FYI: NB Tach Response
#1
Thread Starter
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,047
Total Cats: 12
From: San Diego, CA
FYI: NB Tach Response
So I've had this eerie feeling when something happens in my car on the MS, and I look at the logs, that I wasn't quite at the RPM I thought I was at judging from the tach. Something at "5400 or 5500" on the tach was at 5100 in the logs, etc.
This was taken at "7000" RPM, but it was recieving a signal of only 6790
In fact, at ~1k, the tach is dead on. Here's how I put it elsewhere:
I fed the tach known spaced tach pulses, and found that the tach is accurate at low RPM (1000), and from ~1500-~4000 is picks up linearly about 175 rpm of offset (it reads high). Then it stays there until ~7200 (reading ~7375) and by 7500 it's reading correct again, which it retains through 8000 rpm, which is as high as I tested.
So, just an FYI....
More pics at 1000 rpm steps here:
http://abefm.smugmug.com/gallery/470...78447143_jQFm9
This was taken at "7000" RPM, but it was recieving a signal of only 6790
In fact, at ~1k, the tach is dead on. Here's how I put it elsewhere:
I fed the tach known spaced tach pulses, and found that the tach is accurate at low RPM (1000), and from ~1500-~4000 is picks up linearly about 175 rpm of offset (it reads high). Then it stays there until ~7200 (reading ~7375) and by 7500 it's reading correct again, which it retains through 8000 rpm, which is as high as I tested.
So, just an FYI....
More pics at 1000 rpm steps here:
http://abefm.smugmug.com/gallery/470...78447143_jQFm9
#8
Thread Starter
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,047
Total Cats: 12
From: San Diego, CA
I lovingly fashioned a post to the guys who write the MS-II extra code, thinking this handy bit of artisandry would be what it would take to fix the issue, asking for a scaling factor on the RPM out pulse train.
However, it seems even that wouldn't work, since the response varies across the board.
Quite annoying.
Oh, and I run synthetic oil, so I only build 3 psi of pressure. That's all it needs, I could run it there all day, and it was smooth as silk in that picture, too.
#10
Thread Starter
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,047
Total Cats: 12
From: San Diego, CA
I've got a 2000... Yours is 99? Maybe it's just in the tolerance, but wow...
#12
DEI liberal femininity
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
That's really interesting! I believe I checked in the past with my scope and my jimstim is pretty decently accurate, but I was definately ~200 rpm over at an indicated 7000, and I think I was pretty much right on at 7500.
I've got a 2000... Yours is 99? Maybe it's just in the tolerance, but wow...
I've got a 2000... Yours is 99? Maybe it's just in the tolerance, but wow...
#14
Thread Starter
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,047
Total Cats: 12
From: San Diego, CA
I'd say the 'band aid' is just knowing it's off.
Hmmm, another fine dynojet 'feature' it sounds like to me. I'll trust my NIST traceable oscilliscope before something that can't tell if RPM are increasing or decreasing.
Redline is quoted as being 7200 - and from my recent testing, I would say the offset is smaller than that - though it sounds like yours agrees with Y8ts...
Hmmm, another fine dynojet 'feature' it sounds like to me. I'll trust my NIST traceable oscilliscope before something that can't tell if RPM are increasing or decreasing.
Redline is quoted as being 7200 - and from my recent testing, I would say the offset is smaller than that - though it sounds like yours agrees with Y8ts...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JacksonRacingEngines
Engine Performance
10
09-10-2015 10:52 AM