It's my daily car. Modifications are illegal here, so that's out of the table. I am stuck with the original airbox, and threrefore, original manifold!
Technical New Era.
- Thread starter cc1
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical New Era.
OP
OP
I could not use the original air box with my 1242 engine fitted. It sat too high for the bonnet to close. Your cam cover may sit a bit lower but check before you commit too much. I would port match Mk2 head inlets and use it with an 866 cam. There is no point in having huge inlets if you can't supply them with enough air through a small TB.
The 75 engine has a 38mm one which makes a difference.
The 75 engine has a 38mm one which makes a difference.
The 60 head I have is damaged/cracked. No point using it 
I was just re-reading all the stuff that has been said about the ECU and timing issues as well. I think I may be able to add some useful insight into that.
First of all, you'd be surprised that there's no practical difference between the 4AF (fitted to Seis and 1.1 Pandas) and 59F (fitted to Seis, Puntos, Pandas and Doblos) and 5AF (fitted to Pandas). All the ECUs have exactly the same mapping, regarding both fuel and timing. And they're all the "same" ECU, except for the physical layout of the circuit board on each of them. They run about the same program, on the same processor.
One thing I'm yet to figure out is how FIAT managed to make the same ECU, injectors and everything work for two very distinct engines, the 1242cc 8V and the 1108cc 8V. I reckon they must be relying on the learning feature of these ECUs a lot. From testing on my Punto with a 16V engine, they take around 100 miles to adapt and stabilize after learning reset.
These ECUs are also mappable with regards to ignition timing and injection. With some previous help from Woj, I determined that the ignition maps are relative advance to the timing signal, like the Punto MK1 ECUs, meaning that the ECU has no pre-defined parameter to compensate for the offset in different crankshaft pulleys. The 16 valve pulley on the MK2 appears (from my estimations) to have north of 10 degrees difference from the 8V pulley. Someone mentioned before they were actually 18 degrees apart, I haven't yet checked these claims, but I will soon. As an example, if you have timing set at 10º BTDC on an 8V for a given RPM/Load, you'd have to set it at 28º BTDC to achieve the same timing on the 16V.
In order to make the 16V engine controllable by the 59F in my Punto (and the same will be applicable to control another FIRE engine in a Sei, on which the crank pulley has been changed for a different offset from stock), there's a few hacks you need to do:
- Get rid of the camshaft sensor altogether (if fitting a 16V or an earlier 8V). The ECU will default to batch injection. This will NOT turn the MIL on. It will also NOT turn off knock sensing or the self-adaptation features. No noticeable impact on mileage. You can try this, just disconnect your cam sensor.
- Get rid of the knock sensor (disconnect it) if fitting a 16V. My car was not bothered by this. You CAN run the 16V engine with the knock sensor on, but the ECU will pick up on some regular 16V engine noises as knock, and will retard the ignition up to the point where the car becomes uncomfortable to drive. You then have to pull over, and reset the ECU (wait a bit or disconnect the battery).
- Get rid of the first lambda probe for base map tuning with a wideband. This will effectively disable all the self-adaptation features, as it will also disable closed loop mode.
- Get rid of the second lambda probe (if not fitted with a cat converter) for monitoring the ECU's behaviour with a wideband. The MIL will turn on, but the car will still have the self-adaptation features and closed loop enabled.
You can successfully run the 16V engine, an older generation 8V, or a newer generation 8V and map it properly without swapping parts around, as long as you can map the ECU to it properly
First of all, you'd be surprised that there's no practical difference between the 4AF (fitted to Seis and 1.1 Pandas) and 59F (fitted to Seis, Puntos, Pandas and Doblos) and 5AF (fitted to Pandas). All the ECUs have exactly the same mapping, regarding both fuel and timing. And they're all the "same" ECU, except for the physical layout of the circuit board on each of them. They run about the same program, on the same processor.
One thing I'm yet to figure out is how FIAT managed to make the same ECU, injectors and everything work for two very distinct engines, the 1242cc 8V and the 1108cc 8V. I reckon they must be relying on the learning feature of these ECUs a lot. From testing on my Punto with a 16V engine, they take around 100 miles to adapt and stabilize after learning reset.
These ECUs are also mappable with regards to ignition timing and injection. With some previous help from Woj, I determined that the ignition maps are relative advance to the timing signal, like the Punto MK1 ECUs, meaning that the ECU has no pre-defined parameter to compensate for the offset in different crankshaft pulleys. The 16 valve pulley on the MK2 appears (from my estimations) to have north of 10 degrees difference from the 8V pulley. Someone mentioned before they were actually 18 degrees apart, I haven't yet checked these claims, but I will soon. As an example, if you have timing set at 10º BTDC on an 8V for a given RPM/Load, you'd have to set it at 28º BTDC to achieve the same timing on the 16V.
In order to make the 16V engine controllable by the 59F in my Punto (and the same will be applicable to control another FIRE engine in a Sei, on which the crank pulley has been changed for a different offset from stock), there's a few hacks you need to do:
- Get rid of the camshaft sensor altogether (if fitting a 16V or an earlier 8V). The ECU will default to batch injection. This will NOT turn the MIL on. It will also NOT turn off knock sensing or the self-adaptation features. No noticeable impact on mileage. You can try this, just disconnect your cam sensor.
- Get rid of the knock sensor (disconnect it) if fitting a 16V. My car was not bothered by this. You CAN run the 16V engine with the knock sensor on, but the ECU will pick up on some regular 16V engine noises as knock, and will retard the ignition up to the point where the car becomes uncomfortable to drive. You then have to pull over, and reset the ECU (wait a bit or disconnect the battery).
- Get rid of the first lambda probe for base map tuning with a wideband. This will effectively disable all the self-adaptation features, as it will also disable closed loop mode.
- Get rid of the second lambda probe (if not fitted with a cat converter) for monitoring the ECU's behaviour with a wideband. The MIL will turn on, but the car will still have the self-adaptation features and closed loop enabled.
You can successfully run the 16V engine, an older generation 8V, or a newer generation 8V and map it properly without swapping parts around, as long as you can map the ECU to it properly
OP
OP
Some useful stuff there. Thanks.
I would say that the software has to have a few differences with regard to ignition timing, but this could self adapt due to closed loop control via the knock sensor?
You can almost get any brand of Ecu to run any engine as long as you have full control of the software. That's the problem.
The older generation Ecu's are less concerned with pollution and Euro standards and may be the better solution? However, again, we have the lack of software for these.
If someone could write a good software program for mapping these that was in the budget range of say, £100, I think there could be a reasonable market for it.
I would say that the software has to have a few differences with regard to ignition timing, but this could self adapt due to closed loop control via the knock sensor?
You can almost get any brand of Ecu to run any engine as long as you have full control of the software. That's the problem.
The older generation Ecu's are less concerned with pollution and Euro standards and may be the better solution? However, again, we have the lack of software for these.
If someone could write a good software program for mapping these that was in the budget range of say, £100, I think there could be a reasonable market for it.
I have made custom software for my Punto's 59F, and it was really cool to find out it would also map the 4AF on the Cento. But then again, it can only map the ignition base map, and the fuel base map, and reset the immo code (by directly replacing that portion with a virgin dump)... I'm yet do decode most features on the ECU.
Car goes to MOT just fine with the 16V and custom mapping and lack of said sensors, though!
Car goes to MOT just fine with the 16V and custom mapping and lack of said sensors, though!
First of, apologies to the owner of the thread, this is going to be a major thread hijack I sense.
Yes, they are indeed very similar. The hardware is in different packaging, but I am almost certain that there are differences other than just that. For example, the big boxed 4AF have one spare PWM pin (see my Seicento MPI Turbo ECU thread), I am not sure the small ones would have the same. Also, small soldering allows you to have two extra on/off inputs in 4AF, I am quite sure the small ECU is not to be touched with a soldering iron Also, from what I have been told, but I have not checked it, the newer ones (Pandas for example) have some small CAN functionality.
More importantly, the 1.1 and 1.2 versions do not have the same maps. I will attach some samples in another post some time later. What can be confusing here, is that this ECU does not have a strict Speed-Density maps, it first calculates the actual load (as if there was a MAF) and then applies further maps that do not directly depend on MAP readings. So there might be maps that you think are identical, but they may turn out not to be the actual fueling or ignition maps. Even more importantly, they differ in the knock sensor setup, for the same reasons as you stated below.
The trigger point in these ECUs can be shifted. It took me long while to figure this out, and I had intermediate results potentially deadliy to the equipment (injectors and coils looping). I know how to remap it on 4AF, but I would not bet this would work the same on the new ones. On the older ECUs this is a nightmare, so it happens I was just trying (this very minute) to figure this out for IAW 18F, it is hopeless, the trigger points are hardcoded in a nasty way. This is the reason, I bet, why Fiat just shifted the whole ignition on the 16V engines / IAW 18FD ECU, because they realised last minute that the trigger wheel is different, and they cannot just change the trigger point. They badly messed up one thing in IAW 18FD while at it (after Sunday when I will be doing some tests I will elaborate).
This is super interesting. This is not what happened during my tests. Disconnected camshaft sensor (4AF ECU) still insisted on trying sequential injection and threw a MIL plus a DTC. Also, this is not what other Sei MPI owners reported to me.
See above, if you would use 1.2 8V knock setup it might possibly work, from what I was told the major factor for the knock sensor to work is the cylinder diameter and capacity. But, apart from this, a trigger wheel that has different TDC points is also going to mess this up, so the trigger wheel issue has to be solved properly for this with remapping the trigger points.
All this can be also controlled with ECU switches, makes it a lot easier.
Yes, they are indeed very similar. The hardware is in different packaging, but I am almost certain that there are differences other than just that. For example, the big boxed 4AF have one spare PWM pin (see my Seicento MPI Turbo ECU thread), I am not sure the small ones would have the same. Also, small soldering allows you to have two extra on/off inputs in 4AF, I am quite sure the small ECU is not to be touched with a soldering iron
Also, from what I have been told, but I have not checked it, the newer ones (Pandas for example) have some small CAN functionality. More importantly, the 1.1 and 1.2 versions do not have the same maps. I will attach some samples in another post some time later. What can be confusing here, is that this ECU does not have a strict Speed-Density maps, it first calculates the actual load (as if there was a MAF) and then applies further maps that do not directly depend on MAP readings. So there might be maps that you think are identical, but they may turn out not to be the actual fueling or ignition maps. Even more importantly, they differ in the knock sensor setup, for the same reasons as you stated below.
The trigger point in these ECUs can be shifted. It took me long while to figure this out, and I had intermediate results potentially deadliy to the equipment (injectors and coils looping). I know how to remap it on 4AF, but I would not bet this would work the same on the new ones. On the older ECUs this is a nightmare, so it happens I was just trying (this very minute) to figure this out for IAW 18F, it is hopeless, the trigger points are hardcoded in a nasty way. This is the reason, I bet, why Fiat just shifted the whole ignition on the 16V engines / IAW 18FD ECU, because they realised last minute that the trigger wheel is different, and they cannot just change the trigger point. They badly messed up one thing in IAW 18FD while at it (after Sunday when I will be doing some tests I will elaborate).
This is super interesting. This is not what happened during my tests. Disconnected camshaft sensor (4AF ECU) still insisted on trying sequential injection and threw a MIL plus a DTC. Also, this is not what other Sei MPI owners reported to me.
See above, if you would use 1.2 8V knock setup it might possibly work, from what I was told the major factor for the knock sensor to work is the cylinder diameter and capacity. But, apart from this, a trigger wheel that has different TDC points is also going to mess this up, so the trigger wheel issue has to be solved properly for this with remapping the trigger points.
- Get rid of the first lambda probe for base map tuning with a wideband. This will effectively disable all the self-adaptation features, as it will also disable closed loop mode.
- Get rid of the second lambda probe (if not fitted with a cat converter) for monitoring the ECU's behaviour with a wideband. The MIL will turn on, but the car will still have the self-adaptation features and closed loop enabled.
You can successfully run the 16V engine, an older generation 8V, or a newer generation 8V and map it properly without swapping parts around, as long as you can map the ECU to it properly
All this can be also controlled with ECU switches, makes it a lot easier.
Wow, that is really interesting! Not at all the same maps I got out of my ECUs, I haven't checked a 5AF yet personally, just got the program off a friend from his Panda.
It seems you've got a lot further than me into investigating these ECUs, I haven't yet found out how to change the base ignition point... You could be right, and this could be the key to making the knock sensor work. I am, however, using the 8V knock sensor setup on the 16V and it works (badly) as reported, so now I wonder... Gotta do some further digging!
As for the 4AF and 59F extra I/Os I haven't looked into those either, or attempted to fiddle with them at all.
Removing the cam sensor will throw a DTC, but not turn the MIL light on in my car (this is on the Punto by the way). So that's yet another change. Maybe due to year differences? I know the ECU on the Punto is the 59F M7 HW603. Must check on the Sei.
Also, these are the maps I got off a Sei (so 1.1 MPI) a while ago. They are the exact same as the ones I off the Punto:
Ignition Base:
VE Map:
It seems you've got a lot further than me into investigating these ECUs, I haven't yet found out how to change the base ignition point... You could be right, and this could be the key to making the knock sensor work. I am, however, using the 8V knock sensor setup on the 16V and it works (badly) as reported, so now I wonder... Gotta do some further digging!
As for the 4AF and 59F extra I/Os I haven't looked into those either, or attempted to fiddle with them at all.
Removing the cam sensor will throw a DTC, but not turn the MIL light on in my car (this is on the Punto by the way). So that's yet another change. Maybe due to year differences?
I know the ECU on the Punto is the 59F M7 HW603. Must check on the Sei.Also, these are the maps I got off a Sei (so 1.1 MPI) a while ago. They are the exact same as the ones I off the Punto:
Ignition Base:
VE Map:
The 4AF maps I have are yet still different.
You are still not there mate. First, the ignition map is 24x12, yours is 21x12, so you have some rows missing (and there is a WOT ignition table, 24x4). The x-axis is not kPa load, it is air-mass load (see my shots) and this is calculated from the VE table, which is RPMxkPa load. (The problem here is that when you touch the VE table your other load indexed maps skew, they are not independent, they form a nasty chain of value dependencies). The VE table does not look like the right one. Looks more like the IAT correction map for VE calculation, which is RPMxIAT, indeed also 24x12. And your scales / break-points are just guessed, this does not ease things up.
The fuel is best modified through an AFR table, the VE table should not be touched (unless doing something like a turbo), because of the reason above. The target AFR tables for Pandas attached. These are only the basic ones, there are coolant temperature and wide open throttle going on top of that.
If the moderators feel that we should take it elsewhere, I am very in favour of moving this to a fresh topic.
You are still not there mate. First, the ignition map is 24x12, yours is 21x12, so you have some rows missing (and there is a WOT ignition table, 24x4). The x-axis is not kPa load, it is air-mass load (see my shots) and this is calculated from the VE table, which is RPMxkPa load. (The problem here is that when you touch the VE table your other load indexed maps skew, they are not independent, they form a nasty chain of value dependencies). The VE table does not look like the right one. Looks more like the IAT correction map for VE calculation, which is RPMxIAT, indeed also 24x12. And your scales / break-points are just guessed, this does not ease things up.
The fuel is best modified through an AFR table, the VE table should not be touched (unless doing something like a turbo), because of the reason above. The target AFR tables for Pandas attached. These are only the basic ones, there are coolant temperature and wide open throttle going on top of that.
If the moderators feel that we should take it elsewhere, I am very in favour of moving this to a fresh topic.
Attachments
Ooooh!
That actually explains a lot!
I have more work to do then :devil:
That actually explains a lot!
I have more work to do then :devil:
I didn't base on anything, it was basically just investigating and trial and error until I got something working. I did use ECM to look at it on the beginning, then since it wasn't working I just made my own software for it.
What are you using?
What are you using?
What makes you think I will tell you :devil: In all seriousness, how I do some things I just do not tell to everybody. I also started with ECM, but, as said above. If you want to get some idea on how this goes look for my IAW mapping thread
No worries, I get what you mean You've helped a lot as is!
I'll look up the said thread!
You've helped a lot as is!I'll look up the said thread!
OP
OP
This thread is to show any problems and possibly how to overcome them with regard to the newer Euro5 engines. The cheaper and simpler the better.
Basically, are these 1.2/1.4 8v engines a viable option?
VVT is another problem yet to be looked into.
These engines do have potential but as of yet, there is no true proven cheap system setup?
Any information relating to experiences to overcome problems is most welcome, but please try to make sure it's proven/factual and some how related to the topic. No one likes searching through a never ending thread to find a simple answer to a problem.
With regard to reasonably priced flexible mapping software for factory Ecu's, we are still pretty much lacking as yet. Full control is a necessity when any major tuning is done. Factory Ecu's do well to try and keep up with changes, but I think it's best to start with the one that matches the engine to start with?
Today I put the car through the emissions test and it failed. It's still running rich so needs some more mapping or it may have other problems like the CAT/ Oxygen sensor? FUN, FUN, FUN........... I do love this car but it is really pushing my limits.
1.4 16v? Hmm?
Basically, are these 1.2/1.4 8v engines a viable option?
VVT is another problem yet to be looked into.
These engines do have potential but as of yet, there is no true proven cheap system setup?
Any information relating to experiences to overcome problems is most welcome, but please try to make sure it's proven/factual and some how related to the topic. No one likes searching through a never ending thread to find a simple answer to a problem.
With regard to reasonably priced flexible mapping software for factory Ecu's, we are still pretty much lacking as yet. Full control is a necessity when any major tuning is done. Factory Ecu's do well to try and keep up with changes, but I think it's best to start with the one that matches the engine to start with?
Today I put the car through the emissions test and it failed. It's still running rich so needs some more mapping or it may have other problems like the CAT/ Oxygen sensor? FUN, FUN, FUN........... I do love this car but it is really pushing my limits.
1.4 16v? Hmm?
Last edited:
Do whatever, as long as it still puts a smile on your face
RR should be able to produce a map which will get you though emissions (and can be reloaded annually).
It's a brave, brave, thing you're doing.
In other news, the MOT man got so pissed off with attempts to get the emissions on my MR2 tub down to limits (3.000 miles since it passed with flying colours, now it's worse after a 30 mile thrash and new plugs than it was before!) that he passed it anyway!
It's a brave, brave, thing you're doing.
In other news, the MOT man got so pissed off with attempts to get the emissions on my MR2 tub down to limits (3.000 miles since it passed with flying colours, now it's worse after a 30 mile thrash and new plugs than it was before!) that he passed it anyway!
Fingers, what does RR have to do with getting the idle and fast idle emissions right?
How bad were the results? Do you have the CAT in there, or not? You say it is running rich, is there any closed loop lambda control on?
How bad were the results? Do you have the CAT in there, or not? You say it is running rich, is there any closed loop lambda control on?
Last edited:
Not me on the RR, but cc1.
For me (and the MR2), it does have a CAT, but is early enough to be classed as CATless. (I'll be ditching the CAT later this year -- saves a bit of weight and might give me an extra 5bhp)
last year
CO 0.00
HC 40
This year:
CO 4.87
HC 169
It runs like a train, but sometimes drops out of warm idle and stalls and hot idle is maybe 250rpm lower than it used to be. Me and MOT man think engine temp sensor, IAC or AFM. He recons the lambda is fine. I'm thinking of going to Megasquirt so I can ditch the AFM and the distributor. The OE system on the Rev1 Mk2 is pretty much a Japanese copy of a Bosch system, similar to that on the Uno Turbo.
For me (and the MR2), it does have a CAT, but is early enough to be classed as CATless. (I'll be ditching the CAT later this year -- saves a bit of weight and might give me an extra 5bhp)
last year
CO 0.00
HC 40
This year:
CO 4.87
HC 169
It runs like a train, but sometimes drops out of warm idle and stalls and hot idle is maybe 250rpm lower than it used to be. Me and MOT man think engine temp sensor, IAC or AFM. He recons the lambda is fine. I'm thinking of going to Megasquirt so I can ditch the AFM and the distributor. The OE system on the Rev1 Mk2 is pretty much a Japanese copy of a Bosch system, similar to that on the Uno Turbo.
