As the title says, this is a repository for Cobb data logs, charts, comparisons and discussion.

A bit of background for my spreadsheet
I've attached a comparison between my car and WCS
Here is a reference to the issues I'm fighting... Start on post 273
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=195294&page=11

Both of our runs are on a dyno in 5th gear

I recommend third gear pulls on the street if you can find a good spot to get to redline @ WOT

I'll post some third gear pulls later

Edit:
To standardize log pleas include the following
Time Coolant Temp. (° F)
Equiv. Ratio (AFR)
RPM (RPM)
Calculated Load (%)
Long Term FT (%)
Mass Airflow (g/s)
Throttle Position (%)
Ign. Tim. Lead. Coil (°)
Ign. Separation (°)

Damn, mine are all on my laptop, I will post up tonight. Would it help if we all start to log the same things? Maybe even try and log the same way, like do a run from 0-70MPH or something.

What should a healthy stock high power rx-8 pull in max g/s in third gear? ~205 g/s?

Just curious.

I hit 197 or so near 8500RPMS, not sure which gear I was in though.

Anywhere between 205-220 seems to be normal... If you click on the link in DarkBrews first post and go to post 273 you'll see that we are logging between 195-197g/s and are trying to get to the bottom of the issue... well I was, my car is now in pieces as I'm installing my turbo.

Okay here is a quick shot up to redline from around 5,000RPM from a log I found on my work PC :)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/4990636192_8bc538602d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4990636192/)
log2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4990636192/) by 9krpmrx8 (http://www.flickr.com/people/9krpmrx8/), on Flickr

Hmm seems like the more logs I see there are only a few people who actually break 205 g/s... I managed to hit 202g/s a couple weeks ago but it was quite a bit colder ambient temperature than previous pulls..... makes me think that we may be off in thinking that 205-220ish is a typical g/s range... wish I would have got on a dyno before installing the turbo.

I have hit above 200 as well. i will look at some old logs of mine and grungepups car I have from the Hymee and see what he and I were pulling last year.

Added my Datalog into my previous post... this may sound stupid but how do I add that image right into my post rather than just an attachment?

I helped a friend to buy an used -04 a couple of weeks ago (around 90000kms) it was sluggish because prev. owner didnt floor it enough but it still did around 205 g/s when I tested it before purchase.

MFR = 202.60 Grams per Second (g/sec) @ 8200rpm from MMs "Rotary Math" thread.

So a couple of g/s up and down from that should be correct?

See this is where I wonder what difference a reading of 5g/s or so makes for power and response wise. My car was feeling agile and responsive, but at the same time the low g/s will really only affect your high rpm acceleration.

MFR = 202.60 Grams per Second (g/sec) @ 8200rpm from MMs "Rotary Math" thread.

So a couple of g/s up and down from that should be correct?


Hmm... I never saw that before... maybe when we were told 220 is normal it was a typo or misread and it was meant that 202 is normal

g/s can be translated to hp but only as a rough guide. it will change depending on a lot of things.

Have been logging alot this year so it changes, 220 seems to be too high for a stock High Power model? I think above MFR is more correct?

Have been logging alot this year so it changes, 220 seems to be too high for a stock High Power model? I think above MFR is more correct?


It certainly seems so compared to most logs I have seen... haha makes me feel alot better about the 197-201g/s I was pulling. The reason Darkbrew was having issues though was because of a pretty low dyno pull at a MazdaManiac dyno day. If you look at WCS' log he made about 197rwhp on the dyno and was logging arojun 209g/s I believe.

Correct me if im wrong but these can be used as guidelines for you:

200-205 g/s Stock "231 hp"
220-240 g/s tuned "231 hp" <-- This differ alot depending on so many things.

I think you'd be hard pressed to see over 220 with NA mods.... but again that is just from the very few logs I have seen. Maybe if porting was involved. I logged max of 201.x g/s with catback exhaust and MM base NA tune on AP.

Well im pulling way over that..

It certainly seems so compared to most logs I have seen... haha makes me feel alot better about the 197-201g/s I was pulling. The reason Darkbrew was having issues though was because of a pretty low dyno pull at a MazdaManiac dyno day. If you look at WCS' log he made about 197rwhp on the dyno and was logging arojun 209g/s I believe.

Missed this part, this is interresting. I was under the impression that my 235 g/s was a bit low for N/A tuned. hehe good thing I belived that because that made me work my ass off with my tuning.

^ really wow... what mods are you running?

Its easier to point you to the european rotary board: http://www.rotaryheaven.net/showthread.php?10-Fastlane-Mazda-RX-8-RS-05

You will find logs, list, mods etc there.

Actually I started a compare logs thread there, feel free to join it. =)

Cool.

One thing to keep in mind guys is if any of you have done adjustments to your MAF scaling then using MAF readouts as a direct comparison between cars isn't going to work. As an example, I see between 215 and 220 g/s of airflow at about 9,000 rpms but my last dyno was 185whp.

Without a constant in the measure process you won't be able to make any determinations. Using MAF values on a more general scale can give you approx HP figures but don't get caught up with 5 g/s here or there.

^^i agree, my LTFT dont differ more then -1% to max 1%. a good scaled MAF is of course a must before we compare things. and yes a couple of g/s dont mean anything. its differs as the wheater. ;)

Mine logged around 225-230 when it was tuned and making 190whp .

Below is some logs I did to measure the effect of a hot engine vs cool engine ...

My max at almost stock (only BHR coils) was 208.58 @ 8727rpm on a hot day in June running the "stock style" map with the AccessPORT. I'll post up the log in a bit.

I will be working on the nitrous tonight and afterwords I will do some logs and third gear pulls.

Shouldnt there be a guideline to how you want us to post our datalogs... like from 0-70 or 3rd gear pulls from 4000RPM etc. Where do you want us to start from etc. or is it up to the user???

Yeah we should standardize things and list if you have scaled your MAF or not. I say 3rd gear at 50MPH pulls.

^^^ Scaled your MAF, explain what that means, im not familar with that terminology... And 3rd Gear pulls from 50mph works for me...

^^^ Scaled your MAF, explain what that means, im not familar with that terminology... And 3rd Gear pulls from 50mph works for me...


oh man, you don't want me explaining it, i am still trying to wrap my head around all this. Read the help file on Kanes site and the thread in the engine tuning sub forum. That will give you a better understanding :)

OOOh ... I'll be posting some soon ... awesome thread! We need more like this

^^^ Scaled your MAF, explain what that means, im not familar with that terminology... And 3rd Gear pulls from 50mph works for me...

I guess "scaled" isn't quite the best word to use. Calibrated is more in line with what is going on.

Since you have the ability to alter the calibration of your MAF, you change the amount of airflow the MAF registers under certain conditions. It's possible that you could change the calibration of your MAF at top end which would produce a larger or smaller number than actual.

So trying to compare two different RX8's airflow numbers and try to make sense of the power output isn't feasible because there's no constant between the cars.

Basically, don't get hung up on the numbers too much as each car is different.

Try this guys, let me know if it works.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmB22u_aAChidGJnOF9HeHhOakJ0UWs0NVNxeERwW Gc&hl=en

Lol Righhtttt.... Well I guess mine will go with unscaled... Im gonna leave soon and ill log some data for yall...

Dang, well I logged some data and it seems im reaching a max of 243 g/s for my MAF, may be just a spike... Idk how yall are getting around 200, must be my AEM CAI??? Idk but at WOT from 8-9K rpms I see a steady 200+ g/s reading on my MAF from my datalogs, I seem to be getting a average of 215-225 around those rpms as well...... Ill attach them shortly...

EDIT: Apprently my file is invalid, any ideas at how to make this work?

looking for the auto maps for the cobb, bought one that was unmarried and it was on a 6spd, i checked cobb site but all the maps are for 6spds

Try this guys, let me know if it works.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmB22u_aAChidGJnOF9HeHhOakJ0UWs0NVNxeERwW Gc&hl=en

Works fine but a graph would be nice too

Try this guys, let me know if it works.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmB22u_aAChidGJnOF9HeHhOakJ0UWs0NVNxeERwW Gc&hl=en


Running hawt .... wat was the temp outside?

How did you get your titles to stay and not scroll?

Dang, well I logged some data and it seems im reaching a max of 243 g/s for my MAF, may be just a spike... Idk how yall are getting around 200, must be my AEM CAI??? Idk but at WOT from 8-9K rpms I see a steady 200+ g/s reading on my MAF from my datalogs, I seem to be getting a average of 215-225 around those rpms as well...... Ill attach them shortly...

EDIT: Apprently my file is invalid, any ideas at how to make this work?

That's a buttload of air ... I doubt real healthy N/A rx8's go over 210g/s ... we need to get MM in here

Works fine but a graph would be nice too

I will work on a graph, any particular RPM range?

Running hawt .... wat was the temp outside?

How did you get your titles to stay and not scroll?


The outside temp for that log was close to 100F, it's mid 90's or so now. South Texas :)

That's a buttload of air ... I doubt real healthy N/A rx8's go over 210g/s ... we need to get MM in here

Lol if I can find a way to post it I will... :yelrotflm But I do get an average of 215-228 from 8-9K rpms no lie...

Here we go, lets try this...

https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=txnt3jYdvX8T_96UQzw5iWg&hl=en#gid=0

Lol if I can find a way to post it I will... :yelrotflm But I do get an average of 215-228 from 8-9K rpms no lie...

Here we go, lets try this...

https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=txnt3jYdvX8T_96UQzw5iWg&hl=en#gid=0

We do have almost the same type of mods and tune, we also pull almost the same g/s.

I think my guideline at page 1 is valid.

These datalogs are from 6 speed manual, yes?

Expect a noticeable increase in g/sec from datalogs in the middle of the summer versus in the middle of the winter.

okay so what do you we want to see, what data? here is some data that I copied from this morning. I will post the full log later.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4993615510_73cc25ed4a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4993615510/)
Log3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4993615510/) by 9krpmrx8 (http://www.flickr.com/people/9krpmrx8/), on Flickr

Okay guys, uploaded the Data to google docs.

FYI, I have a 6 speed manual, slightly modfied Cobb Stage 1 map (no maf scaling changes just fans, revs, etc), BHR ignition, BHR fuel pump, BHR midpipe, HKS catback, stock intake with WIX filter and custom cold air duct.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmB22u_aAChidFBDRzQxQlJxN3ZLSElLdElXQkpJM 0E&hl=en

Time Coolant Temp. (° F)
Equiv. Ratio (AFR)
RPM (RPM)
Calculated Load (%)
Long Term FT (%)
Mass Airflow (g/s)
Throttle Position (%)
Ign. Tim. Lead. Coil (°)
Ign. Separation (°)

Does anyone have any experience graphing this stuff? I played around with it but some of the values are so low it does not visualize well on a graph.

Here is a 2 axis plot

Let me know if this is what you're looking for.

Thanks :) I have never used Excel too much so i am having to relearn :lol:

Does anyone have any experience graphing this stuff? I played around with it but some of the values are so low it does not visualize well on a graph.

You mean like this (http://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php?p=2382914&postcount=1238) graph? I made that in Excel, and I still have the XLS, but I even astounded myself when I made it, and for the likes on me, I struggle to figure it out again... Too many barley pops I guess - lol

Nice. :lol:

I will post up the xls tonight - if you guys figure it out, then you owe me more barely pops...

The datalogs in that xls are from Hymee's scananlyser also. So, now I need to figure out the format for the Cobb csv log files...

And here it is in all it's confusing glory...

Here are a set of "typical" logs:

the turbo accelerated from 60 to 200 in 10 secs ... whaaaat?

Love the support this thread is generating!

the turbo accelerated from 60 to 200 in 10 secs ... whaaaat?

lulz.

KPH.

These are all on an inertial dyno, so the rise time doesn't count, anyway.

Cool, thanks.

Here are a set of "typical" logs:


There are still so many factors to account for.... but at the same time I feel like I'm lacking in MAF with 201g/s being my max. That is on your NA base tune.

maf ically inept .. maf ically challenged .. maf matically lacking .. maf us withoutus .. And i suppose as we dedate these maf results we eventually become expert mafdebators ....

Just thinking aloud here ....

Bump. Do you guys think my BHR pump comes into play? Can you see where I shifted to 4th :) Oh, and ambient temp gauge measured 99F.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/4998956030_ed7f9a00ab_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4998956030/)
log5 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4998956030/) by 9krpmrx8 (http://www.flickr.com/people/9krpmrx8/), on Flickr

Hey guys...

Here are a couple of snapshots of a WOT run in 1st gear in my 2004 AT RX8.

I used Kane's Baseline program to modify the fuel trims in the Open Loop areas.

The snapshots below are after the first "fine" tuning I did.
I first adjusted the entire Open Loop, higher load and RPM area of the stock Map fuel trims by an M value of 1.15.
I applied this map to my ECU, and called that my "JK Base Map V1".
I did this because my COBB logs, when using the Stock Base map in this area, were showing a steady AFR of 11.17.
I belive the COBB AFR scale bottom's out at this value, as I have not seen it go any lower...ever.
I logged about 4 days worth of normal / hard driving and applied those logs into Kanes Baseline program and it showed me the rich areas that I still had.
I adjusted the fuel trims again using the M values provided by the program.
The average changes I still had to make, in the same area as before, was still another 1.05M to 1.25M decrease in fuel.
I have since applied those new M values to the areas specified by the program into my fuel trims and have applied that to my ECU.

The snap shots below are after a day or so of normal driving.

Questions:

(1) Are the Open Loop areas of the stock ECU map really that rich???? I have moved the values up now twice, and as you can see in the logs, still get quite rich in some areas. Am I missing something?

(2) Does that map look ok with that growing peak in the fuel trims in my Open Loop, higher load and RPM areas?

( 3) I have another log of a good pull in second gear up a steady hill. AFR's in this log are not quite a rich at WOT... I belive they are pretty good for the load and RPM???

Any input would be appriciated....

Thanks.

Try and do a log just during a 3rd, 4th gear pull on flat road. Start the logging right before and stop right after you let off.

Hey guys...

Here are a couple of snapshots of a WOT run in 1st gear in my 2004 AT RX8.

I used Kane's Baseline program to modify the fuel trims in the Open Loop areas.

The snapshots below are after the first "fine" tuning I did.
I first adjusted the entire Open Loop, higher load and RPM area of the stock Map fuel trims by an M value of 1.15.
I applied this map to my ECU, and called that my "JK Base Map V1".
I did this because my COBB logs, when using the Stock Base map in this area, were showing a steady AFR of 11.17.
I belive the COBB AFR scale bottom's out at this value, as I have not seen it go any lower...ever.
I logged about 4 days worth of normal / hard driving and applied those logs into Kanes Baseline program and it showed me the rich areas that I still had.
I adjusted the fuel trims again using the M values provided by the program.
The average changes I still had to make, in the same area as before, was still another 1.05M to 1.25M decrease in fuel.
I have since applied those new M values to the areas specified by the program into my fuel trims and have applied that to my ECU.

The snap shots below are after a day or so of normal driving.

Questions:

(1) Are the Open Loop areas of the stock ECU map really that rich???? I have moved the values up now twice, and as you can see in the logs, still get quite rich in some areas. Am I missing something?

(2) Does that map look ok with that growing peak in the fuel trims in my Open Loop, higher load and RPM areas?

( 3) I have another log of a good pull in second gear up a steady hill. AFR's in this log are not quite a rich at WOT... I belive they are pretty good for the load and RPM???

Any input would be appriciated....

Thanks.


You are applying the M values to the MAF scales yes?

Also, your MAF pulls must be long and slow. Though based on your logs, I don't see anything radically wrong, your STFT jumped high, but that could be throttle tip in, have to let it run some and see if your LTFT change to a high positive value.... but for sure be doing those cruising pulls before you mess with the WOT ones.

Kane, what do you think are ideal logging scenarios? Highway trips? Normal in city highway driving? 3rg gear WOT runs? Also do you agree with the items on the first page in terms of what data should be logged?

For MAF Scaling, long 3-4th gear pulls on flat ground are best (cruise control)...

As for what to log:

Time
Coolant Temp. (° F) - optional for most things
Equiv. Ratio (AFR)
RPM (RPM)
Calculated Load (%)
Long Term FT (%) - get STFT too, helps to see open loop
Mass Airflow (g/s)
MAF Volts
Throttle Position (%)
Ign. Tim. Lead. Coil (°)
Ign. Separation (°)

The rest of this list looks fine.

Hey Kane.....

I was taking the attached log info from your program and doing the following:

For Exsample:

At 7000 RPM at 100 percent load, the percent of change was
-13.7968355408958. So I applied the value of 1.13M into the "air/fuel Gear 1-2" area of AccessTuner Race at this area in the cell.
I did this for all rich values to try and reach my goal of 13.8 AFR in the open loop areas.

I have the stock airbox, so I did not think i need to calibrate my MAF sensor.

Is this not the way I should be tackeling this?

Thanks.


You are applying the M values to the MAF scales yes?

Also, your MAF pulls must be long and slow. Though based on your logs, I don't see anything radically wrong, your STFT jumped high, but that could be throttle tip in, have to let it run some and see if your LTFT change to a high positive value.... but for sure be doing those cruising pulls before you mess with the WOT ones.

Nope, you need to start with the MAF, even stock they can be off by quite a bit. The goal is to get your Target AFRs (the map in the Cobb under fuel gear, to match the actual AFR's that you are seeing.

ahhh... ok.. That may explain why stuff seems sooo far off... lemme play.


Nope, you need to start with the MAF, even stock they can be off by quite a bit. The goal is to get your Target AFRs (the map in the Cobb under fuel gear, to match the actual AFR's that you are seeing.

Isn't 13.8 a bit too lean? I know that if your are racing in Star Mazda they say the most power is .92 - .93 lambda, but we are not racing. I would like to shoot for more like 13.0 in open loop.

Here is a dyno graph from a Cobb dyno tuned NA for example. Notice the trend line of the AFR? It looks like 13.0 - 13.2 to me.

That's great info... Great graph.. That is what I am trying to shoot for.

I will back it off a bit... I read in other areas that 13.6 to 13.8 was max power... but it looks like at a cost???? Engine maybe?

Thanks again.


Isn't 13.8 a bit too lean? I know that if your are racing in Star Mazda they say the most power is .92 - .93 lambda, but we are not racing. I would like to shoot for more like 13.0 in open loop.

Here is a dyno graph from a Cobb dyno tuned NA for example. Notice the trend line of the AFR? It looks like 13.0 - 13.2 to me.

Nope, you need to start with the MAF, even stock they can be off by quite a bit. The goal is to get your Target AFRs (the map in the Cobb under fuel gear, to match the actual AFR's that you are seeing.

Ok... So I took these averages at the different MAF voltages and applied the M value's to to my MAF curve in AccessRace. (See Thumbnail)

By the looks of the numbers the lower voltage areas should have got richer, and the higher voltages should have gotten leaner... Based on more and less air scaling.

I must have done sumth wrong... as the car ran like total crap... Backfired when it started... and during warming up...

Then when I drove a bit.. it had bad hesitation at lower RPM's and from standstill.


I dunno... me confused, Ha ha ha...

What I tried now was just changing the MAF values between 2.77v and 3.71v.... The car runs fine now and is a bit leaner up at WOT... Low 12's as a min.

Those low end MAF values will only work right if you've got closed loop driving turned off.

And you have to log and drive specifically for MAF tuning.

Did you read my scaling the MAF thread?

What I tried now was just changing the MAF values between 2.77v and 3.71v.... The car runs fine now and is a bit leaner up at WOT... Low 12's as a min.


This part of it looks like it is working out ok... - low to mid 12's are fine for a daily driver

OK... How do we scale the low end MAF values if we can't hit them in open loop? Logging in closed loop and try to get the STFT and LTFT close to zero?

You can do that, or turn closed loop off while you log down low.

Ya... I did. I also read a bunch of threads that all give different opinions and ideas... so I am getting a bit confused.

You mentioned: If you pull the O2 sensor it will stay in Open Loop the entire time, and then you zero out all fuel enrichment......ect.. I have not gone that route.

If I look at my logs, the car is running between the 14.7 to 13.2 range during closed loop operation. The LONG TERM fuel trim is at -0.16 which is what we want, correct? Should I even bother to mess with that?

According to the logs, under higher loads / RPM, when it goes Open Loop, it was geting way richer (Low 11's)

So if I understand you correctly, I am able to adjust just my MAF at the higher v levels that are giving me richer than desired MAF readings. Once I am close at those higher loads / RPM's, I can fine tune any spikes / rich spots using the fuel tables?

I will readjust the MAF tables in you program to match the changes I did last night, and log for a couple days and see where I land, then if need be, do it again.

I think this is the right path?

Thanks.

The LTFT takes time to build -0.16 usually means that none of the LTFT's have settled yet.

You can disconnect the O2 sensor, or make a new open loop only map, and take the closed loop exit RPM down (IE zero out the closed loop stuff) - just be sure to not run that map for anything other than logging for the maf.

When u change your MAF you don't have to do anything to baseline besides clear out the old file and reload your logs (as long as your target AFR map stays the same).

Hey Dark ... how the "F" did I miss this thread.

Subscribed.....
Oh and +1 post .... biotches

The LTFT takes time to build -0.16 usually means that none of the LTFT's have settled yet.

You can disconnect the O2 sensor, or make a new open loop only map, and take the closed loop exit RPM down (IE zero out the closed loop stuff) - just be sure to not run that map for anything other than logging for the maf.

When u change your MAF you don't have to do anything to baseline besides clear out the old file and reload your logs (as long as your target AFR map stays the same).


Wicked... Thanks buddy... I think I finally got it.

I will go through this process.... I will pull O2 sensor and then drive as you mentioned in the MAF thread... and will see what happens.

Thanks :-)

I will post in a few days.

I'd recommend zeroing it in the AP - much easier to do.

Ha ha ha...

I was just about to say that, I don't have to crawl under the car.... ;-)

So, in Access Race, drop the closed loop exit RPM to zero and the closed loop load to zero as well?

Thanks.

Yep

cool.... Thanks bud.

Going for a drive!!!:-)

Like this?
(see attachment)

Like this?
(see attachment)

I put mine to 0.00 not 0.10 like you did... but I would assume that your way would work as well.. as that is a very low load... car idle's at around 20 load.

See Attachment:

:-)

Don't know how the ECU would react to all zero.

I will let ya know... ;-)

Going for a drive soon....

If memory serves, I did all zero's it was fine.

Did some logging with closed loop tables like those I posted above. Trims are zero all the time so it works. The car idles AFR 15.6-15.9, expected 14.7. Average correction came to +1.12 in the logged MAF Voltage area of 1.04-4.28V which corresponds to the trims I was watching the last few days.
Correcting the MAF and will log again.

Did some driving today in Open Loop...

I had a bit richer results at first... on cruise I was sitting around 14.2 AFR... and at idle I was bang on at 14.7. But after driving around a few hours... I notciced that things leaned up a bit... Maybe just because the car got warmer?

Similar to SC-ed's... Idle was into the 15 range... and cruise was almost bang on at 14.7 to 15. These are numbers I saw during live logging.

I have not chucked the logs through Baseline yet... gonna do that later.. see where I land and adjust accordingly...

:-)

Here is what I ended up with in Baseline...

Kane... Not sure what I make of this...

Seems rich in some areas and lean at higher air flows....

Do I take each of these averages and scale the MAF, or do I take an average of all these values?

This is the result of just the cruise piece at 60 mph on a steady piece of flat highway....

Thanks.

You should do each of the values (however, you'll have to realize after you're done, sometimes you have to smooth the curve manually.

I haven't seen a MAF scale that far off on the top end before, are you stock intake?

Ya... Stock intake.

I rmoved the baffles and have a Highflow K@N filter. That's it.

So youthink the low end is correct, but the high end looks off?

I am running an 04 Automatic, with the Base Map from Access Race Tuner, could the map it generates be wrong for my car?

I took that "Base Map" and only modified the open loop stuff as you said, that's it.

Is it possible I mesed up sumth in my Engine setup in Baseline? I am pretty sure I built it right.

Thanks bud.

Double check that your target AFR map in baseline is the same as your Air FUel map in AP for the gears you are logging.

Otherwise, I would keep running it, make smaller changes (5%-7%) and see where it goes... it could also be the injector scaling of your second set of injectors or even a failing fuel pump, so be sure to save your previous maps in the event that things get all out of whack.

Hey bud...

I may not be doing this right.. ha ha..

I took this first step as:

"Step One: Cruising.
- On your Base Fueling MAP; set the Lamda Values in the cruising range to 1 (AFR 14.7)." I did this to "Make the math easier"

So my AFR Target is all 14.7 see attchement:

I did not scale it to the Air Fuel tabels as the other attachement shows?

For the WOT pulls I was going to chenge the MAF table to around 13.1 for those higher RPM and Load areas....

I also included a snpshot of my log at that cruise:

Well, there we go.... ok cool, at least now we know the issue.

Without baseline my MAF scaling thread using excel works - but with baseline you can be even lazier...

Once your baseline target AFR table matches the AFR table in the Cobb (you can change the cobb to AFR by the way).

THEN you log and you can scale the whole MAF without having to change anything in Baseline (other than log and scale)

ahhhhhh... ok!!!!! That makes sense...

How do I change the COBB to AFR vs Lamda? I did not know you can do that?

Thanks man. :-)

Under one of the options windows... I don't have it in front of me to tell you excatly, but it's easy to find if you go through the options at the top of the menu.

"Use Standard Units"... :-)

Thamks buddy....

That makes things alllllot easier....

Ok... I will be back... :-)

I think this thread is moving to "Scale the MAF" really quick.

I think this thread is moving to "Scale the MAF" really quick.

As the title says, this is a repository for Cobb data logs, charts, comparisons and discussion.

How else are you going to get your datalogs, charts and discussions.... LOL

I agree that it is moving away for the original topic but at the same time It's not a bad thing.

Just the logs people :)

How does this look? Better I think...

Added a pic of my new MAF curve in AP.


:-)

Well, it is one of my favorite threads! :D:

Here is my untuned warm idle log... :yelrotflm

I have not really had time to do anything to my car lately. I bumped my idle up a bit to compensate for the porting. I really need to get going on my tune. I started an e-tune session with Jeff, but this car needs a dyno tune. Waiting to hear back from Surgeline in Portland.

How else are you going to get your datalogs, charts and discussions.... LOL


Yep!!! :-)

Well, it is one of my favorite threads! :D:

Here is my untuned warm idle log... :yelrotflm

I have not really had time to do anything to my car lately. I bumped my idle up a bit to compensate for the porting. I really need to get going on my tune. I started an e-tune session with Jeff, but this car needs a dyno tune. Waiting to hear back from Surgeline in Portland.

When I tried to move my Idle up to around 1000 rpm... nothing appears to happen.

I even bumped it up to 1200 for a bit to see if it makes a difference, it did not.

Adjusted in all 3 map area's as well.

Here are a couple of mine from earlier today .... you can see more discussion at http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=201668

most of em are WOT .... but have some cruising sections to them

you can also see than my LTFT changed over the course of the day ... my car has not finished setting them

When I tried to move my Idle up to around 1000 rpm... nothing appears to happen.

I even bumped it up to 1200 for a bit to see if it makes a difference, it did not.

Adjusted in all 3 map area's as well.

Did you click "save map" ?

For MAF Scaling, long 3-4th gear pulls on flat ground are best (cruise control)...

As for what to log:

Time
Coolant Temp. (° F) - optional for most things
Equiv. Ratio (AFR)
RPM (RPM)
Calculated Load (%)
Long Term FT (%) - get STFT too, helps to see open loop
Mass Airflow (g/s)
MAF Volts
Throttle Position (%)
Ign. Tim. Lead. Coil (°)
Ign. Separation (°)

The rest of this list looks fine.


And set the Air/Fuel 3-4 Gear Map to all 14.7? As the long slow part, log from 0.00 calculated load all the way to 1.25 calculated load?

:icon5:

Did you click "save map" ?

Ha... ya.. I did... ya.. it's wierd. Does not make any differance.

And set the Air/Fuel 3-4 Gear Map to all 14.7? As the long slow part, log from 0.00 calculated load all the way to 1.25 calculated load?

:icon5:

Huh? NO way - never set the whole map to 14.7

I think you guys are confusing the "old school" way using excel and the Baseline way.

You ONLY set your cruising areas to 14.7 (lambda 1) for the maf scaling if you are using excel style... Baseline you just make sure your target AFR map and your AP Gear map are the same.

No matter what - you never WOT at 14.7.... this is bad juju

Good popcorn when you are boostin eh Kane ?

That's why I posted that - did not want people getting confused here. As for me? I'll be sitting on a dyno doing this.

How do you filter bad data from the log? I remove all data with AFR above 16.5 (fuel cutoffs). Doing this drops the correction from 9-10% to +/- 1% on all logs in one driving cycle. Anything else? Should I shift AFR to compensate for sensor latency and get more accurate correction?
Here is a log. WOT pull in 2nd gear at 423s.

When I tried to move my Idle up to around 1000 rpm... nothing appears to happen.

I even bumped it up to 1200 for a bit to see if it makes a difference, it did not.

Adjusted in all 3 map area's as well.

The idle control maps don't work in the "RACE" version of the software for the 4-speed, 4-port auto cars.

SC-ed,

From time 431.58 through 443.77 you are off throttle right? Man you are getting to 8900 RPMS and 284.44 in airflow. I want FI. I am still a noob but everything looks good to me.

How do you filter bad data from the log? I remove all data with AFR above 16.5 (fuel cutoffs). Doing this drops the correction from 9-10% to +/- 1% on all logs in one driving cycle. Anything else? Should I shift AFR to compensate for sensor latency and get more accurate correction?
Here is a log. WOT pull in 2nd gear at 423s.

Um, I lost track are you doing this by hand? If so then you wanna scrub the off throttle stuff and before you do that you should look at your AFR latency...

But hey - 1% is damn good.

SC-ed,

From time 431.58 through 443.77 you are off throttle right? Man you are getting to 8900 RPMS and 284.44 in airflow. I want FI. I am still a noob but everything looks good to me.

Yes, TP 2-8%, fuel cutoff. BNR with EBC off at 6.5 PSI.

Um, I lost track are you doing this by hand? If so then you wanna scrub the off throttle stuff and before you do that you should look at your AFR latency...

But hey - 1% is damn good.

I'm still waiting for you to fix my Baseline file.:) No problem...
Anyway if I shift the AFR I'm getting ridiculous AFR's of 15-17s at WOT in 8XXX RPM. I don't fill it in the car. So I don't shift.
Here is the WOT portion of the log, no AFR shifting.

Oh yeah, my bad. I keep getting stuck working weekends.... :(

I'll try to look at it later this week.

Don't worry. I'm learning more this way.:)

Yes, TP 2-8%, fuel cutoff. BNR with EBC off at 6.5 PSI.



I'm still waiting for you to fix my Baseline file.:) No problem...
Anyway if I shift the AFR I'm getting ridiculous AFR's of 15-17s at WOT in 8XXX RPM. I don't fill it in the car. So I don't shift.
Here is the WOT portion of the log, no AFR shifting.

Your AFR's looked ok until you let offf the pedal... which is normal.. when you let go of the throttle... it's gonna climb up to the 20's.... (fuel cutoff)

If you look at where your afr rises, you just let go of your pedal.

:-)

I finally made some good runs this week using Baseline and my "Open Loop" map....

At the end of the day, I did not have to touch my MAF much... just a few minor tweaks.... I was getting the AFR's I expected in my fuel maps.

I changed the upper MAF voltages by a M value of around 0.96 on average as it was running a bit rich in the higher RPM's / loads.

I attached a snapshot of my log. It shows a highway cruise at WOT mid RPM range... I sorted by calculated load, highest to lowest.
I am getting my low 13's as I mapped out in my fuel table.

Other areas I am getting pretty consistant mid to upper 14's as expected.

Going to use this MAF curve now and tweak the fuel tables for any spikes in AFR or low spots. :-)

Nice, I would set my tables richer personally, but if your not pinging then roll with it.

Use the Fuel VE% map to try to get your spots closer to target.

Nice, I would set my tables richer personally, but if your not pinging then roll with it.

Use the Fuel VE% map to try to get your spots closer to target.

Hey Kane....

Ya think I am running a bit lean? What would you run at? 12.8 ?

I don't hear ping... at least I don't think so... Would it sound like is does in a normal engine?

With my mid pip I have it makes it hard to hear anything when I punch it. :)

At Wide Open, I never go leaner than 12.5 personally unless I am in a controlled environment like the dyno.

The difference in power from 12.5 to say 13.5 is almost 0 - but the risk of detonation is a lot higher.

Uh, are you guys talking FI or NA? 'Cuz, those numbers be wrong either way.

For FI on the Renesis, NEVER go above 11.5:1 at the torque peak at full load. In fact, the power difference between 11.5:1 and 10.9:1 is negligible.

For NA on the Renesis, shoot for 13.2:1 at the torque peak for maximum power. The difference between there and 12.5:1 can be as much as 12%, but it depends on fuel quality, ignition timing and engine health.

Uh, are you guys talking FI or NA? 'Cuz, those numbers be wrong either way.

For FI on the Renesis, NEVER go above 11.5:1 at the torque peak at full load. In fact, the power difference between 11.5:1 and 10.9:1 is negligible.

For NA on the Renesis, shoot for 13.2:1 at the torque peak for maximum power. The difference between there and 12.5:1 can be as much as 12%, but it depends on fuel quality, ignition timing and engine health.

I have an NA Auto 4 port engine.... Always run Chevron 94.
I have not messed with the timing...
Engine seems to be in great "health" ... Starts quick always...Cold and Hot... and runs very smooth.... 60,000 km.

I am shooting for the 13.2 at max torque....

From my logs... I look like I am getting very close to 13.2... need to tweak a little...

:-)

The auto is slightly a different story because you need a bit of cushion for the shift-knock that can happen.

The auto is slightly a different story because you need a bit of cushion for the shift-knock that can happen.


Thanks Maniac...

I will readjust the higher load and RPM areas to around 12.8.

I don't want to blow up my motor!!!

Thanks to everyone for the great advice!!!!

:-)

Okay, now I've replaced the bad ssv actuator I now have a new datalog to post (#11).
Jeff, you can see in the logs how much my high RPM AFR changed from Dyno day (#1)!

If you are not pulling close to 210 g/s you should probably check for vacuum leaks on the SSV actuator
The size of the leak: Setup: a hand vacuum pump connected by hose to the actuator : Pull vacuum and wait : My actuator would bleed down to half vacuum in about 5 seconds.

On my car it meant that the SSV was closing as it ran out of vacuum! This is why my car pulled so low on the dyno.
It seems like a small difference in air flow but it's pointing to a bigger problem. And there is no CEL and no other way to tell.

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=163104&d=1286134674

Obviously it needs to be tuned now that it's fixed.
http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=163161&stc=1&d=1286206186

Jeff, you can see in the logs how much my high RPM AFR changed from Dyno day (#1)!


Yeah, that is a significant jump.

So, it was the acuator and not the valve itself?

So, it was the acuator and not the valve itself?

Correct. All my valves move freely and pass the self test but the SSV actuator was bleeding off the vacuum and costing me my top end power.

Correct. All my valves move freely and pass the self test but the SSV actuator was bleeding off the vacuum and costing me my top end power.

I will have to look that up, I have meaning to clean my SSV since it has 116,000 on it. Hopefully the part is not very expensive, that way I can just replace it for good measure.

Mazda sells them as a set (SSV and actuator) for something like $250
I bought a used actuator for $50 shipped. There are several out there but you have to make sure that they are tested with a vacuum gauge for leak down before you buy.

Yeah, that is a significant jump.
Quick question...
For my next set of logs am I starting with what I have from the GTA dyno day or am I going back to base maps?

Thanks, maybe I will just get the whole set new for peace of mind.

Yeah, that is a significant jump.

Should I revert to the base calibration? Since this is a big AFR change should I consider the cal from GTA dyno day to be trashed?


Thanks, maybe I will just get the whole set new for peace of mind.
Seems like a lot of money for something that isn't broken...

Wow DarkBrew... that is crazy.
Glad you figured it out!

Wow DarkBrew... that is crazy.
Glad you figured it out!

Something new to check... Add it to your list
There are lots of cars only pulling 197 - 200 G/s WOT
I wonder how wide spread this is...

There is no warning that this issue is present.
Without the dyno day I may not have known. Edit: Jeff! Your expertise of course!
Without the Access Port I would have never seen the lower flow and would not have the data to confirm the fix.
Without your help, Jon, I would have taken longer to debug the problem.
Without our online community I couldn't source an actuator as easily.
Without WCS helping the repair would have been tougher.

I suspect that there are others both inside and outside this awesome community who are unaware that they are losing a lot of power.

Should I revert to the base calibration? Since this is a big AFR change should I consider the cal from GTA dyno day to be trashed?

No. It should have more than enough adjustment range to cover the increase.

No. It should have more than enough adjustment range to cover the increase.

Crap! 3K - 4K RPM I'm hitting AFRs over 14 WOT. I'll post graphs tonight.
It's not making power and sounds lean through this range.

Crap! 3K - 4K RPM I'm hitting AFRs over 14 WOT. I'll post graphs tonight.
It's not making power and sounds lean through this range.

Yeah, that's no bueno.

Yeah, that's no bueno.

So the recommendation is?? Go to base map and re-tune?

So the recommendation is?? Go to base map and re-tune?

Nah. Just follow the normal submission format with the current tune.

For FI on the Renesis, NEVER go above 11.5:1 at the torque peak at full load. .
.

does this apply for all psi levels or should it be richer as psi/flow climbs ?

does this apply for all psi levels or should it be richer as psi/flow climbs ?

Yes. (qualified).
Ignition timing should be the only declining variable as flow increases.
The "qualification" is that, at some point, you will exceed the AKI of the fuel and significant reductions in ignition timing will be counterproductive, so as a safety margin in the event of overboost, I will add 1 point of AFR at the end of the effective Ve of the system.

Crap! 3K - 4K RPM I'm hitting AFRs over 14 WOT. I'll post graphs tonight.
It's not making power and sounds lean through this range.

Okay, here's the graph :(

Okay, here's the graph :(

If I am reading that right, you are stopping the graph before 4000 k RPM?
It is supposed to be very lean in that range.

I thought you were having lean issues in the 6k and up range.

EDIT - Reading comprehension FML.
Unless you are touching 15:1 below 4k, that is pretty normal. Even the FI applications are kept in the 13:1 range at full boost below 4k.

Last Saturday the 2nd, I made a run on MMCCS v4.0.1 and logged this data. This is a complete data log of every variable for 2nd gear WOT and then 3rd gear WOT.

Looks lean under 3rd gear - I was watching and almost aborted the run... Or is this just the transition from closed loop to open loop?

edit: I zeroed out the transition

MAF/3?
lol - Making us work for it.

The lean spots are a bit too lean, but it isn't an area that you will have problems.
The transition and power ranges are still rough.

;)

I wish I had more track to get up to 9K - gotta play safe out there.

edit - fixed xls to include mph

The transition and power ranges are still rough.


That axis scale is exagerated for resolution also.

edit: Here is the complete run charted and updated 10/10/10

A question from a friend... If one has just recently overhauled the engine, does he has to finish running in the engine first before sending his datalogs or he can do it whilst still running in his engine?

A question from a friend... If one has just recently overhauled the engine, does he has to finish running in the engine first before sending his datalogs or he can do it whilst still running in his engine?

I assume you are talking about Jeff's MMCCS e-tune program, correct? I bet you could run the base map, log idle and cruise, and submit those. Run on v4.0.1 map for awhile, until your engine is broke in, then reset the ecu, do your two drive cycles and then go log again with idle, cruise, and 2/3 wot. I would not run WOT until your are comfortable with your breakin procedure.

Tried again to log this map better for Jeff. I think the only good method for data logging with the AP is on a dyno in a controlled enviorment, without having to worry about the track ahead. Maybe a two person session would work better.

Here's my AFR from a WOT pull :(

Edit: Redid the plot with better looking results

Tried again to log this map better for Jeff. I think the only good method for data logging with the AP is on a dyno in a controlled enviorment, without having to worry about the track ahead. Maybe a two person session would work better.


I use the Hymee Scanalyzer on a laptop to log, and it works great IMO. You can view 6 gauges at once full screen and and you can set parameters as to when the logging start, etc. I always forget to start and stop the log on teh Cobb, I guess it just takes getting used too.

Why not use my XLS? Here is your run charted out. :rolleyes:

edit; made a wide screen version

I have to learn to use Excel properly.

I wrote this awhile back, and used macros. Now I just struggle to get it to work, but I think it is all coming back to me know.

DarkBrew - you map is not as lean as you thought. Compare it to mine. You can see the jump from closed loop to open loop, by looking at your AFR plunging rich, just about where your calculated load jumps up. Also, instead of throttle position, use the accelerator position.

I'm a bit worried about the AFR spikes between 4K and 6K... up over 15!

accelerator position... noted!

Don't look at your chart, look at your log. I see 14.26 - 12.35 from 4K-6K, and that is also where your transition takes place due to calculated load.

Grrrr
I only have Open Office at home
Excel is at work...
Thanks for the reassurance.
I'll get a new set of logs into Jeff and see what comes of it

Here is a version written in Excel 2003. I have both now, one for Excel 2007 also.

Notice this version has the gears all separated for better AFR resolution in each gear. :p:

Data log of NASA time trial last weekend at SP
SP is a ten turn two mile track
I was turning 1:28/9s all w/e
HP weather 40-55 degree F
Fuel Trims look good?
Running on MM base tune
Low AFR's (11's) at WOT
Comments/questions

As promised MMCSV4.1 WOT runs

Bump!!!

@ Darn, your roughly where im at but I dont hit 240g/s, im around 235g/s...

Lets get some more logs!!!

Heres mine on my new engine... On this log I redline gears 2-4....

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsqlMsoNpAu_dGNlakVBeGNkR3FyX2JNb1dxNFc3Q 3c&hl=en&authkey=CLKK39oH

Bump!!!

@ Darn, your roughly where im at but I dont hit 240g/s, im around 235g/s...

Lets get some more logs!!!

Heres mine on my new engine... On this log I redline gears 2-4....

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsqlMsoNpAu_dGNlakVBeGNkR3FyX2JNb1dxNFc3Q 3c&hl=en&authkey=CLKK39oH

Did you data log on a dyno?

Nope... On a flat empty service road that is unpopulated and safe enough to get to that speed

Nope... On a flat empty service road that is unpopulated and safe enough to get to that speed

OMG! 130 mph. That's 190 ft /sec.
I have only been up to 125mph+ on the track
I do all my datalogs on a dyno.
It costs between $50-$75 for multiple pulls in No. VA.

Check out this log.
The dyno operator missed 3rd and wound out 5th gear be mistake.

Holy cow Darn. Your like 20g/s more than my datalog I took yesterday. Your engine seems
Very strong

you can make the MAF put out any number you want it to ....

you can make the MAF put out any number you want it to ....

It is my understanding that Jeff calibrates the MAF early on in his tuning sevice.
The run that was posted was on v4_0_3

Holy cow Darn. Your like 20g/s more than my datalog I took yesterday. Your engine seems
Very strong

you can make the MAF put out any number you want it to ....

Remember that the MAF calibration will alter the displayed airflow. Comparing Mass Airflow between cars with calibration adjustments is pretty pointless. The only way this measurement is effective is if you know what your expected airflow is for a given load/rpm.

Flash & Team... how much would temperature affect the displayed airflow from the MAF? Reason im asking is one day @ 85 degrees I took a datalog and maxed out my MAF at 225g/s while last night I was hitting 245g/s @50 degrees. Would that 35 degree difference make up for that extra 20g/s?

Would that 35 degree difference make up for that extra 20g/s?

If you really have to ask that question, then you probably don't need to work yourself any harder to make sense of MAF readings.

Yeah... I know Jeff... :/ I sound ridiculous right now and probably look stupid. Today is just one of those days where you get everything mixed up.

When your Tune sesh starts back up im gonna send you my logs and ask you a few really weird questions that have been happening... Id prefer to spare myself from looking stupid in front of everyone again :)

We'll be back on line in 15 minutes.

On a slight tangent; is the AP dyno functionality anything to write home about? I can't imagine it's all that accurate, but maybe there's something useful in observed plotting of the data points? Looks like it might be something a bit more substantial than the butt-dyno.