i got a wolf 3d v4, with the hand controller, the boost controller, turbo timer and 3 bar map sensor. the ecu and its hand controller was $1300 i think then the boost control was like $60 solenoid, turbo timer was $67, and map sensor i dunno.



It seems like a cool setup especially if you get a LM-1 or something of the like since the wolf cant datalog yet.



I of course dont actually have my wolf in the car, nor do i have the car, or the motor...bah now im depressed.



kevin.

The wolf can't even datalog? Sheesh.



Speaking of haltech on a 2 rotor, I tried to use the K2RD TPS wiring pdf and it was a bit off for a 20B. Or maybe I wasn't reading it right. Having different colored wires didn't help any. After several configurations, I found a combination that seems to work although its range is a bit limited because my ECU expects to see a 0 to 5 volt range and the TPS begins at 1 volt and ends at 4 volts, or something like that. It's easy to calibrate so now it's 0% at closed throttle and 100% at fully open. Did you have any similar problems with your TPS and your haltech?

I just figured out the TPS stuff. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/smile.png



Mike, did you use that FD pdf on your 20B? Or did you explore other options?

[quote name='Jeff20B' date='Apr 3 2005, 01:21 PM']I just figured out the TPS stuff. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/smile.png



Mike, did you use that FD pdf on your 20B? Or did you explore other options?


[/quote]



with mine i busted out the voltmeter and just found the wide range sensor.....

I finally found a wire combination that worked pretty well. That FD pdf is not correct for a 20B. I also tried the HITman's diagram but it seems one of the wires is different. The one he recommended to use for the TPS signal was scratchy and not linear. I used the 'not used' wire for the signal instead. The other two for +5v and ground were correct. I'm still not fully sure I got it right, but the end result looks pretty good and 50% in the tuning software looks like half open on the throttle shaft to me. Likewise for 25% and 75%. Now it's time to wire it up.

[quote name='Jeff20B' date='Apr 5 2005, 02:57 AM']I finally found a wire combination that worked pretty well. That FD pdf is not correct for a 20B. I also tried the HITman's diagram but it seems one of the wires is different. The one he recommended to use for the TPS signal was scratchy and not linear. I used the 'not used' wire for the signal instead. The other two for +5v and ground were correct. I'm still not fully sure I got it right, but the end result looks pretty good and 50% in the tuning software looks like half open on the throttle shaft to me. Likewise for 25% and 75%. Now it's time to wire it up.


[/quote]



the fd/cosmo tps is basically the same as the 89-91 rx7 dual tps's except its in one box, and theres a common 5v power and ground. so the other 2 are a narrow range sensor and a wide range sensor.



the narrow range is meant for the first 30-40% of throttle travel, its used to assist driveability in the low rpm/low throttle ranges, and it also runs the air control valve.



the wide range is 0-100% throttle and its supposed to be linear. its mostly used for the electric metering pump, think of it like the metering pump rod, and you're close.

Ah, that makes sense. One had good performance down low and the other didn't. The funny thing is they both had very similar performance up near the top. The voltages were the same at the top too but a bit different at the bottom. The one with better performance down low also gave more typical numbers for the fully closed position (under 50 raw ATDC). I must be using the narrow wire, and it seems to work better than the wide range one over the entire range of the TPS and not just the first 30-40%. Or maybe it just works better with my ECU?



I tried to plot the throttle range is quarters and sure enough, the narrow TPS wire gave more accurate results. In other words, 50% open throttle in the tuning software showed half open on my piece of paper. Then I had around 27% for the 1st quarter and 76% for 3rd quarter. A lot more accurate than 32%, 61% and 78% like it was with the other wire. Maybe this is why Kurgan experienced TPS problems with the diagram he got from the HITman too?

[quote name='Jeff20B' date='Apr 6 2005, 03:37 AM']Ah, that makes sense. One had good performance down low and the other didn't. The funny thing is they both had very similar performance up near the top. The voltages were the same at the top too but a bit different at the bottom. The one with better performance down low also gave more typical numbers for the fully closed position (under 50 raw ATDC). I must be using the narrow wire, and it seems to work better than the wide range one over the entire range of the TPS and not just the first 30-40%. Or maybe it just works better with my ECU?



I tried to plot the throttle range is quarters and sure enough, the narrow TPS wire gave more accurate results. In other words, 50% open throttle in the tuning software showed half open on my piece of paper. Then I had around 27% for the 1st quarter and 76% for 3rd quarter. A lot more accurate than 32%, 61% and 78% like it was with the other wire. Maybe this is why Kurgan experienced TPS problems with the diagram he got from the HITman too?


[/quote]



yeah maybe these things go bad? mine was just like the fd, wire colors and everything. the 90-94 protege automatics use a tps that looks the same and uses the same plug, ive also seen toyota tps's that look the same

The toyota TPS has a switch on the 4th wire which goes to ground letting the ECU know to go into idle mode.



I realised this morning that the thermo wax may be providing a false reading because it's holding the throttle open a little. Should I hook it up? Or cap the nipples on the engine? Does it really help with cold driving? My ECU has fast idle solenoid control and warm up enrichment. I'd prefer to not deal with the thermo wax because it'll be one less thing to go wrong.

Does anyone have an idea about the thermo wax? Can I live without it?