|
Jim_Coupe
|
 |
« on: July 25, 2016, 09:54:50 AM »
|
|
|
Hi,
Im right now abit confused about how to give my 24V 3.2T more fuel when at partial throttle and higher load. I have been reading the wiki and some threads about this but only makes me confused. My MAF and injectors are now properly dialed in and the car feels stable and smooth but i want more fuel at partial throttle. Im running E85 and engine is around lambda 1.0 - 0.94 @ 50% throttle and 0.5bar. I want to be more safe.
KFLF map is flat.
FKKVS map is flat
KFKMH map is calibrated in some areas to correct as much as possible to be close to 0% fueltrim.
Where do i set the new offset for adding fuel for partial load area?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 03:39:53 PM by Jim_Coupe »
|
Logged
|
E85oholic
|
|
|
|
nubcake
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2016, 10:40:46 AM »
|
|
|
Hi,
Im right now abit confused about how to give my 24V 3.2T more fuel att partial throttle. I have been reading the wiki and some threads about this but only makes me confused. My MAF and injectors are now properly dialed in and the car feels stable and smooth but i want more fuel at partial throttle. Im running E85 and engine is around lambda 1.0 - 0.94 @ 50% throttle and 0.5bar. I want to be more safe.
KFLF map is flat.
FKKVS map is flat
KFKMH map is calibrated in some areas to correct as much as possible to be close to 0% fueltrim.
Where do i set the new offset for adding fuel for partial load area? http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#Open_loop_AFRLAMFAWKR path (specifically, KFLAMKRL) is probably what you want to tune. EDIT: I have absolutely no experience with E85, but from what I know - why would you want to enrich your AFR? What "safety" is there to get? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 10:45:39 AM by nubcake »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2016, 11:04:36 AM »
|
|
|
Why do you think rich is safer on E85?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2016, 11:21:31 AM »
|
|
|
Wait, you are suggesting knock based enrichment for part throttle fueling? c'mon. LAMBTS it has an EGT model behind it, but you can still adjust fueling based on load. At minimum you will have probably have to modify FBSTABGM and TABGBTS to make it work the way you want it to. See the wiki on LAMBTS. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_Coupe
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2016, 11:33:54 AM »
|
|
|
I´ll follow PRJ´s method that snOOk tested on E85... I have set KFLAMKR to 1.0 over all and mapped my desired lamba target in KFLAMKRL..
Going for a testride..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
E85oholic
|
|
|
|
nubcake
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2016, 11:44:39 AM »
|
|
|
Wait, you are suggesting knock based enrichment for part throttle fueling? c'mon. What's so "c'mon"-ish here? Scale the "load" axis accordingly and adjust zero CF table cells - bam, you just got a load dependent lambda map. It will achieve the goal OP requested. Whether that's completely unnecessary - is completely different story. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2016, 11:46:50 AM »
|
|
|
Wait, you are suggesting knock based enrichment for part throttle fueling? c'mon.
LAMBTS it has an EGT model behind it, but you can still adjust fueling based on load. At minimum you will have probably have to modify FBSTABGM and TABGBTS to make it work the way you want it to.
See the wiki on LAMBTS.
Personally, I'd use LAMBTS too, but you can use KRL to determine fueling in the "no knock" operating region as well. More of a skin a cat thing. The question really is of purpose. What I don't know is how accurate the stock EGT model is on E85. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_Coupe
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2016, 11:47:43 AM »
|
|
|
Thats a method i could try.. im flashing KR fuel method right now  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 02:35:19 PM by Jim_Coupe »
|
Logged
|
E85oholic
|
|
|
|
Jim_Coupe
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2016, 12:30:26 PM »
|
|
|
Well I think it did the thing.. I added richer target lambda in KFLAMKRL and it now looks like it runs alot richer in my logs.. stupid me forgot to log pedal position though.. My CWLAMFAW is now set to 110000 and KFLAMKR is 1 all over and KFLAMKRL is going from around lambda 0.90 to 0.85 shaky video but anyway.. (has no function) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eROAafzZgj0 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 02:36:08 PM by Jim_Coupe »
|
Logged
|
E85oholic
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2016, 12:32:23 PM »
|
|
|
Well I think it did the thing.. I added richer target lambda in KFLAMKRL and it now looks like it runs alot richer in my logs.. stupid me forgot to log pedal position though.. shaky video but anyway.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eROAafzZgj0And what, exactly, is that doing for you? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2016, 12:36:45 PM »
|
|
|
What's so "c'mon"-ish here?
Scale the "load" axis accordingly and adjust zero CF table cells - bam, you just got a load dependent lambda map.
Honestly I didn't ever think of using this table for 0 knock. Sorry. +1 for you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_Coupe
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2016, 01:24:11 PM »
|
|
|
And what, exactly, is that doing for you?
to log throttle? It enables me to orientate in my logs. Problem was to lean mixture at around 30% throttle. The boost climbs uncontrolled and at the same time load increased. Since lamfaw dont activates in that area i was running lean.. If thats what you were thinkin about? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
E85oholic
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2016, 01:30:14 PM »
|
|
|
to log throttle? It enables me to orientate in my logs.
No, I mean the video, sans log, and the bigger question: enriching part throttle. Problem was to lean mixture at around 30% throttle. The boost climbs uncontrolled and at the same time load increased. Since lamfaw dont activates in that area i was running lean.. If thats what you were thinkin about?
Too lean, how? Request? Actual not meeting request? Why would you be requesting leaner than lambda 1? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_Coupe
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2016, 02:14:33 PM »
|
|
|
The video was just "digifun" (it has no function... its like dancing drunk). We need more multimedia in this forum No it WAS to lean mixture at part throttle.. lambda was around 0.98 at 0.5bar boost.. I want to enrich more.. Im running stock compression and it seem like these VR6 24 engines need lots of fueling when running on E85. (they are thursty it seems). dont know why or if its just an misconception. actual vs requested.. you know what.. have not bothered to check that  . I know i should.. but for now i just want the mixture I say I want.. Let me log some tomorrow and se how far off actual is from requested. If thats the case.. I need to study Me7 for an additional year and make annoying questions in this forum PS. Please explain CF cells? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 02:34:42 PM by Jim_Coupe »
|
Logged
|
E85oholic
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2016, 02:18:23 PM »
|
|
|
but for now i just want the mixture I say I want..
Exactly, but you've drawn the wrong conclusion from that statement. The solution isn't to fuck with requested. Don't touch requested until actual meets requested - "the mixture you say you want". Still unclear why you want to be rich part throttle; I can't see any good reason for it whatsoever. see how far off actual is from requested. If thats the case.. I need to study Me7 for an additional year and make annoying questions in this forum If you'll notice, this is the FIRST thing you need to get right in the tuning guide. Not sure why it took you this look to get to it  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 02:21:18 PM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
