|
Sandstorm3k
|
 |
« on: February 10, 2021, 06:10:38 AM »
|
|
|
I'm trying to get my head around a few fuelling maps.
I understand the point of KFLBTS, but don't quite understand why some choices are made. I've got a few tuned maps at my disposal as i'm trying to see what a tuner opted for and figuring out why. Some might argue this is bad, but I think its a valuable learning experience IF i can understand why.
KFLBTS is active when calculated EGT > TABGBTS. But then why are some "stage 2" maps i'm looking at using lower values in KFLBTS then stock (on high RPMs)? I don't quite understand this concept.
Also how do i interpret KFFDLBTS? Or should i leave these maps stock all together?
So far i'm happy with my LAMFA, LDRXN(ZK), KFZW, slight changes to KFMIRL/KFMIOP. I'm using KRKTE for adjusted fuel setup (4bar stock on 315cc injectors). FKKVS left stock.
I'm flashing it tonight, and hope to get this ME7logger to work since i haven't been able to get it to work before. Only feedback i've had is VCDS and I know its a bare minimum or even bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2021, 02:31:40 PM »
|
|
|
But then why are some "stage 2" maps i'm looking at using lower values in KFLBTS then stock (on high RPMs)? I don't quite understand this concept.
This is why reading other tunes is pointless. You have no idea what the fuck they're thinking, and about 99% of the time they're idiots who have no idea and literally copied their stupid shit from somebody else's stupid shit because they thought it would be a good idea to learn from somebody else's tune instead of actually learning what all the maps do by reading the FR. In any case, the only place you'd want to lower BTS from stock is to get earlier enrich if you don't want LAMFA for that because you want it load dependent and not throttle dependent. Stock doesn't use LAMFA generally because of fuel economy. It uses BTS to enrich only "when needed", which is the advantage of torque based ECUs over speed density/cable throttle standalone ECUs. Also how do i interpret KFFDLBTS?
Covered in the FR and extensively in the s4wiki tuning page, not sure what you're asking or if you've read that section yet. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 10, 2021, 02:34:43 PM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2021, 05:24:56 AM »
|
|
|
This is why reading other tunes is pointless. You have no idea what the fuck they're thinking, and about 99% of the time they're idiots who have no idea and literally copied their stupid shit from somebody else's stupid shit because they thought it would be a good idea to learn from somebody else's tune instead of actually learning what all the maps do by reading the FR.
In any case, the only place you'd want to lower BTS from stock is to get earlier enrich if you don't want LAMFA for that because you want it load dependent and not throttle dependent. Stock doesn't use LAMFA generally because of fuel economy. It uses BTS to enrich only "when needed", which is the advantage of torque based ECUs over speed density/cable throttle standalone ECUs.
Covered in the FR and extensively in the s4wiki tuning page, not sure what you're asking or if you've read that section yet.
Thanks for the response, that explains it quite a bit. Though this is where i do get slightly confused. I'm hoping you can send me in the right direction here. If i understand this correctly; LAMFA is ignored if condition TABGBTS =>399 and BTS is followed from then on? If so; it looks extremely rich why would i want/need to mess with this? My second question was too vague, i don't understand how to interpret the KFFDLBTS map - what do the axises represent? On my XDF the axises both show "0.00". I now do see why the bottom 4 rows would be "0.00" as it would be a multiplier and is probably easier to zero out to get easier control perhaps. Now then why would you ever prefer using LAMFA over BTS? I've read some on the FR settings the TABGBTS threshold to 200 and using BTS to fully control fuelling. It is the combination of LAMFA and BTS that i don't quite understand. Now i know messing with other tunes is bad practice; but its also a valuable learning experience for me. For example, the tunes i've looked at all messed extremely much with protection maps, and fault code diagnosis for stuff you should probably leave stock. Probably to mask some shitty errors from bad tuning. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2021, 08:01:10 AM »
|
|
|
Either way i'll be sure to get VisualME7Logger to work tonight, I really do need some proper logs. Will hopefully be able to post them later if someone has the time and patience to look at them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
_nameless
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2021, 11:00:24 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks for the response, that explains it quite a bit. Though this is where i do get slightly confused. I'm hoping you can send me in the right direction here.
If i understand this correctly; LAMFA is ignored if condition TABGBTS =>399 and BTS is followed from then on? If so; it looks extremely rich why would i want/need to mess with this?
Lambda is not ignored the ecu takes the riches path of fueling so if bts is triggered and and is requesting more enrichment then lambda it will use bts fueling. High load bts should be cleaned up a bit in most cases bts will request .6 lambda in high load witch it's just a waste of fuel.
My second question was too vague, i don't understand how to interpret the KFFDLBTS map - what do the axises represent? On my XDF the axises both show "0.00". I now do see why the bottom 4 rows would be "0.00" as it would be a multiplier and is probably easier to zero out to get easier control perhaps.
Now then why would you ever prefer using LAMFA over BTS? I've read some on the FR settings the TABGBTS threshold to 200 and using BTS to fully control fuelling. It is the combination of LAMFA and BTS that i don't quite understand.
Now i know messing with other tunes is bad practice; but its also a valuable learning experience for me. For example, the tunes i've looked at all messed extremely much with protection maps, and fault code diagnosis for stuff you should probably leave stock. Probably to mask some shitty errors from bad tuning.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Giving your mom a tuneup
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2021, 12:18:55 PM »
|
|
|
No offense but i don't get these passive aggresive reactions. If you don't feel like helping out i don't mind but this is just utter useless. I'll figure it out myself by trial and error. Thanks for the contribution! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2021, 04:12:39 PM »
|
|
|
LAMFA is never ignored.
Not sure how to answer the rest, other than that your def for the KFFDLBTS is probably wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2021, 01:02:52 AM »
|
|
|
I have gotten two logs together using VisualME7Logger. I'm currently trying to make sense of it with ECUxPlot. Would really appreciate it if someone had the time to check them out. Attached two logs. One with stock software*with krkte changed*, the other my own tuned version. Already noticed some stuff didn't quite go as planned so still figuring that out. For some reason at 80-90% throttle it instantly spins the wheels at 2nd, 3rd and tries to in 4th. It isn't a smooth curve it just goes max power instantly. Doesn't look to me like my LAMFA could've caused this. Trying to figure this out today... Other than that seemed okay at first glance. edit: I can't get the files attatched here, it just keeps timing out for whatever reason. Not sure if a download link is okay too. https://wetransfer.com/downloads/6b0468fe68be7d7617cc6034c75ecd0c20210212080100/8bfc32 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2021, 02:25:53 PM »
|
|
|
It times out because those are enormous logs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2021, 02:46:52 PM »
|
|
|
Okay so i should just try to log one or two 3rd gear pulls i suppose. I'll try that next time around.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
adam-
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2021, 10:18:47 AM »
|
|
|
For me, lambts = KFLBTS + [KF]DLBTS*KFFDLBTS is important on the Wiki. I set LBTS to a flat 0 and use BTS to control. That table alone gives me enough resolution and load to get it smooth. LAMFA for an initial enrichment, although I'll always set it leaner than BTS final so I know what I'm playing with.
When I was learning, it was easier to do it this way. If I wanted to do the maths everytime, I'd not set LBTS to 0 and use that for even more resolution, but I've yet to need it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
_nameless
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2021, 02:37:09 PM »
|
|
|
No offense but i don't get these passive aggresive reactions. If you don't feel like helping out i don't mind but this is just utter useless. I'll figure it out myself by trial and error. Thanks for the contribution!
what i wrote was the ecu uses the richest path of fueling. i dont know what happened there. my quote from nye is my signature lol. sorry it offend you  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Giving your mom a tuneup
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2021, 07:53:44 AM »
|
|
|
what i wrote was the ecu uses the richest path of fueling. i dont know what happened there. my quote from nye is my signature lol. sorry it offend you I'm sorry then for the misunderstanding! Thanks for trying to help! I'll need to do some more reading on how this works exactly, or figure out how to read logs properly. As i do understand the maps individually, but don't fully understand how they work next to eachother. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sandstorm3k
|
|
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2021, 08:29:50 AM »
|
|
|
For me, lambts = KFLBTS + [KF]DLBTS*KFFDLBTS is important on the Wiki. I set LBTS to a flat 0 and use BTS to control. That table alone gives me enough resolution and load to get it smooth. LAMFA for an initial enrichment, although I'll always set it leaner than BTS final so I know what I'm playing with.
When I was learning, it was easier to do it this way. If I wanted to do the maths everytime, I'd not set LBTS to 0 and use that for even more resolution, but I've yet to need it.
I see. I've read about this on FR. So basically full KFFDLBTS to zero and then use BTS from there on. I don't get the point of KFFDLBTS then, seems as it only complicates things further. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2021, 09:36:06 AM »
|
|
|
I see. I've read about this on FR. So basically full KFFDLBTS to zero and then use BTS from there on.
I don't get the point of KFFDLBTS then, seems as it only complicates things further.
Sigh... It's there so that the engine doesn't melt when it gets shit fuel. In fact that path has nothing to do with KFLBTS. KFLBTS is the base path. KFFDLBTS * DLBTS is the additional path which enriches with a delta lambda based on ignition angle efficiency. Setting it to zero is stupid, as is tuning BTS without having EGT measurement, because you can never know how much it needs to not melt. I really don't like your last sentence though. "I don't get the point of X, it just complicates things". By this logic - why even put EFI on the car, stick to a carb. This has nothing to do with your level of knowledge on the subject, but blanket statements like this are very scary. Change your attitude. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 09:37:56 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
