NefMoto > Technical > Tuning > Issue with boost request
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
Author Topic: Issue with boost request  (Read 14010 times)
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 219
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2014, 02:04:48 PM »


Same boost curve as chart posted before. Sorry I was working on it wasn't sure if some of you preferred posting up the log.
Logged
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +173/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2014, 04:42:50 PM »
Actual boost pressure still isn't meeting requested?

Have you confirmed that there are no mechanical problems?

Correcting this would be my first priority.

Original turbos and stock boost PID?

Rlsol_w isn't being limited by rlmax_w, so that's clearly not the issue with low target boost pressure. Is rlsol_w following KFMIRL? If not, then the torque request is too low possibly from torque intervention or something else within the torque model (possibly KFMIOP).

As I said, I would concentrate on getting actual to meet target first.
Logged
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 219
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2014, 09:53:39 PM »


Well here is IOP and IRL.  IRL is stock. Thinking back on I remember scaling up IRL and IOP. Ddillenger suggested keeping IRL stock and I never changed IOP back to stock. I think that maybe where the intervention is coming from. So in IOP I added 5-7% torque and rescaled the load axis. I'll go back to the stock IOP values but keep the load axis and go from there.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 10:19:41 PM by em.Euro.R18 » Logged
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +173/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2014, 07:39:02 AM »
Torque request is fine, look at KFMIRL and rlsol_w.
Logged
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 219
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2014, 08:17:29 AM »
I see that rlsol_w is slightly lower then IRL. So that would indicate torque intervention taking place. I will revert back to stock IOP and keep the axis the same. Since I changed IOP's load axis how can you re-interpolate kfwzop/kfmds? I was hoping I didn't have to do this.
Logged
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +173/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2014, 08:29:50 AM »
It's not lower, you're not going to be fully in the 99% column.

Look at your KFMIOP, your highest max torque request is ~85%.
Logged
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 219
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2014, 08:59:17 AM »
 Shocked Now I'm understanding this relationship. I've been under the impression IOP was simply just used in the internal torque calculation but its also used as a cap for IRL. Tapp has all the IOP/IRL maps maxed out so I'm not used to working with stock, I believe he also underscales mafs to prevent intervention (you should see what KFLF looks like in some of the files). So I'll either have to max last column in IOP or rescale the axis to peak IRL(which is probably what I'll do then rlsol_w will be closer to 180% request.

So plsol is being capped by IOP. I also have to pressure test the system. Thanks for your help phila_dot
Logged
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 219
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2014, 11:35:58 AM »
Just to update this thread and bring it all together for future reference of other members on here. I took a log of n75 duty cycle which ended up being pegged at IMX 94.9%. In conclusion that would  point me to either a clocked up solenoid or boost leak (pressure tested charge system nothing obvious). So we will swap the n75 valve out and go from there.

I still am not sure why the boost request be stuck at 2110, because hbn is still high.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +608/-168
Online Online

Posts: 12270


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2014, 11:51:23 AM »
Quote from: em.Euro.R18 on February 14, 2014, 08:59:17 AM
you should see what KFLF looks like in some of the files

If you want to avoid ps_w limits, underscale + KFLF hacks are unavoidable w/o using the 5120 hack.

http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=2747.0
Logged
ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 219
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2014, 11:51:18 AM »
Wow that makes perfect sense now why he would do that. It's no wonder using maestro made my head spin. Using his base file for v8 s4 maf stage 3 files where seeing such low actual engine loads(I've tuned around 5 different cars all with that problem on maestro), when I would try and rescale the maf instead of using his klaf(reverted to stock) I'd start experience intervention. I would keep backtracking and end up just end up right whre I started. It would have been great if he would have told me the maf was underscaled for that purpose instead of making the customer feel as though they were idiots.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Navigation
Personal Tools
  • November 27, 2024, 02:38:54 PM
  • Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
    Did you miss your activation email?

    Login with username, password and session length
Search
 
Advanced Search
About Disclaimer
All Rights Reserved 2010 Nefarious Motosports
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.038 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)