NefMoto

But then why are some "stage 2" maps i'm looking at using lower values in KFLBTS then stock (on high RPMs)? I don't quite understand this concept.

Also how do i interpret KFFDLBTS?

This is why reading other tunes is pointless. You have no idea what the fuck they're thinking, and about 99% of the time they're idiots who have no idea and literally copied their stupid shit from somebody else's stupid shit because they thought it would be a good idea to learn from somebody else's tune instead of actually learning what all the maps do by reading the FR.

In any case, the only place you'd want to lower BTS from stock is to get earlier enrich if you don't want LAMFA for that because you want it load dependent and not throttle dependent. Stock doesn't use LAMFA generally because of fuel economy. It uses BTS to enrich only "when needed", which is the advantage of torque based ECUs over speed density/cable throttle standalone ECUs.

Covered in the FR and extensively in the s4wiki tuning page, not sure what you're asking or if you've read that section yet.

Thanks for the response, that explains it quite a bit. Though this is where i do get slightly confused. I'm hoping you can send me in the right direction here.

If i understand this correctly; LAMFA is ignored if condition TABGBTS =>399 and BTS is followed from then on? If so; it looks extremely rich why would i want/need to mess with this?
Lambda is not ignored the ecu takes the riches path of fueling so if bts is triggered and and is requesting more enrichment then lambda it will use bts fueling. High load bts should be cleaned up a bit in most cases bts will request .6 lambda in high load witch it's just a waste of fuel.

My second question was too vague, i don't understand how to interpret the KFFDLBTS map - what do the axises represent? On my XDF the axises both show "0.00". I now do see why the bottom 4 rows would be "0.00" as it would be a multiplier and is probably easier to zero out to get easier control perhaps.

Now then why would you ever prefer using LAMFA over BTS? I've read some on the FR settings the TABGBTS threshold to 200 and using BTS to fully control fuelling. It is the combination of LAMFA and BTS that i don't quite understand.

Now i know messing with other tunes is bad practice; but its also a valuable learning experience for me. For example, the tunes i've looked at all messed extremely much with protection maps, and fault code diagnosis for stuff you should probably leave stock. Probably to mask some shitty errors from bad tuning.

No offense but i don't get these passive aggresive reactions. If you don't feel like helping out i don't mind but this is just utter useless. I'll figure it out myself by trial and error. Thanks for the contribution!

what i wrote was the ecu uses the richest path of fueling. i dont know what happened there.
my quote from nye is my signature lol. sorry it offend you  :D

For me, lambts = KFLBTS + [KF]DLBTS*KFFDLBTS is important on the Wiki.  I set LBTS to a flat 0 and use BTS to control.  That table alone gives me enough resolution and load to get it smooth.  LAMFA for an initial enrichment, although I'll always set it leaner than BTS final so I know what I'm playing with.

When I was learning, it was easier to do it this way.  If I wanted to do the maths everytime, I'd not set LBTS to 0 and use that for even more resolution, but I've yet to need it.

I see. I've read about this on FR. So basically full KFFDLBTS to zero and then use BTS from there on.

I don't get the point of KFFDLBTS then, seems as it only complicates things further.

Sigh...
It's there so that the engine doesn't melt when it gets shit fuel.

In fact that path has nothing to do with KFLBTS. KFLBTS is the base path. KFFDLBTS * DLBTS is the additional path which enriches with a delta lambda based on ignition angle efficiency.
Setting it to zero is stupid, as is tuning BTS without having EGT measurement, because you can never know how much it needs to not melt.

I really don't like your last sentence though.
"I don't get the point of X, it just complicates things".

at load there is never good angle efficiency, period.

In theory, once you have that set up, you can unwind it, but you'll NEVER be out of DLBTS anyway, so what's the point?

If i run shit gas worse than 91oct, i go from shit 5 deg to shit 0 deg timing, upon which i can always enrich via KR.

If you don't get the BTS model, turn it off and adjust fueling via LAMFA, KFLAMKR and KFLAMKRL.

I would suggest this anyway for a noob trying to learn ME7 AND trying to tune fueling with stock narrow bands + wb sniffer.

having BTS constantly fuck with with your req afr makes it a huge PITA

Yes, they may melt pistons, but with a rich enough LAMFA and a conservative enough LAMKR it is doable. Then, when they get it figured out, they can pull back LAMFA and bring back BTS to get decent fuel economy and stay safe at the same time.

With a stock WB car, leaving BTS in place is actually way easier, because you have the ECU doing the trimming for you. req lambda is truly set and forget, tuning fuel is just a matter of minimizing long trim adaptations.

Again, this is my opinion. There are a million different ways to implement fueling. Totally up to you.. the problem is, it is hard to make an informed decision until you *understand the entire fueling path* from start to finish.