Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 26
Author Topic: ME7.9.10 - Understanding the torque model  (Read 200877 times)
overspeed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 387



« Reply #225 on: May 28, 2018, 06:17:20 PM »

You need to tweek inverse fuel density on BGKV... but to be true I didn´t found on your file...
Logged
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #226 on: May 29, 2018, 01:10:30 AM »

This seems to be hardcoded in this ECU, KUMSRIL is multiplied by a in-code constant to get the fuel consumption calculated.

My rk_w fix seems to work, but it is not ideal (there is also, right now inactive because of CWs, reverse calculation on frkte to calculate maximum allowable load not to loop the injectors, the way I did it messes up this part) and I need to redesign it slightly. Among other things, it would be good to also scale TANKL to get the empty warning at a better point in time.
Logged
overspeed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 387



« Reply #227 on: May 29, 2018, 12:00:54 PM »

This seems to be hardcoded in this ECU, KUMSRIL is multiplied by a in-code constant to get the fuel consumption calculated.

My rk_w fix seems to work, but it is not ideal (there is also, right now inactive because of CWs, reverse calculation on frkte to calculate maximum allowable load not to loop the injectors, the way I did it messes up this part) and I need to redesign it slightly. Among other things, it would be good to also scale TANKL to get the empty warning at a better point in time.

In the newer ones you have a value to tweak...  TANKL didn´t change anything for me (by the way, it´s the same value in file for Punto or Bravo thar have diferent tanks)
Logged
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #228 on: May 29, 2018, 12:20:40 PM »

I though I am the master of making mental shortcuts Wink I am not sure I follow, value to tweak what? Fuel density?

Will see about TANKL, will know in about 100km, just uploaded a new program that should sort out all this, drove too little to be 100% sure that fuel consumption is in the right range. TANKL being equal on both cars is not surprising, it is not supposed to be percentage of the full one, but the amount of litres you need to travel roughly 100 km, so that will be more or less the same on all t-jets, and 8 litres (my bin's value) seems to be just that. It has to be either this, or the cluster turns it on based on the remaining distance to drive.
Logged
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #229 on: May 31, 2018, 10:55:18 AM »

Something is seriously wrong with knock detection, either on my particular car, or on this setup / ECU in general. Just replaced the knock sensor (brand, Bosch), torqued it to spec. I still get excessive retards, on E68!!!. (No, I have not gotten time to take out my knock monitoring gadget). There is actually some weird faint rattling-like noise coming from underneath the car, but it's also there when I stroll very gently through the neighbourhood, will have problems locating it. The only thing I can think of that is out of ordinary - we have a frying plate over here for almost a week, the air is dry, and my IATs were between 40-45 today (at 19:00). I even got a slight retard on one of the cylinders at light acceleration, low RPM, load at ~100%. WTF?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 11:13:55 AM by woj » Logged
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #230 on: May 31, 2018, 01:03:48 PM »

So, I have been reading a bit on different forums (mostly on EVOs) and it seems that problems with knock on E85 are not uncommon. One claim is a rich knock, E85 does not like overfueling. I underline these are claims from elsewhere, I have no grounds to either believe or trust them. But, I looked at my logs and indeed one may come to the conclusion that retard figures coincide with AFR drops. In some cases I could even dare to claim that when the AFR goes from 10.0 to 11.0 the retardation subsides along with it, does not disappear though. Now, I have not done anything about fueling on E85, it runs the same targets as on regular gasoline at the moment.

That's one possibility, the other one is knock sensor setup, which at least in one respect (FMFKRNZ and NKRFMX) is very different on my 120hp bin and twin 150hp bin), see the pictures. Windows and thresholds are also different, but not that much.
Logged
KasperH
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +24/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #231 on: June 01, 2018, 01:46:30 PM »

I'm just shooting blind.
But could the AFR drop be caused by knock if your fueling via LAMBTS.
There is a knock reactive delta fuel map (KFFLBTS?)

Then again, I could be completely off target.
Just a little brainfart.
Logged
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #232 on: June 01, 2018, 03:33:49 PM »

No, you are not shooting blind, this is precisely what happens. I was just looking carefully at the maps today (and found out that my understanding of the DLBTS scale was wrong). The base KFLBTS component protection fueling is on the edge of richness for regular fuel, excessive for E85, then the KFFDLBTS/DLBTS additions are also drastic, more so that the base ignition is very far from optimal at high loads effectively increasing the effect of DLBTS (because the ETADZW is curvy, had the base ignition be close to optimal, DLBTS would be sticking to lesser values). All in all this goes into a vicious circle, rich -> knock -> even more rich -> even more knock -> richness maxed out at 9.8 AFR :/ Or at least that's how I see things if this is this alleged "rich knock" . I have prepped a more sane KFLBTS for E85, will test it out when I get a chance.
Logged
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #233 on: June 02, 2018, 12:58:50 PM »

I did some unstructured tests, had to fill up in the meantime and went from E67 to E75 mixture. Nevertheless, I think I am getting there (BTW, much cooler this evening, lower IATs than before, ~35C). Changing the knock frequency configuration from another bin quoted above does not seem to change much or anything (I purposely left the stock rich fuel not to change to many things at the same time). Still knock retards, a bit less than before, but still on 2-3 cylinders.

With less fuel, both on E67 and E75, I saw an improvement - retard still there, but only on one cylinder and not going below -4.5. I manipulated my AFR requests to be around ~12.0, the actual is more like 11.5 according to post cat Zeitronix, this has to be the impreciseness of the speed density thing on this ECU. The mean retard is low enough not to cause flooding through DLBTS.

So this seems to be it, but I have to test more and dare to drop the fuel still a bit more on E85. Also, with the dropped AFRs the car felt less choked and more consistent.

All this ought to be done on a dyno and ignition should be tuned in for E85 too, but I won't have time to do it any time soon. I also feel uneasy doing this without EGT, but oh well...

Oh, and BTW, TANKL indeed does not seem to do anything in terms of reserve light on the dash. In fact, I got a low fuel warning message on the dash with a beep (due to range below 50km) and no reserve light at the same time. But at least my fuel consumption figures are correct now, and range is correctly calculated.
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1072/-481
Online Online

Posts: 6036


« Reply #234 on: June 02, 2018, 02:19:33 PM »

You should have 0 KR on E75, change your knock sensors, don't mess with freq.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #235 on: June 03, 2018, 02:32:54 AM »

Yes, I know that, I messed with the frequency just for one test, the knock sensor is changed, no results.

The car is seriously overfueled by factory (there are moments in my logs where I see 9.7 AFR request mid RPM range), the more I look at all this, the more I come to the conclusion that this ECU should be calibrated from square one. I also now know why my AFR drift away downwards from targets on E75, FKKVS is not factory calibrated beyond 20ms (actually, anywhere beyond stock operation range) and stuck at 1.0, while most of other high load cells are 1-5% reduced.

Once I fully confirm my ethanol knock is caused by fuel, I will have to make a plan how to methodically fix all this, for both fuels.
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1072/-481
Online Online

Posts: 6036


« Reply #236 on: June 03, 2018, 05:29:40 AM »

Get some headphones and listen to the engine, because if you have a stock car calibrated for 98 RON, there is no way in hell that engine is gonna knock with any timing on E75 with stock CR.
Something is wrong with knock detection.

Can be something loose in engine bay and hitting the block too.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #237 on: June 03, 2018, 02:08:42 PM »

It is time for me to do some homework. The retards kick in almost unconditionally on full throttle, 0.5-1.0 second after the actual load reaches requested, never before that (in my logs, which are not that thorough), even on already high load. Seems almost as if this is done as precaution, which makes me think I have to look into the adaptation conditions and algorithm for knock, found a nicely translated KRRA module description on the wiki here. Resetting adaptation parameters on the ECU probably won't hurt either. I have only one spot in one E67 log where on full throttle during half-pull the retards are zero, one! I looked very very carefully at that spot and cannot find a differentiating factor. I also know that overfueling is not it - have one spot with mild fueling (13.5 to 12.0 actual) in the logs where there is still retard.

As for the external noise - the only thing I can think of is rough road surface here. The mid axle joint mount from the right wheel is bolted directly to the lower part of the engine block under the knock sensor. And all the roads are rough and noisy, almost no exceptions.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 02:33:05 PM by woj » Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1072/-481
Online Online

Posts: 6036


« Reply #238 on: June 04, 2018, 01:58:22 AM »

The problem is you're sitting in the ECU.
Get outside the ECU and into the engine bay.

This most likely has nothing to do with the ECU and everything to do with the car.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
woj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +43/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #239 on: June 04, 2018, 01:20:53 PM »

I am not going to argue with that, nevertheless, I want to understand what values and patterns to expect so that I know what I am looking for (especially that my knock sensing education is only now starting to build up).

To start with that, I logged the knock sensor voltages and tried to map them with the other running parameters. (Putting aside if I got the conversion for the voltage right, the documentation and sources are messy and inconsistent about this). I see two things - knock retardation comes more happily when the rpms ramp up quicker (probably normal), and the voltage pattern follows almost precisely the RPM line, see the pictures. I have three spots there when there is a retard, the first is mild load (~110%), two others are high load (190-160%).

Is that normal (again, looking at RKRMX maps, probably expected)? Or should I now be looking at engine speed related interference (valves?)? Or perhaps an electrical issue of some kind, like bad shielding / poor ground? Or, perhaps, is the whole system simply too sensitive? (not sure if what I show gives any grounds to establish that)?

Otherwise, yes I got it by now Wink, something could be loosely screwed and resonating along with rpms. Will look for that when I have a chance.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 26
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.021 seconds with 16 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)