Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 42
Author Topic: Nefmoto community project: Stage1 2.7t ME7.1 S4 (APB 8D0907551M-0002)  (Read 522699 times)
ddillenger
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +641/-21
Offline Offline

Posts: 5640


« Reply #405 on: July 05, 2015, 06:35:27 PM »

No, don't modify LAMFA from 12.5.

Raise TABGBTS to 750, log it again adding the variables posted.
Logged

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!

Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com

Email>PM
FlyboyS4
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


WWW
« Reply #406 on: July 05, 2015, 08:36:29 PM »

This is with TABGBTS raised to 750C.  Also did some more tweaking of LDRXN and DIMX.  I also complicated matters by putting higher flowing aftermarket IC's on in place of the stock ones.  They don't look to have messed things up.

Here's the current AFR at tailpipe:



And the latest log, Nef-12H,  with the additional variables added.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12268


WWW
« Reply #407 on: July 05, 2015, 08:39:51 PM »

Are you referring to the exercise we did comparing I-Max to WGDC?  Continue to refine that?

No. He's referring to the adaptation channels which modify the i-lmit.

Quote
ldimxa_0        , {BoostCorrectFactorPID-IRange1}   , 0x383D56,  2,  0x0000, {%}       , 1, 0,        0.005,      0, {Adaptive Korrektur der LDR I-Regler Maximalwertbegrenzung}
ldimxa_1        , {BoostCorrectFactorPID-IRange2}   , 0x383D58,  2,  0x0000, {%}       , 1, 0,        0.005,      0, {Adaptive Korrektur der LDR I-Regler Maximalwertbegrenzung}
ldimxa_2        , {BoostCorrectFactorPID-IRange3}   , 0x383D5A,  2,  0x0000, {%}       , 1, 0,        0.005,      0, {Adaptive Korrektur der LDR I-Regler Maximalwertbegrenzung}
ldimxa_3        , {BoostCorrectFactorPID-IRange4}   , 0x383D5C,  2,  0x0000, {%}       , 1, 0,        0.005,      0, {Adaptive Korrektur der LDR I-Regler Maximalwertbegrenzung}
ldimxa_4        , {BoostCorrectFactorPID-IRange5}   , 0x383D5E,  2,  0x0000, {%}       , 1, 0,        0.005,      0, {Adaptive Korrektur der LDR I-Regler Maximalwertbegrenzung}
ldimxak_w       , {BoostCorrectFactorPID-I}         , 0x382742,  2,  0x0000, {%}       , 1, 0,        0.005,      0, {Aktueller korrigierter Begrenzungswert I-Anteil LDR}

They're like fuel trims.

Quote
1. Lean it via LAMFA - Try to get closer to 11.5 on the wideband?

No. But might want to numb BTS first to see where KR goes. Logging req AFR is hopefully accurate enough for that activity, and making sure IDC doesn't exceed 95.

Quote
2. Increase timing via KFZW/KFZW2 - Do this until I see some timing retard and hold there or pull back slightly?

Yep. This. But only after we have fuel where we want it.

Quote
3. TABGBTS (EGT Threshold for component protection) is not something we have touched thus far.  Current value is 499.99C, what's the reason for raising it?  If EGT's are going to come down with the changes to fuel & timing why would we need to raise the EGT threshold?

Well, unfortunately, EGT and timing are interrelated, so we kinda need to numb one (possibly temporarily) so we can tune the other, then see where we end up after.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

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 ex
FlyboyS4
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


WWW
« Reply #408 on: July 06, 2015, 05:36:01 PM »

No. But might want to numb BTS first to see where KR goes. Logging req AFR is hopefully accurate enough for that activity, and making sure IDC doesn't exceed 95.

I made it to the second post here, and get that using BTS for adjusting fueling is wrong.  I've not waded through the following 29 pages of posts to see if there are dissenting viewpoints.  Took a look at the S4 tuning Wiki and it's not real clear there, seems to only refer to BTS when needing more fuel, not less.

How do you suggest using BTS to lean the AFR slightly?  It looks to be just past 4500 rpm where I need to make some adjustments.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12268


WWW
« Reply #409 on: July 06, 2015, 05:37:58 PM »

TABGBTS. as dd suggested earlier
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

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 ex
FlyboyS4
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


WWW
« Reply #410 on: July 06, 2015, 05:44:21 PM »

TABGBTS. as dd suggested earlier

It was raised for the data I posted above.
Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #411 on: July 06, 2015, 05:51:59 PM »

You should add requested AFR to this plot. It seems real AFR is too rich between 4500 and 6250 RPM (everything richer than 11:1 is just waste of fuel).

EDIT: When you compare requested AFR with real values you can decide what should be tweaked - maybe it is not requesting that much fuel but it is just poorly tuned from factory?
Logged
FlyboyS4
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


WWW
« Reply #412 on: July 06, 2015, 07:08:48 PM »

Lambda calculated from AFR by dividing by 14.7

Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12268


WWW
« Reply #413 on: July 06, 2015, 07:51:35 PM »

You should add requested AFR to this plot. It seems real AFR is too rich between 4500 and 6250 RPM (everything richer than 11:1 is just waste of fuel).

EDIT: When you compare requested AFR with real values you can decide what should be tweaked - maybe it is not requesting that much fuel but it is just poorly tuned from factory?

It is clearly BTS
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

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 ex
FlyboyS4
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


WWW
« Reply #414 on: July 06, 2015, 08:07:48 PM »

It is clearly BTS

Is raising TABGBTS to 800C the next step?
Logged
ddillenger
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +641/-21
Offline Offline

Posts: 5640


« Reply #415 on: July 06, 2015, 11:20:41 PM »

Is raising TABGBTS to 800C the next step?

750 would be ideal.
Logged

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!

Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com

Email>PM
FlyboyS4
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


WWW
« Reply #416 on: July 07, 2015, 05:09:51 AM »

750 would be ideal.

So leave it where it's at now?  I set it to 750C here.

If that's the case, do I start modifying the KFLBTS table to alter AFR after the EGT protection (above TABGBTS threshold) kicks in?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 05:11:33 AM by FlyboyS4 » Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #417 on: July 07, 2015, 07:46:31 AM »

I do not like those plots with multiple runs through rev range as I find them unreadable.
Also I am not so sure about it being purely BTS related as BTS could be responsible only for 5000-5500 RPM range (from Nyet's plot) while enrichment starts at 4500 and still takes place up to 6250 RPM.
To be honest I would try something else - disable BTS (setting TABGBTS to really high values) and set constant 0.75 lambda (of course it is rich, but as you disable BTS it should be set to safe value) in LAMFA for >90% torque request. Then I would tweak KFKHFM to get real values as requested (and reiterate for lower loads limiting maximum load). Then I would re enable BTS or any other fuelling method you have chosen to use. That way you know your real AFR will follow your desired settings for every engine speed and load.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12268


WWW
« Reply #418 on: July 07, 2015, 11:32:12 AM »

It could also be KR enrich. In any case, I'm not sure further changes make much sense at this point; we're getting good timing, and seeing a bit of correction up top.

I don't see anything wrong with letting BTS do its thing either.

We are out of injector though, so perhaps dialing back the boost might be prudent. Then again, we have just enough to get a bit of effective BTS (although not all of it), so maybe it doesn't matter.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

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 ex
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #419 on: July 07, 2015, 12:16:51 PM »

It could also be KR enrich. In any case, I'm not sure further changes make much sense at this point; we're getting good timing, and seeing a bit of correction up top.

I don't see anything wrong with letting BTS do its thing either.
I also think the safety features (KR/BTS enrichment) should be left working in tune normally used but for proper fuelling calibration they only add complexity and we are not sure if fuelling works as expected. That is why I suggested disabling BTS (as we are not sure if it is due to BTS or something else) but use useless normally pig rich LAMFA fuelling and do some logs to be able to find if KFKHFM is properly tuned in stock form. AFAIK KR is not used in stock form so it should not affect fuelling but to be sure we could disable that too. After calibrating fuel so it does what is exactly requested in software both should be reenabled/tuned to suit our needs. IMHO anything richer that lambda 0.75/AFR 11:1 should be avoided in normal driving areas - such high enrichment might be only set in BTS for really large modelled EGTs (it also could be set as ATR last resort security value).

We are out of injector though, so perhaps dialing back the boost might be prudent. Then again, we have just enough to get a bit of effective BTS (although not all of it), so maybe it doesn't matter.
I do not agree as it is running IMHO too rich now. So if we set fuelling properly there still will be a margin for KR/BTS/ATR effective enrichment.

EDIT: Having so good logging capabilities we may just log all lambda values to be sure what is affecting real fuelling and from that work out why it is so rich now. That way we could also calibrate fuelling without disabling any security functions. IMHO it is just important so real AFR will follow requested value (it does not matter if it is from LAMFA/KR/BTS/ATR). Next exercise would be to check how far is modelled EGT from real values...
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 12:20:35 PM by tjwasiak » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 42
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.027 seconds with 18 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)