I was looking through the FSM and it states that WOT corresponds to approximately 88%.
Also, ignition timing maps are a function of rpm and injector pulse width. The pulse width of course will be based on MAF voltage.
When I first did back to back runs with the two ecus, it was raining (ie. RH=100%) and about 50F. Last night when I adjusted the TPS to 95%, RH was 30% and amb temp was 30F. Hindsight being 20/20 I should have been logging MAF as well. Given the change in conditions, I suspect the change in timing I logged was a result of increased MAF rather than a 95% TPS setting.

Are you using the general information screen to judge whether you are open or closed loop?
- EDIT - mine changes from C Loop to OL Drive whenever I accelerate moderately or let off on the gas.

Another way to tell if you are OL is to look at your short term fuel trim. As you may know this is the % change in injector pulse duration from theoretical based on feedback from your O2 sensors. When the short term trim goes to zero and stays there, you are open loop. Open loop is not just at WOT, it occurs any time you are accelerating or decelerating as well as a multitude of other engine operating conditions.

Once I have some "good" numbers, I will create a thread in the 4th gen forum and hopefully this will get others who have data from modded ecus to post for comparison.

 

Well I finally obtained some consistent numbers. The TS ecu adds 2 to 3 degrees of advance over stock from about 3500 rpm to redline. I will post a graph of the data tomorrow.

 

on the general info screen, the O2 sensors do swap when I put my foot to the floor...it just takes a second...watch the general info screen next time and drive normally, and then just peg it and watch it swap...

so you are suggesting the TS ecu only adds 2-3 degrees over the entire stock curve from 3500 to redline...cause I am not seeing those #'s, only stock timing #'s and I don't feel a difference...butt dyno....vs. stock....I don't like using the butt dyno to gauge something like this....but others on the forums here are stating they feeling a dynamic, immediate difference....in addition, I don't think 2-3degrees of extra timing and a better a/f curve would add 15 hp in the midrange...I would think it would be more...do make that much more power....

we definitely need graphs from others with TS ecu's and JWT ecu's to make sure....cause personally I don't feel any difference back to back...within 5min of swapping them out, so it's not like I've lost the feel...

you did the stock ecu and TS ecu comparisons in the same environment? meaning same humidity and such....and it was +2-3 degrees? you just did the TS ecu one day and now the TS another day and got more timing due to different weather?

it would interesting to see changing the TPS back to the way it was 5min after the way it is now and testing it each time and see what the timing does...do you feel any power difference with the TPS the way it is?

 

Here is the data I recorded for back to back runs with the two ecus. All six runs were carried out within a 30 minute time frame under identical conditions.

I also included data I recorded with my knock sensor disconnected from this past summer for comparison.



I apologize for the small image size. I am a car domain "virgin"

I do not know what is going on with the TPS. I adjusted it 2 nights ago to give me 95% at WOT and I did a few runs with the TS ecu which I mentioned.
When I got in the car last night to do back to back ecu comparisons, I put my foot to the floor before I started the car and the throttle position only indicated 91.4%. I thought maybe I didn't tighten the screws up enough so I popped the hood and tried rotating the switch and it wouldn't move. I checked the screws and they were both tight. Does not make any sense.

Anyways, the graphs above were all carried out with the TPS at ~91% at WOT. The FSM indicates 88% is sufficient for WOT so I am happy leaving it at that setting. The data for the TS ecu at 95% is identical to that which is shown above.

Now all I want is to see is some JWT data

Oh ya and 1000 rpms added to my redline.

 

so back to back....are you noticing a huge difference in power like other people on the forums here are saying....??? I don't notice any...

I don't have my ecu @ this point...as I left it with TS to work on raising my rev limiter...they are going to use my ecu and Cheston's car to find it....

so is your idle with no load still 2000rpms then or did it adjust for you? since it was showing 5% throttle the way you had it adjusted with no pedal input...

that is strange that you didn't touch it and now it's back to the way it was...

so the median increase is 2-3 degress over stock? I wish I knew the target timing and maybe some JWT data for comparison to see if we are on target or not...

 

I am a "numbers" guy, I don't like to talk out of my azz.

If I have to comment, I would say I feel a slightly harder pull in the midrange 3.5-5K and I also notice it climbs to the rev limiter faster. I always have my eyes on the road instead of the tach and it just feels like it takes forever to hit the fuel cut once our torque falls thru the floor at about 5.5K.

It was the fast idle that was sitting around 2000 rpm when I initially adjusted the TPS and the closed position was showing ~5%. Normally my fast idle is around 12-1500.
Today, once the engine is warm, idle is about 750 and the TPS shows: 0.0% closed and 91.4% wide open. It is like I never changed anything. I think 37 is a little young for altzheimers

I created this thread in the 4th gen forum.

http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=357882

Hopefully it will generate some useful posts.

 

so initially, you thought your IG timing was the same with the TS ecu and your stock one and they pulled the same....but now you see a difference in timing and a difference in pull??? was the initial test where you claimed the timing was unchanged between the TS and stock simply due to not graphing the data at the time and scaling the graph so you could properly notice a significant difference? I still see no difference looking at my graphs closer on my pda...maybe I need to export it to excel to see the difference...

I personally expected a huge midrange/low end difference when I swapped in my stock ecu...I thought with my mevi, I was going to hurt big time in the midrange/low end department, however, I noticed no difference...which was kind of dissapointing...as I hear the mevi without an aftermarket ecu hurts big time in the midrange...though mine didn't!! you see, I never had the mevi on my car with a stock ecu...I already had the TS when I put in the mevi....

you did those tests in 32 degree weather...wow!! just noticed that now

so in conclusion, stock should peak at 24 degrees and the TS should carry around 26 or 27 up top...

 

Here is all the ig timing data I collected prior to doing the back-to-back runs 2 days ago.

-EDIT 04/12/01-
Graph deleted
See post #57 for "correct" graph.

The yellow and black data sets are the stock and TS ecus respectively. The stock data was recorded prior to me sending the ecu away to TS. The comparison runs were several days apart. As you can see, there is no difference between the two. I did feel a slight difference in the "butt" dyno at this point, but when I saw the data I figured it was just wishful thinking.

It was at this point I saw your post about TS not flashing the chip in your ecu. I figured this must be what was going on in my case.

I hadn't read up on the TPS in detail in the FSM when you mentioned that someone claimed that a TPS of >=93% was required for the ecu to use the WOT maps. This is when I re-adjusted the TPS to 95% (purple data above) and I saw the 2-3 degree increase over stock.
I then read the FSM and saw that a TPS of 88% was all that was required for WOT so I figured something else must be going on.

This brings us up to date.

I didn't expect to see any low end differences as I had heard the programming changes didn't start until 3.5K. I was expecting something in the range of 5 deg in the midrange dropping off to 2-3 degrees up top.

Yes we were in the low 30s a couple of days ago. I am in Canada. The snow tires will be going on soon so I won't be doing any more high speed testing.

 

Great numbers man!

 

this is still strange....your previous graphs show equal timing between the TS ecu and stock 2 days apart, then you adjusted your TPS, and you got different timing numbers...and now a day later, when you checked your TPS %, it is back to normal like you didn't even touch it....yet your timing is still higher than it was b4 you touched your TPS...


like I said earlier, the difference between timing maps was discovered by someone with an auterra as well (as being 93%) and a whole lot of testing...done by SteVTEC:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=233739

so is your fast idle back to normal now...even though you never put your TPS back the way it was? if it isn't you could always adjust it using the fast idle screw on the IACV so you can still keep that extra timing without touching your TPS again...I would wonder if the throttle percent is back to the way it was, but maybe the resistance #'s of the TPS are still altered...dunno...I do know temperature affects resistance...but very little...

 

I followed that thread as well last year. However it does not state that 93% is what is required for WOT, that is just what his ecu registers when he has it pegged.

My fast idle is back to normal and my throttle % closed and open are back in spec. I have no explanation for that.

The TS ecu is out of the car and is sitting on my desk ready to go back to TS.

 

Wonderful overview Dave. i wish i had an Auterra when i was on the dyno last week. i did about 14 pulls in about 3-4 hours and car seemed to be pulling timing in the begining but we had no way of knowing. Maybe when they e-mail me all the graphs i can Post them and get some impressions.

 

Auterra is worth its weight in gold. No modding should be done without one.

 

maybe while swapping out ecu's, the system automatically does the idle air volume "learning" test so the fast idle was sorted out....dunno about the TPS though...can't explain that....but you still retained that extra timing from run 4 of the magenta line on your previous graph?

 

This is the way the graphs from post # 50 should have looked.
Due to a data processing error on my part, the ig timing was shifted left or right on the rpm scale.
The graph below shows all of the timing data taken to date with the exception of the very first run with the TS ecu installed. That data set kind of fell halfway between the trend lines of all the other stock and TS timing data.


Anybody else have any JWT or TS data they want to share?

 

those white plots look pretty good...what changed to give more consistent and slightly higher timing over the magenta ones...?? environmental factors and time of testing?

 

The white curves are just the TS data from the back-to-back runs that I did on Nov 26. It is the same data as the black curves from the graph in post #46.
In reality, they are probably no different than the magenta curves. They are only 1 degree apart and that is the limit of resolution of our data logging equipment.
IF the ecu can adjust timing in finer than 1 degree increments then the curves might only be .1 degrees apart (rounded up or down to the nearest degree) This is just a supposition on my part as I cannot find any information in the FSM to support this statement.