|
Dropped the car off at Got It Rex yesterday morning. On monday they posted this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XLl70acGA That's the guy who's tuning my car driving his personal turbo EG33 Impreza. It's in good hands. Also, lot pix;   ohai, SVX 
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
I have the car back from GotItRex, who have tuned it really nicely in 98 octane single turbo mode but could not for the life of them get it to sequence onto the 2nd turbo. Having checked and cleaned every line and solenoid in the BBOD and cross-checked with the service manual and my spare BBOD, I was at a bit of a loss as to why the gently caress it was refusing to sequence. It was like the secondary was broken, never spooling. Then I managed to get it to sequence at part throttle and noticed that they've got the secondary exhaust valve duty cycle set to 99%, which seems like a good idea (more duty = more pressure = more spool right?) until you look really closely at the piping and realize that more duty = less pressure on the ECV in transition mode = less exhaust flow into the secondary during changeover, the exact opposite of what you'd expect. 100% duty cycle means no exhaust flow for you, secondary. This is probably a bug with my specific revision car and ECULabs, as the revDs behave differently to the revA-Cs in transition mode. I'm waiting for them to send me the data file for the current tune so I can test my hypothesis, but I'm pretty sure that will fix the problem. If I didn't think that it was a terrible, terrible idea I'd just unplug the secondary duty cycle solenoid and test, but I'd rather not go that far just yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
You have the patience of a saint. I'd have given up long ago...
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Sequentials: Never worked right on any car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
I will make this godforsaken machine work if it kills me
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Well, it was nice [internet] knowing you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
gently caress the SVX, what's that little red one at the end, a Rex? It looks interesting and I'm 99% sure it shares the doors with Justys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
I believe it is a Rex, yes, and the 2nd generation Rex was the basis of the Justy afaik. This one is a 3rd gen. In Australia that generation of Rex was sold as the Sherpa and Fiori Unfortunately it's been sitting there rather a long while as the tyres are all deflated and the ground shows signs of it not having moved in many years 
literally a fish fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Can you please bring it over with you in your carryon luggage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
I did not know there was such a thing as a Subaru Rex! God Bless the internet for teaching me things every day. Also LAF you really do have the patience of a saint, I hope that when this car is finally sorted it is truly the unicorn of your dreams. Also your Fiesta wheels look hot
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Oh dear God, the Subaru Sherpa.... One of those was a daily driver for a while for me. It is, without a hint of a doubt, the single worst new car I have ever had the dishonour to drive. It took minutes to get to 100kph on a good day, it had no concept of handling whatsoever, it was a right loving danger being hit by a gently blown leaf let alone something more substanial, one of the most wretched noises to ever fart out of an exhaust pipe and the brakes were terrifying bad. It's honestly like Subaru went out of their way to produce the most hosed up awful piece of poo poo to contaminate the roads ever. We are talking worse than a Lada, worse than a loving Datsun 120Y - the 120Y had more charm and reliability somehow. I cant imagine just how godawful any surviving Sherpa would be these days and the fact it hasnt been left ont he side of the road so some unfortunate oval office would have to remove it is a testament of the owner hates hates car so much, they think the money they would have to pay for disposal is too much to pay. It is honestly a waste of petrol to firebomb the loving thing. It is so tinny there isn't enough metal to make a trip to Sims worthwhile. Here folks is a depressing monument to just how bad cars can really be and why even the worst shitbox onsale today is absolute lightyears ahead of this rolling turd of a car. It is the automotive equipment of an escapee from an abortion bucket. It is a ode of hate to anyone that considers driving a pleasure and even more remarkabe that a car maker could poo poo this thing out while it also were producing the glorious Liberty RS and were about to unleash a car that would redefine performance cars in a way nothing else before or since, one of the true top 10 greats of automotive history has in the form of the WRX. Subaru had in the same showroom one the most unquestioned worst cars of all time next to one of the unquestioned greatest. That's the very definition of automotive bi-polar. Whomever designed the Sherpa should have been taken out the back and shot, stabbed, beaten with baseball bats and then flayed, slated then drawn. And then burnt with the ashes hurled into the sun. gently caress that car was just so without excuse dire
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Unfortunately, kastein, I suspect I'd have trouble fitting a kei car in a carry-on. Thanks for the compliment, slothrop - I've come this far, I might as well finish the bloody monstrosity. But CAT INTERCEPTOR this one was one of the supercharged ones!  I forgot to ask if it was AWD too though (yes, they came in AWD - in Japan at least).Got the data file from the tuner. Time to find out if dropping the duty fixes the issue...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:But CAT INTERCEPTOR this one was one of the supercharged ones! That makes it fast enough to utterly overwhelm it's handling and brakes. And given it STILL has a something stupid 0-100kph better measured by an hourglass, gives a great indication how woeful anything that looks like suspension and brakes is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Dammit man it's an '80s kei car why are you expecting it to be good This thing is doing my head in. I would sign away my firstborn child for access to an AWD dyno for a day just so I can work out what the christ these various tables do to changeover. No matter how I gently caress with it I cannot get the thing to sequence onto the secondary below 6k RPM which isn't super useful since it's meant to be done and dusted by 4k. All the solenoids work. All the lines are correct. Maybe it somehow blew a turbo, but that wouldn't explain how it's building 6psi of boost off the secondary alone (but still refusing to open the intake air solenoid until 6k?????) and also works flawlessly in single-turbo mode until it runs out of flow. I might have to rig it to run in parallel mode and see what happens.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Isn't this the reason why most FD3 RX-7's got converted to single turbo? Because everything's hooked up right, but snail #2 is being a lazy fuckwit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
BloodBag posted:Isn't this the reason why most FD3 RX-7's got converted to single turbo? Because everything's hooked up right, but snail #2 is being a lazy fuckwit. It's more the insane vaccuum hose setup. quote:Dammit man it's an '80s kei car why are you expecting it to be good A couple of them actually were good(ish). The Sherpa tho? Nooooooooooooooope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Subaru's control logic is simultaneously better and also a lot worse. But yeah, vacuum fuckery and electronics dipshittery. That and the invention of twin-scroll turbos with such low rotational mass that you just don't need a sequential turbo system anymore to get power across the whole rev range
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Thanks to the fine folks over at subyclub.com I diagnosed one of what appears to be two issues with the car; the ICV (valve that permits air from the secondary turbo into the intercooler) wasn't properly opening which was causing some weirdness and ridiculous flow restriction. Normally the ICV is held closed by vacuum and opened by a return spring when a solenoid is energized and releases the vacuum. The return spring in my ICV only opens the valve halfway, but if I blow into the line (even from a small distance) it opens just fine. So I made a slight change to the vacuum lines in order to drive the ICV hard-open with boost and holy f%&$ing s#!t this thing is FAST in twin turbo mode with a functional ICV. IT MADE 20PSI OF BOOST AND BLEW THE OUTLET HOSE OFF THE SECONDARY. I need a new hose clamp for the secondary outlet. Issue the first resolved! Second issue seems to be down to calibration of the secondary duty during the changeover process, and maybe the control rod for the ECV is a bit out of adjustment, so I'm gonna check that tomorrow morning. I spent three hours trying to diagnose a huge confusing sudden total failure of the car to operate remotely correctly which turned out to be that I neglected to reattach the vacuum reservoir so I had a catastrophic vacuum leak
literally a fish fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Yeeeeess. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
My method of choice when dealing with a lot of vacuum hoses is to have very bright zipties or shop towels around. When the vacuum hose comes off I wrap it in a ziptie. When the vacuum hose goes back on I take the ziptie off. Then you can just look at the engine bay and see if you missed anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:My method of choice when dealing with a lot of vacuum hoses is to have very bright zipties or shop towels around. When the vacuum hose comes off I wrap it in a ziptie. When the vacuum hose goes back on I take the ziptie off.  I love this forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
That's actually brilliant, I'll have to get a pack of brightly colored zip ties. I suspect I won't be forgetting this vacuum line again, though, and it's the only one which isn't done via a multi-vac connector. Still, drat good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Fuckery update! A lot of discussion and troubleshooting has been going on over at SubyClub. You can read the thread there for full details, if you want 'em, but here's the short-ish version. There's an engine load map in the ECU that's supposedly in g/rev that indicates when the car stages into twin turbo mode;  This table is the big kahuna, it dictates what 'load' (ostensibly in g/rev, i'll get to that later) at which the car will energize the SPRV #2 solenoid (which turns out to be step 1 of the final staging process, closing the secondary blowoff so the secondary can build pressure). This explains why I'm always getting staging just over 6000rpm, as that's when the table's 'load' requirement drops to effectively nil. I knew the staging at 6k was too repeatable to be anything other than software! Ordinarily, I wouldn't even have access to modify the stock ECU, so I wouldn't even know this table exists. Nobody's released any open source definitions for this ECU for ROMRaider. However, a kind soul who prefers not to be named has provided me with stock ROMs and mostly-complete ROMRaider definitions for the stock ECUs - I am told that these are sourced from ECUTek, who can go eat a dick anyway, and were not acquired in a manner one would consider legal, hence wanting to keep quiet about it. So, map found, there are two possibilities at this stage - either the map in my ECU is corrupt/has the table wrong, or... well, here's where poo poo gets weird. This table isn't (yet) available to me in ECULabs, so I can't test this theory just yet, but I've provided the info to them and hopefully it'll be added shortly. If it takes too long I might use my newfound stock ROM modification powers to test my theory with my spare stock Japanese ECU. I'm about to say some stuff that might seem obvious to some of you but I just want to lay out all of my logic. Keep in mind that none of this applies if it turns out my ECU has the table all wrong, but bear with me; for the purpose of this explanation, I'm going to assume the table is as you see above in the ECU. My theory is thus; I have a known good log from a known good revD stock ECU. His car was only hitting the same MAF load point of the high 1.7g/rev range as my logs do at the same RPM (just over 4K), but his ECU saw fit to stage into twin mode no problem, while mine refuses to stage until 6k. The only differences between our cars at the time the known-good car's owner created the log (he's since gone to single turbo) are that mine has the ECULabs mod and 1000cc injectors instead of stock injectors. He confirmed that the table you see in the image above was the one loaded into the car at the time, so we know that 1.79g/rev is in fact above the threshold, despite the table indicating 3.19g/rev at 4200rpm being the requirement. So, already, something's not squaring up with reality. Now, when ECUTek (or anyone else) make the definitions, they (clearly) don't actually get information from Subaru on what the table is. So, you find the table in the code, you look at the raw values, you look at what routines call them and what data they match up with, and you take your raw data and work out a divider to get that into a nice happy floating point number. ROMRaider lets you look at the math being done for each table's displayed values in the table properties, like so;  Notice the really fuckin' weird scaling factor/multiplier? 1223.somezeroes68? WTF? All the other tables I've checked that reference engine load use a much happier multiplier of 8192, and almost all the tables use a power of 2 or a nice round number like 1000 for a multiplier. If you descale the raw value back for that box, you get 3901 (+/- 1) as the raw data stored in the table. So... what if it's not load? The only difference between my car and the car with the known good log is injectors. The twin-turbo ECU is a single-turbo ECU with extra software added in order to control the twin-turbo staging system. Engine load in g/rev is directly correlated with injector duty cycle or injector pulse width, so it'd be very easy to mix them up when creating a definition, especially since nobody should ever be directly reading injector pulse width and doing calculations based off that. Do you see where I'm going with this? I think the table might in fact be a minimum injector pulse width, not engine load, and ECUTek mapped it wrong. 3901 (probably 3900) looks suspiciously like a 3.901ms injector pulse threshold, and would make the divider a neat 1000. As I have injectors that are 180% of the size of the stock ones, I will only have 55% of the injector pulse width for the same amount of fuel flow, so if a lazy/bad Subaru engineer decided to read pulse width instead of engine load either by accident or to cut down on resource use / some other esoteric reason, that would explain why it refuses to stage until it hits the fail-safe 0.04 box at 6200rpm. Unfortunately none of the logs from the known-good car have an injector pulse width recorded, and while I have a log with injector duty cycle from a different car, it doesn't have pulse width, and I don't know enough to calculate pulse width from duty cycle on a set of pink STi injectors (550cc units, revD/E's stock part), so I can't verify this from log data alone (it'd have been far too easy if I could, for example, see on the same log row that the injector pulse width was 4.7ms or something). It does, however, seem a bit weird to me that the table says 3.19g/rev is the required load, but a known-good car staged just fine at a load of 1.79g/rev. So yeah, that's the theory. Table is looking at injector pulse width or injector duty to determine when to stage, rather than load, and my changing of injectors has broken it. That, or my ECU just has a bad copy of the table. Either is possible, but one way or another that table definitely isn't in g/rev (or if it is, it's not scaled properly). [/sperg] E: Oh hey a conclusion would be good. tl;dr table in ECU is probably wrong, if not, table is mislabeled and is in fact referencing injectors directly rather than MAF load literally a fish fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
For one, that all sounds reasonable. For two, when you mentioned scaled for bigger injectors and weirdness with the MAF, it got me thinking of the MAF hack that people do to get around software limitations in 16bit ECUs. But then, when you datalogged your car, that would have shown up as a weirdly low load, from what I understand. Probably not that. Actually, if that table's stock, the values are really really high to be in g/rev. I just did the math and with 550cc injectors, the injector pulsewidth should be around 5msec (given a lot of variables and also assuming I'm not making pre-coffee mistakes). So I think you're right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
RE: MAF hack, someone on subyclub already suggested that and as you mentioned it's not been done in my case as my engine load numbers all look normal  I just got a software update emailed to me by ECULabs last night with access to all 5 tables that appear to be looking at pulse width  My ECU has the tables as stock, so we're pretty much down to option #2. Emmanuel agrees that it's definitely not load and thinks that the raw value is injector pulse width or duty cycle multiplied by 256. This presents an interesting challenge as if these tables ARE directly reading injector related numnbers (which I am fairly sure they are) then they need to be added into the flex maps and multi-map feature (at least the engagement map does) since E85 will have a different pulse width to 98 oct (that, or I have to tune so I only get twin mode on E85, which might not be so bad) He says that shouldn't be a big deal, though. Time to go forth, modify, log, and test!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
  AHAHAHAHAHHAHA IT loving WORKS YESSSSSS FINALLY I was right. The tables are in injector duty cycle. Multiplied the values after the switchover point by 0.55 to account for injector scaling with the ID1000s vs original 550CC STi Pinks, and BAM. It loving hauls rear end. Right from the start I told myself it had to be looking at injector duty. VINDICATED. With the load requirement multiplied for injector scaling It now reliably stages onto the 2nd turbo just after 4000rpm. If you have the window down and it's not windy you can hear the lil' solenoids go psht-pft A slightly less beta version of ECULabs is being worked on with multi-map and hopefully flex-fuel for the changeover point map (to account for E85 needing a different duty cycle than 98RON). I AM HAVING SUCH A GOOD DAY
literally a fish fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Awesome!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
That is the best feeling. Congrats!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Drove it around a bit more. It's such a ridiculous power delivery method. Now I get to take it back to Got It Rex once emmanuel finishes up the slightly-less-beta version of ECULabs Studio And when it comes back it will have somewhere around 300 wheel horsepower on E85 and devour the souls of children. Interesting note; I must be the first person running flex-fuel on an ECULabs ECU in a DE revision B4, since if I wasn't then someone else would have worked this out beforehand
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
BOOSTU FINALLY
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:BOOSTU FINALLY 1.5bar from 2000 to redline is pretty fun Here's a photo since the carport was conveniently empty of other cars (click for big, the imgur resizer is fuckin' hopelessly low quality)  
literally a fish fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Fukken awesome. This is a decidedly non-stock setup, yeah? Is there an engine bay pic somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:Interesting note; I must be the first person running flex-fuel on an ECULabs ECU in a DE revision B4, since if I wasn't then someone else would have worked this out beforehand Alternative: someone is running it but thinks either the ecu or car sucks and is living in unnecessary disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
I love those wheels. Weirdly I'm kind of looking at doing the opposite sort of thing on my WRX - it annoys me that it spools at highway speeds in top gear so I want to move the boost threshold *up*.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
bolind posted:Fukken awesome. This is a decidedly non-stock setup, yeah? Stock motor, stock turbos. Here's a fairly recent engine bay pic (click for big):  Things I have done thus far:
There's a whole bunch of other stuff too, probably, and I have a bunch of parts to put on when it's all tuned up (brakes, brake lines, anti-lift kit, roll centre kit, blah blah). mekilljoydammit posted:I love those wheels. Thanks! They're forged Rays RS-ZEROs, an optional wheel for similar-era JDM WRX STis - iirc they were $750 for the whole set through Up Garage (they ship worldwide from here http://www.croooober.com/static/wws/ ) with shipping not being tooooo horrid. And they FedEx'd them! You probably actually don't, though. If it's making boost cruising then it's probably being more efficient than if it wasn't, I'd have thought? Also if it's boosting to less than wastegate pressure (probably 8psi, subaru seem to like 8psi wastegates) there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop it from doing that since that's allllll mechanical Cakefool posted:Alternative: someone is running it but thinks either the ecu or car sucks and is living in unnecessary disappointment. I spoke to Emmanuel and he says he's only modified one other, and there's currently one for sale on subyclub that has never been installed in a car, so, FIRST!
literally a fish fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:Thanks! They're forged Rays RS-ZEROs, an optional wheel for similar-era JDM WRX STis - iirc they were $750 for the whole set through Up Garage (they ship worldwide from here http://www.croooober.com/static/wws/ ) with shipping not being tooooo horrid. And they FedEx'd them! And yeah, it's trimmed back to wastegate boost at that point... fortunately a great solution presents itself. Bigger turbo!  (eventually) Why yes, of course it's just for better freeway economy... right...*quickedit* That may be a dangerous site for me to know about. Heh heh heh. mekilljoydammit fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:
Holy loving poo poo, thank you so much for this. I just bought a DC5 type R flywheel for $50 instead of $500.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
TWSS posted:Holy loving poo poo, thank you so much for this. I just bought a DC5 type R flywheel for $50 instead of $500. Discovering that you can buy used parts from japan online with reasonable shipping rates changed my whole life, man
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:Discovering that you can buy used parts from japan online with reasonable shipping rates changed my whole life, man If it's good enough for Vin Diesel it's good enough for anybody. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
literally a fish posted:I spoke to Emmanuel and he says he's only modified one other, and there's currently one for sale on subyclub that has never been installed in a car, so, FIRST! I binged this whole thread in one go and it's been a fascinating read. I won't say I learnt anything because I'd have to recall it for that to be true 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:33
|
|