Stupid AccessTuner trick 0x10
06-24-2011, 07:09 AM
#1
Stupid AccessTuner trick 0x10
I raised my redline. It is actually:
42534646828009991000000000000000000000
But the interface truncates at the 7th digit.
Even if I only make 1lbft of torque, I will have 8 decillion horsepower. Beat that.
06-27-2011, 02:27 AM
#3
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-27-2011, 03:16 AM
#4
Can you expand on that? As I said, I've yet to find any value which has an effect. 2005 Federal ROM.
Edit: What really puzzles me is that there are at least four CL maps that Cobb did not include.
Edit: What really puzzles me is that there are at least four CL maps that Cobb did not include.
Code:
0x3FA3D70A ROM:00070800 .long 0x4023D70A, 0x4075C28F, 0x40A3D70A, 0x40CCCCCD, 0x40F5C28F ROM:00070800 .long 0x410F5C28, 0x4123D70A, 0x41A3D70A, 0x41F5C28F, 0x4223D70A ROM:00070800 .long 0x424CCCCD, 0x4275C28F, 0x44480000, 0x44C80000, 0x45160000 ROM:00070800 .long 0x45480000, 0x457A0000, 0x45960000, 0x45AF0000, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774 ROM:00070800 .long 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x27742774, 0x2774FFFF
Last edited by oltmann; 06-27-2011 at 03:33 AM.
06-27-2011, 05:45 PM
#6
You spell funny.
Anyhow, I've become concerned that something is up with closed loop that I can't measure, so I'm setting it all back to stock until I can measure the p/w of each injector on a scope.
Anyhow, I've become concerned that something is up with closed loop that I can't measure, so I'm setting it all back to stock until I can measure the p/w of each injector on a scope.
07-01-2011, 04:17 PM
#8
Has anyone ever tried running closed loop full time?
I made a tune that way out of curiosity. I had to lower my maf scale and fatten the fuel injectors to force my load values under 100. Seems to always exit closed loop at 100 load.
Used that stupid closed loop b table to get more granularity from 5000-9500 rpm.
Closed loop feedback only assumes partial command while accelerating, I guess based on the RPM delta thingy.
So far, it is okay. I'm really curious to see if LTFTs improve things. My only concern is that the load calculation may use air temp or baro somehow, and that "lying" to the ecu about the mass of the air may cause unforeseen problems.
I made a tune that way out of curiosity. I had to lower my maf scale and fatten the fuel injectors to force my load values under 100. Seems to always exit closed loop at 100 load.
Used that stupid closed loop b table to get more granularity from 5000-9500 rpm.
Closed loop feedback only assumes partial command while accelerating, I guess based on the RPM delta thingy.
So far, it is okay. I'm really curious to see if LTFTs improve things. My only concern is that the load calculation may use air temp or baro somehow, and that "lying" to the ecu about the mass of the air may cause unforeseen problems.
07-01-2011, 06:31 PM
#9
Yes. I've built two completely different calibrations on two NA cars and (in a limited way) a calibration for my own turbo application.
It is, to say the least, "interesting", but I couldn't see why I should bother since I could produce the exact same results using Mazda's closed-loop constraints with regards to target lambda and transition.
I wasn't convinced that closed loop could be done safely in boost and several high-profile tuners have lost several high-profile engines over the last two years trying it, so I can't be bothered with an intellectual exercise of that scale that doesn't have any tangible benefit.
It is, to say the least, "interesting", but I couldn't see why I should bother since I could produce the exact same results using Mazda's closed-loop constraints with regards to target lambda and transition.
I wasn't convinced that closed loop could be done safely in boost and several high-profile tuners have lost several high-profile engines over the last two years trying it, so I can't be bothered with an intellectual exercise of that scale that doesn't have any tangible benefit.
07-01-2011, 07:36 PM
#10
Seems like lots of the standalone systems do it, Perhaps either to allow their autotune features to work at WOT or just to add a bullet point to the feature list.
Also, lots of slow cars with stock widebands (ex Saturns.) If it is safe for slow cars, I should be okay.
I'm just hoping that after the ltfts set up they may help me see some problems, or fix some oddball load points in the ve table.
Also, lots of slow cars with stock widebands (ex Saturns.) If it is safe for slow cars, I should be okay.
I'm just hoping that after the ltfts set up they may help me see some problems, or fix some oddball load points in the ve table.
07-01-2011, 09:22 PM
#11
as long as everything is in spec you will likely be fine, but as soon as the main O2 sensor goes off etc you can lose an engine real quick, fixed open loop programming during high load conditions is generally considered less risky overall
07-02-2011, 01:25 PM
#12
Yeah, though it isn't clear to me that STFTs get their normal 25% correction while accelerating, I can see how even a 5% "false" lean correction would kill some motors real quick, especially if compounded with concurrent fueling errors.
07-02-2011, 01:33 PM
#13
Just as an aside - the tune that I run on my car (which has an airflow delta that is way more than 200% of the OE calculation) has absolutely no LTFT and never sees more than 4% STFT in any situation.
I have dead-on 14.3 - 14.5 AFR in all load situations below 70%, regardless of OL or CL and a smooth progression to 11.2:1 from there to 95%.
I haven't reflashed my own PCM since February.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 07-02-2011 at 01:35 PM.
07-03-2011, 01:22 PM
#14
It just seems to me that it takes a some time for O2 feedback to apply it's full correction, and so when rpm is changing more quickly, it has a smaller effect. As usual, I could be mistaken.
But, yes, I do get more STFT in transition, guess I need to work on that, though I haven't had any LTFTs develop on this calibration yet in 75 miles or so. I was thinking I had accidentally disabled them somehow, haven't driven more than 15 miles on a tune since I started... Been kinda manic about it.
Since you mentioned it, I was looking at a map in the rom, big 19x26, appears to be load vs rpm. It seems to flatten out at high loads, in a shape roughly conforming to peak load. I know you probably won't tell me what it is, just wondering if people with > 190 load had to recalibrate it since I'll probably never be in that situation, it is just so interesting-looking.
But, yes, I do get more STFT in transition, guess I need to work on that, though I haven't had any LTFTs develop on this calibration yet in 75 miles or so. I was thinking I had accidentally disabled them somehow, haven't driven more than 15 miles on a tune since I started... Been kinda manic about it.
Since you mentioned it, I was looking at a map in the rom, big 19x26, appears to be load vs rpm. It seems to flatten out at high loads, in a shape roughly conforming to peak load. I know you probably won't tell me what it is, just wondering if people with > 190 load had to recalibrate it since I'll probably never be in that situation, it is just so interesting-looking.
Last edited by oltmann; 07-03-2011 at 01:25 PM. Reason: too many typos to leave be
07-03-2011, 02:27 PM
#15
The actual feedback time can be two or three combustion cycles (or even longer, depending on sensor placement and flow restrictions, reversion, etc.).
It isn't any less accurate than you would be trying to set calculation adjustments by looking at them on the dyno and that is really what fill-time CL would be doing - creating a correction for future excursions into a given load cell (not correcting for current conditions).
But, yes, I do get more STFT in transition, guess I need to work on that, though I haven't had any LTFTs develop on this calibration yet in 75 miles or so. I was thinking I had accidentally disabled them somehow, haven't driven more than 15 miles on a tune since I started... Been kinda manic about it.
Since you mentioned it, I was looking at a map in the rom, big 19x26, appears to be load vs rpm. It seems to flatten out at high loads, in a shape roughly conforming to peak load. I know you probably won't tell me what it is, just wondering if people with > 190 load had to recalibrate it since I'll probably never be in that situation, it is just so interesting-looking.
07-03-2011, 02:57 PM
#16
I think I found the VE table a while ago, it is this other one that I never noticed until I downloaded a trial of ecuEdit and had it scan the map offset table. ecuEdits algorithm isn't perfect at this, but this one certainly looks like a real map.
I don't have the hardware to try to play with it, and I haven't even tried to see where it gets referenced yet.
I don't have the hardware to try to play with it, and I haven't even tried to see where it gets referenced yet.
07-03-2011, 04:17 PM
#19
Are you saying that you typically see lots of trim when you are in transition or are you commenting on STFT's efficacy in a pure closed-loop environment?
Just as an aside - the tune that I run on my car (which has an airflow delta that is way more than 200% of the OE calculation) has absolutely no LTFT and never sees more than 4% STFT in any situation.
I have dead-on 14.3 - 14.5 AFR in all load situations below 70%, regardless of OL or CL and a smooth progression to 11.2:1 from there to 95%.
I haven't reflashed my own PCM since February.
Just as an aside - the tune that I run on my car (which has an airflow delta that is way more than 200% of the OE calculation) has absolutely no LTFT and never sees more than 4% STFT in any situation.
I have dead-on 14.3 - 14.5 AFR in all load situations below 70%, regardless of OL or CL and a smooth progression to 11.2:1 from there to 95%.
I haven't reflashed my own PCM since February.
07-03-2011, 07:08 PM
#20
You want to be at your target boosted AFR before you hit more than 100% load.
I am around 13:1 at 85%, so that isn't really "early" by any stretch of the imagination, anyway.
The real trick is the high-load fueling below 4000 RPM. There is a bit of a trick to get that right.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 07-03-2011 at 07:15 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Learners_Permit
Series I Interior, Audio, and Electronics
8
09-27-2015 07:38 PM
