[s-cars] Re: Motronics MAP - some fuzzy logic included

[Kirby Smith]

In my case, my A'pexi is set to the same boost as my Stage 1 ECM chip
(except first gear where it emulates the OEM chip).  The ECM is still in
place and functional.  If the ECM senses a problem through whatever vast
list of parameters it measures, it will still set a code and turn on the
check engine light.  It should also retard the ignition, unless MTM
killed that feature, in which case arguing for chips over boost
controllers is fruitless.

kirby



QSHIPQ at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Let's explore this a bit Hap.  Computers can't really learn, these
> controllers you speak of are referred to as fuzzy logic boost controllers.  Fuzzy logic
> as applied to a boost controller will only be as good as the S car Motronic
> when it can accept as many variables in the boost profile.  Currently we have
> MAP, engine temp, dual knock, throttle position, altitude and CAT.  IMU, none of
> the boost controllers on the market can account for these variables.  They
> can *assume* their is something wrong within the parameters of the fuzzy logic
> program, but it can't *identify* it if it's not an input.  Then what happens?
> 
> Well it can't code anything or flash you a ck engine light to advise you that
> the reason for fuzzy logic interrupt to a boost profile is for a specific
> reason.  So, by definition fuzzy logic can't *learn* anything.  It can only
> sense, via it's specific and only inputs, that it can't give you what you have told
> it to.  So, one could argue that a fuzzy logic could be better than a non
> fuzzy logic external boost controller (see below), but I'm not at all convinced
> that this is even close to a Motronic boost controller.
> 
> The best part of ANY external boost controller could be argued to be the
> stepper motor function.  It's quick and it's accurate and it's failure rate is
> almost nil.  That doesn't at all equate to the controller itself being better,
> only the mechanics of the valve actuator of boost being better.
> 
> Further, I'd ask the question in "fuzzy" logic, how does the controller learn
> that you've fixed or changed some parameter to allow 'full' boost again.
> Does it continue to apply your desires, then accept a lower value?  That could be
> scarey.  When you climb into the mountains (by definition a boost reduction
> in the motronic >10,000ft = no WGFV function), what's fuzzy logic think of
> that?  I don't believe it thinks at all.  I personally believe fuzzy logic boost
> controller are looking ONLY for turbo surge line as the indication of profile
> adaptation.  Add in a limited number of inputs, it's primary adaptation is
> surge line based.  Even then, by my thinking, it will fail at it more times than
> it will succeed.  Why?  Cuz FL have to constantly learn.
> 
> I argue that if indeed this is true, then I'd rather have a manual boost
> controller that let's me do the fuzzy logic (fair and reasonable knobben dialer
> argument).  Cuz my argument is that a FL boost controller is constantly putting
> your engine into the danger zone, by definition, it has to to apply FL to it's
> adaptation.  Your hi and low settings are based on your estimation, not based
> on the actual engine function or the parameters motronic is conservatively
> monitoring.
> 
> Point of reference 012204, I make the claim that FL boost controllers are
> still second to Motronic in terms of input parameters and safety in attaining
> boost levels.  My suggestion is to take some of this seemingly unlimited budget
> dollars and getting yourself a good motronic programmer to really explore
> options within the motronic box.  Bosch made a darn good integrated boost
> controller, it needs a little tweeking to make it great.  IMO, it's within the
> capabilities of motronic, and hence, is money better spent.
> 
> Audisport never put boost control in the hands of the driver.  EVER.  I
> believe for very good reason.  The driver is in charge of driving the car, his crew
> is in charge of making it faster.  T
> 
> My .02
> 
> Scott Justusson
> 
> In a message dated 1/21/2004 11:32:14 PM Central Standard Time,
> CaptMagu at aol.com writes:
> Feico
> 
> I had the HKS EVC IV. It was a great controller and had what is known as the
> industry standard in stepper motors. It was a snap to program(meaning even I
> could figure it out) but could not program individual gears. I now run the
> Apexi AVC Type R that is fully programable. It learns the gear ratios of your
> transmission and you can program individual boost curves for each gear. The
> Apexi
> does require a software engineer to program. I am able to limit 1st gear
> boost
> to 20 psi and 2nd gear to 24 psi. I can also switch between low and high
> boost and do a blanket increase on all curves.
> 
> If my memory serves me the Apexi does tap into the throttle position signal
> going to the ECU. Both of these controllers apply boost pressure to the top
> of
> the wastegate to help with creep(no Pizzo I'm not talking about you or any
> relative of yours). Somewhere I've got the manual for the Apexi and will
> confirm
> the inputs//// hold it I just checked and it does in fact have a throttle
> position input.
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list