|
phila_dot
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2012, 09:06:50 AM »
|
|
|
Yes, understood, but under what conditions, specifically. Are you saying the information in the IOP thread is wrong? And the logs are wrong?
Do you have any logs showing torque intervention and a clear explanation about what conditions lead to it?
Yes, IMO that thread is wrong. There is no specific details in there really. What logs? What are you considering "actual torque" and "requested torque"? I'm going to keep digging, but if anyone can provide specifics (variables) on what was concluded in that thread then I can confirm or refute. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2012, 09:15:22 AM »
|
|
|
miist, misol, mifa
where zwsol < zwbas
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 09:20:25 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2012, 09:29:15 AM »
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I was only facing ARMD problems, not IOP problems, but look at the timing spikes at 3500 and 4000.. you can see the solid line is capped compared to the dotted lines. the difference is, the solid line is 99% iop, the dotted line is iop with shifted axis.  http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=1905.msg17355#msg17355 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2012, 09:41:02 AM »
|
|
|
Where does IRL come into play though?
miist goes to CAN only.
misol and mifa are definite contributors and IOP influenced.
I'm not necessarily trying to prove anything one way or the other, but I would like to clearly define how it occurs so that we can properly tune and not just find something that works.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2012, 09:51:53 AM »
|
|
|
Where does IRL come into play though?
miist goes to CAN only.
misol and mifa are definite contributors and IOP influenced.
I'm not necessarily trying to prove anything one way or the other, but I would like to clearly define how it occurs so that we can properly tune and not just find something that works.
I agree. Unfortunately, I did not log torque intervention after I fixed my ARMD problem, so I don't know the source of the other intervention I was seeing (i was seeing ARMD and IOP related intervention). It seemed to be IRL (torque request) vs miist related. Also, when i was experiencing both problems, I did not have all the related variable locations, so they are missing in those logs.  Another one, showing timingangle<zwsol when etazws>misol |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 09:57:22 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
Karma: +4/-5
 Offline
Posts: 219
|
|
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2012, 08:46:29 PM »
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
If any details were included it would be much easier to try to figure what the author is talking about.
I'm not sure where your getting your information but the optimal torque map in maestro (not sure what editor you are using but the abbreviation is KFMIOP) that has a direct impact on fueling, timing advance, and boost. Ignore the title of the map... Its a Volumetric Efficency table. How anyone can say that map has no effect on fueling blows my mind because it is a vital part of ME7 or any tune in general. Seeing as though that is the way bosch set it up. A method of tuning that GM has adopted for its newer models (I spoke with one of the tuners who had worked for GM). WHy? because to the driver/owner/purchaser they would prefer a smooth power delievery based on driver requested torque. I don't have all the time in the world to get into that though. I cannot say that I've used this method on mafless files yet but I have used it on a stage 2 AWP gli and the results couldn't have been better. Timing pull was down to a minimum and we had jumped from a peak maf reading of 178g/s to 210g/s which is a huge improvement. There wasn't a dyno but you can tell from the seat the car pulled alot more. I still had room to adjust fuel but never got a chance to finish after the owner moved away. Either way there are many maestro users using the VE table to dial in their fuel without touching the main fuel correction map and have gotten a correction withing around -1% all the way through the power band which is solid. Just to give you a quick heads up when you dial this in based on O2 correction you want to edit by 1 percent increments until you get a feel for it. Also you need to get Correction on one side of the board.... Most prefer to be a bit more rich instead of lean so shoot for getting o2 correction to be in the negatives all the way through the power band. AGAIN why? because you need to make it easier on the ecu to control fuel at WOT (imagine the ecu attempting to go from lean to rich to lean to rich +/- 5% all the way through to redline) its confusing to the ecu and by the time its corrected you are too rich. So get everything a tad rich and you'll actually see the ecu working with you instead of against you. ALSO monitor your actual torque doesn't overshoot your requested torque during your logs (which can be fixed in your target filling (should overshoot actual by 5%) and maximum VE maps). This method has worked for me, I've read countless books on advanced EFI tuning for NA, boosted applications, as well as taken classes, and many discussions on the matter with professional tuners that have been in the game for years. I've also noticed alot of base files calibrated by not only chris tapp but arnold from pagparts (Big Turbo or Stock files) the main fuel correction map is barely touched but there are mild changes for final tweaking. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2012, 09:28:20 PM »
|
|
|
Ahh...the author.
I'm looking at the disassembled code. The only effect that I can see it having on fuel is indirectly through target load.
Do you have any tangible information that you could provide?
If what you say is somehow true, it is an extremely indirect influence. Aside from use in interventions, KFMIOP's main influence is as mimax_w in MDFAW.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2012, 10:50:07 PM »
|
|
|
I don't see anywhere where IOP has any direct effect on requested AFR in ME7.
Unless you are talking about feedforward (either getting open loop actual AFR to match req, or as a starting point for wideband closed loop). Certainly this is what the fueling correction map is used for, NOT requested AFR)
The rest of your argument is argument by authority, which can be safely ignored.
Please point out where in the FR it says IOP changes requested AFR.
Finally, I see no reason to trust Maestro users, as they have absolutely no idea how motronic works.
If they did, they wouldn't use Maestro.
Sorry, your entire post smells like "pro tuner" voodoo hearsay.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 10:53:28 PM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2012, 10:54:44 PM »
|
|
|
because you need to make it easier on the ecu to control fuel at WOT (imagine the ecu attempting to go from lean to rich to lean to rich +/- 5% all the way through to redline
Bull. There are no short term trims when in openloop, by definition. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
Karma: +4/-5
Offline
Posts: 219
|
|
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2012, 06:37:54 AM »
|
|
|
Clearly the ecu doesn't literally get confused.... When your o2 corrections are constantly going from +/-5% it is much harder to keep Target a/f considering your at wot for a split second. Not only that but me7's torque model influence or as you put it torque intervention will fight you by pulling timing if the VE table isn't calibrated. When this happens you will usually see actual load over shoot spec load. I don't understand how you can say a VE table has no influence on fueling. Something like that should be common knowledge. I'll have to go back myself and read a bit more on it in the translation of the Bosch document. In the mean time I suggest clearing your main fuel correction map to 1.0001 and experimenting with that map yourselves. I am not saying your wrong in your method of tuning because that's what I started out with and I myself didn't have success, getting random timing pull part throttle cruise or Wot . It was like I was taking one step forward and three steps back.
I'll read into it and give you a sound explanation when I have the time. Also for the record I am not the author.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 06:43:02 AM by em.Euro.R18 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2012, 06:56:55 AM »
|
|
|
Please do.
It seems that you are operating on a theory based on vague assumptions.
BTW...the torque model doesn't pull timing, it just calculates it differently.
Not that I think it fundamentally makes a difference here, but what platform/ECU are you working with?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
Karma: +4/-5
Offline
Posts: 219
|
|
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2012, 07:37:11 AM »
|
|
|
Working with a pl ecu on a 20th GTI and GLI 1.8t. I am not one to post based on hear-say like many maestro owners but I post based on my personal experiments and findings while tuning via maestro editor. I do it to gain knowledge and a better understanding of me7. It's discussions like this that help progression in communities such as this. Which is why I welcome constructive criticism backed up with factual data/information.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matchew
|
|
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2012, 08:15:38 AM »
|
|
|
Which is why I welcome constructive criticism backed up with factual data/information.
What is the ID of the VE table you so dearly love? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2012, 09:25:52 AM »
|
|
|
I don't understand how you can say a VE table has no influence on fueling.
Be specific. Does it influence req AFR or not? If not, how does it affect open loop fueling (in ME7.1)? Or are you talking about wideband ME7.1.1? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
