MicroSquirt.com read only forum (Jan.15,2018)

Does this account for most of the LC-1 failures that I've been reading about?

I've got an LC-1 from you, haven't installed it yet. But the day I ordered it, I started running across posts about he LC-1 failing a lot. If all of that is can be fixed by a resistor, great!

Fred, can you shed any more light on "LC-1s failing a lot" ? I have one, that I ran for a while w/o the resistor.

-Dave

ChevelleFan wrote:Fred, can you shed any more light on "LC-1s failing a lot" ? I have one, that I ran for a while w/o the resistor.

-Dave

I can't. I just ran across a thread of people who were calling the LC-1 junk, and saying that they'd had multiple failures, that innovative didn't make a good product, etc. It was just a few people that were venting their frustration, and so I didn't give it too much credit. But I'm curious if their problems were caused by the lack of this resistor.

Fred

I understand that the failure is the ground for the LC-1 not being installed or coming loose will fry the LC-1 itself.

Its a case of if you hook something up wrong, it just shoudn't work. As opposed to if you hook it up right not having any issues.

I've been using the LC-1 for a while, and wasn't aware that there was an extra protection resistor needed. I've had no problems so far, but if there's a modificationto help protect the LC-1 I'd rather put it in.

Is it possible to modify the MS v3.0 pcb instead of adding an in-line resistor? Maybe increase the value of R10 for us LC-1 users?

Thanks for your help, Matt.

Bad grounds can be a problem with anything as Richard said, though there have been cases where the MS ECUs are reported as drawing too much current for the LC-1's DAC. Innovate is investigating that further, and this resistor will alleviate the problem without any negative side effects.

They definitely are nice units-- I just removed another vendor's unit to use the LC-1/XD-1 combo and I know it's installed properly, with this resistor in place. I wasn't having any particular problem with the old unit, just wanted to run the Innovate stuff.

midnightblue wrote:
Is it possible to modify the MS v3.0 pcb instead of adding an in-line resistor? Maybe increase the value of R10 for us LC-1 users?

Thanks for your help, Matt.

That may work as well-- using something in the 1.3-1.4k range in R10. I'd wait to hear back from Innovate when I send this unit off to them, let's see what they think about this.

T3Bunny,
a few posts back you were talking about sensor accuracy and you used the example of a 14.68 vs 14.72 reading. The difference between them is only 0.04, which corresponds to a 0.27% error { [14.72-14.68]*100/14.72}. Such precision is almost laboratory quality and far above the precision of other sensors. If this is the range of incosistency of different setups, there is *no* accuracy issue with a wb.

kanenas wrote:Such precision is almost laboratory quality and far above the precision of other sensors. If this is the range of incosistency of different setups, there is *no* accuracy issue with a wb.

Honestly, I think the shift was bigger, but I don't remember the specifics on my own setup so I was using those numbers as an example. Bad example I guess though! I know that I had a large enough shift to be causing an actual problem.

This is something I have addressed with my plug and play VW harness system I am making. They are now setup with a dedicated ground and power system, and most importantly a fusebox and a point for people to "plug in" their additional items like the LC-1. I am hoping this helps with ground issuse and voltage shift. I have an LC-1 here that I am hoping to be able to test out on this system in a day or so before I send it out.

FWIW we had several people with LC-1's at our dyno day Saturday and I had the shop stick their wideband in the tailpipe of a car (no cats) to verify the accuracy (checking the guys install as much as anything to make sure it was grounded properly and configured right so we could use it for tuning) and it read DEAD on with the shops wideband when we reviewed the datalogs and compared with the dyno plot.