DynoJet Power Commander vs ECU

[Scrabble202]

Do you recommend changing from a Dynojet Power Commander to a ECU like Motec or some other brand? What are are the advantages and disadvantages of this course of action? (technical related - not worried about cost)

[Scrabble202]

Do you recommend changing from a Dynojet Power Commander to a ECU like Motec or some other brand? What are are the advantages and disadvantages of this course of action? (technical related - not worried about cost)

[Gary Norris]

howdy,

I have experience with the power commander and an SDS ECU, unfortunately not with motec, though we're looking into running one this year. Last year we ran naturally aspirated, and just with the power commander were able to get 80 horsies at the wheels, which is downright sufficient if you ask me.

The SDS is garbage, at least the older ones our team ran in 1997-99. I wouldn't touch them.

seems to me if you're going NA, the dynojet is sufficient, we were able to get good results tuning just with that. but it sounds like you're already running that, and looking to upgrade. So maybe none of this is useful. anyways, hope maybe it was.

Gary
VP USC FSAE

[MoTeC]

Hi Guys,
My unbiased answer: When choosing an ECU just make very sure of what you want to do first. When you take things like drivability, throttle response and fuel economy into account you really can only do this with a sequential unit.

One thing that I notice is that you guys usually want to play with every trick under the sun which the power commander may not provide (I have a customer who used to run them). And if the power commander is just a simple device it may not give you much scope for developement.

I would be looking for a full engine management system with a bit of flexibility......which ever that may be.

Donna

[Frank]

Donna,

Please explain how a "sequential unit" provides better "drivability and throttle response"

I'll grant "fuel economy" yes, but how many % would you expect over a "group fire"� unit? Donna, would you care to share some data with us?

One point people should note is that the "flexibility" from, for example, the M4 unit is achieved through additional "options" (costs) such as "lambda upgrade" and "advanced tuning option" or "traction control multiplexer"

I think the unit is great, and overall the support is ok, my only real beef with the M4 is the documentation, and lack of data export.

I must say that I was impressed by the documentation by "Performance Electronics"� http://www.pe-ltd.com/support.htm

Regards

Frank

[B Lewis @ PE Engine Management]

Hello All!

Based on my experience, these are the main differences between the Power Commander (PC) and a stand alone system.

- The Power Commander (PC) plugs inline with the stock bike ECU. With the PC you have to use, or make provisions for, all of the bike's original wiring and hardware including any safety devices or theft deterrent mechanisms. This is great for a stock bike.

- The PC is limited in the things that you can adjust. The unit will allow you to change the main fuel and ignition tables. So, for both fuel and ignition, there are only a couple of adjustable factors. With stand-alone systems there are many different individual factors that make up the fuel and ignition calculations.

- The PC doesn't have any additional features other than adjusting the main fuel and ignition curves. Our system has quite a few including but not limited to:

<LI>User configurable analog inputs which allow you to adjust the fuel and timing as a function of any 0-5 volt signal
<LI>Digital inputs that will cut the fuel or ignition based on an outside event. One example for using this would be for cutting the ignition during a "clutch-less" shift.
<LI>Digital outputs for controlling shift lights, cooling fans, wastegates, idle solenoids, variable length intake runners, fuel pumps, warning lights, automatic shifting events, etc.
<LI>Data logging to the PC
<LI>Real time data plotting capabilities
<LI>Graphical table representations


As for sequential vs batch or semi-sequential systems...
Based on experience in using both types of systems, I'm one of those people that believe that there is no measurable improvement in drivability or throttle response in using a full sequential system over a properly tuned semi-sequential unit. In my opinion, for FSAE, the added complexity and cost of a full sequential system is not warranted.

As always, if you have any questions or problems regarding engine control you can contact us. I will be happy to help, even if you are using someone else's system.

Also, we will be offering our system again this year for $798.40 for FSAE. This includes ECU, software, crank timing wheel, un-terminated wire harness, manual and un-limited support. In most cases you can use the stock crank sensor, injectors and ignition coils without external igniters.

Brian Lewis
Performance Electronics, Ltd.
www.pe-ltd.com
"Complete Engine Management Systems"

[This message was edited by B Lewis @ PE Engine Management on September 30, 2003 at 10:34 AM.]

[PatClarke]

Teams who used Power Commanders and similay piggyback ECU trimmers were not looked on too kindly by the Power Train judges last May. It was seen as a 'quick and dirty' solution.
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[fsae_alum]

We used the Power Commander in 02 with our F4i and the judges weren't impressed at all. We tried to point out that by using the Power Commander, it could be geared towards a weekend racer (as the rules say) and thus would be easy to program and easy to replace if ever needed. To second Suddenlee's comment, they didn't care, regardless of the fact that we rolled 79 hp at the comp and some "BIG" teams with Motecs rolled mid 60's. Hmmmm.....4 hours of dyno time vs WEEKS of wiring and dyno time....hmmmmm.... Sometimes winning big points in design isn't all that it's cracked up to be!!!

In spite of...

[Charlie]

If you think it is 'all about the horsepower' then you are very mistaken; if some 'big' teams are making mid-60s then there might veyr well be a reason. I got to see a few design boards this year, and most of the top teams were gaining little to no horsepower (there were a few exceptions) over thier previous year.

RIT supposedly made 91 or so (output shaft) a few years back, and are reporting lower figures now. We aren't in an acceleration event only.

I believe Carroll Smith said that horsepower sells cars and torque wins (road) races. If you are using stock-style manifolding and a power commander, expect big HP, and a sloppy curve.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003.

[fsae_alum]

Charlie.....In retrospect, I agree 100%. You are absolutly correct in that what matters most is how broad the curve is, not how high the peak is. It's the area under the curve that is good.

In spite of...