titi65
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
 Offline
Posts: 43
|
 |
« Reply #150 on: April 13, 2014, 02:30:30 AM »
|
|
|
larger throttle blade[\quote]
Are you sure about that ?
When I look at WDKUGDN on my engine, it's look like 95% of rl can be reach at 61° (of 90°) of openning . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #151 on: August 05, 2014, 12:24:23 PM »
|
|
|
I am struggling with tuning my KFMIOP MAP. This issue I am having is I am getting torque intervention at loads around 50-60% and rpm above 3500rpm. Would it be a really bad idea to limit torque monitoring around these light load and lower rpm regions by revising map KFMIZUOF?
Attached is a log and screen shot. Any advice is appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #152 on: August 05, 2014, 01:23:56 PM »
|
|
|
Also,
Here are my current tables. My IOP table was created with BerTTos IOP interpolater macro.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 01:25:54 PM by jmont23 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #154 on: August 05, 2014, 02:03:17 PM »
|
|
|
I am struggling with tuning my KFMIOP MAP. This issue I am having is I am getting torque intervention at loads around 50-60% and rpm above 3500rpm. Would it be a really bad idea to limit torque monitoring around these light load and lower rpm regions by revising map KFMIZUOF?
Attached is a log and screen shot. Any advice is appreciated.
There is no need to raise the limit and by doing so you open yourself up to level 2 intervention. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #155 on: August 05, 2014, 03:24:11 PM »
|
|
|
There is no need to raise the limit and by doing so you open yourself up to level 2 intervention.
Yes I read this in the fr. I am now learning how to tune my self. I thought tuning kfmiop made sense. I have determined this is torque intervention by watching zwout following zwsol. Then I thought I just had to interpolate values in my kfmirl and kmiop tables and compare them against actual data (misopl1_w, nmot, and rl_w). Then I would use that analysis to adjust kmiop. I identified areas that needed tweaking in iop and I adjusted them so that irl and iop were correct in the problem area while driving (3500rpm+, 52-60% load, 28% torque), but this did not correct the issue. Edit, thank you very much for that link above! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 03:36:22 PM by jmont23 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #156 on: August 05, 2014, 03:26:51 PM »
|
|
|
Here is one thing I don't get from that post: - the load input to KFMIOP for mimax_w is rlmax_w which means mimax_w will always be calculated from the high load portion of the map. This means mimax_w will typically be safely high enough to never limit the torque request
I can't reconcile that with this: - KFMIOP translates actual load to torque value (mibas)
since rlmax isn't actual load :/ What am I missing? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #157 on: August 05, 2014, 04:15:59 PM »
|
|
|
KFMIOP with rl_w axis outputs mibas_w and with rlmax_w axis it outputs mimax_w.
I tried to keep it somewhat simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #158 on: August 05, 2014, 04:33:58 PM »
|
|
|
Ah. The same table is used for both mibas and mimax. I keep forgetting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #159 on: August 05, 2014, 04:36:38 PM »
|
|
|
Yes I read this in the fr.
I am now learning how to tune my self. I thought tuning kfmiop made sense. I have determined this is torque intervention by watching zwout following zwsol. Then I thought I just had to interpolate values in my kfmirl and kmiop tables and compare them against actual data (misopl1_w, nmot, and rl_w). Then I would use that analysis to adjust kmiop. I identified areas that needed tweaking in iop and I adjusted them so that irl and iop were correct in the problem area while driving (3500rpm+, 52-60% load, 28% torque), but this did not correct the issue.
Edit, thank you very much for that link above!
Log the variables mentioned and tweak KFMIOP to follow the rules outlined. KFMIRL should be tuned as desired and needs no consideration regarding KFMIOP or torque intervention. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #160 on: August 05, 2014, 05:33:33 PM »
|
|
|
Yes I see in that thread you linked. I never found that thread in searches due to the title of the thread missing the KFM. Thank you very much for your help!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #161 on: August 05, 2014, 05:35:24 PM »
|
|
|
I never found that thread in searches due to the title of the thread missing the KFM.
Edited the topic. Hope Daz doesn't mind  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #163 on: August 05, 2014, 06:06:56 PM »
|
|
|
this is odd though This means mimax_w will typically be safely high enough to never limit the torque request
i thought mimax was checked against miszul, where mimax->mifa->miszolv... so don't you want mimax to be LOWER (for a given rlmax), not HIGHER, to avoid intervention? Or is it that we want mibas<mimax AND miszolv<miszul? So mimax has to be high enough to exceed misbas, but low enough so miszolv (which is calculated based on mibas) does not exceed miszul? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 06:19:37 PM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #164 on: August 05, 2014, 06:26:44 PM »
|
|
|
this is odd though
i thought mimax was checked against miszul, where mimax->mifa->misolv...
so don't you want mimax to be LOWER (for a given rlmax), not HIGHER, to avoid intervention?
No mimax is just capable of limiting mifa and ultimately milsol and desired load. You want mimax high to not limit desired load and mifa and mibas below miszul. Typically rlmax is high enough that mimax is never an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
