|
britishturbo
|
 |
« Reply #390 on: February 03, 2013, 08:59:07 PM »
|
|
|
Exactly prj.
You can also melt exhaust valves from running too little timing as well. I've seen people do this.
You always want to run as much timing as possible without exceeding MBT and without causing knock...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #391 on: February 03, 2013, 09:02:12 PM »
|
|
|
So I've been using the KFMHFM table to dial in lean and rich areas of flow from the MAF and strangely enough the more i tweak it the closer it gets to the stock M Box KFMHFM...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #392 on: February 03, 2013, 09:30:32 PM »
|
|
|
So whats ideal timing look like? I cant get anymore timing into it without major pull. I was compensating for the lack of timing with more boost.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #393 on: February 03, 2013, 11:26:28 PM »
|
|
|
So I've been using the KFMHFM table to dial in lean and rich areas of flow from the MAF and strangely enough the more i tweak it the closer it gets to the stock M Box KFMHFM...
With your HPX MAF's MLHFM? When you threw in the HPX MLHFM, did you 1 out KFKHFM before you started tweaking the MLHFM for blow-thru? If so, that's really weird that after essentially decoupling the two maps, you would still end up wandering towards the same stock KFKHFM values. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #394 on: February 03, 2013, 11:42:31 PM »
|
|
|
With your HPX MAF's MLHFM? When you threw in the HPX MLHFM, did you 1 out KFKHFM before you started tweaking the MLHFM for blow-thru? If so, that's really weird that after essentially decoupling the two maps, you would still end up wandering towards the same stock KFKHFM values.
Exactly. I started with KFKHFM full of 1's. The MLHFM was massaged a little down low... but I wanted to keep it smooth so did corrections then via KFKHFM. I thought it was odd as well... makes me think it's more the VE and flow of the Intake Manifold and Heads more than the air intake system that is coming into play there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #395 on: February 04, 2013, 11:29:13 AM »
|
|
|
I was compensating for the lack of timing with more boost. Best way to blow it up. Log your EGT's. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #396 on: February 04, 2013, 11:31:03 AM »
|
|
|
Back on my setup... I'm getting things dialed back in with the HPX MAF sensor and 4 Bar MAP sensor. This was the drive to work today. 2 runs 30 mins apart. Very consistent. Still very much on the rich side.    |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #397 on: February 04, 2013, 11:33:39 AM »
|
|
|
Best way to blow it up.
Log your EGT's.
More boost with too little timing is just going to be even closer to melting things right? Are you referring to calculated EGT's or actual EGT's? In your experience is the calculated EGT still accurate with this kind of turbo setup? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #398 on: February 04, 2013, 12:14:57 PM »
|
|
|
Exactly. I started with KFKHFM full of 1's.
The MLHFM was massaged a little down low... but I wanted to keep it smooth so did corrections then via KFKHFM.
Oh, that makes more sense. I thought you did significant corrections to the MLHFM first, then went to KFKHFM and it was still going towards stock even though you had already corrected for it via MLHFM. Makes more sense. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #399 on: February 04, 2013, 12:19:45 PM »
|
|
|
Still very much on the rich side.
I like where you are. 11.5 is great. Your PID needs a tad more work; can you post a log with the various PID variables? (P, I, D, wg before/after linearization etc) Also, i dont really understand your requested boost... |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #400 on: February 04, 2013, 12:24:55 PM »
|
|
|
I like where you are. 11.5 is great.
Your PID needs a tad more work; can you post a log with the various PID variables? (P, I, D, wg before/after linearization etc)
Also, i dont really understand your requested boost...
I've always tuned for between 11.5 and 11.8 on pump gas setups... 11.5 when I want to be on the safe side for sure... The PID I haven't really touched yet, I have only changed the KFLDRL... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #401 on: February 04, 2013, 12:59:06 PM »
|
|
|
AFR should be mapped based on EGT. At 11.5 you are killing power. Even if you can run more timing, flame speed goes down, so running 0.78 lambda vs 0.82 you are going to make less power at the same timing.
Simulated alone EGT's are worthless, log actual EGT's.
Then you'll know where the simulated ones are.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #402 on: February 04, 2013, 01:19:43 PM »
|
|
|
AFR should be mapped based on EGT. At 11.5 you are killing power. Even if you can run more timing, flame speed goes down, so running 0.78 lambda vs 0.82 you are going to make less power at the same timing.
Simulated alone EGT's are worthless, log actual EGT's.
Then you'll know where the simulated ones are.
Yeah I'm tuning for 11.8 to 12.0 on the 2.7... that's why I said it's still on the rich side. I can tell from where I was dialed in around 11.8 on the Hitachi MAF that I'm down on power where I am... I agree with you there for sure. As far as actual EGT's go are the narrowband stock ones good enough to tell anything? Or are you referring to wideband RS6 EGTs? I'm assuming you mean stock ones... I do log my Stock EGT's and have yet to see them move north of the bottom range of 945C. I'm actually working on a plan to use these wideband EGT's and interface with the ME7 using a 0-5V to frequency converter. http://www.exhaustgas.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=1890&DepartmentID=13&CategoryID=56&RepID=&BasketID= |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #403 on: February 04, 2013, 01:22:44 PM »
|
|
|
AFR should be mapped based on EGT. At 11.5 you are killing power. Even if you can run more timing, flame speed goes down, so running 0.78 lambda vs 0.82 you are going to make less power at the same timing.
Simulated alone EGT's are worthless, log actual EGT's.
Then you'll know where the simulated ones are.
How do you log EGTs on car's w/o real EGT sensors on the dyno? |
|
|
|
|
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 #404 on: February 05, 2013, 02:02:53 AM »
|
|
|
How do you log EGTs on car's w/o real EGT sensors on the dyno?
Install an aftermarket EGT probe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
