This saturday Kane is tuning my car with the AP and his robot. I'll post some logs in here.
Stay Tuned. :evil_laug:ylsuper:

update:
posts 21 and 22 have log in them.

how's it look?

reupdate: post 77 has a link to download the actual map and copies of it (for those of you with 04 or 05 8s). you'll need open office 3 to view the copies and racetuner beta to load the map.

rereupdate: posts 91 and 92 have .jpg images of the following: stock 2nd and 3rd WOT, cobb stage2 2nd and 3rd WOT, kanetune 2nd and 3rd WOT.

post 89 has dynos of those three.

subscribed.

subscribed....if he does good maybe he can tune mine when i get the ap again...it would be nice having someone in the area....

:suspect:

What's that face about?? LOL

I'll let Chase tell ya'll.

BTW - I didn't tune jack - he did it himself.

That's good- spread the wealth

tuned -- logs tomorrow

probably 10whp easy.

afrs are gorgeous. maf scaling is the key.

I'll let Chase tell ya'll.

BTW - I didn't tune jack - he did it himself.
:wiggle:

your software is rad. thanks for the lesson. i can't wait for the full download. i'll round my "m-values" at the hundred-thousandth place one by one. :lol: you know i will.

:wiggle:

your software is rad. thanks for the lesson. i can't wait for the full download. i'll round my "m-values" at the hundred-thousandth place one by one. :lol: you know i will.

Nerd!

got some AP dyno numbers. Both were taken today on the same road in the same conditions. 79 degrees outside the whole time. Yes i drove around for a while after flashing back to the stock map before doing the pulls.

dyno is taken in 3rd from 2500 rpm to 7000 rpm. I set the weight at 3199 lbs in both cases.

stock map:
188.82 hp @ 5995 rpm
156.23 tq @ 5915 rpm

tuned map:
200.74 hp @ 6701 rpm
157.34 tq @ 6701 rpm
:naughty:


logs coming soon. I have them, just haven't gotten around to uploading them etc.
I did WOT pulls in 2nd and 3rd gears for both maps.

You broke the 200 mark huh... nice!

In the end we are all numbers whores.

lol. yeah. you should've seen your face last night when i said we got 199 hp. you wanted that 1 hp as much as i did. heh.

grats.
dyno graphs?

okay, how do I attach .csv on here? says invalid file.

grats.
dyno graphs?

i have the .csv's. someone can plot them, i guess. how do i attach them on here?

This is awesome, hope you can get those plots up for us all to see....
1) you should cross-post this to the "AP dyno results" thread in the Engine Tuning Forum.
2) I still don't have much faith in the "ap dyno" function to give a real/absolute horsepower figure, but a before/after comparison like this is probably a fairly accurate measure of tuning gains. Great to see!!!

yeah. i'll crosspost it. i don't know how much i trust the dyno numbers either from this thing, but when compared like this, they seem to make sense.

maybe i can just take a screen shot.

Ya the AP dyno isn't all that accurate. I know a few NA people that have gotten 250+rwhp and over 200 ft-lbs of torque with the AP dyno so I don't have faith in it.

I've never tried it myself, though

arrg, the bitmaps are too bigs. tried saving as .xls with no luck. anyone?

uploading these mutha suckas is harder than tuning.

testing renaming to .doc

wohoo. success.

:aroused:

Did not work for me..... try excel

Did not work for me..... try excel

Kane,

Get yourself up here to the NW and come tune my car! While we you are at maybe we can kidnap Faille from his gf and go for some drinks!

You make the army send me - and I'll go in a heartbeat.

PS - Faille doesn't have a GF... it is all a coverup for his D&D parties... HAHAHAHAHA

I still wanna see this silly dyno....

rpm tq hp
2764 132.08 69.51
2837 133.31 72.01
2930 129.57 72.28
3025 131.08 75.5
3094 137.21 80.83
3176 139.62 84.43
3274 139.72 87.1
3347 143.35 91.35
3440 143.44 93.95
3515 141.57 94.75
3587 140.77 96.14
3654 142.43 99.1
3756 142.01 101.56
3824 139.48 101.55
3914 139.6 104.03
4001 141.37 107.7
4087 139.12 108.26
4178 135.63 107.9
4259 137.62 111.6
4327 138.16 113.82
4409 139.5 117.11
4494 144.16 123.35
4589 145 126.7
4664 147.03 130.57
4769 147.86 134.26
4840 144.52 133.18
4938 147.4 138.59
5010 151.35 144.37
5100 146.66 142.42
5219 141.97 141.08
5290 144.29 145.34
5359 143.14 146.06
5441 139.39 144.41
5560 142.61 150.97
5631 150.88 161.76
5707 152.28 165.47
5774 150.71 165.69
5839 153.7 170.87
5921 153.93 173.54
6013 150.63 172.46
6125 147.5 172.01
6229 144.2 171.03
6325 142.92 172.12
6420 145.7 174.75
6497 147.65 183.35
6608 151.35 194.56
6701 157.34 200.74

you should be able to open the links with MS word or Open office. can you not?

the forums don't allow .xls either.

here's the afrs for the tuned 3rd gear WOT
Equiv. Ratio (AFR) RPM (RPM)
14.26 2461
14.55 2514
14.41 2610
14.26 2673
14.26 2794
14.41 2863
14.11 2954
14.11 3038
14.11 3142
14.11 3243
14.26 3323
14.26 3415
14.11 3532
14.26 3620
14.26 3722
14.11 3835
14.11 3918
13.96 4004
12.94 4124
12.2 4207
12.79 4308
12.79 4428
12.64 4528
12.49 4640
12.2 4724
12.2 4825
12.2 4944
12.05 5026
11.91 5165
12.64 5241
12.49 5369
12.35 5469
12.05 5540
12.2 5637
12.35 5764
12.49 5871
12.35 5946
12.49 6074
12.49 6134
12.64 6260
12.94 6329
13.08 6426
12.79 6531
12.94 6632
12.94 6699
12.79 6865
12.79 6967
12.79 7065
12.79 7141
12.79 7272
12.35 7305
12.49 7392
12.64 7466
12.79 7571
12.79 7651
12.64 7809
12.49 7885
12.49 8023
12.49 8112
12.49 8127
12.79 8253
12.79 8391
12.64 8433
12.2 8628

and here's the afr's for the 3rd gear WOT on the stock.Equiv. Ratio (AFR) RPM (RPM)
13.96 1891
13.82 1960
13.67 2067
13.96 2141
14.11 2246
14.26 2355
14.55 2450
14.41 2565
14.11 2663
14.26 2764
14.26 2874
14.11 2982
14.11 3069
13.82 3187
13.23 3282
12.79 3413
12.49 3515
12.35 3643
12.05 3757
11.76 3871
11.32 3979
11.76 4109
11.91 4215
11.91 4337
12.05 4427
11.91 4575
11.76 4714
11.76 4798
11.91 4975
11.91 5085
12.2 5212
12.05 5318
11.47 5432
11.32 5561
11.47 5686
11.61 5829
11.91 5948
11.76 6054
11.91 6180
12.2 6282
12.49 6393
12.2 6522
12.35 6594
12.35 6718
12.35 6857
12.2 6940
12.2 7051
12.05 7187
12.05 7275
11.91 7349
12.05 7508
12.05 7600
12.05 7698
11.91 7821
11.76 7911
11.91 8001
11.76 8190
11.91 8279
11.91 8393
11.61 8314
11.91 8249
14.55 8115

No in any office program I get wierd gibberish...

Those AFR's look nice though... not much left in there for power.

Now - gut the cat.

Yeah I can't open it either. The mods in your sig are the only mods you have?

Not bad with the cat in there IMO...


PS - That AF shifter is the shizzit - I want one.

Ok, re read. So are you going to actually dyno it to get some real data? That would be cool.

well, the afrs are real data. we know what those do.

yeah, the mods in my sig are it.

and though it may not be accurate, it's consistent.

when i do the pull properly, floor it when it says and let off all the way at 7k, i routinely get 185 -188 on the stock map and 197 -200 on the tuned map. i've done it 5 times on each map.

take it for what it's worth.

and, for what it's worth, i had no problem overtaking hellhammer in his stock 04 as we left.

Deviation from known standard......

This saturday Kane is tuning my car with the AP and his robot. I'll post some logs in here.
Stay Tuned. :evil_laug:ylsuper:

update:
posts 21 and 22 have log in them.

how's it look?

How did you create the actual flash file for the AP?

1 - Stock Map
Cruise
2 - Scale MAF (using software; I made Chase do it while I nursed a hangover)
3 - Verify MAF scale
WOT
4 - Trend High MAF if possible
5 - Verify Expected AFRS are in line with actual AFRS
Idle
5.5 - Same for idle as for WOT and Cruise
Tune Fuel
6 - Set targets AFR to desired AFRS once you know that you are gonna get what you want
Tune Timing
7 - That is more just some old school tuning stuff; no cool computer nerd toys for that... :(
8 - OMP, Fans, Redline etc (actually I usually do those first)
9 - Final Pull vs Initial Pull = deviation against known standard....

For an NA motor - that is it - no injector drama per se, tell driver to kiss cat goodbye - and go get some sleep... LOL

Drink a gallon of water before hitting the sack - LOL

What I mean, is how is the actual *.ptm file created to load into the AP to flash with? Do I need "Race Tuner"?

Drink a gallon of water before hitting the sack - LOL

What I mean, is how is the actual *.ptm file created to load into the AP to flash with? Do I need "Race Tuner"?

Actually, don't drink and talk shop with Swoope.... he'll kill you.

Yeah Race Tuner is how that all got done.

Scott eh? LOL ...you should have seen that coming

OK, so I have all I need to try this I beleive. I have Access 2003 and 2007, have you released PPO2 v1.5 yet? I also have the beta version of Race Tuner. Is that it?

Yeah man - I am releasing the next Baseline as soon as I can church it up some.... Chase saw the raw version which wasn't bad cause I was working it and knew how to make it run.

And there isn't any changes to the timing?

if you can pdf it, that should work if you want you can email me it and i can try, haido84@gmail.com.

And there isn't any changes to the timing?

no, we changed the timing too.

if you can pdf it, that should work if you want you can email me it and i can try, haido84@gmail.com.

i don't understand why people can't see the .docs. I have pulled them up on two different computers now.

i'm running open office 3.

if you can pdf it, that should work if you want you can email me it and i can try, haido84@gmail.com.

okay. i'll do this later if people are still not seeing them.

i can copy and paste a specific column if you like. any requests?

this is what my calcs came up with...

Hmm maybe its this comp, I'll check it later at my buddys place.

this is what my calcs came up with...

looks like 2nd might need a little work in the afr dept. but we're still in a good range. i'll try a couple more pulls to see if those high 13s near 7k were just an anomaly.

thanks for that.

this is what my calcs came up with...

you have the stock dyno on there, right? can you plot it against the tuned one?

this is what my calcs came up with...

Yeah that is what I wanted - stock overlayed on this would be cool.

Thanks rotor for the mad excel skills.

looks like 2nd might need a little work in the afr dept. but we're still in a good range. i'll try a couple more pulls to see if those high 13s near 7k were just an anomaly.

thanks for that.

Meh... remember NA motor doesn't benifit much from 13.5 to 12.5... you get a pretty big sweet spot.

Plus the AFR's are actually delayed - so you can't take it too literal when looking at the transition areas.

ok, cool. thanks, Kane! you da man!

p.s. ppo shift knob :)

Yeah man.... just gotta call my CFO/ Social Director / Boss and ask her to mail one.

PM me your addy would ya?

You make the army send me - and I'll go in a heartbeat.

PS - Faille doesn't have a GF... it is all a coverup for his D&D parties... HAHAHAHAHA

Find a cheap plane ticket and ill send for you over the weekend!

this is what my calcs came up with...

Does 2nd gear need another look?

Does 2nd gear need another look?

kane says, "nah".

Meh... remember NA motor doesn't benifit much from 13.5 to 12.5... you get a pretty big sweet spot.

Plus the AFR's are actually delayed - so you can't take it too literal when looking at the transition areas.

could be too that i let off on the throttle slightly there by mistake. i was doing some second gear pulls a minute ago just watching the afrs in live mode, and i didn't see any 13s. so, i dunno. i'll ned to do some more logs to confirm.

But i guess just for aesthetics, i'd like to see them level out a bit more. though given what kane says, i don't think it matters too much.

overall, the car pulls harder and smoother, and there's more power available to me when I want it. i really can't imagine another NA mod that would come close to the difference realized here.

Yeah man.... just gotta call my CFO/ Social Director / Boss and ask her to mail one.


your wife? :lol:

This looks promising for sure. What did you do to the timing map?

we made it better. lol.

kane will have to fill in the details. he did this while i was "testing map 2" (i.e., doing donuts with hellhammer).

can i just post the maps? not sure how i would do that on here, but if kane doesn't object, i'll give it a go.

also and otherwise, i'll take some logs tomorrow with a column for the timing (if it logs that .. does it?) -- i just selected the ones i understand. i'll need a longer lesson to know how to tune the timing.

your wife? :lol:

Yeppers... as she likes to say - I may wear the pants but she controls the zipper.

This looks promising for sure. What did you do to the timing map?

Nothing really crazy since we didn't have enough time to get the old Pyrometer readings nor a dyno. Typically the only thing I really do in those cases is push the timing by 1-3 degrees after the torque peak where Mazda saw fit to just flat line them.

we made it better. lol.

kane will have to fill in the details. he did this while i was "testing map 2" (i.e., doing donuts with hellhammer).

can i just post the maps? not sure how i would do that on here, but if kane doesn't object, i'll give it a go.

also and otherwise, i'll take some logs tomorrow with a column for the timing (if it logs that .. does it?) -- i just selected the ones i understand. i'll need a longer lesson to know how to tune the timing.

Yeah man - so some Print Screens and post away... (Control)(Print Screen) then open like Powerpoint and Paste it (Control)(V) - then when you save the Powerpoint save it as a jpeg or gif.

As to really tuning timing - you need to really get comfortable with your cat temp sensor or get a pyrometer - AND OR get it on a dyno.... the old tune till it pings and back off method isn't really smart.

ok, cool. look for the maps tomorrow night, probably late. AP is in the car, and I don't wanna wake anything.

is there any interest in me posting the maps? looks like it may be a bit of a PITA.

but if there's any interest at all, I'll post them. lmk

For us to properly PWN the competition at the track, all of us RX8 owners need the best maps.

okay. but then i won't be the fastest. lol.

You need some PPO2 stickers and then you will be the fastest! lol

i'm getting a shift knob. i think that adds another 10. and the one in my sig is worth at least 30.

they are the intellectual property of kane. :lol2:

Just kidding. He knows what i mean by that.;)

ha ha!!!

best i can do. no powerpoint.

should be as viewable as the others. if you can't see, just download open office 3, and it should work. takes all of 4 minutes.

any requests?

Why not put it in a .zip format.
Attachment rules allow 100KB zip files

okay, i can do better now that i'm on the desktop. i'll try zip, if i need it. but you'll still need open office, i think.

I thought you just wanted to upload the map and logs... or was I mistaken?
Figured you could just keep them in their native file format and combine them into one zip file.

forum is slow

go here to get the zip (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=9e7517e4ab18f6b5d2db6fb9a8902bda)

you'll need open office to see it. it'll be worth the download.

click the "sheets" at the bottom.

okay, people should get open office. it's open source! ya know, it's like this map.

here's a new download (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=9e7517e4ab18f6b5d2db6fb9a8902bda) with the original .ods files and the .doc files in it. I also put the original .ptm map file in there, but i don't think anyone will be able to see it. click the 18.97 MB one.

the .doc files should work. i'm not sure if you'll be able to change the pages which is the whole point of the spread sheet in this case.

please let me know if anyone can see these.

Cool man!

i think so. should be more of it. NA 8s aren't so different from car to car that sharing maps wouldn't be at least beneficial. The cobb stage 1 map seems to work pretty good for lots of people without cold air intakes, right? that darn maf is tricky. :stickpoke

and dude, my car is a beast now (to me anyway).

today i was cruising in 4th at 65mph when i decided to rev match and drop into third (so i revved to 7k and threw it in third and floored it). maybe it's just my butt dyno, but i swear it was awe inspiring. i think the tires even chipped a little.

Race Tuner Beta will not open the .PTM file

Different cars? myriadshalaks has a 07. You have a 04?

Race Tuner Beta will not open the .PTM file
hmm, not sure what hurdles to freedom accessport has going.

i guess what you'll have to do if you want to run or tinker with this map is just use the spreadsheets to see the values and change yours accordingly and create a new map in race tuner.

^ Yep - will try this weekend - I like tinkering :)

You can only open tunes that match the specific version of the accessTUNER race software you've loaded. If you have tunes for an 08 RX8 Federal, you cannot open then on an 05 version of the software.

ah, so you should be able to use the ptm for 06-08 since that's what the AP says mine is. use good gas though. lol. report your findings or you fail.

in summary, which maps have changes to them?

maf -- air fuel - timing

correct, kane?

and the fans. idle and throttle, i think too.

oh, maybe the limiters.

RPM Limiter, OMP, MAF Scale, Base Fuel Tables, Base Timing Tables, Cooling Tables

and - I think that is it...

took a couple more dynos. looks like it's getting stronger.

i also took some more wot pulls. this time i took 2nd and 3 rd in both the kane tune and the cobb stage 1. let's just say the cobb stage 1 sucks. the kane tune looks about the same as it did before.

i'll post those logs tonight.

:):squint:

:crazy:

Looks nice... you need some cool graphs for this!

so those high 13s were bugging me a little, and i decided to try some tiny changes. i think i was successful. i went to the air fuel table and decreased the values (i clicked "decrease" twice) in a rectangle shape between 3k and 6k rpms around max engine load.

here's what happened. better or not as good? power seems about the same.

the differences are on the right hand side in the middle. very minimal.

mid 14s vs low 13s only cost me a few hp/lb-ft (less than 3)

that sentence is multiply ambiguous.

afrs in the 14s? i.e., are you saying, with kane, that the difference here is so minimal that it doesn't matter?

track times in the 14s? i.e., are you saying that it only took maybe 3hp to get your drag times down a second -- so every little bit helps?

i assume you mean the former, but the reasoning behind the latter has something going for it were the numbers not so improbable.

i don't think i'm willing to give up 3 hp if it's there. i mean, suppose i get 8 from the exhaust and intake. i get 10 -12 from the tune depending. that's either 18 or 20hp. i'd rather have 20, right? lol.

hey, i'm not driving, i might as well be tuning.

oh, and could you specify which way it cost you. 14s were better or 13s? under what load? :Eyecrazy:

i don't think i'm willing to give up 3 hp if it's there. i mean, suppose i get 8 from the exhaust and intake. i get 10 -12 from the tune depending. that's either 18 or 20hp. i'd rather have 20, right? lol.


Chasing 2 to 3 whp is going to be an almost impossible task. I can get 2 to 3 more whp by simply running a few different pulls on the dyno. You're not even going to be able to detect the hp difference.

I'm not sure where in the rpm/load range you're talking about in reference to your air/fuel rations but running 14's at WOT above 4,000 RPMS or anywhere outside of closed loop is a seriously bad idea. Not only is that going to be a pre-ignition situation but it's a law of diminishing returns. The farther you go up in the air/fuel range you have to increase engine load to maintain power. At some point, going leaner will yield less power than more.

Kane is correct in that an N/A rx8 has a power area of about 12.5 to approx 13.2 air/fuel. As long as you're within that range you're fine.

Chasing a few tenths of air/fuel is a time consuming and often expensive project. The only real way to do it is to get on a load bearing dyno and adjust air/fuel for various ranges in your rpm band one at a time.

Chase, what are you trying to fix - and more importantly - are you getting the AFR's you set up in the AP???

Don't tune for results - tune for accuracy..... if you can't get the afrs you want you need to work the MAF more.

i'm not really trying to fix anything. i just wanted to see what happened. and what happened is that the afrs under wot in 2nd gear around 5-6.6krpms went from high 13s to mid to high 12s.

flashwing, team rx8 brought up 14s but didn't explain. i don't have 14s under wot in open loop as you can see from my logs. if you want to see what i changed, look at the airfuel table and just run down the columns around max load. about 1/4 way down, you'll start seeing differences.

now, am i getting exactly what i put in the air/fuel table? no. i think the results i'm geting are leaner than the values i enter. i'm having to enter, say, 11.48 to get 12.5. what can i do to make that more accurate. increase the maf or decrease? where? the whole scale?

i guess i just want to see how close i can get to 12.5 across the whole open loop wot range without a dyno. i'm not that far off now.

i have lots of time.

LOL - ok, I think most people assumed you were leaning out your AFR's not fattening them up...

Well technically you should work the injector scale and or the MAF scale in order to get the AFR you dial into the table..... but realize this is somewhat difficult.

My new version of the software will help - also remember the LATENCY.... the AFR's are behind the actual car by like half a second or so.

We will talk once the new version of baseline comes out.

okay, i see. team must have been saying that he lost a few hp going from 14s at wot to mid 13s. lol. he's crazy.

i am anxiously awaiting completion of the new baseline. i can't even fool with the old one now that it's expired. :(

that said, i'm happy with my tune already. i just like to play and learn.

thanks again everyone. i'm learning a lot.

pretty soon i'll understand this better than all of you.:evil_laug

Don't tune for results - tune for accuracy..... if you can't get the afrs you want you need to work the MAF more.

can you explain the reasoning here for me a little more? i'm not really clear on why it matters. if either way you're getting, say, 12.5 as the result when you want it, what does it matter if you're entering 12.5 or 10 in the tables? in either case, one is actively trying to get the car to spit out 12.5 when it's moving, right?

if two tunes get the same results, aren't they the same tune even if they get the same results with tables showing completely different cell values? is this a philosophical question? what is the tune? the cell values or the results?

can you explain the reasoning here for me a little more? i'm not really clear on why it matters. if either way you're getting, say, 12.5 as the result when you want it, what does it matter if you're entering 12.5 or 10 in the tables? in either case, one is actively trying to get the car to spit out 12.5 when it's moving, right?

if two tunes get the same results, aren't they the same tune even if they get the same results with tables showing completely different cell values? is this a philosophical question? what is the tune? the cell values or the results?

thats the answer I finally came to myself while tuning... fact is for the actual afr to match the values in the map the following needs to be correct: all 3 injectors sized correclty, maf, and VE tables.

Not sure you can sort through 5 unknowns without some serious dyno time

well, clearly being able to just enter exactly what you want and get exactly that is ideal, but if that's impossible given the equipment, what is ultimately the difference between doing that and, well, "tricking the computer" if the results are the same?

maybe it's morally wrong or in violation of a tuner's code to trick it? maybe it's something more complicated i don't understand? :dunno:

This is really interesting, can this PP02 work with my Unichip Q Piggyback?

I downloaded the program from the PPO2 homepage but it says something "this beta has expired, download a new version" but where do I find that?

you have to wait till he finishes the new version of baseline. it shouldn't be too long. i figure the more i pester him, the faster it will get done. lol.

should work with your unichip as long as you can log data and load maps with it.

it may be as easy as just copying in your logs and hitting a big red button for a tune. i think that's what he's going for.

Ok, waiting, that is the hard part ;)

Logging and load maps is of course doable in Unichip Q.

Can't wait until I can test this, I think this is just what I needed, It would be perfect to make my own maps since im alwas playing with new parts and leaving my car for mapping to a tuner is expencive, I rather learn to do it myself (with this PP02 if it works good) =)

can you explain the reasoning here for me a little more? i'm not really clear on why it matters. if either way you're getting, say, 12.5 as the result when you want it, what does it matter if you're entering 12.5 or 10 in the tables? in either case, one is actively trying to get the car to spit out 12.5 when it's moving, right?

if two tunes get the same results, aren't they the same tune even if they get the same results with tables showing completely different cell values? is this a philosophical question? what is the tune? the cell values or the results?

The results are what is important. If you ever go Fi you will see that it is even harder to get the cell values matching the actual . It becomes an excercise in chasing your tail . Better to get it reasonably close then just change the tables to get the right result.

also remember the LATENCY.... the AFR's are behind the actual car by like half a second or so.

Exhaust gas is moving at several hundred feet per second and the front O2 sensor is about 1 foot from the exhaust ports and its response time is measured in miliseconds.
The "latency" for the actual feedback loop is a fraction of a fraction second.

The fact of it is that 100ms is fast enough to be considered virtually instantaneous.

Now, the data rate for CAN is slower than this, but that is a granularity issue, not latency.

You can consider your WBO2S readings to be as good as the last combustion cycle.

Exhaust gas is moving at several hundred feet per second and the front O2 sensor is about 1 foot from the exhaust ports and its response time is measured in miliseconds.
The "latency" for the actual feedback loop is a fraction of a fraction second.

The fact of it is that 100ms is fast enough to be considered virtually instantaneous.

Now, the data rate for CAN is slower than this, but that is a granularity issue, not latency.

You can consider your WBO2S readings to be as good as the last combustion cycle.

Interesting... the best I have ever seen tested was the Innovate LC1 - and that was 200ms behind the exhaust sampled at the WB02 sensor.

The results are what is important. If you ever go Fi you will see that it is even harder to get the cell values matching the actual . It becomes an excercise in chasing your tail . Better to get it reasonably close then just change the tables to get the right result.

Keep in mind I think of tunes in two states; steady state and transition.... transition is going to vary based on a ton of variables - while steady state can and should be dialed in to a very small percent - 5% or less is my goal typically.

That is why tuning by hand is such a PITA - it is very hard to get enough data to look at steady state only and rule out the transitional variables.


HOWEVER, if you are aiming for 12.5 and you need to set your base fuel to 10 to get it... then something is not right - and you shouldn't band-aid it; you should go and fix it.

Interesting... the best I have ever seen tested was the Innovate LC1 - and that was 200ms behind the exhaust sampled at the WB02 sensor.

We are talking about the OEM WBO2S.
The aftermarket sensor will be regulated by its distance down the exhaust system.
Even then, you are talking about 3 or 4 ms. The rest is coming from the latency in the controller, not some arbitrary "bottleneck" in the flow of gasses.

^^^ Yes, but when you look at the log - that time has to be accounted for.

HOWEVER, if you are aiming for 12.5 and you need to set your base fuel to 10 to get it... then something is not right - and you shouldn't band-aid it; you should go and fix it.

would be interested to know how close your table are to actual ???

I'll pull my last tune up when I get some time; from memory I was averaging 3-5% in most areas and I had a few 10% areas in higher loads and low RPM's.

I started at like 22% - so over the course of a month and 5-6 tunes I got pretty close.

okay, let me think about this. on first blush, it seems not to matter to me whether you get what you enter provided you get what you want as output.

let A be a maf/injector scale and B be a cell value in the air/fuel table, specifically, 12.5. and let C be another maf/injector scale and D a different cell value in the air/fuel table, not 12.5.

it would seem that if when running the tunes, AB=12.5 and CD=12.5, then AB=CD. so AB and CD look like the same tune just looking at results.

however, under the surface, if you're running CD, you're going to have some parts of the car doing more than they should to account for other parts doing less than they should and vice versa. this is what I think Kane means or implies when he says it's a bandaid way of doing things. the fuel tables bandaid the maf and injector scales, and the maf and injector scales bandaid the fuel tables.

overall, the way i'm now thinking about it, if you tune in this bandaid way, you end up with a tune at odds with itself, one that sort of wants to come apart. Possibly such a tune would effect vehicle life. :dunno:

do i have this right?

still, i wonder if maybe it's just a sweet spot, a transcendental plane of vehicle harmony, that we're looking for here. on this view, there are infinitely many ways of making her sing the same sweet song.

i think this is what rOtor is talking about in his thread when he says that at some point, tuning is just art.

Sort of....

The other issue with the band aid thing is that your MAF scale is a 2D map - so volts = xyz airflow. This is used to calculate load and access the fuel table to determine the value of the fuel to inject.

If you monkey with your fuel map instead of your scales and the scales are wrong - then you have a "lean" or "rich" spot in your MAF scale (airflow/volts) that can appear and re-appear seemingly randomly because load is a dynamic calculation.... that is why you want to get the scales right first.... know what I mean?

hmm. i was hoping i had drawn a valid distinction between street or hobbyist tuning on the one hand and race, ideal or professional tuning on the other -- the former tunes for results and the latter tunes for accuracy. both ways would acceptable here.

but it looks like that's not gonna fly. the distinction i've drawn, the way you see it, is between wrong tuning and correct tuning. is that right? and the idea is to as close to the ideal as possible.

okay, well it looks like under WOT i'm off by about 9 percent in the middle RPM range. what i enter is 9 percent richer than what i get. it's not bad, but it's not perfect. of course, the afrs look great

you spoke of "lean" and "rich" spots in the maf scale. is there an ideal spot in the maf scale like there is in the AFR? so 12.5 on the AFR is like what on the MAF scale?

2nd WOT afr comparison chart here. now that i figured out this chart stuff, expect to see charts for everything coming tonight. dynos, afrs, maf scales. everything. data data data data.

looking good man

Gotta sort out that APV spike.

hmm. i was hoping i had drawn a valid distinction between street or hobbyist tuning on the one hand and race, ideal or professional tuning on the other -- the former tunes for results and the latter tunes for accuracy. both ways would acceptable here.

but it looks like that's not gonna fly. the distinction i've drawn, the way you see it, is between wrong tuning and correct tuning. is that right? and the idea is to as close to the ideal as possible.

okay, well it looks like under WOT i'm off by about 9 percent in the middle RPM range. what i enter is 9 percent richer than what i get. it's not bad, but it's not perfect. of course, the afrs look great

you spoke of "lean" and "rich" spots in the maf scale. is there an ideal spot in the maf scale like there is in the AFR? so 12.5 on the AFR is like what on the MAF scale?

I think it would be helpful to think through the process in order to understand what I mean. Ok I am going to eliminate ALL other variables except the MAF and the Fuel Tables for simplicity.

Step on is the PCM gets a voltage reading from the MAF - it then look up the table (MAF Scale) in order to determine the airflow at that voltage.

Ok so now the PCM knows that at XYZ volts - you are moving 200 g/sec of air; it then uses the RPM (etc) to determine the load on the motor (airflow actual / airflow possible) - based on the RPM and the load the motor has two values that together can determine where on that fuel map the target AFR is... and then fuels for it.

So if your 200 g/sec is actually 209 g/sec - but you are playing with the fuel map; that reading can manifest itself at various load and rpm cells in the fuel map.

This is why getting sensors right is the key.

See what I mean?

that's making sense. thanks dude.

here's some more charts. i've got 3rd WOT AFR compare and some AP dyno compares.

what would be the best way to chart the maf data? from a wot run or a cruise run or both?

Gotta sort out that APV spike.

what would you suggest?

that's making sense. thanks dude.

here's some more charts. i've got 3rd WOT AFR compare and some AP dyno compares.

what would be the best way to chart the maf data? from a wot run or a cruise run or both?

Just chart g/sec of airflow in those afr charts to start with....

Just chart g/sec of airflow in those afr charts to start with....

like this? 2nd gear WOT maf in g/s to maf voltage

how can i tell what's best? :dunno:

and what's going on at 3.8 volts?

DO a MAF + Load + AFR graph like that.... see where the AFR's are off the target in your MAP

i'll try that on the next one.

this one is the maf calibration i did with baseline overlayed with the output from 2nd and 3rd wot.

this one seemed useful. maybe i should have the grid lines on though.

what does this mean?

best i can do. the scale is off when you try to overlay them.

I don't understand the target MAF and actual MAF thing....

I was talking about a graph time based with load, AFR, target AFR and MAF

the first one is the maf calibration copied from the map. the y is g/s and the x is voltage. the actual maf is what i logged at wot.

i don't understand the second maf chart either. it's a chart of the maf reading in g/s at a certain load. so if the load is .98, the target maf reading is whatever it is on the calibration map and the actual map is from my data logs. it was a pita to put together, and it's not very illuminating. i guess it sort of helps to see the load under which the MAF reading is not what it should be given the map. But there's really not enough data to fill it in all the way. So it looks all jiggity jaggity.

the afr at load chart seems interesting though.

i can do time based. i didn't think of that.

Wait huh?

MAF is a 2D map - fuel target AFR is the one with Load and RPM that matters.... IE if you target afr at a load of 1 and RPM of 6000 is 9% off; you need to know the MAF voltage and the g/sec at that point in order to see where on the MAF curve you need to scale....

Make sense or am I leading you in circles? Call a brother if you need to B.

right, i was trying to find out where the maf is at, say, at load 1. that's what the chart is supposed to represent. but it doesn't.

i can do better.

if i had the target afr from the map with the percent difference on the first chart, would that be what i'm looking for?

the scale is too large to have them all on one graph. i could put load and maf on one though.

okay, to hell with the charts.:banghead:
this is the data needed to tweak the maf scale, correct?

Without the deviation for standard (aka Target) that graph doesn't help a whole lot....

yeah, to hell with the charts. see above.

so it's clear, at this point i think i'm just neurotically trying to get things as perfect as i can with what i have for lack of anything better to do.

i got what i was looking for working backwards. now i want to try it the right way. but the data is all slippery.

thanks for indulging me.
:icon_tup:
:mchase:

Wait for the new MAF Baseline.... I think this will solve your problem.

Maybe I can get it done this weekend.

sweet. that's what i've been angling for anyway. ;)

still, i think i did figure out a way to make a line out the target afr data that would overlay with the actual afr data. if it works, i'll post it later. any excel gurus are welcome to jump in here.

okay, to hell with the charts.:banghead:
this is the data needed to tweak the maf scale, correct?

That table doesn't tweak your MAF scale.....that's the open-loop AFR table

but next to it is the maf and afr logged data. i'm trying to find out where in the open loop afr log the afrs from the map table are not lining up .. and by how much they're not lining up ... so i know where and by how much to tweak the maf scale.

duh. lol.

i said "this the data needed" not "this is the table needed"

Wait for the new MAF Baseline.... I think this will solve your problem.

Maybe I can get it done this weekend.

With a few cold ones, anything is possible. :lol:

the only problem to solve is my neurosis.

I tried logging target afrs yesterday and got a bunch of numbers that were totally out of whack - just sayin :)

i think if you go by the rpms and the load, you can find a comparison line from your AP data logs.
SO look at the data log, look at rpm and load, and find an afr. then look at the table, find a comparable rpm and load, and write down the target afr. then divide the bigger afr from the smaller afr. that should give you the percent deviation from target at that spot. i think you can make two lines out of that.

i'm going to try tonight.

but it's a pita. i considered just having a slot for every rpm from 0-9000

column 1 will be rpm, coulmn 2 would be data log afr at that rpm, and column 3 would have the afrs from the map table at that rpm AND with a load comparable to the load the afrs from column 2 are logged at. there won't be an axis for the load, it's up to the charter to make sure the loads line up. hence, pita.

/\ that's what i've done before . I'm just surprised the target afr's seem to be unloggable

i hear ya. someone needs to write a program that would make this easier. oh wait, someone is. lol.

rhymes with pain ?

and david blaine.

BTW - anyone know what load is the one used by the pcm . Is it calculated load or absolute load ?

rhymes with pain ?

and david blaine.

And you guys are driving me in-sane.....


LOL - PS Brettus I am pretty sure it is Calculated Load.

I had the Dashhawk and my logger set-up and it seemed that Calc Load was the one putting out the right info.

yes it's Calculated Load

I found doing a chart like this to be very worthwhile ...


http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s255/brettus_rx8/mafcalib.jpg

BTW - anyone know what load is the one used by the pcm . Is it calculated load or absolute load ?

Absolute.

you confuse me MM . Sometimes you are tighter than a fishes arse for information and other times very free with it .
Que pasa ?

you confuse me MM . Sometimes you are tighter than a fishes arse for information and other times very free with it .
Que pasa ?

I'm never tight with information.
I virtually give it away.
I just refuse to give away answers to stuff that is so unbelievably obvious that it is painful.
Just ask anyone that has learned the "secret" of the dwell settings.

Reading threads like this one mostly makes me fear for the welfare of the human race.
But sometimes there are questions (like yours) that are simple clarifications for some point that might not be obvious or not worthy of much further investigation.

Reading threads like this one mostly makes me fear for the welfare of the human race.
.

:yelrotflm...:crying::anger::tear:...:rofl:

I found doing a chart like this to be very worthwhile ...


http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s255/brettus_rx8/mafcalib.jpg

Yeah this with load would be perfect IMO; since the Target Lambda varies based on load.... unless your hand keying them.

I'm never tight with information.
I virtually give it away.
I just refuse to give away answers to stuff that is so unbelievably obvious that it is painful.
Just ask anyone that has learned the "secret" of the dwell settings.

Reading threads like this one mostly makes me fear for the welfare of the human race.
But sometimes there are questions (like yours) that are simple clarifications for some point that might not be obvious or not worthy of much further investigation.

No one insults quite like Jeff......:rofl:

No one insults quite like Jeff......:rofl:

Its a lost art.

A cheeky turn of phrase and all that jazz.....

:)

You missed your calling man - you shoulda been a diver; you would have fun I would imagine. Right about the time your filling someones wall locker with cement you realize you'd fit right in....

You missed your calling man - you shoulda been a diver;

I probably would have enjoyed that!
I sink like a rock, so I probably would have made a pretty decent diver.
Getting back to the surface is another matter, I suppose.

I guess that's a metaphor somewhere...

LOL - hey 50% of the job isn't all bad. Just kinda makes it hard to have a repeat performance.


Getting a bit more on topic: Chase; with Load, Target AFR, MAF volts, g/sec, and Actual AFR - all in one snapshot averaged over a few hundred data-points - scaling these little bumps in your tune should be a snap - now I just gotta get to work.

I am sitting on at my desk procrastinating......

Yeah this with load would be perfect IMO; since the Target Lambda varies based on load.... unless your hand keying them.

I read the target values off the load vs rpm map and manually loaded them so yes load is accounted for in the chart .

I am doing the same thing...... just automatically - HAHAHA; trying to finish now...

Graphing the logged AFR/MAF against the known map targets is relatively easy to do in Excel, once you get the hang of using the functions. Quickest way is to take your .csv log file and convert it to .xls format. Then add another worksheet to the spreadsheet. Then cut and paste your AFR or MAF map from Access Tuner or other software onto the new worksheet. Back on your datalog worksheet create a new column for "Target MAF/AFR". To calculate the Target MAF you then use the HLOOKUP function. An example...

=HLOOKUP(F2,'MAF Calibration'!$A$2:$AV$3,2,TRUE)

F2 - your logged MAF Voltage value
'MAF Calibration' - name of the worksheet where you put the MAF map. If you don't rename it you'll probably see 'Sheet2' or similar.
$A$2:$AV$3 - this is the cell range of the MAF lookup table. It should include the header row with MAF Voltages.
2 - this is the 'nth' row in the MAF lookup table containing the values you want to find. For the MAF map it will always be "2".
TRUE - just means you aren't expecting to find an exact match of MAF Voltage.


For TARGET AFR you use the INDEX and MATCH functions. An example...

=INDEX('AF Gear 1-3'!$A$2:$R$19, MATCH(G2,'AF Gear 1-3'!$A$3:$A$19,1), MATCH(A2,'AF Gear 1-3'!$B$2:$R$2,1))

'AF Gear 1-3' - name of the worksheet where you put the AFR map
$A$2:$R$19 - this is the cell range of the AFR lookup table. It should include the RPM header column and Load header row.
G2 - your logged RPM value
$A$3:$A$19 - this is the cell range containing the values of the RPM header column.
A2 - your logged Calculated Load.
$B$2:$R$2 - this is the cell range containing the values of the Load header row.
1 - means you aren't expecting to find an exact match.

Once you have entered in one formula, you can just drag to copy it to all cells in the new "Target MAF/AFR" column. The "$" before each lookup table cell location is required to establish an Absolute cell reference rather than a Relative cell reference. I'm definitely not an Excel power-user, I just found how to do this off of Google because I knew the program could do 2D and 3D table lookups without using add-ons. My example spreadsheets where done in Excel 2003. My copies of Open Office 2.4 on FreeBSD and Ubuntu also have these functions, but I didn't test them on those machines cause that's obviously not where my ATR race is installed.

139982

cool . What happens to values midway between 4 marker values ?

IE say 3750rpm and 145% load

Jesus.... just wait like 2 hours!

For the 2D MAF map it looks up values in a "less than or equal to" manner. For the 3D maps (eg AFR) it does the same, but I realized that the way I posted needed to be amended. Where I had...

=INDEX('AF Gear 1-3'!$A$2:$R$19, MATCH(G2,'AF Gear 1-3'!$A$3:$A$19,1), MATCH(A2,'AF Gear 1-3'!$B$2:$R$2,1))

should really be...

=INDEX('AF Gear 1-3'!$B$3:$R$19, MATCH(G2,'AF Gear 1-3'!$A$3:$A$19,1), MATCH(A2,'AF Gear 1-3'!$B$2:$R$2,1))

with an explanation of...

$B$3:$R$19 - this is the data range of the AFR lookup table. It should NOT include the header column and row.


139992


cool . What happens to values midway between 4 marker values ?

IE say 3750rpm and 145% load

that's cool, atl8. nicely done. still looks hard. lol.

just got off the phone with kane. the new baseline is on its way shortly.

i'll have to make some more logs and key some stuff in to it, but this time sunday or monday, i should have the most perfect tune available to me given the equipment i have on hand. i'm shooting for a flat 12.5 from about 5k to 9k. is that too ambitious? i think NO! well, maybe a little.