ECMLink V4??

[Guzman08]

not sure if it already comes with one. but a built in turbo timer would be nice

 

[my4ATEurV8]

ha a t-timer would be nice. less things to clutter the dash with!

 

[snowborder714]

Traction control an option?

 

[dragonov_elite]

I know this is probably a long shot request but how about a VGT controller for a turbo like the holset he351 .

 

[delta448]

From what I understand from my research, the VGT actuator on the HE351 has it's own board and processes it's own dedicated CAN bus signals from the ECU to determine the proper positioning for the vanes. Here are a couple of links I found in my bookmarks about the HE351VGT actuator:
Turbobricks Forums - View Single Post - Holset he351vgt
Automotive electrical & sensor engineering - gaining control of a delphi actuator on a he351vgt turbo.

I don't know a whole lot about programming, but I really doubt manipulating that controller is going to be doable anytime soon, just due to the signal type used by the HE351's stock VGT actuator. More likely success is found in trying to use mechanical means, like a modified wastegate actuator or possibly custom mounting and programming a stepper motor like a DSM ISC unit.

Would be pretty awesome though. Barely used HE351s go cheap on eBay and it'd be incredible to have a 600+whp capable turbo that spools to full boost by 3k on a 2L.

Back on topic, I think the bottleneck here that the V4 concept could alleviate is not having more inputs/outputs available from the DSM ECUs. Daughter board additions, non-eprom ECU compatibility or a custom board with ECMLink's own programming could make ECMLink the no contest end-all-be-all for DSM tuning.

 

[twdorris]

If you are possibly adding more inputs, I think a Flex-Fuel sensor option would be useful. Having it automatically adjust injector size.

Yeah, if the sensors were cheaper, we'd already have that implemented. It's cake to do it, but based on the feedback we got on our forums, we just assumed DSMers (in general) would not invest in the necessary hardware when they can just click a button on the laptop.

When I switch between gas and E85, it's just a matter of watching fuel trims before I fill up and then clicking on the global fuel slider after I fill up to get fuel trims back where they were before (running log in one tab, fuel adjustments in another). It takes about 30 seconds, at most.

But I'd still rather not have to do it at all. Adding support for the Flex Fuel sensors could be added very easily, if people were seriously interested. But this is just a software change (i.e., free upgrade to V3). As long as you're running SD, you have enough inputs already to do this. Of course, it'd be easier with more inputs (V4), but it's entirely possible already.

EDIT: Speaking of more inputs, I did mention the possibility of an input multiplexer before. You basically wire 4 sensors into one side of this board and then connect the other side to a single ECU input and just let the ECU automatically switch between the inputs for sampling. We have it working already, but interest seemed pretty low. The other issue we ran into was slow ECU filtering on the analog inputs! To get the best behavior, we'd have to get your ECU in here and adjust a few components to let the processor get instant access to the analog IO from the board rather than having the signals filtered as they currently are.

Thomas Dorris

 

[twdorris]

Also some of the diesels have a turbine speed sensor, if you combine it with boost control, you can have it so the turbo rides an efficiency line, and prevent it from crossing the surge line.

Not a bad idea, but probably not on our project map currently. What I have thought about, however, is doing boost control based on volume rather than mass or pressure. The flow restriction coming into the engine is the compressor. There's no reason to spin the turbo any faster than is necessary to maintain that volumetric flow rate.

Thomas Dorris

 

[JonathanNL]

Traction control an option?

This is one of the few things I would find a usefull addition for my setup!

 

[Shaggy_357]

I would absolutely be interested in a "V4", especially since I already have the "daughterboard" . I agree with what others have said about dividing it up and maybe having a DSMLink Ultimate. Being the techno-geek that I am, I would happily snag up a newer, faster version with more variables available, but I can see how a lot of people wouldn't need or want all the options out there.

Again, I guess I'm another voice in the crowd about the videos. I don't think I'd be HALF-WAY as far into understanding what I'm doing without those to help me, so kudos for that! One idea that I might throw out there is maybe including the videos on the CD that ships with everything. Maybe I'm just a ruh-tard but I can't always remember everything in a video, so I have to bounce from the car to the house quite a bit (something about lead paint KILLS my wireless signal ) In any case, keep up the outstanding work and I'll be keeping an eye out for v4...or v3.5

Eric

 

[twdorris]

One idea that I might throw out there is maybe including the videos on the CD that ships with everything.

Thanks. I think we'll do that.

Thomas Dorris

 

[donniekak]

Will v4 be before, or after the 3000gt eprom conversion?

 

[twdorris]

Will v4 be before, or after the 3000gt eprom conversion?

After. We have to plan these things WELL in advance, unfortunately. We just do not have the resources to do all the cool stuff we want to do. So everyone that's worried about V4 coming out next month can take it easy...

Thomas Dorris

 

[donniekak]

After. We have to plan these things WELL in advance, unfortunately. We just do not have the resources to do all the cool stuff we want to do. So everyone that's worried about V4 coming out next month can take it easy...

Thomas Dorris

Truthfully, it's the 3000gt eprom conversion i'm interested in. I tune my own dsm ecu's and would love to have that power in a 3000gt. But i do know that the 3000gt market is, let me say nicely, a dead market. I know you probably wont see a return on the investment either, and it will end up being more of a favor to the community.

 

[UofACATS]

Just my personal opinion.


ECMLink v3 is one of the reasons I own my DSM, and consider it to be the most important modification one can do to their DSM. The rare combination of both great usability and capability makes it what it is. Add the community, and obvious dedication from ECMTuning to improve a seemingly un-improvable product, and you have one seriously ecstatic customer.

Having said this, and planning a 16G, speed-density, e85 + meth setup, I can think of nothing I'd like to have control of that v3 doesn't already give me. Increasing resolution while data logging would never be unwelcome, but for me (personally) it's clearly diminishing returns at this point.

v1 to v2 was substantial. v2 to v3 was amazing.. So I can't say I won't be surprised and intrigued by a v4 that suddenly I realize I need, with capabilities I become ready for or come to see benefit of, but it comes back to diminishing returns. You've already provided everything I could have ever asked for, and then kept improving.. and improving.. and improving..

 

[twdorris]

it will end up being more of a favor to the community.

Yeah, pretty much. But I sorta knew that going in.

Thomas Dorris

 

[Dark_Horse]

Is there any planned support for the EVO 8, 9 or 10 ECU's at this point with V4?

 

[twdorris]

Is there any planned support for the EVO 8, 9 or 10 ECU's at this point with V4?

Not really. But you know, I get that question at least 2 or 3 times a week. Might be worth thinking about I suppose. It would be much easier than the DSMs in some ways but much harder in others. I would almost want to go straight to a "V4" type implementation right off the bat with the EVO ECUs so there was a lot more to be gained with it. It's just not something I've put any real thought into.

Thomas Dorris

 

[delta448]

Tom, FWIW I think moving your product line toward a standalone in function would be quite appealing to all Mitsubishi tuners, no matter what additional hardware might be needed. On-the-fly cell tracing and editing could entice many. The more ECU models you can replace with it, the better your business will do. I hate to think of it, but someday DSMs will probably become a dead platform.

As far as reflashing goes, IMO the ECUFlash method has a much steeper learning curve than the common sense GUI your products have. A standalone from you guys could follow suit in bridging all the gaps between excellent computer hackers that can moderately tune and excellent tuners that can moderately hack. -Or guys like me that might currently find themselves to be a bit behind at both (gotta have a car to tune first Zack, ya dummy).

You might even offer a plug-n-play wiring adapter to correct any of the pinout differences between models for a small fee. Drop down menus for different model sensor differences or popular aftermarket sensors like you already have now would work well too. Adding fuel content sensors, boost sensors, native wideband, etc. all would be trivial for you.

Not to bring up a taboo subject but pricing would be the critical issue. Do you choose to compete with AEM's EMS or... something else?

 

[Guzman08]

a bluetooth would be cool. but would slow it down. maybe a wifi chip so we wont have to connect with a wire more. a turbo timer. so people wont have to buy one. maybe even a speedometer adjustment . u can input the rim size with tire size and it would readjust the speed. if thats possible.

 

[Gamble97]

Tom, FWIW I think moving your product line toward a standalone in function would be quite appealing to all Mitsubishi tuners, no matter what additional hardware might be needed. On-the-fly cell tracing and editing could entice many. The more ECU models you can replace with it, the better your business will do. I hate to think of it, but someday DSMs will probably become a dead platform.

As far as reflashing goes, IMO the ECUFlash method has a much steeper learning curve than the common sense GUI your products have. A standalone from you guys could follow suit in bridging all the gaps between excellent computer hackers that can moderately tune and excellent tuners that can moderately hack. -Or guys like me that might currently find themselves to be a bit behind at both (gotta have a car to tune first Zack, ya dummy).

You might even offer a plug-n-play wiring adapter to correct any of the pinout differences between models for a small fee. Drop down menus for different model sensor differences or popular aftermarket sensors like you already have now would work well too. Adding fuel content sensors, boost sensors, native wideband, etc. all would be trivial for you.

Not to bring up a taboo subject but pricing would be the critical issue. Do you choose to compete with AEM's EMS or... something else?

I agree maybe a standalone ecu that will work with all mitsu models and just a wire harness adapter like the aem ems. That would make things simpler and use the same software of course but have different options grayed out or highlighted depending on the car. For example you wouldn't need mivec an option if you had this ecu in a 1g/2g
Maybe also expand this to non turbos such as galants and 420a motors and 3g eclipse's.

 

[logic]

For example you wouldn't need mivec an option if you had this ecu in a 1g/2g

*cough*

I'll second the wi-fi suggestion, and refer back to the iPhone thread on the ECMLink forums.

 

[twdorris]

Yeah, Wifi is an excellent idea, assuming space and other considerations (noise, shielding, etc.) make sense. Although, really, I think of that as a separate product, IMO. Something more "generic" I think. Aren't there good OBDII style Wifi loggers out there already? Maybe we can just talk to those guys and have a batch made up to work with our stuff...

Thomas Dorris

 

[the_mork]

It has been several days since I read the rest of this thread so it might have been mentioned and if so then forgive me, but compatibility with a GM 3port BCS and a 3d WGDC table is my favorite tuning feature after fuel and timing control. I'm sure this could be implemented as a software update for v3 but I'm surprised actually that it hasn't happened yet.

Much like evos you could make it have error correction based on load for cars without MAP sensors or absolute pressure for cars that do, or you could simply provide a WGDC table without error correction since that is what many people use anyways myself included. I haven't seen much excitement for this in the DSM community but at this point I just can't understand why. The ability to adjust a boost curve to maintain traction while you flat foot it to the end of the track or to run more boost at lower engine speed to make a flatter curve for fuel limited cars seems like a godsend compared to a set it and forget it mbc at about the same cost.

 

[v8s_are_slow]

Personally, I've wanted Dsm/Ecmlink for a long time. But always went with things that were cheaper or more simple to use. VPC, Dsmchips, GM Maft, etc. I always had one thing I wanted in one item, but still wanted this or that. No timing adjustment, couldn't change my target idle, launch rpm, etc. I did buy AEM EMS a few years back but it was a bit much for me and I really wasn't getting any help, even from AEM. They just told me I'd need to take it to a professional to get it tuned, and that's not what I bought it for. I wanna do as much as I can myself.

So Ecmlink V3 Lite was finally released and I got all of the features I needed plus a lot more for the money. I can't think of anything that compares to Lite for the money and not even sure I need the full version anytime soon. Of course I'm more mechanically inclined than I am with the whole computer thing but I'm trying to get there. Getting more help on the Ecmlink forums and from Thomas personally than I ever did with the AEM EMS anyway.

I do wish more videos would come out but I know ya'll are busy. I think ya'll need to hire more people so more would get accomplished....like videos. Lol. The video's help waaay more in just a few minutes than me sitting around for hours trying to find all the answers I need, and sometimes still can't find.

Kinda wondering if you plan to do boost control anytime soon and if so, would Lite be included in that option? I plan to buy an EBC on Thursday cause my MBC sucks and the $400 I plan to spend could go elsewhere, but just don't wanna wait a year or 2 to get it. I think my tune could be much better with some quality boost control.

I like the traction control idea but dunno if that's on the table or not. I know it's rough on clutches isn't it? Other than that and maybe the turbo timer, I have no good ideas to contribute at the moment.

 

[twdorris]

"3D" boost control is definitely on the table. We just do not have time right now. We can, seriously, just barely keep up with support, e-mail, production (we build every V3 module by hand), and ECU repairs right now. Videos, boost control, individual deadtimes and several other features are on our "to do" list.

We have someone new coming on board in a couple weeks, so please be patient. The problem with hiring more people is that a decent bit of management overhead comes along with it and, of course, there's the whole "salary" thing. Not to mention being unable to know if the volume will persist or not.

Thomas Dorris