|
Rick
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: December 01, 2011, 04:39:23 PM »
|
|
|
Looks much better, I'd increase the values in the last column a little though. There really is no need to calculate the inverse, you don't need that kind of precision. Use KFPED to tune response.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #106 on: December 01, 2011, 04:43:12 PM »
|
|
|
Looks much better, I'd increase the values in the last column a little though. There really is no need to calculate the inverse, you don't need that kind of precision. Use KFPED to tune response.
Rick
Rick, what do you think if I increase column by 10 ? Or you have better suggestion? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #107 on: December 01, 2011, 06:04:22 PM »
|
|
|
There really is no need to calculate the inverse, you don't need that kind of precision.
Also, you have a built in fudge factor because actual torque will ALWAYS be lower than optimal torque (due to lamdba and timing corrections, among other things). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #108 on: December 02, 2011, 02:53:54 AM »
|
|
|
Exactly, which is why you never see 100% anywhere.
I would increase the last column into the early 90's. Double check intervention by making sure zwist=zbas.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #109 on: December 02, 2011, 04:01:27 AM »
|
|
|
Exactly, which is why you never see 100% anywhere.
I would increase the last column into the early 90's. Double check intervention by making sure zwist=zbas.
Rick
what is zbas? because melogger doesn't show me this variable inside my created template for this ecu |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #110 on: December 02, 2011, 02:08:19 PM »
|
|
|
Flashed the file today and results were... well... at idle my car was dying... rpm went from 760 to 880 and ignition angle was between 0 and 30 BTDC. No knock was detected so I don't know why it was pulling such crazy timing... I even tried to lower KFZW at low rpms, but it didn't help me at all... Flashed original KFMIRL and KFMIOP and problem went away. Either it has something to do with edited axis or my tables are bad.. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #111 on: December 02, 2011, 02:12:47 PM »
|
|
|
Can you try it with less changes?
Or just IRL vs IRL and IOP?
Also, try to avoid changing low load areas in BOTH IRL and IOP
Could also be an axis interaction; I have no idea if other tables in your file share the same axis.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #112 on: December 02, 2011, 02:28:33 PM »
|
|
|
Can you try it with less changes?
Or just IRL vs IRL and IOP?
Also, try to avoid changing low load areas in BOTH IRL and IOP
Could also be an axis interaction; I have no idea if other tables in your file share the same axis.
Ok I'll try to flash only IRL first to check |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #113 on: December 03, 2011, 05:51:59 AM »
|
|
|
UPDATE on progress... Looks like I can't change X axis, because some other maps are sharing it also. So, I had to change whole table again. Problem is: I literally feel no difference when those two tables are changed... I've updated them like this (image attached). If I understand everything corectly I had to lower numbers in KFMIOP to match up with KFMIRL (because axes were already predefined up to 145%)? BTW: I have compared my previous "pro tuner" bin to stock and found out that KFMIOP and KFMIRL BOTH were RAISED! What a hell?  P.S> a little offtopic, but is there a map which limits torque based on gear? because right now I can't boost more than 0.7bar in second gear, but in third I can boost all the way... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 05:53:58 AM by masterj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #114 on: December 03, 2011, 06:05:39 AM »
|
|
|
You should only be changing the last three axis values in IOP. IRL shouldn't have it's axis touched.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #115 on: December 03, 2011, 06:11:04 AM »
|
|
|
You should only be changing the last three axis values in IOP. IRL shouldn't have it's axis touched.
I haven't touched irl axis, only axis i edited was iop's (but I've edited them almost all to completely match with irl's table). So you're saying that KFMIOP only needs last three columns edited? Even if others are not matching to KFMIRL table? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #116 on: December 04, 2011, 01:00:56 PM »
|
|
|
Yes, exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #117 on: December 05, 2011, 09:12:53 AM »
|
|
|
Well it looks like I have managed to stabilize idle by leaving first 3 columns stock on IOP map. Now everything is good for few minutes and then torque monitor intervenes with dtc code "torque exceeded". Now I tried to disable monitor for testing but then I got same dtc from torque monitor 2 and my ecu shut down until I restarted engine...
Maps that I've used to disable monitor:
KFMIZUOF FFd whole table
TMNSMN -48C
TANSMN -48C
Also I've found these: KFMDZOF_UM, KFMPED_UM, KFMPNS_UM. They look they're are limits for torque. Should I just FF them too? what other maps are responsible for torque limiting?
I will test these settings next: (image attached)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #118 on: December 05, 2011, 09:23:00 AM »
|
|
|
Post your IOP and IRL maps.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
masterj
|
|
« Reply #119 on: December 05, 2011, 09:31:48 AM »
|
|
|
Post your IOP and IRL maps.
attached now  P.S> Found also this map: KFMI_UM, which looks like is overall optimal torque map for torque monitor. Maybe I should match it to kfmiop? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
