which would you rather have and why...with a 95 ecu and the system and the emanage with all the harnesses they come out to about the same price

i would have to say DSMlink, because it can also control timing and i don't think that e-manage can do that. e-manage is just a s-afc with more advanced tuning capabilitys and a logger. dsmlink has all that plus more.

Originally posted by echo
i would have to say DSMlink, because it can also control timing and i don't think that e-manage can do that. e-manage is just a s-afc with more advanced tuning capabilitys and a logger. dsmlink has all that plus more.

Click to expand...

Well the dsmlink does not have everything plus more...the emanage can tune alot more precise then a DSMlink

Dsmlink has 1x16 wot adjustment
Emanage has 16x16 wot adjustment which mean 256 points of adjustment...

So the dsmlink does not have it and then some...probably the only thing that matters is that it shows knock....but price wise emanage all the way with more tuning abilities..due to the fuel maps...

THe DSMLink has a 1x16 table, but its interpolated to adjust the stock 14x16 WOT fuel map. Sure you could fine tune a 16x16 map a LITTLE better than a 1x16 thats interpolated. BUT you are missing an important point. The emanages map affects the airflow, The DSMlinks map affects the fuel directly. The airflow affects fuel AND timing simultaneously, which isn't the best way to be able to tune. You want to be able to tune them completely seperately. DSMLink allows you to do this. You can drop in 850cc injectors, make them idle and run exactly like stock, in just a few minutes. With the emanage, or afc, or anything else that messes with the airflow signal to tune fuel, then you have to really work to get the injectors dialed in just right to idle smoothly, and have good response off idle, etc.

I don't have the 850s, I have 720s. But when I dropped them in, the car was every bit as smooth as stock. Once the injectors are dialed in with those 2 simple settings(which are supplied for many injectors), then you dont have to tune part throttle, or any other stuff like that. You just adjust your fuel at WOT, and your fuel is done. Then you adjusting your timing seperately.

You don't have to worry about sizing your injectors to avoid fuel cut, its removed. Launch limiter? its got one. Want a higher rev limit? no problem. Want to see knock, and be able to log ALL of the engine operating parameters at a fast rate? Easy to do. Want to log boost pressure, or add a wideband? These are supported by the user group.

I've said it before here, and will say it again. If you have a 95, the only thing potentially better than DSMLink in any way, would be a standalone that allows you to control other stuff. But piggybacks just dont make sense for 95 owners.

Brad

damnit when i posted this i hoped to get educated responses....
the e-manage does control timing, to put bigger injectors in all you do is drop them in, put in the stock size and the new size and it automatically adjusts, it removes fuel cut as well, its a datalogger as well so there goes your logging boost argument

please learn about both systems before voting and responding

Sorry dood I was just argueing the fact that the e manage has more fuel adjustments then the DSMlink...

I played with the software for the emanage before it was even available. I know what it does. I'm not going to bother explaining in any further detail to you what I meant. Have fun with your emanage

Brad

Originally posted by greathuskie
damnit when i posted this i hoped to get educated responses....

Click to expand...

I vote for the e-manage, but not for reasons that would apply to the general populous. The DSM shop I go to has all the emanage control software on their laptop and are quite familiar with it, and have offered to help me tune the car with it-- that way I don't have to get the software and a laptop up front. I don't really like the idea of carrying a laptop in the car anyway, so this way I can save up for a Profec E-01 to tune the e-manage with down the road. Which one is "better", I don't know, since I haven't used them and there would be a learning curve with either one.

Originally posted by greathuskie
damnit when i posted this i hoped to get educated responses....
please learn about both systems before voting and responding

Click to expand...

As much as I really don't care which system you go with, I will explain the differences for the archives, in case someone else asks this same question.

Look at the injector harness on the emanage. The way it is wired, it can only INCREASE the pulsewidths to the stock injector, it can not DECREASE them. If you can't figure out why that is, ask me, and I will give you a lesson in basic electronics. If you doubt me, look in their manual, it even says their adjustments only add PW, not subtract.

So, when you add bigger injectors, and type in the size, it cant decrease the signal to the injectors directly. How does it decrease the fuel delivery then? By adjusting the airflow, just like an AFC.

So what are you doing when you are typing those numbers in? It just scales the airflow by the ratio indicated by the 2 injector sizes. Thats the exact same as what people use on an AFC to start out as a baseline, and then tune their injectors from there.

Now when you scale airflow, what else is affected? Timing. So that means you have to get the optional timing harness, and start adjusting your timing seperately to get it working properly, and it means you will have to do some work to try to dial the part throttle curves back in, as well as idle and on/off throttle response. Like you have to do on an AFC, the difference is that the emanage has some specific correction tables for idle, that make it possible to dial it in to work much smoother than an AFC. But its still not as smooth as stock.

Compare this to the DSMLink. You want 720s? You put in the % adjustment, and the dead time for the injector. Done. You dont have to deal with on/off throttle, idle, cruise, all of that the stock code within the ECU compensates for. You just tell the ECU that the injectors are bigger.

Other limitations of the emanage: The ignition control is simply a bad idea. They don't pick up the stock crank signal, they are trying to use the stock signals to the ignitor to do the calculations. Its going to result in timing that moves around when you don't intend it to. I can't really break it down too much simpler than that. You'd have to do this sort of stuff for a living to really understand that. Fortunately I do Trying to adjust timing events, which are VERY time critical, should only be done by something that has the crank or cam sensor signal. The output that the ECU calculates, and feeds to the ignition coils, is already not the freshest data. But to then use that, to calculate a modified coil signal, compounds the error.

DSMLinks ignition adjustment is done during the initial timing calculation, so it is just as accurate as the stock ECU.

The way the emanage protects against fuel cut is to clamp the airmeter signal to the ECU to a max frequency, and then allow you the pleasure of creating your own enrichment table. On the DSMLink, you simply allow the ECU to see the actual frequency, and it simply continues calculating the correct fuel delivery. That sounds MUCH easier, doesnt it?

And to get all of those wonderful "features" all you have to do is cut your wiring harness all up, and add in additional hardware. Or if you went with DSMLink, you unplug the stock ECU, and plug in the DSMLink one, and thats it. No cutting wires, or damaging the harness in other ways that will cause you grief down the road.

There you go, its spelled out in a simpler way for you. Sorry if my discussion before assumed that you knew enough to figure out the basic operation of all the stuff, or that you had bothered to read the instructions that you claim to be "educated" on.

The emanage is a glorified AFC. I'd get it over an AFC, but not for a 2G, and certainly not for a 95. For certain purposes though, the emanage is a very good product.

Doug, as far as you worrying about the shop being able to tune the DSMLink, its not difficult to tune. If anything, its easier than an afc or emanage, because you don't have to deal with the fuel and timing adjustments being interdependent. If your shop things the car needs more fuel at WOT, you add it right where it thinks it needs it, and same with timing. And you don't HAVE to use a laptop, you can use a Palm pilot, thats mainly what I use.

Brad

Originally posted by brads
And you don't HAVE to use a laptop, you can use a Palm pilot, thats mainly what I use.

Click to expand...

For some reason, I did not know that-- thanks for the info! Excellent post overall as well-- every time I start thinking about something other than DSMlink, I read something that makes me reconsider. Maybe it's a sign....

I have the DSMLink. I really enjoy it and you don't need a laptop.

Version 2.0 is coming out for the DSMLink which will even have a feature so you don't have to take your foot off the gas when shifting. It will hold your rpm's at a certain point (you decide), until you release the clutch pedal. Then you go back to accelerating. Talk about fast shifting!

The real reason why DSMLink is better is because with DSMLink, you are not lying to the computer. Every other fuel management device out there (besides standalone) tricks the computer. When you do this, you end up with problems. With DSMLink, you talk to the computer and tell it what is happening. The computer says, "Ok, sounds good." and you are off on your merry way.

Jake

Originally posted by halvorja
The real reason why DSMLink is better is because with DSMLink, you are not lying to the computer. Every other fuel management device out there (besides standalone) tricks the computer. When you do this, you end up with problems.

Click to expand...

I see your point, but I'm not sure I'm convinced about that entirely. I mean, the computer doesn't have feelings so who cares if you're "lying" to it as long as the end result is what you want? Are there other intangible factors I'm not aware of?

Just trying to understand....

Put simply, when you lie to a computer, the output from the computer is often unexpected and unwanted.

The stock fuel computer has a certain way of doing things. If you input a certain value, then it looks at it's fuel map and says, "Ok, so the input is this and I need to change this, this, and this to make things work." Well, when you "lie" to a computer by saying that the airflow is not what it actually is, then the computer does what it thinks is right. Of course, that may not be what is needed, so you have to adjust other things to make up for the unexpected errors.

This is not the way to do things, but it is possible to do it this way. Many people do it, but you have to typically spend a lot more time doing it this way.

Jake

well in the end a DSMlink and e-manage will cost the same for me since i already have a laptop, but not an eprom ECU

and i never said i knew everything about e-manage just sounded like the people responding were just guessing or whatever, but anyways back on topic

the e-manage route would give me an e01 boost controller, e-manage system and support tool, which would be a very good setup and im betting people could run 10s on it if they had a MAF translator to go with it, same with DSMlink

im just not really convinced right now that one is completely superior to the other, i know that the e-manage "lies" to the ECU but if the car still runs fine and you get the same result who cares? and besides, im a gadget kind of guy

the e01 is a very impressive boost controller, you have to give it that, since it can also display the readings it can from the e-manage

im still leaning towards the e-manage....

Who cares what anybody else thinks? If you like gadgets and stuff like that, then get the e-manage.

Jake

Originally posted by greathuskie
and i never said i knew everything about e-manage just sounded like the people responding were just guessing or whatever, but anyways back on topic

Click to expand...

So because you didnt know enough about the systems, it "sounded" like the people posting were guessing? And you decided to insult them by making those statements? How very "educated" of you.

Originally posted by greathuskie

im still leaning towards the e-manage....

Click to expand...

Whats stopping you then? You wanted enlightened responses, you got them. If you still want the emanage in spite of those, get it.
If the bling bling display is the most important thing, the emanage is clearly the winner. If whats important is the ability to tune the car, go find a person who has one, and see how easy each of them are to tune. Both of them could get you to the 10s. But unless you only drive at the strip, you want one that is easy to tune for streetability too. And the DSMlink will be much better for that.

Brad

Just out of curiosity, why do you still want the e-manage after Brad's post? It seems pretty obvious that the dsmlink is a much better system, not to mention the customer support group is awesome. Why would you get anything else?
Also, does the e-manage support a wideband o2?

It sounds to me like brads may be right.. I think this guy just wants some full bling up in his cockpit. Personally, my friend? For the money you'll dump into the eManage (hyped-up AFC like brads so eloquently described and the e01 controller, you might be very close to a serious standalone system like a Haltech E6K or PMS. You might have to spend some time on the old dyno (or local outer belt, since you're AWD to get a Haltech or PMS tuned, but it will do everything the eManage and e01 will plus 10000000 other things. Just my $0.02.

DSMlink rules!
Oh wait... I don't have it yet.. dammit!

~Wes
Clt, NC
95 GST [EPROM]
XS Engineering hairdryer =)

Great info, Brad, been looking for some more detailed information on DSMLink.

hmmmmm well i cant see how both are tuned since i dont know anyone with a e-manage and only one with a DSMlink

i still have time to pick, but these new features coming out for DSMlink seem very nice, they also have one that will compensate for hacking the MAS, as well as many other things, im sure they will come out with speed density sooner or later as well

DSMlink+e01

Don't expect a speed density conversion from DSMLink anytime soon. I don't even know that there is a real need for it now that there are other options. To do it right requires a lot of mapping. For speed density, you need to know the engines volumetric efficiency, and use a map of that along with RPM, MAP and IAT to create the airflow signal. This is what the VPC does. The VPC has a very broad correction for VE with its knob front end. But to really fine tune a speed density system would require more work, since each engines VE map is going to change based on mods.

A maf translator mounted into the IC piping would give you the same ability to vent, and simplified intake pipe that the VPC does, and should be easier to tune(leave it set to all stock and tune with DSMLink). Its also a good bit cheaper. That'd also be my suggestion over hacking the MAF too.

You need to flow a LOT of air before you even need to worry about hacking the MAF on a 2G. Like enough to run 11s easy, maybe even 10s.

Brad

Brads, could you explain how using the signals from the ignitor to do the calculations for the timing makes it inaccurate? I take it you are an Electrical Engineer by trade, so feel free to be techincal, I am curious as to what the problem is.

I run an Emanage, but you've got me curious. I think I'm going to put a timing light on the car and play with the timing settings and see what I can come up with. The Emanage docs say its accurate to +/- 1 degree, which I guess can be enough to melt a piston, if you are on the edge, but generally I don't have my car tuned to the *ragged* edge. But if the timing calcs are inaccuare, and they do indeed move around a significant amount, that would be pretty bad.

Thanks for your help.

P.S. And I agree, if you have a 2G go to a DSMLink and be done with it. For once you 2G guys have the upper hand on us 1G guys.

In my opinion hands down the dsmlink beats *just* the e-manage. But the e-manage combined with the e-01 does have some clear advantages, plus the e-o1 is on nice boost controller

Originally posted by racegate
Brads, could you explain how using the signals from the ignitor to do the calculations for the timing makes it inaccurate? I take it you are an Electrical Engineer by trade, so feel free to be techincal, I am curious as to what the problem is.

Click to expand...

The problem is that there are just too many translations in the way. Did you ever play the kids game with a group of people in a circle, where you whispered something to the person next to you, and then they repeated it, all the way around the circle? The more people in the circle, the more likelihood of mistranslations.

For the ignition timing, what you have is the actual crank sensor itself, the circuitry in the ECU for translating this to the levels the ECU reads, the microprocessor, the output circuitry from the microprocessor, the input circuitry to the emanage, the emanage processor, then output circuitry to from the processor, the ignitor, and the coils, plug wires, and plugs.

What would make timing inaccurate, would be any delay in the circuits, or any delays or calculation errors by the microprocessors. Lets assume the ideal that the crank sensor is instantaneous( it is pretty close to it), and that the I/O circuits on the ECU and emanage both generate no delay. So that would leave the processors to worry about.

The stock ECU reads in the crank signal via an interrupt, storing the interrupt time and calculating the engine speed from that and the previous interrupt. The ECU never knows instantaneous engine speed, it has to look at the 2 most recent interrupts to get an estimate of engine speed. On the 4G63 engine, I THINK(its early, I am half asleep still) those interrupts occur every half rotation. So its looking at engine speed of the previous half rotation of the engine, to get an estimate of current engine speed. It then uses that estimate of engine speed to calculate the next firing time. So if engine speed changed at all in the last half rev, the ECU is using the average of that entire time, not the actual engine speed at the end of that half rev. Also, the engine may speed up or slow down slightly between then and the time it fires the coils, making it off just a little bit more. Someone with more diagnostic tools for the 4g63 than I has measured the stock ECUs accuracy, and found it good to within .2 of a degree I think. Very acceptable range.

Now add the processor in for the emanage. It is reading the coil signal from the stock ECU. Just like the stock ECU, it only has a limited resolution to work with. Assuming they are smart, they made absolutely sure the dwell time to the coil is the exact same as the stock ECU. Add to that that they are allowing you to advance the ignition timing over stock. Pretty much the only way they can do this is to do all their timing and calculations off of the previous firing signal from the ECU. Which depending on if they allowed each channel to operate independently, or they shared data between them, would mean that they were using the timing from the previous either half revolution, or whole revolution of the engine. That timing data they are using is from the stock ECU, which is already half a revolution behind, in itself. That means the engine speed they calculate will be off that much more, which affects the timing calculations they do.

The data that they are using isn't 100%, its got a small level of error in it from the ECUs calculations. The ECU used the crank trigger to precisely know when to to start its countdown to firing the coils. The emanage has to rely on the accuracy of a signal half a revolution beforehand, and one that has some error in it.

When you do the calculations, that error is basically multiplied through, and becomes bigger. How much bigger depends a lot on how well the person wrote the code.

I ran into this a few years ago while designing a piggyback fuel controller. I was hired and told the code as done by another engineer didnt work. It worked fine except for one little glitch. The problem was that when you slammed the throttle open, the engine wanted to die because it didnt get enough fuel, then take off when the fuel delivery caught up. It was that cycle of delay(1 whole revolution in this case) that made it unuseable. It took a complete rewrite from scratch to make it work.

Somehow I doubt the timing glitches will be as apparent with a timing light at idle. They should be most apparent in transitional states. It can't hurt to check though. You might find something interesting.

Brad

One more thing about those calcs. Since its using old data, you can make a couple of rough assumptions. If you are accelerating, it will be using timing data from a lower RPM, so that would retard your timing slightly. And if you are decelerating, it would advance your timing slightly. This is actually a pretty safe way to err.

Brad