mightemouce
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
 Offline
Posts: 67
|
 |
« Reply #180 on: February 15, 2012, 12:19:02 PM »
|
|
|
Awesome work.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tobz
Full Member
Karma: +3/-1
Offline
Posts: 60
|
|
« Reply #181 on: February 15, 2012, 01:39:08 PM »
|
|
|
What does this mean in the generic sense for someone just getting into self-tuning?
The way I understand it now... there's a map for global AFR (LAMFA), then maps for enrichment via EGT (BTS stuff) and then maps for enrichment under knock. The consensus seems to be that LAMFA is utterly useless, though, because it deals with driver input, but not necessarily real-time engine load.... which is what we really care about when tweaking our AFRs to provide optimal power / protection.
What is the easiest / most sane path to achieving proper AFRs? Should I even bother looking at LAMFA?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
carlossus
Sr. Member
Karma: +38/-0
Offline
Posts: 394
Leon Curpa Stg1+
|
|
« Reply #182 on: February 15, 2012, 02:34:11 PM »
|
|
|
Reading back from the beginning, there is possibly some benefit using LAMFA if you need predictive enrichment before real load arrives. They potentially all do complementary enrichment. Edit: LAMFA has best capacity to waste fuel IMO  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 03:40:46 PM by carlossus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #183 on: February 15, 2012, 02:36:50 PM »
|
|
|
From experience, 91oct is like this, even with water/meth. But if KR correction works, I will be using that instead of BTS enrichment for the rest of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #184 on: February 15, 2012, 02:47:36 PM »
|
|
|
Reading back from the beginning, there is possibly some benefit using LAMFA if you need predictive enrichment before real load arrives. They potentially all do complementary enrichment.
I agree. IMO using all three gives you the best of all worlds. LAMFA provides basically instant enrichment, KFLAMKR could be main target lambda, and LAMBTS provides further enrichment as needed to combat rising temps. Lambda will follow the richest input, so you can keep the mixture on the leaner side and adjust as conditions change. Instant enrichment on heavy acceleration, a little richer as load (and boost) catches up, enrich again as temps pass whatever threshold you choose, and finally if KR is pulling timing further enrichment as needed. This way you are only enriching as necessary for best power. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tobz
Full Member
Karma: +3/-1
Offline
Posts: 60
|
|
« Reply #185 on: February 15, 2012, 02:51:53 PM »
|
|
|
Reading back from the beginning, there is possibly some benefit using LAMFA if you need predictive enrichment before real load arrives. They potentially all do complementary enrichment.
Yeah... I had to go back and reread everything to try and get a grip on things. In the end, the lowest lambda should win for the lambda that the ECU will try and meet. LAMFA is the global AFR, where only driver input is taken into consideration and actual load is not factored in. Then things can be further modified by the BTS tables where compensation can be added for modeled EGTs. Building on that, the KR AFR tables allow further enrichment based on current knock values. Where I'm still slightly confused is that julex seemed to indicate that instead of the current approach of using the BTS tables with an artificially low TAGBTS value.. you could use the KR AFR tables to do the same thing and get more of a benefit... but I'm confused on how doing any targeted AFRs, as in "this is the AFR I want when things are working as intended", in a table that deals with enrichment under knock, is the "right" way to do it.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #186 on: February 15, 2012, 03:15:40 PM »
|
|
|
"under knock" doesn't mean the engine is literally knocking... it means the knock sensors are detecting the onset of knock...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #187 on: February 15, 2012, 03:20:39 PM »
|
|
|
the beauty of what we have here is muddled by the complexity of it all.
here's my stance on the order of tuning now, and i think there's still a good bit of work to be done before everyone sees eye-to-eye on this stuff.
0) start with a bone stock m-box, code out your egts and rear o2s and cats, to whatever degree you want/need
1) scale mlhfm to your maf, either bosch or hitachi
2) eliminate fuel corrections. set the following maps to flat / 1.00 until rough fuel tuning is done:
KFLF (partial)
FKKVS (returnless fuel system correction)
KFKHFM (maf correction factors)
3) reorganize LAMFA, re-axis and at the least enable the percentages to be: 50/60/70/80/90/100
set TABGBTS to 750 / 800 (like the RS4), and setup KFLBTS to have afrs in the 10-11 range, like a pure safety map
4) get KFMIRL / KFMIOP sorted out
5) set KRKTE and TVUB
6) repeat 5 until LTFT's are zero'd out
7) NOW you can turn on KR-based AFR's...
8.) start tuning your timing and use KFLF / stft's to averge out your corrections
9) repeat steps 8 and 5/6 until your corrected LTFT's are zero'd out.
10) your car is an animal
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rob.mwpropane
|
|
« Reply #188 on: February 15, 2012, 03:26:20 PM »
|
|
|
Let me start by saying I have no idea how "sensitive" knock sensors are. And I'm fully aware of the "100 ways to skin a cat" adage, but I thought the idea was to keep the engine out of knock? Which to me seams logical to do this; LAMFA > BTS > KR But the consensus here seems to be LAMFA (if at all) > KR > BTS Somebody school me. Edit: My damn question was asked and answered^^^, sort of. You all type to fast, or maybe I'm not fast enough!  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 03:29:36 PM by rob.mwpropane »
|
Logged
|
This has nothing to do with cars but you can see my glorifying job at, www.MWPropane.com |
|
|
tobz
Full Member
Karma: +3/-1
Offline
Posts: 60
|
|
« Reply #189 on: February 15, 2012, 04:47:47 PM »
|
|
|
the beauty of what we have here is muddled by the complexity of it all.
here's my stance on the order of tuning now, and i think there's still a good bit of work to be done before everyone sees eye-to-eye on this stuff.
0) start with a bone stock m-box, code out your egts and rear o2s and cats, to whatever degree you want/need
1) scale mlhfm to your maf, either bosch or hitachi
2) eliminate fuel corrections. set the following maps to flat / 1.00 until rough fuel tuning is done:
KFLF (partial)
FKKVS (returnless fuel system correction)
KFKHFM (maf correction factors)
3) reorganize LAMFA, re-axis and at the least enable the percentages to be: 50/60/70/80/90/100
set TABGBTS to 750 / 800 (like the RS4), and setup KFLBTS to have afrs in the 10-11 range, like a pure safety map
4) get KFMIRL / KFMIOP sorted out
5) set KRKTE and TVUB
6) repeat 5 until LTFT's are zero'd out
7) NOW you can turn on KR-based AFR's...
8.) start tuning your timing and use KFLF / stft's to averge out your corrections
9) repeat steps 8 and 5/6 until your corrected LTFT's are zero'd out.
10) your car is an animal
Any steps here that would change if you were using a 1.8T? I can't imagine there would be, but just curious. Also, while we're on the subject... is there much to do in the way of tweaking the stock MAF table if you're on a stock MAF? Should one even worry about KFKHFM if they aren't using a non-stock MAF? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #190 on: February 15, 2012, 04:49:29 PM »
|
|
|
4) get KFMIRL / KFMIOP sorted out
5) set KRKTE and TVUB
6) repeat 5 until LTFT's are zero'd out
7) NOW you can turn on KR-based AFR's...
before moving to 7, i'd make sure my target lambdas were being met during open loop with extensive wideband logging. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #191 on: February 15, 2012, 04:50:20 PM »
|
|
|
Should one even worry about KFKHFM if they aren't using a non-stock MAF?
No, unless your intake is modified. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #192 on: February 15, 2012, 05:06:42 PM »
|
|
|
You guys are missing the point. You can use Knock based exclusively so long you establish 0.00 knock row. If you do that and stick in any lambda below 1.00, this will become the lambda car will follow as the lowest lambda takes over.
As such, you can ignore LAMFA, use BTS only for extreme temps and let KR path drive no-knock lambda with 0.00 knock path and then slip to lower lambda on higher timing corrections.
Keep in mind that table doesn't really indicate knock but timing corrections ECU is establishing TO PREVENT KNOCK.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #193 on: February 15, 2012, 05:21:58 PM »
|
|
|
You guys are missing the point. You can use Knock based exclusively so long you establish 0.00 knock row. If you do that and stick in any lambda below 1.00, this will become the lambda car will follow as the lowest lambda takes over.
As such, you can ignore LAMFA, use BTS only for extreme temps and let KR path drive no-knock lambda with 0.00 knock path and then slip to lower lambda on higher timing corrections.
Keep in mind that table doesn't really indicate knock but timing corrections ECU is establishing TO PREVENT KNOCK.
This may work with better gas, but with Cali 91 I find that the instant enrichment provided by LAMFA helps immensely to prevent knock. Also, I don't really see the point of practically disabling BTS. Why not use all of the tools available to us? LAMFA > KFLAMKR (no KR) > LAMBTS > KFLAMKR (with KR, hopefully not needed) To me this provides the ability to safely maximize power. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #194 on: February 15, 2012, 05:32:59 PM »
|
|
|
I think at this point we can agree to disagree IMO there is more than one way to do things, and as long as we all understand the tools, I think we can all choose which strategy is best for the goals we have.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
