|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #510 on: August 24, 2015, 10:52:53 PM »
|
|
|
5) With KFMIRL, we're essentially adjusting how early and aggressively boost comes in, correct?
The last line(s) of KFMIRL don't request enough load to come near the LDRXN we are defining. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
 Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #511 on: August 24, 2015, 11:29:48 PM »
|
|
|
The last line(s) of KFMIRL don't request enough load to come near the LDRXN we are defining.
Here's where I'm confused. The values for KFMIRL, what's the formula for calculating those? I didn't see it in the wiki, but then again, I may be blind. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #512 on: August 29, 2015, 03:55:00 PM »
|
|
|
How does the attached look for 91 octane? Don't be nice about it, just be brutally honest.. I know I barely understand this stuff, but we all started somewhere and I'd like to know if I'm at least on the right track...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #513 on: August 29, 2015, 04:38:16 PM »
|
|
|
Here's where I'm confused. The values for KFMIRL, what's the formula for calculating those? I didn't see it in the wiki, but then again, I may be blind.
It's load. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #514 on: August 29, 2015, 10:32:16 PM »
|
|
|
Anyone have any comments on the AFRs I've posted?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #515 on: August 31, 2015, 07:03:19 AM »
|
|
|
3) Looks like we haven't done anything to ignition timing maps in the tuned file -are changes not necessary for a stage 1 tune with stock ignition components?
Your correct the stage 1 file in the OP does not change KFZWOP/2. Based on this thread it appears that it may not be required however since the axes were changed I interpolated the necessary data as a starting point. These parameters may need further refinement, see information below from the thread above. I always rescale KFZWOP when changing KFMIOP axis (shares same axis). Other than that only thing I can think of is when going to better fuel and seeing no knock while maximizing KFZW > KFZWOP
There is nothing to gain from this table. It is strictly used for interventions.
It is solely used to calculate ignition angle efficiency for a few different interventions. Ignition angles exceeding KFZWOP is fine. This will numb some interventions, but that's it.
Where it can really hurt you is in the torque model. It has a significant affect on torque intervention.
If you are greatly exceeding KFZWOP with zwbas and would like to preserve all of these wonderful interventions, then you can raise it's values. If you would like to numb these interventions further then you can lower it's values. I prefer to just leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 07:15:02 AM by A4Rich »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #516 on: August 31, 2015, 07:09:25 AM »
|
|
|
How does the attached look for 91 octane? Don't be nice about it, just be brutally honest.. I know I barely understand this stuff, but we all started somewhere and I'd like to know if I'm at least on the right track...
This advice was provided in the LAMFA xdf parameter. I suggest requesting an AFR of between 11.5 (91 octane) and 12.5 (93 octane) to start from the RPM you hit peak boost, until redline. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #517 on: August 31, 2015, 11:35:27 AM »
|
|
|
From what I read, I should be close with the fueling, no? Maybe go a bit more rich (11.5) but as far as before peak boost, do those numbers look ok? Or should it be getting richer, faster?
Nyet seems to know a thing or two about fueling and the struggles of 91 octane...Waiting for his input.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #518 on: August 31, 2015, 11:43:42 AM »
|
|
|
for k03s, you shouldn't need 11.5 even on 91... you can aim for 12's.
the problem with k03s is that they spool so fast, it is hard to get to 12s before peak boost w/o really screwing up your gas mileage, esp if you are using BTS to get there.. which is why I prefer to use LAMFA for WOT fueling..
So ya, you're doing it right. You can try 11.9 or 12ish and see what kind of timing you can get.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #519 on: August 31, 2015, 10:21:39 PM »
|
|
|
for k03s, you shouldn't need 11.5 even on 91... you can aim for 12's.
the problem with k03s is that they spool so fast, it is hard to get to 12s before peak boost w/o really screwing up your gas mileage, esp if you are using BTS to get there.. which is why I prefer to use LAMFA for WOT fueling..
So ya, you're doing it right. You can try 11.9 or 12ish and see what kind of timing you can get.
Awesome, thank you. Would it be safe to try that tune with no other changes other than the AFRs I've posted (slightly adjusted to be closer to 12 though)? The ramp up on the AFR looks ok? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #520 on: August 31, 2015, 10:24:22 PM »
|
|
|
The ramp up on the AFR looks ok?
The proof is in the logs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #521 on: September 01, 2015, 09:13:10 AM »
|
|
|
The last line(s) of KFMIRL don't request enough load to come near the LDRXN we are defining.
Nyet, would you mind explaining I don't understand? Based on the LDRXN (load limit) it appears to be lower than KFMIRL (request torque to requested load conversion). Also would you explain how KFMIRL should be tuned in general? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #522 on: September 01, 2015, 12:30:39 PM »
|
|
|
Nyet, would you mind explaining I don't understand? Based on the LDRXN (load limit) it appears to be lower than KFMIRL (request torque to requested load conversion).
Also would you explain how KFMIRL should be tuned in general?
Thanks!
Sorry for the confusion: I mean that the STOCK KFMIRL doesn't request enough load if you ONLY modify LDRXN.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #523 on: September 01, 2015, 01:05:09 PM »
|
|
|
Like you said, logs told the tale. Still getting knock and pulling timing of about 8 or 9 degrees. Going to try going richer soon.
Lambts kicked in, guessing because of the timing and knock?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
overclockedpc
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #524 on: September 01, 2015, 01:22:36 PM »
|
|
|
Will post a log soon. Even with lamfa requesting 11.6, timing is pulled to almost 9 degrees on cyl 3-4, and a bit less on 1-2. Lambts is still taking over.
Time to start looking at ignition maps?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
