Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2002, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:11:48 -0700
Reply-To:     Jeff and Tamara Nelson <ramjeff@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jeff and Tamara Nelson <ramjeff@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: AFM upgrade using 16 volt tantalum capacitor
Comments: To: Larry Alofs <lalofs@ENTERACT.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2

I think some of the confusion may be because there are 2 or more problems with the AFM. Each requires a different fix.

1) The resistive track that the wiper runs on can get worn or dirty. This causes bad signal levels to be sent to the ECU at certain spots. 2) This is just conjecture, but from what I've heard, there is the possiblity that static can build up in the air intake and then discharge through the AFM. This could cause a sharp spike in the signal to the ECU.

In either case, I think our ECU is a fairly simple device. It just takes all the inputs (AFM, rpm, T2, O2, etc) and generates an output (fuel amount). As far as I can tell, there is no checking of the input signals to see if they are "realistic". I would guess that almost all or all more modern sophisticated control systems perform a check on the inputs to help identify fault sensor readings. For example, say the RPM signal changes from 2000 rpm to 4000 in one crank revolution. That is physically impossible due to inertia etc. I would guess our 20 year old digi system would just spit out a fuel amount for each rpm without hesitation. A more modern controller would determine that that change is impossible and would do something more intelligent. The options include: use the previous value (ignore 1 or more input readings), interpolate between the 2, only change the output signal by a maximum amount each time, etc.

By putting the cap on the AFM output, I believe the result is that the AFM output signal is slew rate limited. I.e. its rate of change is limited so that its output signal can't change any quicker than the engine load can physically change. A cap will smooth out the output signal and prevent sudden large changes in signal value. If you have a static pulse or cross a worn spot on the track, the cap will make the output signal change more smoothly and slowly vs. the (impossible) instantaneous change that can occur otherwise.

So, in my mind, if you have worn out AFM track, you need to get a new AFM or move the board so the wiper runs on a new track. Independent of that, I think the cap is a good idea that can help prevent your engine from being "jerked around" by faulty input signals to the ECU.

-jeff

Larry Alofs wrote: > > Someone ought to reverse-engineer one of these things to see what the VW > solution really consists of. The service bulletin says something about > "active components" (transistors). >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.