|
jibberjive
|
 |
« Reply #435 on: February 09, 2013, 01:10:11 AM »
|
|
|
Don't do a line with a smaller ID, just do the buzz restrictor. Look up the installation PDF of AWE's boost gauge to see a picture of what we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #436 on: February 09, 2013, 07:12:36 AM »
|
|
|
Do you think and inline restictor/anit-buzz piece will help with the readout? I will look into it further. I had to make an adapter to go to a smaller I.D. hose to go to the sensor form the intake mani. I guess I could remake one with a smaller I.D..
A trick I've used many times to smooth out MAP sensors is yo put a small carb fuel filter in the line. The type you get on a lawn tractor. Works wonders for smoothing out the signal. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #437 on: February 11, 2013, 12:20:44 AM »
|
|
|
I am a bit confused about the load right now. On the freeway in 5th gear I floored it to pass, and I saw the boost shoot up to over 34 PSI. In my third gear pulls I get a slight spike to about 28 PSI, and then fall back down to 24 PSI. It is kind of weird to see the load go this high. MAF is not underscaled anymore, so I can see why its so high now.
Overall I really like the hack. Thanks to all that made it possible. It makes a novice like me a bit more confident.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #438 on: February 11, 2013, 12:39:49 AM »
|
|
|
Add a boost chart of the same log. PID is going to be much better easier to do what I want it to know I think. I also couldn't get the car to boost to 25psi by my target 4250rpm before without seriously overboosting first.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #439 on: February 11, 2013, 12:41:22 AM »
|
|
|
You should graph wgdc (and the rest of the PID components) if you are trying to diagnose over/underboost issues...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #440 on: February 11, 2013, 08:55:18 AM »
|
|
|
I don't think I have truly had to worry about load tables since my load never went over ~209-212ish. One thing I am working on is getting my LDRXN in line with the log. The more I add to the map the more load the car makes. I guess I was really being capped by the load limit.
With that being said, I have a few questions. Since I am now getting a lot higher load, should the IOP/IRL maps be modified to suit? I am thinking of changing the axis for torque/timing to so it matches up with what my car is actually doing now. I don't really want to bother the lower end of the maps too much. Every time I have messed with IOP/IRL/AXIS I ended up with either a really great WOT and crappy part/cruise, or good part throttle and weak WOT. Should I even bother with those maps right now? Any suggestions as to which direction I should head with this?
On the screenshot below I have already modified the LDRXN map according to the log from this morning.
ADDED timing CHART: The 5120 hack has helped my tunes all across the board. I haven't changed my timing, and since the change over the car is running a lot more timing.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 09:26:42 AM by marcellus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #441 on: February 11, 2013, 11:55:28 PM »
|
|
|
So my car seems to generate about 270 for load with unmolested MAF so far. Spool is getting faster and faster.
I am going to attempt to run these settings for the maps in the below screenshot. I multiplied the lasr few rows by 10% to get to about where my load is on my logs. Ran trough the maps briefly and it looks like they should be ok the IOP cells kind of correspond to the IRL cells "roughly".
The reason for all of the IRL changes was to get the desired boost a bit better. No matter what I did today the boost profile looked almost exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #442 on: February 11, 2013, 11:59:17 PM »
|
|
|
The reason for all of the IRL changes was to get the desired boost a bit better. No matter what I did today the boost profile looked almost exactly the same.
You really want LDRXN to drive things anyway at WOT, not IRL... which is what is happening right now. Please post WGDC. If you have LDRXN come up too *late*, you are leaving spool on the table because the pid is cutting DC to keep the ramp away from req boost. Even worse, the ECU might cut throttle plate angle. I know the wiki says early LDRXN is bad, but late LDRXN is also bad if it is killing spool |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 12:01:56 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #443 on: February 12, 2013, 12:10:32 AM »
|
|
|
I know it is cutting boost around where the actual exceeds desired....I was hoping to add some more desired boost earlier to prevent the valve from dropping duty cycle.
one log from a few hours ago, the second even earlier in the day.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 12:12:43 AM by marcellus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #444 on: February 12, 2013, 12:15:18 AM »
|
|
|
forget about your IRL. just make sure that it is higher than LDRXN at max ped at all RPM points. Let LDRXN do the driving. If you are cutting DC during spool, bring LDRXN up early enough so that DC is at 95% until just before it reaches req. Then Q2 should cut dc WAY back, until req meets actual. At that point, Q1/KFLDIMX should take over.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #445 on: February 12, 2013, 12:23:57 AM »
|
|
|
forget about your IRL. just make sure that it is higher than LDRXN at max ped at all RPM points. Let LDRXN do the driving. If you are cutting DC during spool, bring LDRXN up early enough so that DC is at 95% until just before it reaches req. Then Q2 should cut dc WAY back, until req meets actual. At that point, Q1/KFLDIMX should take over.
Forget about IRL, but not forget about it?  My IRL was set to previous logs and revision when my load was no where near it is now. Before my load just flatlined at around 209-210. Now, as I move the LDR up, the load seems to stop around 275. The last column of my IRL is 273.00 now...the 99% column. My LDR max is 272.xx. I thought it was common practice to somewhat smooth the map so it gradually goes to the new starting starting a few columns out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #446 on: February 12, 2013, 12:26:19 AM »
|
|
|
my post #440, a few posts up has the screenshot of where everything was (iop/irl) was set prior to the changes I just made. Not a good idea?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #447 on: February 12, 2013, 12:35:46 AM »
|
|
|
If you are at WOT, the only column that matters is the 99% one. The rest isn't important until you get around to doing part throttle tuning (unless you are seeing torque intervention).
And if LDRXN is lower than all points on the 99% column, then what is in IRL is irrelevant at wot. Again, LDRXN caps IRL. Correct spec load should follow LDRXN (after IAT correction, of course).
Req boost will then follow cor spec load.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #448 on: February 12, 2013, 07:54:37 AM »
|
|
|
Are you still logging with ECUx? Is so, you really need to get ME7L running.
The torque model is nearly a closed system. IOP and IRL are not directly related at all. Tune IRL for desired load. Tune IOP so that mifa_w gives a high enough milsol_w without triggering any intervention.
If you are rescaling the IOP rl_w axis make sure you also do KFZWOP(2) and KFMDS.
In order for B_ldimxn (condition for negative correction ldimxr) and B_ldimxa (condition for adaptation limiting value I component LDR) to be set in LDRPID, rlmax_w needs to be at least 95% of rlsol_w.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #449 on: February 12, 2013, 08:46:26 AM »
|
|
|
Are you still logging with ECUx? Is so, you really need to get ME7L running.
The torque model is nearly a closed system. IOP and IRL are not directly related at all. Tune IRL for desired load. Tune IOP so that mifa_w gives a high enough milsol_w without triggering any intervention.
If you are rescaling the IOP rl_w axis make sure you also do KFZWOP(2) and KFMDS.
In order for B_ldimxn (condition for negative correction ldimxr) and B_ldimxa (condition for adaptation limiting value I component LDR) to be set in LDRPID, rlmax_w needs to be at least 95% of rlsol_w.
Yeah, I still log with ecuX. I have been too lazy to dig around in me7L to get it to work. Every time I sit down and say I am going to fix the issues I am having with the program, I get distracted and put in on the back burner. I am going to atempt again today. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
