Forum » General Tuning Discussion » Motec M130

Motec M130

General Tuning Discussion

Discuss all things tuning in this section. News, products, problems and results. 


Page 1
Author
1001 Views

Hello I have a few questions or one on the motec m130 ecu

From what I've seen its around 3200 usd for one with the GPA package but I would still need can to usb and the wiring harness.

I have been interested in this ecu for a while but only have seen the toyota ft86 build file for messing with. Does anyone know off hand what the generic stuff can do. I was trying my hardest to figure out if it was possible to change the commanded lambda table from MAP to TPS for load control but couldn't figure out if it was possible. I did notice that you had something called lambda aim switch which I was wondering about.

I was also interested in this ecu because I read it could maf fueling among the other strategies, does anyone here have any expierence with that?

I'm after an ecu that can do maf based fueling, if not than atleast have some form of controable lambda, I get tired of running richer than stoich into boost. As well as mutiple inputs, I like datalogging and figuring stuff out.

To note its a mazda miata 4 cylinder turbo 1.6l

I was looking at link g4+ extreme, haltech 1500, motec m130 at the higher end, feels like you need proper schooling for it though.

I have no experience with Link Haltech or Motec so I can't say anything about them, but I do have experience with megasquirts and a MS2/3 can do all of that (MAF iput, choosing the load axle on any tables, etc...)

Since you are considering high end ECU, the price of a MS3 Pro (~1200 usd with the universal harness) should not frighten you.

I'll try and cover your questions below:

1. The M1 series communicate to PC via ethernet so you don't use a CAN to USB unit like the UTC used by the older Mx00 ECUs.

2. The lambda aim table is fixed with MAP as the load axis so no, you can't change that to TPS. That's something I did struggle with when our 86 was naturally aspirated to be honest.

3. I'm not 100% sure what you are referencing here? The M1 range of ECUs solely use a VE based fuel model where mass airflow is calculated using the ideal gas law. You can input a mass airflow sensor into the ECU but this can only be used for logging rather than directly for controlling fuel and ignition.

4. I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at when you say 'running richer than stoich into boost'? I'd hope you are in fact running richer than stoichiometric in positive boost pressure? The M1 does offer a pretty comprehensive closed loop fuel control strategy but this requires the addition of a Motec LTC (Lambda To CAN) unit too.

Of course with M1 Build, anything is possible but that's probably not going to be suitable for 99% of tuners out there.

Your miata project realistically isn't going to be a challenge for any of the ECUs you've listed though so your options are wide open at this point.

Andre

1) I went over videos for motec m1 series, still checking it all out, I noticed now about the network coms

2) that sucks, I did noticed there was a fuel aim switch, do you know anything about that?

3) I thought I saw a video showing that the M1 had several ways to do the load inputs, I guess I was mistaken. I know the ecu is suppose to be a VE based setup indeed

4) Going into positive pressure at stoichmetric ratio at low and medium pedal input, richening up the mixture at higher pedal input. I'm talking all open loop

M1 Build is out of my league for sure

Yeah I realize all the ecu's I listed would have no issues running the car. I just want to make sure what I get is flexible and can go the distance and the support is there, I'm not running into gotchas with featureless features

Ludo86

I started with ms2extra , worked on several different ecu's oem\aftermarket. I have had a huge run in with the ms community and been banned from msextra. I figured out the featureless feature of MAF back in MS2 a long time ago before how its now implemented. Theres one thing I do know and fuel injector modeling is crictial on a maf setup, MS2extra in incapable of doing this right, ms3 can. Even so with the run ins and the overall feelings at this point I rather not support them more than I have to.

You will want to get the price of the LTC WO2, the M1 wont take a analog wo2 input, Looking at $4000 to get up and running.

Thanks for the info Godspeed

The fuel mixture aim switch allows two separate mixture aim tables to be used and selected via a driver switch on the fly.

The fuel mixture aim switch allows two separate mixture aim tables to be used and selected via a driver switch on the fly.

With the use of TPS as an axis for the fuel aim table, what is the reason that you would like to have this function over MAP? if it is for the transient conditions that occur when the throttle is opened then that is what the Fuel Film Function is designed to cover. MAP is a better value to base a fuel aim against as it gives a better idea of the actual mass of air in the inlet manifold that is being induced in to the cylinder, and therefore allowing for the ECU to get the fuel pulse more accurate for the Lambda requested. It also works with the Fuel Film calculations as the amount of fuel film varies with manifold pressure.

So I can base commanded lambda off of TPS and RPM instead of MAP and RPM.

No on trasient conditions

MAP would still be used for the VE table just not the commanded lambda\fuel aim table

The ecu would still be commanding a proper fuel pulse provided the VE table is accurate

This is how my MS2extra is setup

SD map and rpm for the ve table

TPS and RPM for the commanded fuel table ( afrtarget )

I'll actually agree with Techsalvager here. On a naturally aspirated engine I often configure the aim mixture table relative to TPS, not MAP. It's a subtle difference I'll admit but particularly at low rpm you may find that you can achieve say 90-95 kPa from quite a low throttle opening - Perhaps as low as 40-50%. This gives a reasonably tight resolution for stepping the aim mixture from the cruise target to WOT target and I may not want to target a rich mixture until I'm at perhaps 60-70% at low rpm.

Maybe I have missed something, but if the AFR target for fuel calcs is based off TPS then wouldn't there be some messy compromises on boost?

The only issue not accounted for is the Turbine inlet pressure which may change the fueling a tad, but that comes down to the VE table as well, not the commanded fuel table.

Lith what compromises are you thinking of

The point is to be able to do this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG6A1GUKUrE

Hold up....

Lith raises a good point that I've managed to brush past. TPS as a load axis for the mixture aim table is only useful for a naturally aspirated engine. If you are running a turbo then you would want to schedule fuel based off MAP so that you can target a richer mixture under boost.

Reading between the lines I 'think' what you are getting at is a way of reducing the richer mixture under boost at part throttle that you usually experience with a MAP based VE table. Basically 0.5 bar at WOT is not the same mass airflow as 0.5 bar at 60% throttle, even though it's quite possible to achieve this condition and the result is typically a rich AFR. TPS based target mixture won't really fix this.

The way I dealt with it our 86 was to use TPS as the load input for the VE table and then retain MAP as the load axis for the mixture aim. This allows you to tune more accurately to account for the changing VE of the engine with throttle angle. I'm only experimenting at this stage but it seems to track my target more accurately than MAP alone. Again this isn;t much use unless you plan on using build.

Well it would be useful if I had a point when I could say anything over X KPA go to X lambda ( eg 160kpa = .78 lambda )

What I'm trying to accomplish is what most oem's already do from the get go.

more than reducing, its just leaving at stoich at part throttle, with smaller turbos its easy to go into boost after a shift or just accelerating up to speed. I haven't seen a reason to richen it up for this small ammount of time

I'm really leaning to the link g4+ extreme as it offers a lot of what I want, my only disapointment with it is the lack of good maf implementation and the lack of care I"ve seen from the vipec\link crew. I still need to check other units