When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Brettus - much appreciated. Does standalone logging with the OpenPort 2.0 to microSD work? Has anyone put the ME software on an android tablet yet?
Standalone logging to an sd card inserted into the OP2.0 does work ..yes . You have to have a file on the sd card to make it work . I can send you that file if you like. For some strange reason , logging can be very sporadic when you do this though.
Im already running windows on some of my android devices, using Wine. Just wondering if anyone else is also... The usb comms would be the biggest hurdle to overcome, having Wine see the port input from the OP2... But should still be faster than Torque, which uses the secondary, slower protocol.
Hi everyone, does anyone have ever touched the "Open Loop Fuel" tables, trying to improve the AFR at the lower rpm/gears? I own a bridge ported engine.. and I would like to get the best out of it, if possible.
I also do not understand why the table doesn't accept a value greater than 14.7 ? Is it due to the fact that the values are stored as lamba and the max value cannot be greater that 1? If I want to make it leaner.. how I would do it?
Hi everyone, does anyone have ever touched the "Open Loop Fuel" tables, trying to improve the AFR at the lower rpm/gears? I own a bridge ported engine.. and I would like to get the best out of it, if possible.
I also do not understand why the table doesn't accept a value greater than 14.7 ? Is it due to the fact that the values are stored as lamba and the max value cannot be greater that 1? If I want to make it leaner.. how I would do it?
yes ... the thing to be aware of with the OL fuel tables is that they may be labelled incorrectly . I make all tables the same to avoid confusion and that works fine.
There are many ways to lean it out ... OL tables , injector scaling, VE table , maf scaling . Which you use depends on which is most appropriate . EG you don't touch the injector scaling if they are stock ..etc etc
Hi everyone, does anyone have ever touched the "Open Loop Fuel" tables, trying to improve the AFR at the lower rpm/gears? I own a bridge ported engine.. and I would like to get the best out of it, if possible.
I also do not understand why the table doesn't accept a value greater than 14.7 ? Is it due to the fact that the values are stored as lamba and the max value cannot be greater that 1? If I want to make it leaner.. how I would do it?
In your case with the bridge port, the VE table is most likely the most "correct" table to adjust, assuming MAF scaling is correct and injectors are stock. VE table tuning requires a bit more maths than OL table tuning, but it means that your OL table values will be quite close to your real world AFRs once you're done tuning. It's a matter of preference which method you use - I'm pretty fussy, so like to tune the VE table, but OL tuning is a bit faster.
BTW, OL tables only apply at high load and/or high rpm, so if you're trying to tune around idle and low to medium load/rpm, then the VE table is the place to go. If you want to see when the OL tables kick in, you can just check when short term fuel trims hit zero, or you can set your OL table values to 11.2 and log a run - you'll see when the AFRs jump down from about 14.7 to 11.2 quite clearly. You'll want to set your OL tables to 11.2 during VE table tuning - it makes it easier working out the % correction for the measured vs. target AFRs.
Just a basic question.. doesn't my OL table kicks in (always) if i go WOT? That is what interest to me.. if I'm driving quietly I'm not interested in performances, I'm trying to improve the performances at sub 6K range in any gear when I go full throttle.
I used the OL table because it's easy to read and adjust, I leaned the AFR in the low RPM up to 65% load in all gears and it seems to have improved. The VE table is is a mystery to me, I understand that those values are derivate from the the MAF reading, but I do not understand why it's not smooth and it has all those peaks, apparently it doesn't make any sense.
From memory there is a minimum RPM for OL but it's pretty low. You should log your STFTs, and when they start reading 0, the tune moves to open loop at that point (it takes a few moments for the tune to smooth down to the target AFRs, you'll see it in the logs).
The VE table just maps out how efficiently your engine works at different loads and RPM.
Your BP would have changed this quite a lot, so that's why changing the VE table is the most "correct" method for you to use for tuning, though tuning the OL will be faster.
If you want to have a crack at adjusting the VE table, this is the method I use:
Change all OL values to 11.2 for your tuning. You can change them back to original values once you've finished tuning (it's fine to drive around with OL tables at 11.2, it's just not quite as smooth to drive).
Assume your LTFTs are 0 because you've just re-flashed your PCM.
Drive around for 10 minutes minimum to ensure your engine is warm (this affects the tune, so important to do this).
Log a few WOT runs, logging STFT, LTFT, AFR, RPM, Load and speed(optional but useful).
Compare the WOT runs to make sure you're seeing similar AFR values for each WOT run.
For each Load and RPM value in your WOT run, work out the difference between measured AFR and the target AFR of 11.2.
Adjust the VE table value for these. Here's the maths:.
If your measured AFR is 12.4, it's running lean, so you'll need to increase the VE value. Find the VE cell with that load and RPM. Multiply the value by 12.4/11.2 to correct the VE value. E.g. if your VE value is 0.98, the new value would be 0.98 x 12.4/11.2 = 1.085. Only adjust the VE cell with that load and rpm. Do this for all cells that relate to your WOT pulls. I'd expect that load would be around 100%, and rpms would be every 500rpm from around 3000-8000, so about 11 cells would be changed, running across the table.
You may want to smooth out the VE table in the cells around the ones you've changed. E.g. if you've increased a VE cell by 10% above the original value, I'd probably increase the surrounding untouched cells by up to 5% of their original VE value.
Note that if your LTFTs are not 0, you'll need to correct your measured AFRs before modifying the VE values.
You'll want to tune a bunch of different load levels to cover off as many of the cells in the VE table as possible.
Once you're done correcting the lean running in your tune, increase the OL AFRs to 11.4. You need to do this to identify rich spots as your logged AFRs will only measure down to 11.1, which is not useful when your target AFRs are 11.2.
Do some WOT runs and tune out all the rich spots by decreasing the VEs in the relevant cells (New VE value = old VE x measured AFR / target AFR). Don't forget your LTFT corrections to measured AFRs before making adjustments to the VE table.
Once you're happy with the tune, put the original OL table values back in, and you're now tuned.
Thanks for the extensive explanation Jimmy, seems pretty straight forward (whenever it will need a good of time and patience).
@Brettus: I believe the 11.2 was just an example as reference number to flat the OL table so you can easily identify the variance in the VE table. I mean I can use 12.0 or 12.5 to obtain the same results.. since I will place them back in any case.
Thanks for the extensive explanation Jimmy, seems pretty straight forward (whenever it will need a good of time and patience).
@Brettus: I believe the 11.2 was just an example as reference number to flat the OL table so you can easily identify the variance in the VE table. I mean I can use 12.0 or 12.5 to obtain the same results.. since I will place them back in any case.
heh ... maybe i didn't read the explanation properly .... not how I do it but as long as it works it's all good .
I believed it would had been worse.. but it's actually much regular, despite the fact that the current AFR is a way higher than what I expected.
What do you think?
PS: I didn't logged the proper values, but you can figure of when the AFR is extremely high due to the pedal release without much troubles.
Hard to say what's going on without logging the LTFTs and knowing whether your OL tables are set to a particular value.
When you do WOT logs, make sure you start from quite low RPMs and run it all the way up to redline with your foot to the floor. Your log above shows a lot of short pulls, and you can't get much useful info out of short pulls as the tune rounds the AFRs as you put your foot down and lift off the gas. If you've got a safe place to use 3rd gear, it's better than 2nd gear as you get more data points. For each WOT pull the AFRs vary a bit, so more data points at each load/rpm location gives you better info to tune with.
Oh... the log above wasn't done to perform a tune, I was only randomly driving (no WOT, but my normal driving) to check how the AFR moves around, and I was surprised to find it that linear (I expected it to be much worse).
I'll do the proper pulls on a safer road or on the interstate adding the LTFTs and the gears so I can compare all the three tables.
Having an odd issue. Car consistently runs too rich in high load/part throttle (50%+) and WOT conditions. My Open Loop Fuel tables are set to 13 AFR at the richest. My CAI is slightly bigger than the OEM intake, and especially without a MAF cal, the car should be running leaner, however, it only runs slightly lean (15.5 AFR) during light cruising, low RPM, low throttle, but as soon as I put my foot down, it goes too rich. Like Values of 12 AFR shouldn't even be seen, however, I hit 11.2AFR, and I believe it's actually lower, because the O2 can't read richer mixtures (I can feel the car stumbling a bit once it gets that rich).
Are there fueling/correction maps that MazdaEdit isn't showing that affect these part throttle and WOT conditions beyond the Open Loop tables?
The "Throttle Fuel Enrich" gear 1-2/3-4 don't seem to have any values under 13.5AFR, so they can't be it, and neither of the correction tables seem to be involved in this. Any ideas, anyone? Brettus?
It's a bone stock '06 GT, only mods are: Aftermarket CAI, LS coils (updated dwell table), RB resonators instead of a cat (stock header), Air Pump removed.
My OL Fuel Table, set the same for gears 1-2/3-4
Last edited by sil80drifter; 06-30-2018 at 01:47 AM.
Before jumping into the details, let's start at the beginning. When was the last time the car ran well, and what has changed between then and when you noticed it running badly?
Did you install a new part, change the tune, or a combination of both?
Since it's easier to restore an old tune than to install old parts, I'd recommend reverting to the last tune you used when the car was running well, and see if the issue goes away.
If the issue is still there after reverting the tune to an old good version, we can be pretty confident that it's a mechanical issue. Without any more info, I'd look at spark issues first. Make sure the original dwell times are on the tune, as the car will run OK with these while you're finding the cause of the issue, and it will rule out bad dwell values from being the cause. Then check the condition of the spark plugs and connectors to and from the coils. Make sure the coils are connected in the correct order by checking the wiring harness wire colors. It's pretty easy to mix up leading and trailing during coil installation.
Once you're confident spark looks good, start with the first step to rx8 tuning - scale the MAF at idle. This is particularly important with your aftermarket CAI, as you've stated the MAF tube diameter is different from stock.
You should always log LTFTs and STFTs. When STFTs hit zero, it indicates that your tune is in Open Loop, and using the fueling tables to try and hit your commanded AFRs. Also, just use the same value of 13 for the whole fueling table (use a lower AFR for turbo tuning) - it makes tuning less confusing, and the car ignores this table unless it's in open loop.
There was no "time when the car ran well." I have put a JDM engine with good compression into a USDM chassis and used the USDM ecu. I am using an equivalent of an AEM cold air intake, and a resonated (decatted) midpipe. The engine harness is brand new OEM, and shielded in many places, eliminating cross-talk. Plugs are brand new and don't look fouled. Wires are new, properly installed, and the coils are D585s. I have owned and tuned cars in the past, both rotary and piston, N/A and FI. COBB AP has been extremely useful on my last application of a speed3. The ME software is severely lacking in both usability and available tuning parameters, but I was trying to save a few bucks and not go full standalone.
Here is the situation. I have forced the tune to (supposedly) utilize only OL maps by lowering the Load and Throttle minimums so that starting 2,000 RPM and say 30% load, the car is running in OL.
This is an N/A car. There is no reason for the tune to run 11.2 (or lower) AFRs in part throttle (or any throttle, really) when the minimum target AFR in the OL fuel tables is set to 13:1. Vacuum leaks would make it run leaner, as would a larger than stock MAF housing (which it is, albeit maybe by 5%). I have tried both modified and OEM dwell settings, with no effect on the part-throttle AFR, if anything, the stock dwell runs slightly richer (I have switched back to OEM dwell after your post, just to check).
I can see the low rpm run up to 16AFR with light throttle applications. I know this is because of the slightly larger MAF housing diameter. However, 40-50% throttle application with 80-100% load results in AFRs dipping into the high to low 11s, which is simply inexplicable. WHERE are those values coming from? Am I missing a correction table that keeps pushing the AFRs down? I see Load Comp tables and Sensor scale tables. Neither seems like it would push the AFRs lower.
I see the “Throttle Fuel Enrich” tables for gears 1-2/3-4, but no values in there dip below 13.9:1 (and those are stock values).
I understand how I can tell that I am in OL, both from experience and it's also been mentioned right above.
Please let’s not focus on the MAF-cal for now, as we all understand that in this situation, not doing one could only result in leaner, not richer values due to the larger intake, and this is the opposite of what I'm experiencing.
I don’t see any Closed Loop Fuel tables, so I cannot be sure that some hidden CL fuel table transition isn't screwing up my OL targets, even though I technically am never in a CL table range (see above). This is what I am trying to get at – What could possibly drive the fuel targets so rich? During WOT OL/high load, I am still in the mid-12s, even though the target is 13, and during part throttle/high load I’m in the 11s. Any comments are welcome.
Last edited by sil80drifter; 07-03-2018 at 06:38 PM.
Have you checked whether the mesh screens inside the CAI MAF tube are seated correctly? I've had issues with AFRs at WOT caused by a dislodged mesh screen within an AEM MAF tube.
While we're on possible mechanical causes, can you borrow some other coils, plugs and leads you can swap in to confirm you're not missing spark when you get into heavy load? Are the spark plugs seated correctly in the block?
Have you been able to verify whether the tune you're working with is the OEM tune? I guess you'd need to compare each table with an OEM table to be 100% sure you're not working from a previous custom tune with potentially bad values in some of the tables.
The ECU smooths the AFRs during the transition from CL to OL. This is within 100-200rpm of the transition only. After that, you should be hitting target AFRs, based on default OEM tuning tables, plus whatever adjusts you've made to MAF scaling, injector scaling, VE and OL Fuel tables. If the fault is not mechanical, then you should be able to get a successful tune using these tables only.
It's frustrating that ME doesn't show some of the tables, and that the labels of displayed tables are not always accurate.
EDIT: btw, I don't think you're missing any critical tables here - it looks like a mechanical issue, or an issue with values in one of the tables I've mentioned above.
Last edited by JimmyBlack; 07-04-2018 at 12:51 AM.
04-18-2018, 04:48 PM
