ScanGaugeII work on 2010?

I am seeing pretty much the same thing, .00 at power up, idle seems to be from .04 to .06. During stealth or warp stealth I sometimes see the Idle reading of around .05 but usually I see a .20 or something like that, which may be the last thing it read before the fuel was shut off?

Yesterday on my trip to Portland on a couple of stretches of level freeway I saw .23 at a steady indicated 67 or 68 MPH, RPM was between 1800 and 1900. Full throttle acceleration was usually .42.

 

Ok, I think this is correct:

Injector Volume in µl (micro liters)
TXD 07E0213C
RXF 0461853C0000
RXD 2810
MTH 0001 0020 0000

It was pointed out the old XGAUGE was showing 10x too much fuel being injected -- so when you were seeing 0.15 it should actually be 0.015 .... but the SGII cannot display more than two decimal places. So I made this gauge ...

0.14 on the old gauge actually meant 0.014 which will now read as 14.0 in µl. With this new gauge I was seeing thing like 14.2 and 14.3 while warming up so you have accuracy at least the first decimal place.

As people pointed out, ICE off just reads last value before shut-down and warp-stealth and fuel-cut coasting seem to also indicate last used value before shutdown. :-( The only time you get a 0.0 is when you first turn the car on. Very lame!

 

You guys know this one works too? This is a GEN II code but works fine on Gen III. What is nice is it's passive and updates at about 60fps!

Miles Per Hour (passive)
TXD 00BC
RXF 010042B40000
RXD 380C
MTH 252603DA0000

For kp/h use this for MTH: 03E804000000

 

Thanks for the new numbers, I'll give them a try tomorrow.

 

Ok, I know this is getting confusing -- but I think for true micro liters of fuel, use the RXF below. (I got additional info from someone) The only change between the one above is it will show a value like 143 ... versus 14.3. Really it makes no difference and to be honest, since I don't think any of us really know what the value means .. it's just cool to see how it changes.

RXF 0461053C0000

 

Hey guys, ok, since we now have several XGAUGEs for GEN III cars, I made a Google Docs spreadsheet:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiHL0r_2nhUEdF9lVVBxOVNoN3Zva3E0NmdZTUR1eVE&hl=en

I just added the MG1/2 XGAUGEs that I made tonight thanks for a submitter who gave me the raw packets. They aren't quite right yet (torque is off by 8% and temp reads funny) but it's still very cool to watch MG1 and MG2 interact.

I also added the passive Xgauge for the gas pedal position....

Sadly High/Low volts, SOC and ICE Temp won't work due to the multi-frame messages.

 

Just as a curiosity, here is my quick calculation for 'maximum' expected injector volume. This assumes normal temperature, sea level pressure, ordinary pure gasoline, and no rich mixture.

Injector volume = (air density * cylinder volume) / (air-fuel ratio * fuel density)
= (1.2 g/L * 1.8L / 4) / (14.7 * 0.72 g/mL)
= 0.051 mL for Otto cycle engine.

But this is an Atkinson cycle, taking in about 70% of the air mass that an Otto cycle engine can take, so fuel is reduced to about 0.036 mL.

Now if the engine can adjust for -40 temperatures at the Dead Sea while burning a rich mixture of E15, injector volume will increase.

 

Nice to have the spreadsheet. Thanks for compiling it.

Perhaps a little glitch in the notes for "Reverse Beep Query", though:

40 for disabled, 40 for enable (should be 00?)

 

Yes, you are right. Fixed.

 

Your math looks correct.

So a little background on this PID. It was derived from results from Techstream ... on that software, it calls it "Injection Volume Cylinder 1 in ml" ... and if you graph results with Techstream, it shows a max fuel flow of about 0.435 ... which correlates to the SGII results people were getting with the first XGAUGE.

Perhaps it is measuring the unit of fuel per second, not just one pulse? I'm not really sure .. Techstream doesn't say any more detail about the PID.

Once thing that is odd about the techstream output is at full throttle the fuel flow stays relatively flat at around 0.435 even though RPM is increasing ...

It's a mystery to me.

 

Adrian, thanks for the Google spread sheet. Looks like it was quite a bit of work and it will be very useful. I plan on trying some of the new parameters over the next few weeks to see how they work out.

 

I entered the AMPs guage and all I get is a reading of about 9.2 to 10.8... does that sound right?

 

bonjour,
When you multiply this inj with ice_rpm and another factor, you get exactly the fuel flow in mL/S or L/H or whatever you prefer (it will depend on the "another factor").

 

You should be seeing -100 to +80 or so .... You might have put a small mistake on the XGAUGE or maybe my spreadsheet is wrong too ... All those digits I might have typed one in wrong.

 

I see a range from +100 full throttle acceleration when ICE RPM is still low to almost -90 under heavy regen braking. You might want to recheck your Xgauge data.

 

Will look it over and let you know, thanks guys!

 

AMP worked great first try but it would be nice if the sign was reversed. Many thanks for those that figured it out and tested it!

 

The AMP's MTH value that I had input was way off... I got if from the posts and not the spreadsheet, I guess it was off. Anyways, all seems OK now, thanks T and A!

 

Great everyone is getting this to work.

The +/- can seem strange at first, but if you think about it, it's the correct reading. When you measure current draw from something, positive draw means power is coming out of the battery/power source. If it's going back in (as in charging) then you get a negative draw.

Think of it like your power meter... It counts up and if it could show the amps you were using, it would be a positive value.

 

It's all relative, I suppose...

My brain desperately wants to think of the currently flow as being relative to the charging source (motor/generator) where positive current flows from the M/G to the battery (charging) and negative current flows from the battery to the M/G (discharging)

I played around with trying to change the sign of AMP but was unsuccessful in doing so. From the results that I got, it looked to me as if the division part of the ScanGauge math is treated as an unsigned division. (I have not bothered to confirm my suspician about this, though.)

Suffice to say, I gave up and I will have to find a way to alter my brain to think of the current from the perspective of battery.