Though BTS' timing corrections would have been more heavy handed with degrees pulled, corrections via pulling timing in general are "safer" (reduce knock more quickly) than AFR corrections, no? So, assuming that you didn't hit the CF limit, BTS corrections in this same case would have been more conservative, right?
everything depends on where the TABGBTS value is set. if its set high enough that timing and and fuel intervention are occuring at the same time, the answer isn't quite as clear. as we recall, the knowledge from this thread was that TABGBTS needs to be set at a sufficiently high model temp as to not intervene in normal fueling based on knock. therefore we'd see the following progression: normal [0 axis row on KFLAMKRL table]--> cf-based fueling [negative valued rows on KFLAMKRL table]--> omfg help mode: reduce immediate timing, add to stored memory of knock events, dump fuel to cool down. [KFLBTS]
everything is in delicate balance and has to be done correctly. has anyone experimented further with the TABGBTS value? I currently run 900 with no problems. if the car isn't warm or rlsol gets out of control, the fueling and timing controls just shut the game down immediately. its perfect. if you were lucky enough to have logged, you can see where and when the fueling / timing were off, and make adjustments to your [KFLF] or [FKKVS] or [MLHFM] or [KFZW] or [KFLDRL] map, depending on what you believe caused the over/under abundance of timing/boost/fuel w/e your log shows.
is this clear enough for the wiki?
now if we could only figure out the torque model epsilon bounds.
say, has anyone ever seen that site from a few years ago where some team of engineers made an exact model using Excel of the 2.7tt engine? throw me a bone anyone please?
