Ap Logs dont look right
08-13-2011, 06:49 PM
#126
Is it possible to tune for 3-4k in CL, the car seems to be fighting back. I getting 14's where its set to 12.9 and i got -8 stft. My CL table is set to 1.0 in that area. Is it even possible to get 12.9 in closed loop even if you set it to? If I can't get it, no loss. Just thought I'd try for it.
08-13-2011, 07:01 PM
#127
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I'm happy with the results I am getting, I expected it to be a lot more difficult when I bought the AP hence why i paid for the CCS just incase I couldn't figure it out. I only having 1 real problem right now but I can live without it. Is it possible to tune for 3-4k in CL, the car seems to be fighting back. I getting 14's where its set to 12.9 and i got -8 stft. My CL table is set to 1.0 in that area. Is it even possible to get 12.9 in closed loop even if you set it to? If I can't get it, no loss. Just thought I'd try for it.
08-13-2011, 11:35 PM
#128
Release the twins.
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.
08-14-2011, 12:52 PM
#130
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.
08-14-2011, 02:45 PM
#131
Finally own one :)
Thread Starter
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
08-14-2011, 04:08 PM
#134
Finally own one :)
Thread Starter
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.
08-14-2011, 04:13 PM
#135
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'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.
08-14-2011, 06:10 PM
#136
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.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 08-14-2011 at 06:13 PM.
08-14-2011, 10:15 PM
#137
Finally own one :)
Thread Starter
....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.
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.
08-14-2011, 11:22 PM
#138
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.
.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 08-14-2011 at 11:24 PM.
08-15-2011, 03:19 PM
#139
Finally own one :)
Thread Starter
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.
08-17-2011, 06:43 AM
#141
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.
.
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.
.
08-17-2011, 11:18 AM
#142
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.
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.
08-17-2011, 06:11 PM
#143
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.
08-17-2011, 07:20 PM
#145
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.
08-18-2011, 03:24 AM
#149
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.
.
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.
.