|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #135 on: August 30, 2012, 10:27:09 AM »
|
|
|
As Nyet stated before, maybe I should go to a larger housing.
I don't think you need a larger housing. If, when underscaling the MAF, you don't go lean, you aren't maxing the MAF voltage wise. You could still have an FPR problem etc.... or possibly sucking in air post MAF. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #136 on: August 30, 2012, 12:10:07 PM »
|
|
|
I pressure check the thing almost twice a week just to be sure. Sucking in air post maf would make the car run lean/correct more in idle and in boost run rich since the air would be blowing out the leak? Or, maybe not getting enough boost to the reference line on the FPR so, going lean?
Trying to wrap my head around this timing thing too. Since I am shifting load down by scaling the MAF I am now using more of the load/rpm sites to the left of the KFZW/2? Thats what it seems like is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #137 on: August 30, 2012, 12:31:01 PM »
|
|
|
Sucking in air post maf would make the car run lean/correct more in idle and in boost run rich since the air would be blowing out the leak? That would be a post compressor leak. If you are running fine idle, but not under boost, you could be sucking in air pre-compressor Or, maybe not getting enough boost to the reference line on the FPR so, going lean? Yup. but if underscaling your MAF fixes the lean condition... thats probably not it either Trying to wrap my head around this timing thing too. Since I am shifting load down by scaling the MAF I am now using more of the load/rpm sites to the left of the KFZW/2? Thats what it seems like is happening.
Yes. Don't worry too much about the part throttle timing. Worry more about the load/rpm path during WOT pulls. |
|
|
|
|
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 #138 on: August 30, 2012, 05:58:32 PM »
|
|
|
I don't think you need a larger housing. If, when underscaling the MAF, you don't go lean, you aren't maxing the MAF voltage wise.
You could still have an FPR problem etc.... or possibly sucking in air post MAF.
If you look at his graph it is pegged at 400g/s. But this could of course be because there is a problem with fuel pressure, and he just raised the MAF to compensate (maybe time to get that damn gauge out). No underscaling is going to fix this I think, because mshfm_w and mshfms_w do not really cap out. rlroh_w does not either. Easiest way to find out if you need to underscale is log ps_w, rlroh_w and rl. If ps_w is close to 2550 or you are already at the point where rl caps out and stops following rlroh_w, then you need to underscale. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #139 on: September 06, 2012, 07:32:30 PM »
|
|
|
Two issues I have now fixed...or revealed. First was my collant temp sensor was jacked. It was readng -45 deg, a lot of the time causing really hard starting issues, and some issues with fueling along the way. Secondly, I never really graphed the spec and corrected spec load. I was riding right at max spec load (ldrxn) and have been gradually adding to the limit in the areas that I exceed the limit. Now the maf isnt flat lining around 400g/sec.
Last, I will hopefully get to install the new fuel pump and gauge setup this weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #140 on: September 10, 2012, 10:09:09 PM »
|
|
|
I decided to eliminate a variable. Since my turbo is a variable AR turbo I figured it might be best if I put it in a fixed location for now. The last few logs the VGT has been able to open and close on its own using just the pressure from the exhaust to force it open and the actuator I have on there was disconnected from any boost reference.
The logs look quite a bit different to me. These next two log are from when the VGT actuator was refernce fee and acted as minimal restriction against the vanes opening up.
Spool is slowed due to the fact that the vanes are slowly opening. from 3500 to 4k is pretty quick and then th rest is really gradual.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #141 on: September 10, 2012, 10:25:28 PM »
|
|
|
Now with the VGT kind of locked in minimal a postion as I can get before being closed down enough to acually act as a exhause brake. Each pull I got it closer and closer to the edge of choking the exhaust off: Two pulls, all third gear.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #142 on: September 10, 2012, 10:42:50 PM »
|
|
|
The "reworked" logs are a modded file fom the other runs. The MAF scaling is a bit less, I took off some of the wacky numbers I had in KFKHFM mostly at the high RPM high load areas, and I made a slight addition to KRKTE. NO real big adjustments were made to the tune since I do everything in really small increments. I was just testing the waters to see if it was a good direction to be headed. Looking at the difference in teh MAF numbers, I think the VGT has a really large impact on how the hell I am going to get this thing tuned. Way over my head, even more than before.
I think I can get it to act ok in a stationary postion, but what do I do once I start using the VGT again? Right now the turbo is falling flat on its face in the upper end since it is choked down so small. With it wide open the thing spools like a GT35 on a 1.8t. In between.....look back a page or so at the logs.
I think I can add back to the KFKHFM to sqaure the MAF, maybe add some more to the KRKTE. I like the MAF readings now, but it is only because the turbo was really restricted. WHat really has me worried is the timing. It is worse on this last run than it has ever been. Pulling more at the richer AFR than it was when it was running in the 13's for AFR. I am going to o back to my "safe timing maps" to be sure timing is messing with fueling for right now.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 10:44:27 PM by marcellus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #143 on: September 12, 2012, 09:05:48 PM »
|
|
|
You can start at about 120-130 load and progressively go higher.
Do the same with KFLF to offset it.
Set the KFKHFM map to just linearly taper down. Do all mixture corrections via KFLF.
Rescale KFLF axes for more RPM, etc.
This Worked GREAT! I was screwig myself over messing with the KFKHFM map trying to add fuel in the top end. From the logs all it seemed to be doing was skewing th MAf readings not really adding fuel. I started from all 1.00's again in the KFLF,KFKHFM,FKKVS, and I also took off the MBC and am trying to dial in the N75 to my TIal WG again. Last time I tried t use the N75 I failed miserably. This time I took a different approach and re-analyzed what Nyet said in quite a few threads. Something like " get your actual AFR to ROUGHLY match your requested on a full throttle run" SO, I go the shape of the profile to match just by doing my own scaling MAK MLHFM from tring from the stock M-box file. Th AFR's were not in line, but the overall shape was ok...well until I got to the trouble spot after 5k and the car was still running lean. (fuel pressure checked out OK) One thing that was really messing me up was I messed with the KFLF to where it wasreading in AFR. I dont think that map should be read as AFR, but as a correction factor. Maybe thats why it threw me off so much the more studied it. With it set back to how it was originally I can see how the stock KFLF was actually dialed in pretty good. All the areas I have been trying to lean out using KFKHFM (part throttle, cruise, idle) were already dealt with using this map stock. I had some rediculous corrections in the wrong KFKHFM trying to pull back fueling from a too high a a KRKTE. Again, KFLF also had the highe end taken care of since it had a "additive" correction to the high load high rpm area. I guess what I am trying to say is, I have been chasing my tail all this time, and should have just used the KFLF map to add the fuel needed.....for now. Thank you guys ! I am looking into how to change the axis values for the KFLF map to cover more areas, and use this map for all my fueling corrections. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 09:14:17 PM by marcellus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #144 on: September 12, 2012, 09:33:10 PM »
|
|
|
N75: I would really like to get the N75 to work properly and use the MBC on the VGT actuator. RIght now I have a massv spike and then boost drops to 17 psi. I think my am running a 13psi spring in the TIAL.
I know I can get it to hold more boost after the spike by adding to the KFLDRL on the last few rows/columns where I have the duty cycle capped off pretty low. I just cant seem to pinpoint where to get the spike to not be so high. At least not right now. I wouldnt mind running 26psi, just not while I am still figuring stuff out. Around 20psi will be fine.
SO, I am thinking bring down some of the values in the 4000rpm range to help with the spike and raise the values in the rows below it to bring the boost back up to spec. Add a bit to the 3500 row towards the right end since I appear to be above my cracking pressure at that point and want to keep the the WG to keep it shut longer to keep ot spooling fast.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 09:41:46 PM by marcellus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #145 on: September 26, 2012, 08:35:01 PM »
|
|
|
I got fueling pretty much where I want it. I need to get bigger injectors for sure since I am well over 100% IDC after 5k at anything over 20psi right now. My timing is really puzzling me right now. I see around 5 degrees timing pull vs. actual. Next file I pull 5 deg. more timing and the ecu pulls yet five more degrees vs. actual. At the moment I am down to about 2 degrees timing at a requested 7.5 degrees. This is coming from a file that was requesting like 12-13 deg and pulling to 8.5 deg. What am I missing here? I even lowered boost again to get it in the "reasonable" range ~23 psi. At WOT my fueling is damn near flat at 11.8 after a slight lean area at 5k that I am gradually reeling in. My IAT are in the 70 deg range. Attached files are subsequent revisions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #146 on: September 26, 2012, 10:23:49 PM »
|
|
|
got a wideband? maybe you're leaner than you think?
Also, might want to log the various knock control variables to see where it is coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #147 on: September 27, 2012, 12:06:20 AM »
|
|
|
If, opened to the largest aperture it goes, the VGT is enough to keep boost creep in check and not overboost, why don't you use just the VGT to control the boost (and get rid of the wastegate)? It seems redundant and really complicated to try to control boost via both a wastegate AND the VGT.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #148 on: September 27, 2012, 05:18:23 AM »
|
|
|
Is the ignition retard accounted for in dwkrz?
If not it could be dzwwl or wkrdy.
In my experience, dwkrz is usually about double the correction required. For example, with 6* retard, pulling 1.5* will usually bring that down to ~3* retard.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #149 on: September 27, 2012, 06:23:23 AM »
|
|
|
got a wideband? maybe you're leaner than you think?
Also, might want to log the various knock control variables to see where it is coming from.
Yes, all logs now have the wideband and desired. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
