Barks
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 34
|
 |
« on: June 02, 2012, 01:50:38 PM »
|
|
|
Hello, Can any one post up a Wideband Tuner Pro tuned / stage 2 Lamfa table so I can have a little look / plagiarize.  Many thanks in advance Barks |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffty
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-3
Offline
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 01:11:12 PM »
|
|
|
Don't forget KFLBTS... you will most likely end up in there most of the time on an S3...  <tuffty/> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
professor
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 01:34:29 PM »
|
|
|
@tuffty: With what TABGBTS values ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seat Ibiza MK4 Cupra 1.8t 20V, stg3.
"Those 1.8T 20V machines are really tough" ©
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2012, 02:11:03 AM »
|
|
|
Instead of tuning KFLBTS on every RPM, just tune FBSTABGM and TABGBTS correctly, and you will get much better fueling.
The fueling need physically depends on cylinder filling and EGT, not on RPM.
My TABGBTS is 700C, I do my main fueling via KFLAMKRL.
Also, I would only use LAMFA at higher RPM (>4000), and only at 90%+ pedal, else you screw up fuel economy quite bad.
Example:
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 02:18:41 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2012, 09:11:29 AM »
|
|
|
Doesn't work for 91 oct, which wants a lot of enrichment at low load to prevent knock.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2012, 09:40:28 AM »
|
|
|
Doesn't work for 91 oct, which wants a lot of enrichment at low load to prevent knock.
This is just your opinion. You can also run less timing on 91 oct, and leaner mixture, without much loss in power, and without causing fuel economy issues. Of course if you run timing that you can only run at rich mixture (which btw may not make more power than less timing at leaner mixture, because of flame front speed changes and effective timing), you run into det. Easy to get caught up on timing, and get to 10.8 AFR with it, as you can run more and more, if you don't think about physical processes in the engine. There is so much more to tuning than making such blunt statements... Plus, with the existence of KFLAMKRL, you would never want to tune off of pedal anyway, except for high RPM gear changes. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 09:48:09 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2012, 11:09:22 AM »
|
|
|
I've tried both on the dyno. You lose significant amount of torque down low, and lose both timing and power up top w/o pre-emptive enrichment. The only solution for 91 is watermeth. Show me logs to the contrary, and i'll admit i'm 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
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2012, 02:52:34 PM »
|
|
|
Try KFLAMKRL instead of BTS fueling.
Yes, you lose some torque. Hell, you are always losing torque when you are running leaner than 13.3.
It's a tradeoff, economy vs torque. I often go 100% pedal before I make 7 psi. If I enriched every time my fuel economy would suck donkey balls.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffty
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-3
Offline
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2012, 04:29:13 AM »
|
|
|
The context tune wise here is a 1.8t 20v on an S3... in barks instance its a K04 hybrid and in mine a GT3071r @professor... my TABGBTS value is 849 from factory of 819... main reason is I wanted to get fuelling sorted initially with as little intervention as poss... I log the egts on most runs anyway but I have more development work to do on the mapping and not had the time yet.. @prj... I can see where you are going with that but at my power level I would prefer to know I have the fuel there to keep stuff happy rather than rely on egt enrichment models... fuel economy isn't high on my list atm but I may have a play with this especially your comment about LAMFA as part throttle off boost could do with a tidy up economy wise... I see your point also with the fuelling requirements revolving around egts and cyl fill rather than rpm but I am working on the basis that my hardware config and appropriate fuelling request should keep EGTs at a safe level (preventive rather than reactive) so I am never running too lean as to encourage high EGTs and therefore not have to have the ECU intervene unless it gets to a more dangerous level... for the most part my EGTs have not exceeded 750/800 deg measured in the DP close to the V-Band fitting of the turbine housing... I will also be running WMI shortly We have 98/99 octane here in the UK so we are a little better off fuelling wise there.. Interesting posts though and something I am going to have a look into... <tuffty/> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2012, 05:03:08 AM »
|
|
|
@prj...
I can see where you are going with that but at my power level I would prefer to know I have the fuel there to keep stuff happy rather than rely on egt enrichment models... fuel economy isn't high on my list atm but I may have a play with this especially your comment about LAMFA as part throttle off boost could do with a tidy up economy wise... You're not making that much power... baby turbos But of course it is very possible to blow things up at every power level if you are not careful. I see your point also with the fuelling requirements revolving around egts and cyl fill rather than rpm but I am working on the basis that my hardware config and appropriate fuelling request should keep EGTs at a safe level (preventive rather than reactive) so I am never running too lean as to encourage high EGTs and therefore not have to have the ECU intervene unless it gets to a more dangerous level... for the most part my EGTs have not exceeded 750/800 deg measured in the DP close to the V-Band fitting of the turbine housing... I will also be running WMI shortly You don't see my point. Use KFLAMKRL for main enrichment. Load based. Use EGT enrichment for what it is meant for. Set TABGBTS much lower, not 850C. At 900C+ is where the emergency should kick in. The initial EGT enrichment is not for emergency, it's for controlling cylinder temps. Set base EGT enrichment to the same at all RPM's, use FBSTABGM to enrich *based* on the EGT. If you enrich via RPM's in the KFLBTS table like you had now, you will run too lean for higher gears and too rich in lower gears. By just running a flat AFR via LAMFA you are having crap economy, and your car will run inconsistently, because you will be well into knock in higher gears if you don't leave margin and don't enrich based on EGT. Tuning is not only 3rd gear pulls or steady state. It is best to model the cylinder situation as best as possible in the ECU, and set as few fixed values as possible. Bah, never mind I guess, do what you want |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 05:18:50 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Barks
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 34
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2012, 06:00:12 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks for all the data and information, the more infomation that is provided the more information is required, and so on..... sound like there are a few differnet ways to skin a cat
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffty
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-3
Offline
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2012, 07:01:54 AM »
|
|
|
You're not making that much power... baby turbos But of course it is very possible to blow things up at every power level if you are not careful. Mines a GT3071r (400+hp)... not exactly a baby turbo (for a 20v at least lol)... You don't see my point. Use KFLAMKRL for main enrichment. Load based.
Use EGT enrichment for what it is meant for. Set TABGBTS much lower, not 850C. At 900C+ is where the emergency should kick in. The initial EGT enrichment is not for emergency, it's for controlling cylinder temps.
Set base EGT enrichment to the same at all RPM's, use FBSTABGM to enrich *based* on the EGT. If you enrich via RPM's in the KFLBTS table like you had now, you will run too lean for higher gears and too rich in lower gears.
By just running a flat AFR via LAMFA you are having crap economy, and your car will run inconsistently, because you will be well into knock in higher gears if you don't leave margin and don't enrich based on EGT. Tuning is not only 3rd gear pulls or steady state. It is best to model the cylinder situation as best as possible in the ECU, and set as few fixed values as possible. I do see your point... and I have taken this on board... don't assume I am just doing third gear pulls though... I have access to a dyno and do road logging too... I have been trying an approach to keep most of the ME7 strategies as stock as is possible/safe while using a fuelling strategy under load/boost that I would consider safe as I find my way around the ME7... I fully appreciate (and understand) what you are saying here though and will look into applying this to a file in the future as your approach is quite interesting... Bah, never mind I guess, do what you want Isn't that the point though? I am all up for experimenting with ways to do this... TBH... I have seen far too many files in cars that the fuelling is left untouched... under boost running 14's and awaiting EGT protection to kick in which on a 210/225 K04 car is typically when the EGT probe has seen 920 + deg and gone into save the world by using all the fuel mode... My approach is a legacy of my experience with standalone ECUs but will give yours a go as there is a certain appeal to this for stage1/2 levels of tune... Appreciate you taking the time to reply... will keep you posted <tuffty/> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ibizacupra
Full Member
Karma: +4/-10
Offline
Posts: 111
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2012, 07:29:15 AM »
|
|
|
Instead of tuning KFLBTS on every RPM, just tune FBSTABGM and TABGBTS correctly, and you will get much better fueling.
The fueling need physically depends on cylinder filling and EGT, not on RPM.
My TABGBTS is 700C, I do my main fueling via KFLAMKRL.
Also, I would only use LAMFA at higher RPM (>4000), and only at 90%+ pedal, else you screw up fuel economy quite bad.
Example:
Question re your approach on this and what you have in your head, spec wise as to what you are thinking this is appropriate for.. what size/spec power output and turbo are you doing this with... you mention very specific rpm for example, >4krpm, but this is going to be very dependant on what hardware is on the car is'nt it... Also, the controls and factory figures for lamfa and kflbts are very different between egt wideband cars and non egt wideband cars.... Significantly diffeent approach used, and non egt ones use kflbts in the factory settings.. your thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2012, 07:42:33 AM »
|
|
|
Mines a GT3071r (400+hp)... not exactly a baby turbo (for a 20v at least lol)... It is. But I guess we are used to different things TBH... I have seen far too many files in cars that the fuelling is left untouched... under boost running 14's and awaiting EGT protection to kick in which on a 210/225 K04 car is typically when the EGT probe has seen 920 + deg and gone into save the world by using all the fuel mode... Yes, there is lots of bad tuning out there, but thats not any news. My approach is a legacy of my experience with standalone ECUs but will give yours a go as there is a certain appeal to this for stage1/2 levels of tune... My entire point is, that RPM does not factor into fueling requirements. The amount of req fuel depends on the heat in the cylinder basically. You can measure that with LOAD, IAT and EGT on this ECU and map accordingly. Try to model the combustion chamber in the ECU from a performance standpoint as close as possible. Most standalone ECU's are 10 years or more behind ME7. Don't map ME7 like a standalone which only has a MAP vs RPM table for VE. Makes no sense at all. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 07:49:54 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2012, 07:45:57 AM »
|
|
|
Question re your approach on this and what you have in your head, spec wise as to what you are thinking this is appropriate for..
what size/spec power output and turbo are you doing this with...
you mention very specific rpm for example, >4krpm, but this is going to be very dependant on what hardware is on the car is'nt it...
Also, the controls and factory figures for lamfa and kflbts are very different between egt wideband cars and non egt wideband cars.... Significantly diffeent approach used, and non egt ones use kflbts in the factory settings..
your thoughts? I mention a specific RPM, because my main fueling is done off of KFLAMKRL which is actual LOAD based. The only reason I use LAMFA is for enrichment when going through the gears. 4000 RPM is a pretty good bet on a 01E box with a rev limit of 7200 RPM. But the idea to determine this is just to see your RPM drop at your shift point in 1st gear, as that's where the biggest RPM drop usually occurs. I also don't care about factory figures. From factory the car is tuned purely for emissions. If you want to make power, ignore almost everything the factory does fueling wise. You can get pretty good fueling on this ECU with like 8 cells of data. Or you can do mediocre fueling with 80+ cells. The reason I say not to map based on RPM, is because the fueling need at the end of 3rd gear and at the end of 4th or 5th gear is going to be very different at 6000 rpm for example. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 07:53:14 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
