Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 22
Author Topic: My Tial 605 Tune Thread  (Read 125846 times)
nehalem
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +33/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


« Reply #135 on: August 22, 2011, 09:47:25 PM »

glad to see you crushing the 1/4 mile with those times...

how is your MLHFM set after all of this?  also have you left your KFKHFM the same as the earlier image you uploaded on this thread?
Logged
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +50/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #136 on: August 25, 2011, 12:18:51 PM »

^^^ MLHFM is still the same as the NefMoto Stg 3 file... the compensation table is 1.00 for the most part right now.

Moving along... now that we have the KRKTE issue sorted out.. I've gone ahead and calculated to the best of my ability the proper values.  Using the following to correct for pressure on the dead time values:

http://www.injectordynamics.com/ID1000%20Ford%20Calibration%20-%202-24-2011.pdf

In my current file I have the following (not yet tested BTW):

KRKTE = 0.0264 ms/%

TVUB as follows:

7v      = 3.4778
10v    = 1.9522
12v    = 1.4829
14v    = 1.2108
17.8v = 0.7334

FWIW with the incorrect scaling in the XDF my corrected KRKTE was 0.0319 ms/%

I also stumbled upon a pretty neat .XLS files with flow ratings for almost every Bosch injector made and I've attached it to this post.

Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +417/-48
Online Online

Posts: 9253


WWW
« Reply #137 on: August 25, 2011, 12:23:32 PM »

Just as a tip: if you find you have to scale the MAF up too high for the "correct" KRKTE, you might want to consider keeping your MAF a bit underscaled, and your KRKTE on the high side.

A good rule of thumb is to keep your g/sec under 330-340, and your load under 191.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +50/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #138 on: August 25, 2011, 12:59:39 PM »

Just as a tip: if you find you have to scale the MAF up too high for the "correct" KRKTE, you might want to consider keeping your MAF a bit underscaled, and your KRKTE on the high side.

A good rule of thumb is to keep your g/sec under 330-340, and your load under 191.

Hah!  You know what, I was just going to make a post about that. Smiley

I kept going over it in my head.  All the load tables only go to 191.. which means anything running off the table the ECU probably freaks out and has no idea what to do then.

I've recently seen this and the consequences of it when I was with a friend tuning a Mitsubishi and a R35 Skyline.

And it all makes perfect sense.  My car really does freak out randomly... obviously looking at my logs I'm peaking around 390 g/sec.

I will underscale my MAF as well now and see where I'm at then.  Do you suggest I keep the same values and just scale them back by say 25% from start to finish?

Also looking at my logs engine load is just at 220 peak... will this be reduced simply by underscaling the MAF?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 01:04:01 PM by NOTORIOUS VR » Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +417/-48
Online Online

Posts: 9253


WWW
« Reply #139 on: August 25, 2011, 01:15:01 PM »

I kept going over it in my head.  All the load tables only go to 191.. which means anything running off the table the ECU probably freaks out and has no idea what to do then.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't freak out.. it either extrapolates out, or just uses 191. This is beyond my knowledge and experience, but I know some tuners extend the axis data to cover >191 in tables where they want it. I've never tried this.


Quote
Do you suggest I keep the same values and just scale them back by say 25% from start to finish?

Yea. I just use the stock one as a reference, and scale that up or down. I don't scale anything other than the stock reference to prevent errors creeping in. 25% is probably a bit much.. maybe more like 10-15 should be sufficient.

Quote
Also looking at my logs engine load is just at 220 peak... will this be reduced simply by underscaling the MAF?

Yup.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +50/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #140 on: August 25, 2011, 01:40:38 PM »

Thank you sir... I will be doing so and reporting back...
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nehalem
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +33/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


« Reply #141 on: August 25, 2011, 04:15:31 PM »

Wait a sec.  Are you recommending we start with stock MAF and stock Load?  If so, then how do you recommend we scale the MAF?  I know before everyone was talking about the surface area ratio, but that's no longer the case.  What is the procedure?

Start with stock.  Do a pull with guesstimate KRKTE and get log.  Use log to adjust KRKTE to set 11.6 AFR WOT.  Rerun log with proper KRTKE and measure MAF g/s.  Then scale MLHFM to adjust g/s to 340 max?  After this is done we again re-scale KRKTE to reach proper WOT AFR with the scaled MLHFM.  Is this what you are suggesting?

Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +417/-48
Online Online

Posts: 9253


WWW
« Reply #142 on: August 25, 2011, 04:22:28 PM »

IMO there are several ways to skin a cat. Here's what I do (not on the wiki because YMMV)

1) set FKKVS to all ones
2) if using open air intake, set KFKHFM to all ones. If using stock airbox, leave stock
3) calc approx KRKTE
4) calc approx MAF scaling for MLHFM
5) tweak TVUB/TEMIN if you think you need to
6) tweak KRKTE until your idle/part STFTs are near zero
7) Do a WOT run and make sure your WOT req afr is good - several choices here: BTS, LAMFA, or KR based enrichment (see http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#Open_loop_AFR and  http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=141.msg15756#msg15756)
7a) If your load is >191, or max MAF is >350, scale back MLHFM, and scale up KRKTE in equal parts until load/MAF is reasonable (optional, depending on your tuning philosophy. An underscaled MAF requires less maps be modified*). Go to step 6.
8) Tweak upper load lines of KFKHFM until WOT req afr matches actual afr (using a wideband sensor)
9) drive around and log idle/part STFTs and tweak KFKHFM until they are near zero again
10) repeat above as necessary

Again, this is what *I* do... you might have better results doing other things. I'm hesitant to post this on the wiki, since I don't want to mislead people into thinking there is only one way to do it.

*This is for K04's on a 2.7t! If you are running big boost or 3.0L etc, you might see significantly higher loads and MAF readings, so the 191 limit simply won't work. You may have to modify various table's load axes to do fine tuning past 191...
« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 01:55:18 PM by nyet » Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
nehalem
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +33/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


« Reply #143 on: August 25, 2011, 04:23:06 PM »

^^^ MLHFM is still the same as the NefMoto Stg 3 file... the compensation table is 1.00 for the most part right now.

Moving along... now that we have the KRKTE issue sorted out.. I've gone ahead and calculated to the best of my ability the proper values.  Using the following to correct for pressure on the dead time values:

http://www.injectordynamics.com/ID1000%20Ford%20Calibration%20-%202-24-2011.pdf

In my current file I have the following (not yet tested BTW):

KRKTE = 0.0264 ms/%

TVUB as follows:

7v      = 3.4778
10v    = 1.9522
12v    = 1.4829
14v    = 1.2108
17.8v = 0.7334

FWIW with the incorrect scaling in the XDF my corrected KRKTE was 0.0319 ms/%

I also stumbled upon a pretty neat .XLS files with flow ratings for almost every Bosch injector made and I've attached it to this post.



Hey - I believe you meant KFKHFM (MAF correction) instead of MLHFM (MAF voltage) in your above response, because KFKHFM is the table near 1.00 on the stock and nefmoto tunes.  A few people have discussed just filling this table with actual 1.00, so I wasn't sure if you had done that or not.

Also, I was wondering about your actual MLHFM (MAF voltage) scaling.  There's been talking of surface area ratios, 85 vs 73, and I was wondering if you had done anything or just left this stock.
Logged
judeisnotobscure
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +38/-10
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


« Reply #144 on: August 25, 2011, 05:09:43 PM »

here is what i cam up with when i plugged everything into excel using a log fit to the voltage graph after 10.06 volts.  for 7 and 10 volts there is almost a linear transfer between data points.

voltage   time
7.04     4.3615
10.0672   2.030960097
12.03   1.656015569
14.08   1.3247899
17.8816     0.826594112
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 05:27:57 PM by judeisnotobscure » Logged

I have a b5 s4
but i just want to dance.
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +50/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #145 on: August 26, 2011, 08:33:08 AM »

Did some logs last night...

Not sure what to make of them... basically my first revised tune (with %10 underscaled MAF) seemed to be ok but still a little high in load.  So I underscaled again by 10% and now the load seems to be in the right place.. but everything else is whack... especially on the first two runs I did... on the first run I got throttle cut @ 5k to 7k, on the next pull I got it around 6800 and on the 3rd pull no TC.

I'm also getting a lot of timing oscillation which I can feel as misfires (maybe it is a misfire? I've been feel this for a while now), not really sure at this point now that I'm seeing the logs, as misfires will usually show up lean on the WB02 or even the NB02 in the log.

http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/aug25/10under.csv
http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/aug25/20under.csv
http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/aug25/10under.xlsx
http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/aug25/20under.xlsx
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 08:36:36 AM by NOTORIOUS VR » Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +417/-48
Online Online

Posts: 9253


WWW
« Reply #146 on: August 26, 2011, 08:39:32 AM »

With that amount of boost deviation, of course you are getting TC.

I'm not sure what you are intending here, but it doesn't make any damn sense Sad

I'd also log ldtvm and ldtvr_w

... also get a wideband and a boost gauge.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 08:44:12 AM by nyet » Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +50/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #147 on: August 26, 2011, 08:41:50 AM »

With that amount of boost deviation, of course you are getting TC.

I'm not sure what you are intending here, but it doesn't make any damn sense Sad

I'm not even sure why I have such a boost deviation to be honest... or why that has changed.

LDRXN?

ugh... back to square one
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +417/-48
Online Online

Posts: 9253


WWW
« Reply #148 on: August 26, 2011, 08:45:07 AM »

I'm not even sure why I have such a boost deviation to be honest... or why that has changed.

UH. WHAT?

Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +50/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #149 on: August 26, 2011, 08:49:24 AM »

I understand that I underscaled the MAF and now my calculated load is lower...

What I don't get is why my requested is lower...

whatever.. i'm gonna scrap these files and start fresh I guess... too many changes at once and this is what you get.  I've been down this road before.

Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 22
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.025 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)