whipplem104

So there has been a fair bit of talk about a standalone ecu option that would still have most functionality in the car. I have been thinking about this and wanted to know how large the interest is and what would be a price point that would be acceptable.
I do a lot of CAN work and have a pretty firm grasp of the messages that make the car work. So basically I wanted to know what things would be acceptable to loose and what would not. The ecu would not necessarily be what I would work on but the interface with the rest of the car. Although it would be easiest to build around a specific ecu. The ecu would have to be a drive by wire ecu of course so that already puts that cost in the higher end stuff that would have a fairly decent CAN data stream to work with.
To be realistic I think the interface would probably be in the 1200-1500 at least. So that would be on top of the ecu. We would be taking CAN messages and translating them back and forth and also CAN to analog and vice versa. I think I could get most of the car functioning fairly easily but do not want to waste the time for the usual yeah we want it but at megasquirt prices.

3BNick

Instead of a full standalone replacing the OE unit and writing crazy amounts of code/CAN data, would it be possible to run a piggyback unit inline with the OE ECU? Companies like Boomslang would probably be able to build a PnP harness to run which ever unit we choose (Pro-efi, Haltech, motec?) Is this something not achievable on this platform? I'm just thinking back to my old tuner days when such things were commonplace.

Hulk

Piggyback is not easy either on this car

3BNick

Understood. But of the two options, is there one that stands out as being an easier goal to reach?

Hulk

Hard to say, this ecu is very finicky, I know a few have tried and gave up after a long time of trying, too much running after gremlins lol

WANTED!!

I'm absolutely game for a standalone ecu so long as I have complete control over functionality and mapping is more intuitive than the AEM series 1. I'm still a fan of how well my Autronic worked except for the whole wideband issue.

Sir-Boost-a-Lot

iTrader: (1)

I want everything working in the car or I'm not interested at all. That's the point when it ceases to be a luxury sedan and becomes a Frankenstein street race car. I'm all about hauling *** in a Frankenstein street race car don't get me wrong but this isn't the platform for that.

kponti

Most standalones in 2000 plus year cars tend to control primarily fuel and timing while leaving the rest of the car to function on the stock ecu. Now I am certainly simplifying this but that's the gist. Any chance of this working on the speed density system in our cars?

biggking

Sounds like something to look into, but also you must not forget that on the W211 the ECU,EIS & Ignition Switch are all married and if the CAN information between the 3 is not synchronized you will NOT start the car.

I would simply start there, if we can get a standalone ECU to mirror the information the EIS needs to verify then we can get the car started. From there it's a piece of cake as the ENG and BODY are 2 different CAN systems and they only talk to each other on 1-2 modules.

E55Greasemonkey

I've said it before, I'll say it again...This is the absolute wrong platform for this type of modification. It's a 4-door 11 second luxury 100% street car. Leave it at that. If you want to go really fast...look elsewhere.

whipplem104

What I would do for the drive auth. is simply take the start signal from the EIS and change that into a relay output for the starter. With a standalone we would not need to worry about the auth. as much. This was really the thing that I realized that made this more realistic. You can leave the key and eis in place and therefore not effect a lot of stuff. There is not a confirmation to worry about with the EIS. So simply removing the factory ecu would be ok for that system. More what would have to be done is the output CAN messages for the other systems like traction and transmission and instrument functions.
But if only two or three people would even do it, then it simply is not worth the trouble.

biggking

I understand that you would just take the start signal, but the EIS will NOT authorize ANY start function if the internal checks are not passed. The only communication between 'CAN-C Engine databus' and 'CAN-B Interior databus' is located at modules 'N80 Steering column control module' & 'A1 Instrument Cluster' & 'N73 EIS Module'. YOU CAN EDIT THESE VALUES. I know this because this is where you edit vehicle info (mileage/speedometer "correction" & KEY CREATION). From there the ECU grabs data from the 'CAN-C' system which includes 'ECU/ESP Module/Gear Selector Controller/TCU/AIR SUSP/Headlight Range/Distronic'. Now the question is which functions do you want to code/keep. You can run the car without ABS/AIR SUSP/HRA/DISTRONIC (I have coded my CGM to remove these features).

At this point all we need is an ECU and TCU controller.

https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/...ontroller.html

BOOM solved. Again the only issue is getting the ECU to transmit the internal checks & data to we need. The rest of the systems are separate.

http://bayhas.com/mercedes/w211/cont...networking.htm

http://www.mercedestechstore.com/pdf...2009-03-02.pdf

stockC43

it seems that past low 11's your at the point of diminishing returns. I'm happy with that, it's my dd. A 211 wouldn't be my first pick for a race car. Too heavy, big and $$$ to mod. I thought my c5 was expensive to mod with the "corvette tax"

That being said, a stand alone, or a good piggy back would be very nice. As long as all the factory components still work and function like oem. Just not sure how that's possible.

whipplem104

This is not correct. The EIS once the key is authorized transmits an authorization message to the ecu for das release. But it does not care if the ecu is there. It will still turn to the start position and transmit the start [circuit50] message on the c bus. I have a EIS, steering lock and ecu on my bench and without the ecu connected the key will still turn and the lock will release and the start message will send. The same is true in the car. The other way around is really hard. Getting the ecu to work without the key and eis is what I am working on right now. And all the systems on the c-bus are pretty interconnected. Mostly engine and transmission are the hardest to separate. I do not want to code any functions out but emulate what the ecu would be sending and receiving on the c bus. I do this with the standalone tcu you mentioned. I am the retailer for that system and have modules that I use to work in the factory environment and translate CAN to CAN from the different setups. The same could be done with the ecu.

biggking

So there's nothing CODED in the ECU that the EIS or LOCK check for? So what I understand is that the ECU can be removed and replaced without a hitch then? From what I've read (limited factory info) all 3 need to be married together. Have any documentation on this or something I can read.

Reread what you said; so if you remove EIS/LOCK you then run into major issues right? Other systems are dependent on one or two messages that the EIS sends right?

Did you create/design that TCU controller?

SPatykAMG

Assuming it can be pulled off without loosing any features it would be great. I'm just not holding my breath for it at this point.

whipplem104

I did not create or design the controller. I have worked with the company to make it work with the 722.6. I have been working on the CAN messaging for this product but also for a project of my own.
You cannot simply remove the factory ecu and stick a standalone in and have everything work if that is what you are saying. But you can still turn the key and turn the car on. If you want proof just go unplug your ecu and turn the key on. If you were to have a CAN adapter hooked up to the CAN bus you would see the start message if you knew what to look for. Like I said I have an w211 EIS, key, steering lock and ecu on my desk that I have been working with. I can have the ecu not connected and just have the EIS and steering lock wired and powered up and it will release the steering lock and turn to the start position. THey are all married to each other so you cannot use one in another car unless it was made a virgin and then married to that car. Ecu that is. You cannot also just send the start message to the ecu without the DAS release from the EIS.
I am not saying it will be really easy to get all the CAN messaging correct but it is certainly doable. Some stuff is more complicated than others though. That is why I asked what would be acceptable to loose. Like maybe certain traction functions or cruise control depending on the ecu being used.

biggking

I understand if we swap the ECU out for a standalone some systems will not work, my question is what is the deal with the EIS -> ECU. Yes if I remove my ECU I know my car won't start. You then mention that there's other systems that runs through the ECU right? Wouldn't the ECU simply be sending data in regards that whats going on with the engine to other systems? I am not understanding what you are saying about the ECU -> other systems.

If we get a standalone inside the car, we wouldn't run into issues with functionality of systems inside the car (windows, locks, radio) right? This is because the CAN systems are separated?

G_Money

So if someone can break it down for a dummy like me, what would doing this do that couldn't be done by the kind of tunes we have available now?

WANTED!!

Enhanced control of timing and fuel, the ability to use map sensors that won't go crazy at high boost, the potential to incorporate automatic flex fuel capability, etc...

Hulk

Yup, imagine No more limpmode for no reason lol, also I saw a gtr with stand alone and it would change the tune on the fly from E85 to 91 or 93, that would be awesome on our cars

WANTED!!

Exactly. The possibility of live adjustment than just flash adjustment.

whipplem104

It is correct that you would not have issues inside the car. A/c and instrumentation would.
What I mean by other systems is that engine, traction, transmission, are very interrelated. If you remove one you must get the data that is sent to the others replaced. And you are also receiving data from those control units. In some cases they will expect a certain response or they will set a fault code if the result is not seen. So if you have a request for less torque from traction control it may expect the torque output message to be reduced. And if not it will set a fault. You never know how much logic is in there until you start removing things and see. The fewer messages and functions that need to be dealt with the easier this is.
For instance the tcu is fairly simple to replace. In the Dodge cars I do not even get a check engine light with a few basic messages. Merecedes is actually easier to do and will operate without the tcu and no CAN messages but getting rid of the check engine light is much more complicated. There is a checksum in the CAN message that the ecu is looking for. Not hard but different.

cij911

Whipple - Would it not be easier (& cheaper) to go more of an openecu route and use the factory ECU, but be able to trace and flash (tune) without a crazy expensive and proprietary interface ? You seem to have more than enough knowledge to know whether this would be possible with our platform. (TIA)

Mitch Detailed

Haltech elite was released today. Its obd2 compliant, and ill be picking one up to gradually phase out the oem ecu. First fuel, then ignition, then throttle and can configuration..
Once I complete the task ill offer kits for wiring and write ups on terminal pinouts.