High rpm = P0335 (crk position sensor failure)
11-23-2009, 07:12 AM
#21
if the resistor burns out the sig is broken and the ecu has nothing from the o2 sensor which the ecu reacts by going to open loop. its the same thing if you were to just unplug the 02 sensor.
11-23-2009, 07:13 AM
#22
Sorry, I missed that. How would a dead resistor cause the ECU to stay in OL though? At least if it were wired correctly, it would only prevent the FIC from modifying the nernst cell circuit it taps into. I wonder if he installed it into the O2 circuit? That would wreak havoc.
BTW, I love the answers I get when I call AEM.
Me: "so does the fic need a resistor on the WB O2 tap"
AEM: "some do, some don't. Try it and see what happens."
Me: "so is it better to tap the magi gnds or intercept them?"
AEM: "Try it one way and if that doesn't work, try the other way"
Me: "I've installed the prescribed 2.2k resistors on the magi wires but am still getting a P0335 code"
AEM: "Scions don't need those resistors, remove them."
BTW, I love the answers I get when I call AEM.
Me: "so does the fic need a resistor on the WB O2 tap"
AEM: "some do, some don't. Try it and see what happens."
Me: "so is it better to tap the magi gnds or intercept them?"
AEM: "Try it one way and if that doesn't work, try the other way"
Me: "I've installed the prescribed 2.2k resistors on the magi wires but am still getting a P0335 code"
AEM: "Scions don't need those resistors, remove them."
11-23-2009, 07:47 AM
#24
Senior Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 3,387
I agree. I've found the best info on AEM's forum but whenever I post there, I get no replies from AEM unless it's something really simple like my defective boost gauge.
11-24-2009, 02:09 AM
#27
Senior Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 3,387
Rustin has paid to have my harness shipped back to him for mods and back to me via next day air. He bought a brand new 30-1911 FIC and shipped it to me for testing. He's shipped me extra wire, connectors, fuse tap, etc and even made me a new harness with extra FIC leads that I requested. He also offered to make me a Greddy Ultimate harness if I wanted to ditch the FIC and he's offered me a full refund for the harness.
I think he's been very fair and reasonable and I don't blame him for AEM's lack of support for what they choose to call a "universal" FIC. AEM's position is simply that they haven't validated their FIC for use with the XB yet. Boomslang's harness did have a wiring problem but that's now fixed and the remaining problems are strictly with the FIC.
I think he's been very fair and reasonable and I don't blame him for AEM's lack of support for what they choose to call a "universal" FIC. AEM's position is simply that they haven't validated their FIC for use with the XB yet. Boomslang's harness did have a wiring problem but that's now fixed and the remaining problems are strictly with the FIC.
11-24-2009, 07:48 PM
#29
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 393
Thats cool that they are helping you out like that. The Fic i think is pretty good and fairly easy to tune, but then again I have not had these issues with that code. I hope it all works out for you with a new fic. At the very least your stock ecu is able to handle low boost and 440s till you get it figured out. Best of luck.
11-27-2009, 02:35 AM
#30
Senior Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 3,387
Thats cool that they are helping you out like that. The Fic i think is pretty good and fairly easy to tune, but then again I have not had these issues with that code. I hope it all works out for you with a new fic. At the very least your stock ecu is able to handle low boost and 440s till you get it figured out. Best of luck.
AEM was right. Do not install those crk/cam resistors unless you absolutely need to. FWIW, I left the resistor on the cam inputs since I haven't had any cam codes but I suspect it isn't needed. OTOH, maybe the FIC was confusing crk and cam signals internally and lowering the cam signal voltage helps. In either case, everything finally works as it should and all I have left to do is refine my fuel map.
Last edited by ScionFred; 11-27-2009 at 02:39 AM.
11-27-2009, 02:56 AM
#31
nice....didnt really see that comeing. I wonder if its more of a Tc thing cause i do it to every tc that i tune (try them first with out it of course) and they all ran great with em.
11-27-2009, 03:35 AM
#34
Senior Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 3,387
I don't know if it's the crk sensor, ECU, vehicle-specific wiring/shielding or the FIC but I'm very happy to have the problem solved. I also don't know if the resistor on the cam inputs is helping or not but I'm inclined to leave it as long as everything works as it should. Maybe the cam signal was interfering with the crk signal inside the FIC? Reducing the cam signal voltage may help. Maybe my crk sensor output is weaker than most? The list of possibilities goes on and on...
I'm just happy to finally have everything working as it should and to be able to pass my emissions test by the end of the month. I am now 100% code free with nothing pending after ~1000 miles. My fuel map still needs some work but my MAF map is beautiful. I logged a N/A stock airbox 0-100mph WOT run and used it to create my own MAF map. Before the FIC I would get a pending P0101 everytime I drove the car and a CEL on the next drive. Fixed.dat
If you're interested, I'd like to send you a copy of my log file and maf map. I'm not sure how well the data/map would work for a 07-09 TC but it is very different from the 05-06 TC MAF map from AEM.
11-27-2009, 03:59 AM
#36
It surprised the hell out of me. I had a 0-2.5k pot ready to install to find out what R value I needed but the logical first step was to test AEM's advice and remove the 2.2K resistor. Worked like a charm.
I don't know if it's the crk sensor, ECU, vehicle-specific wiring/shielding or the FIC but I'm very happy to have the problem solved. I also don't know if the resistor on the cam inputs is helping or not but I'm inclined to leave it as long as everything works as it should. Maybe the cam signal was interfering with the crk signal inside the FIC? Reducing the cam signal voltage may help. Maybe my crk sensor output is weaker than most? The list of possibilities goes on and on...
I'm just happy to finally have everything working as it should and to be able to pass my emissions test by the end of the month. I am now 100% code free with nothing pending after ~1000 miles. My fuel map still needs some work but my MAF map is beautiful. I logged a N/A stock airbox 0-100mph WOT run and used it to create my own MAF map. Before the FIC I would get a pending P0101 everytime I drove the car and a CEL on the next drive. Fixed.dat
If you're interested, I'd like to send you a copy of my log file and maf map. I'm not sure how well the data/map would work for a 07-09 TC but it is very different from the 05-06 TC MAF map from AEM.
I don't know if it's the crk sensor, ECU, vehicle-specific wiring/shielding or the FIC but I'm very happy to have the problem solved. I also don't know if the resistor on the cam inputs is helping or not but I'm inclined to leave it as long as everything works as it should. Maybe the cam signal was interfering with the crk signal inside the FIC? Reducing the cam signal voltage may help. Maybe my crk sensor output is weaker than most? The list of possibilities goes on and on...
I'm just happy to finally have everything working as it should and to be able to pass my emissions test by the end of the month. I am now 100% code free with nothing pending after ~1000 miles. My fuel map still needs some work but my MAF map is beautiful. I logged a N/A stock airbox 0-100mph WOT run and used it to create my own MAF map. Before the FIC I would get a pending P0101 everytime I drove the car and a CEL on the next drive. Fixed.dat
If you're interested, I'd like to send you a copy of my log file and maf map. I'm not sure how well the data/map would work for a 07-09 TC but it is very different from the 05-06 TC MAF map from AEM.
crush02342002@yahoo.com
11-27-2009, 07:08 AM
#40
Senior Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 3,387
Yeah, my maf voltage starts at .7v ign on, idles just over 1V, didn't exceed 2V until almost 2000rpm and maxed at 3.78V vs the 2.19v to 4.39V in the AEM maf table. Considering that I've seen 2psi at 2000rpm, I thought it prudent to re-scale and start clamping below 2V.
The thing I'm most unsure of is how much I can add to the stock voltages before upsetting the ECU. AEM said to add a 5% safety margin to the log peaks but that seems kind of low to me. I've already added more than that without throwing a code. With an AT I'd like to make the ECU see as much load as possible for faster shifts but without triggering a P0101 CEL for "MAF out of range".
The thing I'm most unsure of is how much I can add to the stock voltages before upsetting the ECU. AEM said to add a 5% safety margin to the log peaks but that seems kind of low to me. I've already added more than that without throwing a code. With an AT I'd like to make the ECU see as much load as possible for faster shifts but without triggering a P0101 CEL for "MAF out of range".