face palm

 

Manipulating the software itself is easy. As you have already discovered, understanding the individual tables, what they truly represent and how they interact with each other is the hard part.

 

one peice of advice, adjust one thing at a time, and see what the effect of that adjustment it. if it has the opposite of the desired effect... then logically go the other direction...or undo it and try something else.

 

Haha, gotta love MM's comment. Nvm then. I gonna assume then that it is pointless to go for WOT afrs in closed loop.

 

What are you talking about? WOT AFRs? There is no such thing.

The PCM doesn't decide directly where to assert target lambda based on throttle angle. Just as there is no decision tree for CL target lambda that is based on throttle angle, there isn't one for WOT.

 

MM, I'm saying that its pointless to tune cl for 12.9 when i am wot in 1st between 3-4k. already talked to wcs about it, so never mind

 

That is like saying it is pointless to prepare a salad because you are wearing an orange shirt.

Tuning CL has nothing to do with your throttle position, let alone in a load cell that you perceive as being "out of range".

 

Mmmm decision fruit.

 

I didn't say it had anything to do with throttle position. My main tables are setup to get 12.9 from 3k and up at wot. my CL table is stock so I should be getting 12.9-13.0 from 3k to my exit point at 4k but I don't. The car just leans out towards 14.7 with a **** load of stft until i hit open loop when i try it so I don't really care. If there is a solution please share, if not, just leave it alone please. I'm not in the mood to argue with people today.

 

No, they are not. Your main fuel tables are set with a target lambda. It has nothing to do with throttle position and you will not hit those targets just because you think the load and RPM align.


That is because the CL tables don't do what you think they do.


Well, I wonder why.

I've already shared it and you are not arguing (because you haven't offered an argument, just a set of observations which are biased because you are looking in the wrong place for data), you are just frustrated because you are not listening.

 

I'm giving you help too, but you're closed minded not only in that regard but also in who is being the real dick here. I'm not going to cut MM off at the knees and give you his webinar info. You acknowledge that I can do it because I took the class. That is the point in it's entirety (well and that I also learned what he was teaching). Stop ignoring the obvious.

 

....this is why I said forget about it and this is what I mean by arguing.

I'm just gonna state my progress and see where it leaves us.

Fixed issues

- fuel tables below 6k not working. Fixed by changing the CL exit RPM point to 4k. I'll admit and did admit that answer was right in my face.

- AFR's bottoming out at 11 and can't see changes. Fixed by setting all cells for wot condition to .83 lambda. After testing, set targets to 12.9 or .88 lamdba

- 3 spikes. Caused by valve openings.

- STFT not 0 at idle. Corrected though making P1 2% bigger by the STFT+LTFT combined at -2%. Yes MM i got 0 ltft and stft at 14.7 idle so don't LOL me lol.

- Rich redline not following targets. Fixed by multipling corresponding MAf range by .95 and then horizonally interpolating to smooth the curve. This answer was also there. But yes, the maf was my problem and I admit it, happy, good. I didn't doubt it was the maf, I just really didn't want to touch it for some reason.

Ok now that I admitted my faults, and I am more comfortable to change my maf scale, can we please move on. Thank you. I apologize to MM and Team, P.S. Team I still find you grouchy lol.

Work in Progress

- Tuning CL 3-4k rpm range for wot not working. My CL targets are 1.0-1.01. fuel table targets are .88 lambda or 12.9 AFR. Getting -4.8 to -7.2 STFT and 13.96 to 14.26 AFR's until open loop starts. Not fixed yet. Now, this can be my maf cal in that area and I am no problem accepting that, but when i started and couldn't get my targets below 6k working, i changed my exit point to 4k and it fixed the problem. Now I could just set my exit point to 3k but thats not good for cruising for me. So there must be something else causing it and I think it is a discussion worthy with sensable comments. If your not going to help, Do not comment. We don't need anymore **** throwing in here. After this I think this thread will be pretty much done and the original post can be updated so people dont have to go through 6 pages to see what was done. I'm sure others will find this useful in some form. And MM if you already gave the answer, can you please refer to which post it is in, I reread this thread like 6 times in the last hour and don't see it.

 

Look at your loads and MAF flows at those lower rpms. Why are you concerned about those CL AFR values there? That's not where the power is. You have nothing to gain there, but if wasting time matters then go for it.



.

 

Doesn't really matter to me. Just figured what the hell I guess. If it's a quick fix why not, if not, then no loss. Besides that, my tune is very good, just dialing in my AFR's now.

 

I'm looking into getting the BHR Midpipe. Would it be fine legally in northern ontario where i live if I get the davesport cat on it?

 

Ok, here is good one.

Ran WOT datalogs with what we will call Setup A.

Then for what we call Setup B, which is identical to A except that I put a larger filter element on the same CAI, installed different ignition coils, and changed the dwell settings on what otherwise is the same AP tune, then ran WOT datalogs for this setup.

The Setup B datalogs have quite a bit lower calculated load and MAF rates than Setup A. At the initial glance of the data I was thinking B must be not as good as A. Upon closer inspection, the time accelerate through any givenrange of RPM was lower for B than A. The AFRs were also 0.5 - 1.0 leaner for B than A. All other conditions were identical between the two setups other than the changes previously noted.

What I don't understand is why Setup B is showing lower load and MAF rates than A. The only tune change was the ignition dwell, otherwise just the air filter and ignition coil mechanical changes. Richening the AFRs back to where they should be did not change these values. Setup B is still significantly faster through the RPM range than A. It is well outside any statistical error.



.

 

Did you log IAT and did you verify the barometric pressure and relative humidity?

You also need to revert and try it again before you can speak to error.

The most likely explanation is that the filter changed the way the airflow past the MAF is shaped, resulting in less being sampled by the MAF.

The additional power would be the combination of all the effects.

 

Yes, IAT and atmospheric conditions are virtually idenrical. This is what confuses me. I have datalogs for Setup A spanning the prior week and the WOT acceleration times are very consistent. Agree that Setup A would need to be swapped back in to get a true verification, but I ran out of time and will likely just stick with the B changes.

 

Is the MAF consistently lower or only in the WOT ranges?

 

LTFT has been dead on, less than 1% both idle and cruise. Given your experience you might be able to determine if the OL MAF scale is off, but that's an area where I am less than confident about. The progression of WOT tuning changes with Setup A went very smooth though. I plan to work more on richening up the Setup B tune later this evening.

 

Lets take a look at the two logs tomorrow night.

 

I'm not sure that I want to be that revealing

 

 

Sounds like the new filter has changed the way the air is going past the maf giving you a different reading . Probably requires a recalibration .