CP-E TC3 ECU Swap for gen 2

[djuosnteisn]

Yeah, who cares about a DISI MZR that can actually apply the power to the ground. We're all happy with just spinning through 5th gear, right guys! Yeah!

Nothings fast like standing still fast.

[Lex]

You can't compare the AP to a standalone. A standalone will give you much more basic functionality than the stock ECU and will require a lot more tuning for part throttle and atmospheric conditions. WOT tuning is easy however.

You have full control, which means you have a lot more tweaking to do and a lot more things to watch. It's not for everyone who runs a downpipe but like socks said for a select few that want and have that unhindered ability to tune.

[9900rpm]

Sounds like this is what I need.

+1.

[BoOdOg]

sounds great, good work cp-e keep it up

[Monotonous ONE]

CPE continues to look like the best option for almost everything for these cars

[Nataphen]

I would be content with a SB with flashes, but if CP-E thinks that flashes won't be possible, then this is the best way to go for the gen 2. If it didn't keep all of the OEM functions, my wife wouldn't agree to it. I know that it's a long shot, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the keyless go, power equipment, nav unit, etc. can all work with this. PLEEEEASE let it be so! I want to go to a GT2871 (at least) eventually, so this may be the only thing to make that work for me in a 2010.

[Jarods7920]

Looks like they will release this for the 1st gen too!

[Nataphen]

Is there a place to read about this, or are you guys contacting them? I'd like to find out more.

[kore2000]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed i think you get stupid of the month. standalone(especially pnp) is not just for the "big boys". it makes it 100% convenient and actually eliminates most of the things that i dont like about the SB. As far as using the AP, mazda can detect when the ecu was flashed, so even when removing the ap, it leaves evidence.

Okay so let me get this straight..lets say you have a Mazdaspeed 3 with a custom manifold, built engine, and GT35 turbo, but you are worried about the dealer seeing the ECU???


Let me just rephrase since you took exception to my original statement: While this ECU replacement can be purchased by anyone and installed by anyone, it would be nearly fucking useless on a stock turbo car with light to moderate mods. Furthermore if you are still worried about your stock warranty on your engine, then you are not ready to be purchasing a standalone ECU replacement. Stick with the Standback as it is much better suited to your modification needs/experience..

[Nataphen]

Jesus Christ, don't start a damn name calling game on this thread. I don't want to end up pouring through pages of BS to find useful updates. Everyone has your opinions, let's leave it at that and keep this civilized. If you have a point to argue, do it intelligently.

I'm not directing this at any individual. I'm just making a statement before things get out of hand.

[Jarods7920]

I spoke with josh from CPE about this and he said they are looking at a 6 month time table. 9-1500 is expected price. As far as details of what it will do aside from the traditional stand back he was reluctant to give details. But i did ask about LC, Being speed density, or maf based etc....his reply was it will be able to do all those things. So, as of right now we are left in the dark about specifics.

He advised me to keep an eye on their blog for more updates in the comming months. I am just gonna hang onto my cobb until this becomes available.

[xcoldricex]

w0000000t! thanks Jarods! this is BIG, fuck our ECU.

[Blackspeed]

Originally Posted by kore2000 Okay so let me get this straight..lets say you have a Mazdaspeed 3 with a custom manifold, built engine, and GT35 turbo, but you are worried about the dealer seeing the ECU??? Let me just rephrase since you took exception to my original statement: While this ECU replacement can be purchased by anyone and installed by anyone, it would be nearly fucking useless on a stock turbo car with light to moderate mods. Furthermore if you are still worried about your stock warranty on your engine, then you are not ready to be purchasing a standalone ECU replacement. Stick with the Standback as it is much better suited to your modification needs/experience..

I didnt see the original name calling post, but your post is still garbage anyway. What gives you any clue that this would be totally worthless to stock turbo guys? you have absolutely NO reason or proof to make that bullshit statement. who said anything about warranty work with a big turbo? fucking no one, thats who.

doesnt matter if you had a BT or not, if you blow up and decide to go back to stock to make a claim, its a simple swap back to the stock ecu, with no evidence of flashing like the AP and Standback.

[Fobio]

Tho this is not likely for myself, I share some of Blackspeed's sentiments...whatever will make a BT car "better" (full control of fueling, amongst other things) should definitely make non-BT cars better as well, perhaps to a lesser extent...

The product itself will be exciting...but I'm not going to hold my breath for its release... Once it is released, I'll definitely watch for reviews and see how guys are tuning with it...

Full standalone for the DISI is a definite accomplishment...

[kore2000]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed I didnt see the original name calling post, but your post is still garbage anyway. What gives you any clue that this would be totally worthless to stock turbo guys? you have absolutely NO reason or proof to make that bullshit statement. who said anything about warranty work with a big turbo? fucking no one, thats who. doesnt matter if you had a BT or not, if you blow up and decide to go back to stock to make a claim, its a simple swap back to the stock ecu, with no evidence of flashing like the AP and Standback.

It is your money bro, so have fun. I support CPE, and if you want to blow that much money to make the same power as you could with a stand back (for much cheaper mind you)..then go for it.

[16g-95gsx]

Coming from a background where I have completely rewired and built cars previously, including retrofitting in standalones, the fact that there is potentially a standalone option for these cars will push the development of these platforms ahead immensely. The amount of limitation that the factory setup gives you is enormous, and the doors to modifying open up 100 fold just by ditching this one simple piece. I would definately get excited over the ability of a standalone being available.

With that having been said, while I am fully confident in ECU's and standalones, I have found that the average person can barely tie their own shoes in the morning let alone setup a full standalone system so I am curious how plug n play they have made it.

Also, does anyone know what kind of ETA we are looking at for its release?

[nynhex]

As much as I like the SB, I'm all about a standalone. This would seriously kill!

[Lex]

Originally Posted by 16g-95gsx Coming from a background where I have completely rewired and built cars previously, including retrofitting in standalones, the fact that there is potentially a standalone option for these cars will push the development of these platforms ahead immensely. The amount of limitation that the factory setup gives you is enormous, and the doors to modifying open up 100 fold just by ditching this one simple piece. I would definately get excited over the ability of a standalone being available. With that having been said, while I am fully confident in ECU's and standalones, I have found that the average person can barely tie their own shoes in the morning let alone setup a full standalone system so I am curious how plug n play they have made it. Also, does anyone know what kind of ETA we are looking at for its release?

You're also forgetting the large level of complexity difference between a pre OBDII Eclipse and a CAN based MS3. The barebones are similar but system integration is much more intense on modern vehicles. I have built many standalone systems myself and I know some functionality will be lost. Question is how much. Although I completely agree that standalones are wonderful, this complexity has made flash based options as popular as they are on modern vehicles. Unfortunately flash based options so far aren't too great for the MS3 so I am very interested to see how this pans out.

I will be watching this progress

[Jarods7920]

I am convinced that the lack of flashability forbthis car is only because of a lack of effort and previous accomplishments ring expanded upon.

[Blackspeed]

Originally Posted by kore2000 It is your money bro, so have fun. I support CPE, and if you want to blow that much money to make the same power as you could with a stand back (for much cheaper mind you)..then go for it.

you STILL have no idea what you are talking about. the SB w/ flashes and pnp harness is around $1400 already which puts it in the range they gave for the standalone pricing.

[kore2000]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed you STILL have no idea what you are talking about. the SB w/ flashes and pnp harness is around $1400 already which puts it in the range they gave for the standalone pricing.

1400$$...lol..then you sir got ripped off. I have flashes, sb, and PNP harness and I barely touched 1000. Also, I did just say standback and not standback w/ PNP harness and flashes since you like to be so technical about what is said.

[Blackspeed]

Originally Posted by kore2000 1400$$...lol..then you sir got ripped off. I didn't even pay over a thousand and I have flashes, sb, and PNP harness and I barely touched 1000. Also, I did just say standback and not standback w/ PNP harness and flashes since you like to be so technical about what is said.

you keep getting dumber everytime you type. can you read? where did i say i have a SB? i dont care whos dick you sucked to get your sb. here is what it would cost at street unit:


you also said that i can make just as much power w/ the SB, but now you claim that didnt include flashes, so that would be another false statement. do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop posting garbage

[kore2000]

Okay, you are an ignorant little asshole aren't you...okay let me spell it out for you since you don't seem to get it.

On a stock turbo with mild bolts on, the power you could make on the standback alone is comparable to what you could make on a standalone. Why? Because the stock turbo can not produce enough air to really take advantage of a wide open throttle like a BT can. If you purchased the SB w/ PNP by itself, no flashes, it would cost in the neighborhood of around 900$ And that's if you don't buy it on sale or through other means. Now while 900$ is on the lower end of the estimated price, I highly doubt it is going to be that much.

Now you can keep calling my posts garbage just because you don't understand them, but doesn't make the point any less valid, and if you read on page 1, even Socks says the exact same thing.

First of all, this isnt going to be for exhaust/intake cares. the standback works well for that already. This is going to be for cars with big turbos, going for alot more power. If your concerned with keeping your warranty, IMO your not ready for something like this. This is a standalone EMS. it just happens to plug right in.

I guess his posts are garbage too right? Look junior, I know you want to play with all the big boy toys and that's fine if you want to waste your money on something that is completely overkill on a car even with your mods. But don't sit here and pretend that it is the best route or you'll make tons more power. Your power on a standalone with a stock turbo and mild to moderate bolt ons will be comparable to the gains that could be had with a standback. If you don't agree than go ahead and buy it, and tune your heart out and I'll be there to laugh at you when you produce only a few more HP then someone who paid several hundred less, but understood the concept of overkill.

EDIT: And with that said, I'm done. You do what you want, it doesn't affect me. The world is filled with idiots, I can't help if one of them was smart enough to get a computer and create an account on MSF. I'm not going to keep crapping on this thread. Have good day.

[djuosnteisn]

* yawn *

[Blackspeed]

Originally Posted by kore2000 On a stock turbo with mild bolts on, the power you could make on the standback alone is comparable to what you could make on a standalone. Why? Because the stock turbo can not produce enough air to really take advantage of a wide open throttle like a BT can. If you purchased the SB w/ PNP by itself, no flashes, it would cost in the neighborhood of around 900$ And that's if you don't buy it on sale or through other means. Now while 900$ is on the lower end of the estimated price, I highly doubt it is going to be that much. Now you can keep calling my posts garbage just because you don't understand them, but doesn't make the point any less valid, and if you read on page 1, even Socks says the exact same thing. I guess his posts are garbage too right? Look junior, I know you want to play with all the big boy toys and that's fine if you want to waste your money on something that is completely overkill on a car even with your mods. But don't sit here and pretend that it is the best route or you'll make tons more power. Your power on a standalone with a stock turbo and mild to moderate bolt ons will be comparable to the gains that could be had with a standback. If you don't agree than go ahead and buy it, and tune your heart out and I'll be there to laugh at you when you produce only a few more HP then someone who paid several hundred less, but understood the concept of overkill.

1) the FCF was marketed to stock turbo cars to begin with. It wasnt until recently, with the wall flash, that you could even make decent power from a BT. you fail again.

2)Socks expressed his opinion, and I disagreed. You came along thinking your king shit and know everything and pop off at the mouth. That is why i call your posts garbage while i respect what socks has to say.

3)I already listed at least 2 other reasons why i would choose the TC3 over the SB, not to mention that it leaves room for growth/change.

if you are done...i am done.

[SSinstaller]

If your reading this Jake, this standalone would be good enough reason for me to drag my MS6 up to CPE.....

[subparpunk03]

Originally Posted by socks If the ecu is encoded, and you remove the ecu, you remove the immobilizing system. when i talked to lou, it was his intention to retain most if not all "creature comforts", but remember, its a standalone EMS, none of the other standalones do, so if this does, it will be a big bonus.

Since socks brought up creature comforts... and in case anyone is curious about how that could be possible, I point you towards Hydra:

www.hydraems.com

They made standalones for my old car, and they were PnP, however you didn't completely replace the stock ECU. You leave the stock ECU in place and just use the standalone to control fuel, spark, turbo, etc. The stock ECU retains control of everything else. The downside to this approach (on my old car) was that certain things would not work "right"

For instance, the water temp gauge would not function, and you had many permanent CELs saying all sorts of catastrophic things were going on, but the car would still run amazingly well since it was being run by the Hydra unit.

I guess my point is that it is POSSIBLE to make a standalone pcm that would actually work in parallel with the stock ecu to keep the car daily driveable. Its been done before on other platforms and there's no reason the evil geniuses up at CPE can't make it happen.

[Blackspeed]

I think the point of the TC3 is so you DONT have to work in parallel with the stock ecu.

[subparpunk03]

Well, I don't have any insight into their approach, I was just commenting that it is very doable to keep things like keyless ignition and such using a method like that.

Think of it like this, ALL engine control done by the TC3.

Keyless entry, immobilizer, push button start, etc. Controlled by factory ECU.

In essence, the ecu controls everything BUT the engine.

Again, I'm just saying that is one possible approach, that has been executed with success on other platforms that would in fact give you total control of all engine functions and not require you to reprogram your key's PATS codes to work with the TC3 or any of that stuff.

Lex touched on this earlier when he said that modern CAN ecu's are very complicated. They do a whole hell of a lot more than just controlling fuel and spark, and totally removing the ECU is something that does not work very well on CAN cars.

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed I think the point of the TC3 is so you DONT have to work in parallel with the stock ecu.

In these vehicles it would be virtually impossible to completely remove the OEM ECM, it controls far too many features unrelated to the engine.. Everything from the climate control to the instrument cluster would stop working.

This standalone will most likely have to run in parallel, with the OEM ECM left in place controlling ancillary features..

[Blackspeed]

Originally Posted by subparpunk03 Well, I don't have any insight into their approach, I was just commenting that it is very doable to keep things like keyless ignition and such using a method like that. Think of it like this, ALL engine control done by the TC3. Keyless entry, immobilizer, push button start, etc. Controlled by factory ECU. In essence, the ecu controls everything BUT the engine. Again, I'm just saying that is one possible approach, that has been executed with success on other platforms that would in fact give you total control of all engine functions and not require you to reprogram your key's PATS codes to work with the TC3 or any of that stuff.

I know what you mean now. With my cavalier, it had a BCM seperate from the ECU that controlled all the other junk like keyless, so the ecu could be removed completely when running standalone.

well....they say you can just replace it

Originally Posted by mdd5148 The name we gave it is TC3 - TC stands for Total Control and the 3 is because its the 3rd generation of our engine management systems. Its a completely new product designed ground up. Like all other engine management solutions we offer - its made and designed in house with proprietary hardware and software. Not revealing much just yet but a few things: - Standalone - full control - in the full meaning of those words - Plug and Play - take your factory ECU out, put on shelf and put ours in and go. OEM like compatibility with full control. - Complete End-user tunability - Full datalogging capabilities - Expansion capabilities: meth injection control, addntl injector control, etc.. - …and of course more

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed I know what you mean now. With my cavalier, it had a BCM seperate from the ECU that controlled all the other junk like keyless, so the ecu could be removed completely when running standalone. well....they say you can just replace it

That quote was taken from a post referring to the TC3 for the Genesis.. The hardware requirements may be the same or very similar in that car, but the implementation and functionality may be completely different with our platform..

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed well....they say you can just replace it

Not so sure how literal i would take that quote.


I mean design work isn't even finished on this product, so who knows what bumps lay in the road of development. Arguing over it's finished form is pointless when there is still much more to do.


And my guess is that a hybrid stand alone will be the outcome, simply based on the fact that there is so damn much CAN communication between the various ECM's in the vehicle. It seems it would be much more difficult figuring out how to interface with the bazillion different control modules around the car while maintaining proper functionality than to simply leave the ecu in place and just feed it dummy data... like "your idling, all the time... just idling and being happy..." mean while car is pushing 500whp .


It will be what it will be, but you can rest assured it will have complete control.

[Blackspeed]

Originally Posted by SSinstaller That quote was taken from a post referring to the TC3 for the Genesis.. The hardware requirements may be the same or very similar in that car, but the implementation and functionality may be completely different with our platform..

thanks for pointing that out....read fail on my part. it would be kick-ass if they were able to make a true replacement.

[SSinstaller]

Originally Posted by Blackspeed thanks for pointing that out....read fail on my part. it would be kick-ass if they were able to make a true replacement.

Anything is possible, and I don't doubt Lou in the slightest, but I do think the R&D and engineering involved in adding all the extra functionality would push the price way past that ~$1500 estimate--and provide essentially nothing better than simply leaving the OEM ECM in parallel.

[thousandfaces]

The solution to integrating all the various systems of the Speed3 might be easier than we think.

Implementing all the various systems of a modern CAN based car with a complete replacement standalone ECU is a matter of reverse engineering the entire ECU coding and retaining the functionality by literally copying it. CP-E will probably be retaining a large part of the Mazda programming in their standalone and only completely overhauling the actual engine control systems to allow the freedom that Mazda is hell bent on keeping from us.

Just my thoughts on this.


I am VERY excited by this prospective tuning solution.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by thousandfaces The solution to integrating all the various systems of the Speed3 might be easier than we think. Implementing all the various systems of a modern CAN based car with a complete replacement standalone ECU is a matter of reverse engineering the entire ECU coding and retaining the functionality by literally copying it. CP-E will probably be retaining a large part of the Mazda programming in their standalone and only completely overhauling the actual engine control systems to allow the freedom that Mazda is hell bent on keeping from us. Just my thoughts on this. I am VERY excited by this prospective tuning solution.

While a great idea, I'm not so sure how practical it is. Lou would have to use a similar (if not the same) processor as mazda did, in order to use the same compiler and assembler / linker they used. Otherwise, they'd be forced to port all the logic over to the processor of their choice (which i'm 99% sure isn't the same as the mazda ecu processor) and that could be just as much time consuming and error prone as trying to replicate the logic from reverse engineering.


I still vote for hybrid and maintaining lots of creature comforts

[thousandfaces]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn While a great idea, I'm not so sure how practical it is. Lou would have to use a similar (if not the same) processor as mazda did, in order to use the same compiler and assembler / linker they used. Otherwise, they'd be forced to port all the logic over to the processor of their choice (which i'm 99% sure isn't the same as the mazda ecu processor) and that could be just as much time consuming and error prone as trying to replicate the logic from reverse engineering. I still vote for hybrid and maintaining lots of creature comforts

CP-E must be able to read and decompile Mazda's code to get anything done outside a standback type of system or very rudimentary map editting. As for not using the same processor type as Mazda, I am sure they are able to source a compatible one from the same family of processors. I am not sure a hybrid system is ever going to be a solution going forward to give full control and still have all other CAN systems in place as there is too much interoperability between systems. For instance dynamic stability control which utilizes many of the cars systems and sensors in the engine and out. Personally (and I do have limited knowledge of microprocessors and code, not in automotive) I would attack this problem as I have suggested and reprogram the engine management leaving everything else intact.

This all being said, I am down for anything that keeps the toys and allows complete control hybrid or replacement.

Wouldn't it just be nice if Mazda was friendly to us enthusiasts? Can't really hurt their sales, can it?

[cesaros]

mazda needs to offer a reflash to disable the 1st-3rd gear torque limiter...i'd be a happy camper with just that (and allowing the throttle to open 100%)

[Dre]

Originally Posted by cesaros mazda needs to offer a reflash to disable the 1st-3rd gear torque limiter...i'd be a happy camper with just that (and allowing the throttle to open 100%)

Would you be willing to trade your factory warranty for that? cuz i believe that's what they would ask for along with some currency..