ECU Swap/PC-V Update --PLEASE READ--

[draidt]

zebee wrote:

pete roper wrote:

Zeb, If you can drop up to Bunged End sometime soon I *might* be able to improve the popping issue. If you have a Staintune on your bike binning that will improve things out of sight.

I'm in Montana at the moment but I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

Pete

Nope, stock pipe as I can't figure dropping $600+ just to make more noise. I mean I'd *like* to have something that sounds rortier, but not enough to spend money on it. (and I figure that the old fashioned method of drilling a few holes is not going to do it much good)

My main hassles with the Norge are the popping on decel and the pinging at low throttle openings. Which are all about way too lean at low revs. Seeing as I'm mostly riding it to work and on long tours poor thing seldom sees over 4000rpm so never really gets into the way-too-rich part.

Couplaweeks eh? OK, I'll ring you around the middle of July, that sounds like a couple of Roper-weeks!

Zebee

The Staintune on a Norge will dramatically improve the Norge right out of the box, It does not just make more noise. I write from the experience of having one on a Norge. I would love to have the opportunity for Pete to work on mine to make it better then it is now, although I have no complaints as to how it runs now.

 

[Roblatt]

Todd,

I'm not mechanically minded, but I've been following this thread closely. While you still have much to sort out, do you envisage the final product to be "plug and play", or will those like me need a mechanic to install the system? Not holding your answer to anything as I understand you're still working through issues, just your thought on what the final product might be.

I'm usually not one for modifying machinery from stock as I believe the designers generally get it right. But I know there is lean issue with the Brevas', and I may need to go down this road of yours as I intend to keep the bike 'till I can no longer ride.

Robert

 

[GTM®]

seb wrote:

Do I have this correct?

Without sounding too sensationalistic, yes. :huh:

 

[GTM®]

Roblatt wrote:

I'm not mechanically minded, but I've been following this thread closely. While you still have much to sort out, do you envisage the final product to be "plug and play", or will those like me need a mechanic to install the system?

Robert, in the end, yes... it will be 'plug & play.' The ECU swap is just that, and the beauty of all of the PC's of the past is to unplug/re-plug OEM connectors and go, with few exceptions of course.

My goal is to quickly offer maps for stock bikes, and/or the average modified, i.e. slip-on muffler, etc. So, I hope to be able to ship complete "kits" as early as next month, as long as everything falls into place. Wish me luck.

 

[alanp]

seb wrote:

So I guess I have two comments about this.

1. Being an air cooled motor, the heat dissapation to a certan extent depends on the proper gas mixture. My Kawasaki Concours is water cooled and can idle all day long in 107 degree weather. However, when I was crossing from the Canadian border the other day, I found my Norge was starting to seriously cook while waiting for the border Nazis to move the lineup. If the motor is running lean at the bottom end (which I can believe given all the popping racket when the throttle is off and coasting), I should expect insufficient cooling.
2. At the top end (where I spend most of my time) I am just blowing gas out the exhaust.

Do I have this correct?

So, given that the above is deemed correct, this seems like a good time for me to say "I am so confused".

If at low revs the motor is running lean, why does it pop? This is completely counter intuitive to me. What is popping if not unburned fuel? And if the mixture is lean there shouldn't be unburned fuel, but excess oxygen. But by increasing the fuel to air ratio at low revs the popping will stop? Makes no sense, seems it should get worse.

Further, I have noticed that my Norge seems to consume an inordinate amount of fuel when idling. If I spend much time idling, the average MPG drops like a rock and the entire tank MPG is bad. This seems to indicate that the mixture is RICH when idling, which to me would explain the popping.

When I run aggressively in the mountains, I get great MPG (50). This would seem counter to the supposedly true contention that at high revs we are "blowing gas out the exhaust". Why does the MPG go up when I start blowing gas out the exhaust, but go dramatically down and start popping when the engine isn't getting enough fuel (lean)??

Everything about the explanation of how these engines run seems the exact opposite of what I would expect and what I observe? Can anybody explain this to me? Please, I would really like to understand it. Why does a lean running engine pop? What is popping, and how will adding more fule stop the pop? Why does a ruch running engine get great MPG, but get worse MPG when you stop blowing fuel out the exhaust?

 

[GrahamNZ]

alanp

Interesting observations. While I have no answers, I can say I get the same consumption results - idling seems to ruin consumption averages and highway riding gives excellent returns. Tailpipe and plug colours are fine too, and my older Breva doesn't pop at all, or not that I notice while riding.

 

[zebee]

alanp wrote:


When I run aggressively in the mountains, I get great MPG (50). This would seem counter to the supposedly true contention that at high revs we are "blowing gas out the exhaust". Why does the MPG go up when I start blowing gas out the exhaust, but go dramatically down and start popping when the engine isn't getting enough fuel (lean)??

[/quote]

When I am out on the open road and keep the speed no more than 120kmh so the revs are 4k or below, and there's no stop/start then the fuel consumption is excellent, 20km/l or so.

If I ride agressively in the twisties, keeping the revs around the 5k kick range, then consumption climbs with me getting more like 15km/l. Same if I cruise at high speed at that rev range.

In the city, with much stop/start so the motor has to haul the bike into motion a lot, then I get 15km/l too, even though the revs might not get above 4.

The more slowly and gently I move in the city, the better the fuel consumption.

Seems different to your experience?

Zebee

 

[YBFAST]

alanp wrote:

Everything about the explanation of how these engines run seems the exact opposite of what I would expect and what I observe? Can anybody explain this to me? Please, I would really like to understand it. Why does a lean running engine pop? What is popping, and how will adding more fule stop the pop? Why does a ruch running engine get great MPG, but get worse MPG when you stop blowing fuel out the exhaust?

I'm not an expert... but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last nightB) :laugh:

Its been my understanding that overly lean fuel conditions hinder a "complete burn" of All gas in the cylinder (leaving some residual to cause popping) and that a richer mixture carries the flame more effectively for a more effective/complete burn (leaving no gas for popping).
I often get better mileage "rompin" the throttle, but rarely am at a sustained wide open throttle situation. I know this may not be helpful to you, but I'm sure looking forward to a map I can have tailored to my riding style

 

[alanp]

Zebee, sounds a little different than my experience but it may just be in the telling. I get 50 mpg (21km/l) or so on longer rides with the rpm varying between 4k and 6k. rpm doesn't seem to make much difference. Also whether it is constant speed at 4k rpm or the twisties at various rpm, I still get in the 21 km/l range.

In town, I get 40 to 45 mpg (17 to 19 km/l) with the major determining factor being how much I sit at lights rather than how I drive. Sitting at lights kills the number.

By the way, these are actual mileage figures (laboriously and tediously measured), not the computer readout. But for what its worth, the computer reads spot on on those long rides when I measure 50, but it read about 10% low in town. I suspect it registers the fuel flow rate higher than actual during idle or near idle, but that is just speculation.

HOWEVER, none of this explains why my bike pops when it is supposedly running lean on fuel, and gets good mileage and doesn't pop when it is supposedly running rich (excess fuel)???

 

[Roblatt]

Todd,

Thanks for the info.

The problem I have now is I need to save for one of these gadgets.
(if the minister allows)

Robert

 

[Mike.C]

Well at the risk of revealing that I actually know nothing about the finer points of FI engine fueling I am going to put forward my understanding of the "popping" problem and its' cause. Now this is definitely from a farmyard understanding of mechanics which was pre FI even being invented, but the principals of engine fueling have never changed.

1st thing to note is that it is not pinking or detonation, which is caused by pre ignition of the fuel mixture before the piston is far enough up the bore so that it is at or near TDC when the maximum pressure from teh flame front is reached in the cylinder - this is a completely different issue..

So lets go back to 1st principles, the bikes pop on what is commonly called "the over run" or to be more specific when closing the throttle for eg when coming to a stop from speed ( I assume I am right - don't own a Norge and the B doesn't pop!).

So, we know that at higher RPM the mixture or more properly the Air Fuel Ratio (AFR) is rich at RPM above about 4000 and lean below - AND it is also tied to the throttle position as sensed by the TPS.

So what happens when we close the throttle abruptly - well there is some unburnt fuel in the cylinder due to the rich mixture and then suddenly there is an excess of air due to the closed throttle and lowering revs and the excess fuel which is already near to ignition temperature and starting to exit from the exhaust valve gets to a state when it will burn - ie more oxygen, and so what the rider hears is a muffled explosion in the exhaust tract just after the valve that sounds like a pop pop pop as he/she decelerates.

Go easy on me if I am wrong B)

 

[Penis Rotor]

Actually it's even simpler. When the bike is on a trailing throttle the idle mixture at certain RPM, (Due to the harmonics in the exhaust as much as anything but also due to gas flow overall.) becomes so lean as to be incombustible. Most of the charge is pumped out of the cylinder into the exhaust system unburnt but on the next revolution the residual unburnt charge added to the new charge makes a mixture that IS combustible, when the exhaust valve opens the still burning charge ignites the unburnt charge from the last revolution causing the 'Pop' in the pipe. It doesn't happen every cycle, just now and again, hence the irregularity of the popping.

It is a perverse oddity of the WM system that Guzzi use that ANY fuel is delivered on a trailing throttle. Most FI systems since, well, pretty much forever, have cut off fuel entirely on a trailing throttle but the Guzzi system doesn't, The only reason I can think of for this is to assist cooling.

The thing is the popping won't do any harm, it's just bloody annoying.

Pete

 

[Mike.C]

Excellent - at least I got the unburnt fuel bit right, just where it comes from was a bit off. B)

 

[alanp]

Pete and Mike C, thanks for the explanations! Pete's explanation makes sense but for one thing; "at certain rpm the mixture is so lean as to be uncombustible". I have a hard time with that concept assuming I understand the meaning of "lean". I am under the impression "lean" means that the fuel/air mixture is lean on fuel, meaning there is more air than necessary to fully burn the fuel. If this is correct, then I can't grasp Pete's statement. Some gas (no matter how little) combined with plenty of air would consistute a "lean" mixture and it should fully combust. Gas is going to burn isn't it, no matter how little? It would seem the only way a mixture could be so lean as to be uncombustible would be to have no fuel at all, but then there wouldn't be anything to pop?

Sorry, I'm just a bit thick in the cranial region...

 

[GrahamNZ]

pete roper wrote:

It is a perverse oddity of the WM system that Guzzi use that ANY fuel is delivered on a trailing throttle. Most FI systems since, well, pretty much forever, have cut off fuel entirely on a trailing throttle but the Guzzi system doesn't, The only reason I can think of for this is to assist cooling.
Pete

Pete, Buell XB models have an inbuilt "slow return to idle" feature as a ploy to reduce rear-wheel lockup when down-changing. A "different" approack from a slipper clutch.

 

[2Laner]

Wow reading this thread really wears me out. Thank you again Todd for even making the effort for a solution. Your time and knowlede certainly justify the fair price and I don't think anyone meant to imply it didn't. I've ridden my B11 through the curves of W. Virginia, Virginia, P.A., southern MO., northern Arkansas and just recently N.C. Fontana Village area, Deals Gap, Cherohalal, BRP some awesome roads in Tennesse etc. Not braggin, just want to say that the Breva never disapointed. Yea it can overheat after flogging the sh*t out of it for several hours than hitting heavy no-go traffic. Yea, it does "ping" sometimes under hard accelleration. Air cooled heh, okay. It is just odd to me that a more cost effective factory correction was not available to address fuel mapping issues with this bike. I now understand limited production and all. Yet as I stated earlier, 90% is pure Guzzi joy. I love this machine and I may yet pony up.

 

[alanp]

2Laner wrote:

Wow reading this thread really wears me out. Thank you again Todd for even making the effort for a solution. Your time and knowlede certainly justify the fair price and I don't think anyone meant to imply it didn't.

Yes, hopefully no one takes my questions wrong. I applaud Todd for taking this on, and I wouldn't be bothering with all these posts if I wasn't interested in Todd's offerings. However, I am curious to understand more about the Norge fuel mapping and how it might be improved. I look forward to hearing from some who have tried the update, as I am happy with the way my Norge runs, but am always open to improvements.

 

[GTM®]

My pleasure guys... my reason is actually very personally driven, as I still have plans to build a Griso 8V Kompressor, so I need to figure this out if it is ever to come to fruition. Now that I have a 5AM bike, the urgency is greater, as knowing what these motors are capable of once "unplugged" is worth the time/dedication.

Seems like the posts above have beat me to the explanation of the question asked.

I'm awaiting the package any day now to dive into the ECU.

More as I have it.

 

[sn0winSaskatoon]

Todd, add my list to those who are going to pony up - but just don't ask me for the cash this month! But in a few months, I think, yes - there is only so much money and I still want to replace the can and add a Daes mototec screen, so if I add the 1200USD for the PC, I'm looking at a big schwack of cash! The good thing is the loonie is going back up relative to your yankee-dollars! Haven't ordered a can yet for my B11 - but with your GT crossover and some sort of aftermarket can, you'll have a map for the B11, right? Any recommendation for the can? I guess the main options are Mistral or Agostini - any advice out there?

Ian

 

[GTM®]

Ian, thanks... I'll add you to the count. You'll place a small deposit to get on the list?

Mufflers... there's a small handful out there, and we do have plans to build a GT version for the B11, Sport12 & Norge soon. Mapping will likely be whatever I can get my hands on locally to do... but you can see how even 2-3 variations for each model add up quick... i.e. (6 models = 12~18 maps! @$250/per = $3000~4500USD). Another proven fact is that fuel varies around the globe, so I *REALLY* recommend custom mapping or the AutoTune module.