|
marcellus
|
 |
« Reply #315 on: January 22, 2013, 10:15:42 AM »
|
|
|
How are you stopping it from pulling all that timing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #316 on: January 22, 2013, 10:19:24 AM »
|
|
|
How are you stopping it from pulling all that timing?
Well the first step is getting your AFR right so that you have a consistent burn... Once the AFR is right then you can start looking at where in the load vs rpm range the knock really starts... then massage that area of the timing tables to try and reduce the amount of timing that it wants to pull... Then if you are sure you are not knocking at higher rpms you can control the max knock retard using KRMXN. but this is very very dangerous... I have 22 revisions of my tune over the last 2 weeks dialing things in where it is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #317 on: January 22, 2013, 10:19:55 AM »
|
|
|
How are you stopping it from pulling all that timing?
I've also disabled knock adaption. But that is also risky :-) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #318 on: January 22, 2013, 10:23:18 AM »
|
|
|
I've also disabled knock adaption. But that is also risky :-)
I was just about to ask this. Since there are maps dealing with how much timing is pulled at a time, and how fast it recovers. Memory is failing me right now since I am not even ready for that part yet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #319 on: January 22, 2013, 10:24:25 AM »
|
|
|
I was just about to ask this. Since there are maps dealing with how much timing is pulled at a time, and how fast it recovers. Memory is failing me right now since I am not even ready for that part yet.
Once step at a time. Fuel AFR's first |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #320 on: January 22, 2013, 10:28:49 AM »
|
|
|
Yeah, let me know what you come up with for the MAF.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #321 on: January 24, 2013, 03:13:08 AM »
|
|
|
Fun times, big ole turbo spooling pretty damn fast. Still conservative with the timing. Fueling was nutz, and then I added more boost. Now its back to playing games with KFKHFM and KFLF.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #322 on: January 24, 2013, 01:55:07 PM »
|
|
|
That isn't conservative with timing... you are requesting WAY too much timing.
get your CFs lower...
|
|
|
|
|
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 #323 on: January 24, 2013, 02:20:56 PM »
|
|
|
My AFR was off in this run again. I upped the boost a bit this log.
CF's are what, around 5-6. That, from what I have been told is ok. Is there any real advantage to just lowering it anyways?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 09:36:47 PM by marcellus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #324 on: January 24, 2013, 04:27:58 PM »
|
|
|
I have been finding that <5 is getting me the best timing..
that said, your mileage may vary.
you could maybe start with cf <2 or 3, then work your way up until you stop gaining timing.
|
|
|
|
|
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 #325 on: January 24, 2013, 08:04:55 PM »
|
|
|
I have been finding that <5 is getting me the best timing..
that said, your mileage may vary.
you could maybe start with cf <2 or 3, then work your way up until you stop gaining timing.
Interesting to hear, now that you've tuned a few cars on the dyno with good results. Sounds like I'll give this approach a shot. Edit: and you're running stock knock sensitivity/CF hysteresis? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 08:11:19 PM by jibberjive »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #326 on: January 25, 2013, 07:54:34 PM »
|
|
|
**************This is extremely important!!!!************
Anyone running the hack to pull fuel trims off one sensor, you MUST be running evenly fed fuel rails. This is especially important if you have a potent fuel pump setup. With an aggressive pump setup and lots of flow/pressure the first bank will be rich and the second lean. Very lean.
My recommendation is to have a proper fuel Y, flow into each end of an after market or modified stock rail and then out to a regulator.
If you are flowing into one bank, then crossing over to the other like a stock rail does, even if the cross over is an AN line of adequate size you will be lean on the bank that gets fuel second. No matter what.
This is a new issue that is from the hack, it isnt because the hack but the hack stops the leaner bank from adapting. Stops both banks from adapting accurately actually as the single the trims do get are an average of the two and one will always bee too rich and one too lean.
The only way to combat it is with the banks getting the exact same pressure and flow volume with a proper, evenly split feed.
I cannot emphasize enough how big of an issue this will be for some, especially at elevated boost levels and with already tight fueling.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #327 on: January 25, 2013, 08:07:03 PM »
|
|
|
You just gave me the sickest feeling down in my stomach. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #328 on: January 25, 2013, 08:08:19 PM »
|
|
|
**************This is extremely important!!!!************
Anyone running the hack to pull fuel trims off one sensor, you MUST be running evenly fed fuel rails. This is especially important if you have a potent fuel pump setup. With an aggressive pump setup and lots of flow/pressure the first bank will be rich and the second lean. Very lean.
My recommendation is to have a proper fuel Y, flow into each end of an after market or modified stock rail and then out to a regulator.
If you are flowing into one bank, then crossing over to the other like a stock rail does, even if the cross over is an AN line of adequate size you will be lean on the bank that gets fuel second. No matter what.
This is a new issue that is from the hack, it isnt because the hack but the hack stops the leaner bank from adapting. Stops both banks from adapting accurately actually as the single the trims do get are an average of the two and one will always bee too rich and one too lean.
The only way to combat it is with the banks getting the exact same pressure and flow volume with a proper, evenly split feed.
I cannot emphasize enough how big of an issue this will be for some, especially at elevated boost levels and with already tight fueling.
Are you the person that a friend of mine in Pittsburgh said melted a motor because of this? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #329 on: January 25, 2013, 08:37:37 PM »
|
|
|
**************This is extremely important!!!!************
Anyone running the hack to pull fuel trims off one sensor, you MUST be running evenly fed fuel rails. This is especially important if you have a potent fuel pump setup. With an aggressive pump setup and lots of flow/pressure the first bank will be rich and the second lean. Very lean.
My recommendation is to have a proper fuel Y, flow into each end of an after market or modified stock rail and then out to a regulator.
If you are flowing into one bank, then crossing over to the other like a stock rail does, even if the cross over is an AN line of adequate size you will be lean on the bank that gets fuel second. No matter what.
This is a new issue that is from the hack, it isnt because the hack but the hack stops the leaner bank from adapting. Stops both banks from adapting accurately actually as the single the trims do get are an average of the two and one will always bee too rich and one too lean.
The only way to combat it is with the banks getting the exact same pressure and flow volume with a proper, evenly split feed.
I cannot emphasize enough how big of an issue this will be for some, especially at elevated boost levels and with already tight fueling.
I don't agree with this BTW. I'll explain my reasons in depth later. Too busy digging through code right now and putting the kids to bed lol |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
