|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #300 on: April 04, 2012, 11:42:06 PM »
|
|
|
So updates from tonight... no ME7L logs since the stupid thing wouldn't work with the additional parameters I was supposed to log.
Did you try a proper editor, or add a blank trailing line at the end of .ecu like I suggested? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #301 on: April 04, 2012, 11:44:25 PM »
|
|
|
Playing with the torque management and stuff, what have you found that is helping spool the soonest?
You guys keep insisting you can change spool characteristics by tweaking the torque management. You can't. The spool time at WOT will not be affected unless you are seeing throttle closure, WGDC being cut, or significant timing pull. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #302 on: April 04, 2012, 11:46:13 PM »
|
|
|
Also, with that desired boost, you are definitely going to see positive deviation at some point.
Why is your LDRXN so agressive?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #303 on: April 05, 2012, 12:53:17 AM »
|
|
|
You guys keep insisting you can change spool characteristics by tweaking the torque management. You can't. The spool time at WOT will not be affected unless you are seeing throttle closure, WGDC being cut, or significant timing pull.
I made a reply about that in the tq thread, but I thought I had empirically seen spool differences by solely switching up the torque management. I've taken probably over 30 FATS pulls over the past couple of months, and I have seen differences. Looking at my past couple of revisions though, I think you may be right, and the spool differences may be attributed elsewhere. My throttle plate has also been logged and is constant, WGDC has been completely zero'd out for every pull, and timing has been logged and is similar (same timing tables). I'll have to analyze the logs more to see where to attribute the differences to, but the last A to B logs of this last file (the only file being torque management), upon further examination the spool wasn't as different as I had thought. It must have been some other changes I made along the way from the files from a while ago. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 06:17:04 AM by jibberjive »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
 Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #304 on: April 05, 2012, 06:05:03 AM »
|
|
|
Playing with the torque management and stuff, what have you found that is helping spool the soonest?
I agree w/ Nye that I haven't been able to see differences in spool... I'm generally always around 3800-4000 to see 20 psi (TB is always @ 100% long before then and WGDC is always the samea s it is locked)... that said, TQ management and the aggressiveness IMO still does play a role in accel. but my TQ mangement settings are pretty untouched, everything is S4 stuff just IOP and IRL are touched... and I'm running exactly what Rick said to do here: http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=970.msg8609#msg8609and http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=970.msg8678#msg8678Also Nye, my LDRXN is that aggressive because that is what Rick suggested to do... request as much load as possible down-low. I have no seen any boost deviation messages at this point. I will look into the editor thing later EDIT and that later is now... all I had to do was put a blank line @ the end... WTF, that would have been easily solved long time ago if that's all it took is to press ENTER after the last line. So there my editor doesn't suck  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 06:40:33 AM by NOTORIOUS VR »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #305 on: April 05, 2012, 08:32:24 AM »
|
|
|
Let's have a vote shall we!
85mm Bosch MAF and sensor from a V8 and using fully defined transfer tables from the respective ECU, this setup should be more then I would even need on a stock 2.7 motor it seems (700+ bhp).
or
85mm pipe w/ the P-mas HPX sensor and a generally very good MAF transfer function and the ability to ready far more air that I would ever need (good for 1000rwhp)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #306 on: April 05, 2012, 09:00:41 AM »
|
|
|
Also Nye, my LDRXN is that aggressive because that is what Rick suggested to do... request as much load as possible down-low.
That makes no sense, sorry  So there my editor doesn't suck No, actually, it does. You shouldn't need to add a BLANK line, you just need the LAST line to contain an EOL. Shitty DOS editors (like notepad) can't do that, and they only way they can be convinced to do it is by adding a completely blank line at the end of the file... which is (IMO) retarded |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #307 on: April 05, 2012, 09:03:54 AM »
|
|
|
That makes no sense, sorry Well so far it hasn't cause me any issues having it this way No, actually, it does. You shouldn't need to add a BLANK line, you just need the LAST line to contain an EOL.
Shitty DOS editors (like notepad) can't do that, and they only way they can be convinced to do it is by adding a completely blank line at the end of the file... which is (IMO) retarded
Well I'm not going to switch to a *nix OS just to use vi.... which I already despise enough when I have to use it when I'm SSH'd into a server, so pressing the Enter key @ the end of the line isn't a big deal to me |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #308 on: April 05, 2012, 09:17:26 AM »
|
|
|
Well so far it hasn't cause me any issues having it this way eventually, you will. I dont see a good reason for LDRXN to EVER request something your turbos simply can't do. Look at the RS4 LDRXN. Look where the peak is... Well I'm not going to switch to a *nix OS just to use vi.... which I already despise enough when I have to use it when I'm SSH'd into a server, so pressing the Enter key @ the end of the line isn't a big deal to me You dont need a different OS to use a decent editor |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #309 on: April 09, 2012, 09:57:26 AM »
|
|
|
Tuning will be put on hold until I resolve my slipping clutch issue with Southbend...
results from the 1/4 track on Friday... 12.1 @ 118 mph... highest MPH 118.4
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #310 on: April 13, 2012, 02:04:15 PM »
|
|
|
Ordered the HPX today now I'm on the hunt for a 3 BAR FPR |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #311 on: April 13, 2012, 02:30:43 PM »
|
|
|
nvr, why 3-bar? better pulsewidth variance control at lower pressure?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #312 on: April 13, 2012, 03:54:42 PM »
|
|
|
Same question, why do you want to go 3-bar?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #313 on: April 13, 2012, 04:27:39 PM »
|
|
|
Less stress on the pump and the pump flows more @ lower rail pressures... w/ my 1000cc's (@ 3 bar) they will supply more then enough for anything I would ever throw at it even E85... with the 4 BAR they're approx 1180 cc... unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #314 on: April 13, 2012, 04:48:45 PM »
|
|
|
You're running an 044, there should be zero reliability concerns (differences) between 3 and 4 bar for that pump, and higher pressures have some great benefits as well. I may creep my base pressure up to 6-bar with my dual 044's eventually. If you've got the pump (and you do), I'd personally run 4 bar over 3 for sure (and no idling issues either with 4-bar on the 1000cc EV14's, as I can attest to).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
