as they're for a V8 Defender with carbs but might be valid as a start point:

Hi Dave
Sorry for the delayed response, I know what you’re saying about the idle advance looking quite high but it seems to have settled the engine at tick-over. I have slightly reduced it to 18 Degrees BTDC but as it’s only for tick-over it doesn’t really worry me. Having said that, it will be interesting to see what the next MOT emissions test will show .

Actually, setting 0 Degrees at tick-over (only at tick-over!) would put a smile on some faces. A bit too agricultural for me though! I’ll show you when we meet.

From 1000 RPM the ignition advance is set to 14 Degrees BTDC and climbs quite quickly from there… As for the rest of the ignition curve, I’m busy logging data with Rover Gauge and my Wide Band and hoping to find some database correlations whilst adjusting the ignition curve. It’s quite interesting how the average MAF% use is changing at my RPM/fuel points. I’m still trying to get my head around this at the moment.
As for the info, thanks it’s appreciated.

Regarding Vacuum advance, I’m really happy with my setup now and have configured it to come in mainly when cursing.

Cheers

MPO

[MPO]

Peter66 said:

Hi MPO,

Yes I had my 123ignition set up on a rolling road. It is optimized for 95 Euro now. The tuner explained that because the fuel has changed so much compered to when the cars were introduced, especially the ignition timing needs to be changed to make the car run optimally. I now have 261 BHP and a very flat 400NM torque curve! It made a big difference. The vacuum advance setting was not touched, because this can best be set up during road driving. I am very happy with the 123ignition and prefer the original distributor look.

It would be nice to have a comparison table of RPM versus ignition timing/advance for standard (including the Land Rover specifications that Davep posted) and optimized maps. I expect that each car will be different and you need a rolling road to get a safe maximum performance. I hope the light throttle and drivability settings are less critical and you can optimize it yourself like you did.

Cheers,

Peter

Hi Pete

It is quite nice having the original dizzy but to be honest, I just like how easy it was to install and I can revert back if necessary.

Having said that, I can’t see me reverting back its great playing with the ignition advance and vacuum via a laptop and keeping clean… I am hoping to get some Dyno time in the next week or two and we can see if ther are any real performance benefits.

I did drop you an Email after you posted this. Not sure if you got it?

Just drop me a PM.

Cheers

MPO

[davep]

MPO said:

...Regarding Vacuum advance, I’m really happy with my setup now and have configured it to come in mainly when cursing.

Cheers

MPO

Wow! A 'WTF' sensor linked to Vacuum advance, whatever next?

[MPO]

davep said:

Wow! A 'WTF' sensor linked to Vacuum advance, whatever next?

I must learn to Speel
I must learn to Speel
I must learn to Speel
I must learn to Speel

LOL

[davep]

MPO said:

Hi Dave
Sorry for the delayed response, I know what you’re saying about the idle advance looking quite high but it seems to have settled the engine at tick-over. I have slightly reduced it to 18 Degrees BTDC but as it’s only for tick-over it doesn’t really worry me. Having said that, it will be interesting to see what the next MOT emissions test will show .

Actually, setting 0 Degrees at tick-over (only at tick-over!) would put a smile on some faces. A bit too agricultural for me though! I’ll show you when we meet.

...Regarding Vacuum advance, I’m really happy with my setup now and have configured it to come in mainly when cursing.

Cheers

MPO

MPO I assume your original vacuum line is connected to the 123Ignition distributor, if so what values are you getting for the Vacuum part of the total advance at idle? How do these compare to the range values shown in the tuning data I posted up recently:

Advance: ½° - 4½° @ 10 inHg to 5° - 7° @ 20 inHg, or 2½° - 4° @ 10 inHg to 7° - 9° @ 20 inHg

How do you configure vacuum advance to be active only during off load?

[MPO]

davep said:

MPO I assume your original vacuum line is connected to the 123Ignition distributor, if so what values are you getting for the Vacuum part of the total advance at idle? How do these compare to the range values shown in the tuning data I posted up recently:

Advance: ½° - 4½° @ 10 inHg to 5° - 7° @ 20 inHg, or 2½° - 4° @ 10 inHg to 7° - 9° @ 20 inHg

How do you configure vacuum advance to be active only during off load?

Hi Dave

Sorry for the delayed response.

Yes it's connected, I also removed the Vacuum Delay Valve as it seemed unnecessary.

This is sample of my combined data from Rovergauge and the 123 Tune Log at idle only:


Throttle Position Throttle% MPH RPM 123-Advance 123-Vacuum kPa

0.0557185 5.57 0 865 19 -0
0.0557185 5.57 0 858 19 -0
0.056696 5.66 0 858 19 -0
0.0557185 5.57 0 851 19 -0
0.0557185 5.57 0 874 19 -0
0.0557185 5.57 0 849 19 -0


I have set 0 Degrees vacuum advance where Kpa is < 50 kPa this comes in at about 25-26% of throttle (this would be the end of my cruising area). The way I see it, after the crusing area, I'm reliant on my ignition advance settings only.

You will see from the example data above, I have set my ignition advance to 19Degrees BTDC during idle (as mentioned earlier).



Cheers

MPO

Edited by MPO on Monday 25th July 20:32

[davep]

I've been trying to download the latest release of RoverGauge (0.8.6) from GitHub, when clicking on the Windows Source code link only the RoverGauge Master directory contents are downloaded, there's no libcomm14cux library or executables? Am I missing something?

I like your White Paper Dan - hmmm, inline flowcharting! When's that book you've been promising to write going to appear?

[cmb]

davep said:

I've been trying to download the latest release of RoverGauge (0.8.6) from GitHub, when clicking on the Windows Source code link only the RoverGauge Master directory contents are downloaded, there's no libcomm14cux library or executables? Am I missing something?

Version 0.8.6 doesn't really fix any bugs that you'd see in the Windows version, so I haven't done a Windows release yet. There's only a Linux version at the moment. I still plan to do 0.8.6 for Windows just to keep everything in sync, but it may not be for a few more days.

[davep]

cmb said:

Version 0.8.6 doesn't really fix any bugs that you'd see in the Windows version, so I haven't done a Windows release yet. There's only a Linux version at the moment. I still plan to do 0.8.6 for Windows just to keep everything in sync, but it may not be for a few more days.

No worries Colin, I'm happy using 0.8.4. Thanks again for all your efforts, much appreciated.

[stevesprint]

Colin
Please can you add date & time to static.txt file name so it matched the log file name.
Thanks & no rush
Steve

[cmb]

stevesprint said:

Colin
Please can you add date & time to static.txt file name so it matched the log file name.
Thanks & no rush
Steve

Certainly. I'll have time to work on this soon.

Edit: Just released version 0.8.8. This version will generate a static data log file with the same name as the normal log but with "_static" appended to the filename.

https://github.com/colinbourassa/rovergauge/releas...

Edited by cmb on Wednesday 17th August 22:19

[stevesprint]

cmb said:

Certainly. I'll have time to work on this soon.

Edit: Just released version 0.8.8. This version will generate a static data log file with the same name as the normal log but with "_static" appended to the filename.

https://github.com/colinbourassa/rovergauge/releas...

Perfect thanks

[CGCobra]

Hi all, hope I'm replying to an appropriate thread, I got this link on Steve Sprint's web site and linked to his from the Blitz /G33 site.

Main reason for my post it to express my appreciation to all the people involved in creating the fantastic tools which are now available for the Hotwire system but I'll probably think of a question or two to ask before I get to the end. Obviously Dan and Colin, Mark (Blitz) and Steve Sprint stand out but there are so many other contributors, the work you guys have done and the way you've done it is absolutely amazing, I'd happily pay for this but it seems no-one will accept money so my thanks will have to do.

I'll give a bit about my story and why having control over the 14CUX is so useful to me.
My car is not a TVR (sorry) but very close, it's a Cobra kit car (Gardner Douglas), it has a 3.9 Rover engine (from a Morgan +8 best I can tell) which is more or less standard apart from running the GD exhaust which is quite open/free-flowing, it doesn't use cats.
I bought the Hotwire system as a complete set of parts which had never been fitted to a car and although this was about 10 years ago it is still all quite fresh. I fitted an RPi (MA?) Tornado chip which I've never been 100% satisfied with
I then decided to fit a Megasquirt system, not due to any specific issues with the fueling, mainly because I wanted to get control of the ignition and remove the dizzy (I hate things with springs and weights and diaphragms in!), but if I'm fitting this why not take control of the fuel as well?
Unfortunately the Megasquirt project never got completed, other projects got in the way but I started looking at it again just a few weeks ago, did a quick search on the Internet, came across Marks G33 site and got educated about RoverGauge and all the other fantastic tools which are now available.

I got a cable from Blitz, excellent service and very helpful too and now got an EPROM writer and been checking out some alternative maps but mainly trying to do as much reading as possible to work out what the possibilities are. I've linked up an Innovate LC-1 which I bought when I first started the Megasquirt project however I'm not getting very good readings from it, seems to flip flop between about 8 and 20, as far as I'm concerned my system cannot be running that bad!

I'm going to continue with the MS but only for ignition control now (which is where I started with it), I'll also try and work out what is going wrong with the wideband or I'll buy a new one with a gauge (currently only viewing data on my laptop). Once I have all that sorted I'll get a bit more serious on the fueling side of things.

I'm currently using a 3.9 TVR map which I 'stole' from Steve Sprints site, is this the best option for my set up or can anybody suggest any other tune I may want to try?

[blitzracing]

The TVR map is a good place to start but before you throw the AFR gauge away, try just running on the green map under light load and see if the mixture is stable. There are some green tune 3.9 maps around. You remove all the lambda oscillations in the process, not that Ive ever seen it that bad. If you dont have cats its the way to go anyway, far better scope for getting the engine the best AFR.

[CGCobra]

blitzracing said:

The TVR map is a good place to start but before you throw the AFR gauge away, try just running on the green map under light load and see if the mixture is stable. There are some green tune 3.9 maps around. You remove all the lambda oscillations in the process, not that Ive ever seen it that bad. If you dont have cats its the way to go anyway, far better scope for getting the engine the best AFR.

I'm fairly convinced that the issues I'm seeing from the AFR meter are down to a problem with the install, or possibly the hardware. I don't believe for one minute the engine is actually producing those readings oscillating between 7.x and 20.x would give very poor running if at all, in-fact the engine runs reasonably well.
I have other issues with the Innovate software, sometimes it will detect the sensor other times it won't, may be my laptop, need to try on another. Eventually I'll be taking an analogue output into the MS and will see if that works any better than the serial into my laptop.

I'm currently running without lambda input into the 14CUX (sorry should have made that clear) and with the green resistor (map 2 shown by RG),
I've used "TVR Griffith 400 Precat & TVR Chimmaera 400 CAT combined in Land Rovers final revision R3652" from Steve Sprints site. I'm assuming that 'precat' means the green map is programmed?
My understanding is this gives the latest program as well as a TVR map?
Only slight issue I have with this is the idle control seems different and not as good on my car as my previous chip, particularly when cold. Not a problem exactly I just don't get the same 'moving idle' which doesn't help gear changes and sometimes the engine stalls as I come to a stop.
From what I've read some TVRs have the opposite issue. Once warm it's OK.
My speed sensor gives an analogue output proportional to roadspeed (although about half the rate of a Rover unit apparently) not the binary (moving / not-moving) signal a TVR seems to have. Don't know if this makes the difference).

Is there a better "starting point" for my setup?
As I've said none of the tunes I've tried have made the engine run 'bad', some just less good than others.

[davep]

CGCobra said:

... I'm assuming that 'precat' means the green map is programmed? My understanding is this gives the latest program as well as a TVR map?

'Precat' is a term applied by Griffith owners to the early non-cat cars. As a consequence of having no cats these run open loop hence Fuel Map 2 and the Green tune resistor.

CGCobra said:

Only slight issue I have with this is the idle control seems different and not as good on my car as my previous chip, particularly when cold. Not a problem exactly I just don't get the same 'moving idle' which doesn't help gear changes and sometimes the engine stalls as I come to a stop. From what I've read some TVRs have the opposite issue. Once warm it's OK.

Quick! It'd be really useful to get a copy of your original ROM chip's program (a BIN file), use RG command File/Save ROM image..., to compare the respective code differences for idle control.

[CGCobra]

davep said:

Quick! It'd be really useful to get a copy of your original ROM chip's program (a BIN file), use RG command File/Save ROM image..., to compare the respective code differences for idle control.

I already have created images for the original chip (R3383), and the Tornado chip. I've long since learned the hard way that software should always be backed up!
Don't know how I'd compare the code differences though, obviously I can see the settings/parameters but have no way of making sense of the program code. Any suggestions?

[davep]

CGCobra said:

I already have created images for the original chip (R3383), and the Tornado chip. I've long since learned the hard way that software should always be backed up!
Don't know how I'd compare the code differences though, obviously I can see the settings/parameters but have no way of making sense of the program code. Any suggestions?

For a quick file comparison you could use the HxD editor https://www.mh-nexus.de/en/programs.php - then compare the key ROM values with those listed in stevesprint's settings table.

For a more detailed code comparison and analysis you can use WinDiff but both files need to be disassembled first, this can be done with opcode disassembler 'dasmx' http://www.geocities.ws/pclareuk/DASMx/index.html