I've gone back to a normally aspirated engine with a map sensor. I'm using the same Kavlico 3.5 bar MAP sensor that was on my turbo engine and it seems to work fine with DTA's standard pressure compensation map applied.
I say runs OK, but I have a niggling doubt it could be better with a 1 bar sensor.
I know you would get more resolution in the sensor scaling page, but does that really matter? I'm not so familiar with mapping n'asp engines.
Just trying to keep costs down
3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
-
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:08 pm
- ECU Model: No ECU
- Location: Norn Iron
Re: 3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
I doubt it will make any difference you'll notice.
Maybe if something seemed odd, check for stable voltages from the sensor. Worst case it may fluctuate a bit more.
But as they work perfectly fine on a boosted engine, they'll work perfectly fine on a n/a
Is it a temp change or permanent ?
Maybe if something seemed odd, check for stable voltages from the sensor. Worst case it may fluctuate a bit more.
But as they work perfectly fine on a boosted engine, they'll work perfectly fine on a n/a
Is it a temp change or permanent ?
Re: 3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
Yeah permanent. I've gone back to n'asp tuning. High hp turbo motoring just crippled me at the pumps every month
The KPA reading does fluctuate a little at idle actually, but not a huge amount.
It's odd readings I'm getting that make me wonder. Such as 6KPA at over-run, 20KPA at very light throttle on motorway and mid 30s KPA for idle. I'm used to seeing much higher numbers than that (off boost).
This motor is DBW though and when the plate is closed, it's REALLY closed. Which may explain the high vaccum I guess.
I might try a 1 bar anyway tbh as it's makes more sense for n'asp really.....
The KPA reading does fluctuate a little at idle actually, but not a huge amount.
It's odd readings I'm getting that make me wonder. Such as 6KPA at over-run, 20KPA at very light throttle on motorway and mid 30s KPA for idle. I'm used to seeing much higher numbers than that (off boost).
This motor is DBW though and when the plate is closed, it's REALLY closed. Which may explain the high vaccum I guess.
I might try a 1 bar anyway tbh as it's makes more sense for n'asp really.....
-
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:08 pm
- ECU Model: No ECU
- Location: Norn Iron
Re: 3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
readings dont sound that odd really. Id expect a mild cammed engine to pull 30-40kpa at idle.
Why not just get a mityvac or similar and test the map sensor readings ?
Where is the signal line taken from ? It always needs to be from a central plenum or intake pulses can affect the stability of readings. Damping the line can also be needed sometimes. Filtering may achieve a similar result, although Ive never used much filtering.
Why not just get a mityvac or similar and test the map sensor readings ?
Where is the signal line taken from ? It always needs to be from a central plenum or intake pulses can affect the stability of readings. Damping the line can also be needed sometimes. Filtering may achieve a similar result, although Ive never used much filtering.
Re: 3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
Good idea on the Mityvac, I'll look into that.
Here is the MAP sensor and it's manifold connection. It's right at the back of the plenum well away from the runners, so I figured that would give a stable enough feed.
Here is the MAP sensor and it's manifold connection. It's right at the back of the plenum well away from the runners, so I figured that would give a stable enough feed.
-
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:08 pm
- ECU Model: No ECU
- Location: Norn Iron
Re: 3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
Looks like a decent enough position
Re: 3.5 Bar MAP sensor vs 1 Bar sensor
Cheers Stevie. Got the Mityvac this morning. Nice bit of kit