The projects I did provided a budget for a full ols seat in addition to other tools. Short answer via phone.

 

Well, in my case it has been on bit of a d-lo just because we are moving in small steps but Bill and I have been working together and have successfully flashed 2 edits to my 04 already. As of right now we are just making edits to the fuel mixture at 5.5k on up through 9k (focusing bigger changes to 7k-9k) and like others have mentioned here, it all takes time. I would already have my findings known if there wasnt the freakin storm of the century happening right now here in Dallas As soon as my target mixtures are reached i will head to dyno, flash my stock map back to the car, make a run, then flash my edited map and make a couple passes with it to see diff. Once this is finished i will post to see what differences are showing. I was only able to drive the car once (for about 5 minutes) after i flashed it with edit 2, so im waiting till the weather breaks to go out and drive it around some more before logging data. Did it feel stronger/smoother/better with the edit 2 flash? Yes, but you all know as well as i that the psyche can decieve when you are expecting better results. So, i hope to prove the feeling on a dyno. The fan settings were changed to 5 degrees cooler in prep for the upcoming swelter of Texas. I may raise the revs to 9.2k-9.3k before the end just for further insurance when im flirting w/ 9k on bottle runs.

 

Sometimes it is helpful to see and example of what you do not want to do. The following is some data I took during a dyno run. This is not my tune. I include it here as an example of what I would not do.

(I was told this is Jeff's Stage 1 and not something Cobb did for distribution)

 

Ouch!!

 

If there were numbers on the y axis it might help - as it is I can't see what you are on about ....

 

The graph states 11.15 as the low point and the cross hair is at 14.02.
That gives us a relative scale, at least.
So, at its leanest, it is off by about .25 A/F lean.
Of course, without knowing the fuel used or anything else, we don't know the true lambda, so the A/F is meaningless.
Of course, it is too rich at the low end.
So, obviously, the MAF calibration is off on that vehicle.
I'd guess it is the RB intake, but it could be the K&N v2 which does similar things.
That car should be running 1_5b.

Did you drop something?

 

That was me falling over when I saw the AFR's. Yeah - Lambda rules!

But I disagree. For discussion, the only thing obvious about this is that the car is running to lean. I don't believe you can call the MAF calibration at fault from the data presented.

Cheers,
Hymee.

 

Seeing as everyone is getting along so well at the moment - cough hack splutter- how about I throw another argument into the ring .
All this tuning on a dyno is of limited use - also in gear runs on the road are of limited use .
What are we trying to achieve here .... well for most of us we want to improve the performance of the car - right ?
What does that actually mean though ? Well to me it means accelerating the fastest through the gears whether that be from a stoplight or from a roll as in a track situation . This is why I do my AFR acceleration testing in that way . I start from a roll in 2nd gear at about 3500 rpm and accelerate all the way through to 9k in 3rd gear. Would do it in 4th as well if I had enough road .

What I have obseved on the many occasions i've done this is that a lot of what you see at the dyno goes out the window in the "real" world .
For a start - you get different readings for AFR in 2nd gear than you do in 3rd (leaner in 2nd). Also the AFRs are not consistent with what you see on a dyno .
You guys with the AP will be able to log and see this info now .
Probably the most upsetting thing I've discovered in all this is the fact that there is next to nil performance gain from doing all this "tuning" .
Would love someone to prove me wrong on this - and no I don't mean a dyno plot . I mean some actual performance testing .

Rant over - for now

 

You need to log a VE% curve of the base setup you have in your car.

Then as you change things - go back and remap your VE%.

That is the best way I can think of to tune / test new mods etc. Without the same math and same logging rules etc.... everything is subject to interpretation.

For example - while I cannot tell you my WHP since I haven't dynoed the car yet - I can TELL you for certain the my VE% curve has changed quite a bit over my changes to both the hardware and the software (tune) on my car. It isn't 100% real world since I have to use physics instead of empirical results. But it doesn't matter since the before and after on my car shows me the changes made to VE on my car.

IE folks you need to get down with having a good MIS for your cars if you really want to know what is going on both real time and historical.

 

Looks like the foot left the accelerator and went to no load

 

Sorry for the dumb question but how do you log a VE% curve ?

Kane - Are you talking N/A tuning changes or turbo ?

 

It doesn't matter; VE is the % of air the engine is breathing / the total amount of air it is capable of (displacement).

So it works for both FI and NA - since air is air.

To map it you need to get enough data from as many driving situations as you can; calculate the lb/min or volume of air ingested at each load/RPM point. And there you go.

So at -2 PSI of vacuum and 3000 rpm your engine always takes in 10 lb/min of air (as an example); you change intakes and all of a sudden it takes in 10.12 lb/min of air - and viola you have made more power (more area under the VE curve).

When it comes to tuning; once you know your VE then determining the safest / most aggressive AFR for each load point is easy.

 

you can get VE% from displacement, RPM, and MAF reading

 

The best option is to load the car on a dyno and determine the AFR that makes the most power for your car. Once you know that value; take you airflow and calculate the fuel required to hit it in all you operating ranges.

Then adjust for some safety (and for FI guys the transition from vacuum to boost). And the party is over.

If you don't want to use a dyno - then you can use rules of thumb and again knowing that 12.9ish - 14ish isn't going to make huge power differences; you can tune to the AFR you feel is safe.

 

They key here is an MIS - Management Information System

A system takes advantages of technology (cool toys); and organizes and manges the information in a way that is useful and repeatable.

So a Cobb / EFI / EMU / Int-X whatever is a great part of the system - but it doesn't encompass all of the information needs we have; what we need (IMO) is to have all this ton of info saved and organized so I can see it in meaningful small glimpses based on the information I am trying to find out. A system has rules; and that allows for standardization; software CAN be a system; but so far I have not seen a tuning realted EMS/software combo that is actually designed as a complete Engine Information System.

End Of Rant...

 

It is the MAF calibration that decides the final A/Fs.
The fuel tables are only suggestions.
If the MAF calibration line is not accurate, the resultant CalLOAD is wrong and so will the A/Fs.
EVERYTHING is the MAF calibration.

 

So if the fuel pump was doing it tough, or the filter was blocked or, or, or..., you would still say catagorically with your left nut on the chopping block that the MAF and/or it's calibration is at fault?

What about if the target lambda was lean in the tune?

 

I'm starting to wonder if there is a language barrier here.
Stop introducing new variables.

If a car is running correctly, the MAF decides where to look on the fuel tables and the resultant fuel calculation is made.
On the same correctly running car, if the MAF calibration is wrong, then it will look in the wrong breakpoint in the fuel tables and come up with an improper calculation.
On the same correctly running car, if the MAF calibration is correct, but the target lambda at the correct breakpoint is less than optimal, the resultant lambda will be correct, but less than optimal.
If the car is not running correctly (any of the assorted things you allude to in your post being present) then all bets are off.

What part of that is not making sense to you?

 

Jeff - from my point of view- it reads as if you are saying there cant be anything else wrong with the car and that the problem is DEFINITELY with the MAF calc whereas Hymee is stating that the only information available to this thread is that the car is lean and that a range of issues could be causing it.

 

and as far as that goes it appears to me that Hymee may have misunderstood the graph. he mentions it is LEAN but the only place i see it VERY lean is at the end of the run where the driver lifted his foot off the go pedal.

if anything that looks like it goes too RICH at a couple of points- but without other info we cant tell if its the tune or the run. For example maybe it goes rich because the water temp gets too high.

edit for clarity on "lean"

 

p.s. - is that the way you always get the data from the prologger? or can you get a CSV and do some of your own charts- because that chart is extremely difficult to read

 

What I am saying is that for the TUNE to be wrong, the only variable that counts is the MAF calibration. The fuel tables are absolute. They are not "suggestions" like they are with a piggy-back.
For the car to be producing incorrect results, any one of a million different things can be wrong.
I can account for a LOT, but its not tuning when you are chasing problems.
Putting a tighter tune in a malfunctioning car is just stupid.
I must assume that the owner is not going to do that and they have accounted for all the other variables that constitute the general health of the motor.

Things that modify airflow are always tricky. But dealing with weak leading coils, a failing fuel pump, etc. is not even a consideration for me. That is the owner's problem. I'm not their mother.

Its a hair lean from the middle up. I would like to see 13.7:1 in those ranges on the Level 1 tune.

 

good - i think we're all on the same point then.

 

I would like to know this also

 

Good Points.
I have observed some horsepower gains moving from stock .74ish lambdas to .85ish lambdas.
I have seen no horsepower gains on the dyno (yep, that bad thing but it is the only quantifiable creature at my disposal) going from .85 lambda to 1.
The Cobb does not log right now. Maybe we should ask ProLogger owners to share their street data like Jones is doing on the Nitrous in Baby Steps thread.