Tightmopedman9

Supporting Member
  • Content count

    3,917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30
  • Feedback

    0%

Tightmopedman9 last won the day on August 2

Tightmopedman9 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,005 Excellent

About Tightmopedman9

  • Rank
    ever been to the southern part of the gulf for the Bonita run?
  • Birthday 09/04/1989

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Tightmopedman9
  • Website URL
    VASTtuning.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Curhs

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Denver, CO
  • Crew
    NEC

Recent Profile Visitors

24,672 profile views
  1. Dougy's Sonic Blue 850

    I hate how the engine always rotates when using the harbor freight support straight across the engine. That's a good idea for the center support. Where'd you get it?
  2. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    That's just for the amount of fuel injected when cranking.
  3. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    @ejenner2004 is ME7. None of this thread pertains to your car.
  4. Peacocks Wagon Build

    Why not use the ACT disc? That's what I used and it is a much beefier disc than the SD693.
  5. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    This LDR routine talk is exactly why I created the 'boost quickener' mod. Any time you floor it and the current load is 1.25ms (can be defined) below the target specified in the target load map the TCV is held shut and the P and I factors of the LDR routine are set to 0. When the load is within 1.24ms of the target load the LDR routine resumes. This guarantees maximum spoolup and minimal overshoot. Regarding the MIL flash due to knock, I need to update the patch file as I made some mistakes in the code. I've reworked it and will upload a new file soon.
  6. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    That was just a quick idle and throttle blip from my car. Clutch still isn't working so I can't get running drive logs from it. I shouldn't have posted that, because it really makes the control look much more ineffectual than it is. The new routine directly replaces the stock I factor RPM vs load lookup. I quickly ditched the single axis, non RPM dependent lookup and replaced it with a AFR deviation vs RPM lookup map. The AFR deviation axis is in units of AFR and the scale of the axis is determined by your AFR gauge. I still need to play around with the AFR deviation axis and tuning of the factor, but the above map seems to give pretty good control of the AFR, even if the tuning of the 'VE' map isn't so spot on. At idle I find that with an I factor of 1, and the P,D variables set appropriately, the AFR will stay within .1 of the target. I think the next step in wideband control would be feeding the AFR into the ECU via serial input instead of analog 0-5 voltage. I'll send the code to Piet and Venderbroeck if they want to incorporate it into their wideband regulation mod. I'd appreciate any feedback for tuning of the map.
  7. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    I'm going to redo the map lookup with a better map lookup. I'll use an interpolation factor and the axis will be the AFR deviation in .15 increments. I'll include a ROM variable that is equal to the slope of the wideband curve so it will be easy to port to different tunes. I'm starting to wonder about the effects of exhaust gas velocity though; maybe I should create a 8x8 RPM vs AFR deviation map?
  8. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    It worked. I just need to figure out how best to tune the map. The AFR swings look over exaggerated in that shot, but I have the axis set to a pretty narrow range, from 10-16. Right now the lowest I value is 8, but I bet I could set that even lower, perhaps even to 0.
  9. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    Have you looked in the DAMOS? A quick search and I found TVSA0G,{Verzögerungszeit für Schubabschalten 0. Gang (LL)}. 6x1 map located @ 0xCAD9 in 608. Conversion = 11.9040 * X, 1=12ms. X axis is 0,1,2,3,4,5. There appear to be other fuel/time related tables in the SA_WE map group as well.
  10. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    I investigated those XRAMs a while ago, but found no references to them outside of that function. I added F814 and F815 to the logging stream, but never found the values to change. Thinking about these values made me investigate them some more and I looked at some old XRAM logs I have. Looking at the values I found for F814 and F815 in those logs, F814 corresponds to the values from the I factor map and F815 the P factor map; not much of a surprise there I guess. I traced the logic (and probably failed, lol) and I think the easiest thing to do is to change the MOV DPTR @ 0xBB57 to an LCALL of a new function which takes the difference between the current AFR and target AFR, uses it as the variable for a single axis map lookup, then places the value in F814 instead of the 2AEF routine. PUSH ACC MOV DPTR, #07FEFh ; Adaptive I-part setbit MOVX A, @DPTR JNZ RUN_ROUTINE ; If setbit = 0 jump to end of routine POP ACC SJMP REPLACE_DPTR RUN_ROUTINE: MOV DPTR, #0FDAEh ; Target AFR XRAM MOVX A, @DPTR MOV B, A MOV DPTR, #0F962h ; Rear O2 Voltage MOVX A, @DPTR CLR C SUBB A, B JNC NEXT ; If result is negative complement and +1 CPL A INC A NEXT: MOV B, #0Ah DIV AB ; Divide result by 10 for use in single axis map lookup MOV B, #0Fh CJNE A, B, NEXT2 ; A = AFR Deviation/10, B = 16 NEXT2: JC SKIP ; If A >= 16 no carry is set, skip setting A to 16. MOV A, #0Fh SKIP: MOV DPTR, #07FC0h ; Dynamic I factor map location MOVC A, @A+DPTR REPLACE_DPTR: MOV DPTR, #0F814h ; The DPTR we replaced RET This is the routine I came up with real quick. The divisor by 10 is to scale the deviation so that we can have a 16 byte length map lookup. You would probably need to change the divisor based on the absolute output range of your AFR gauge. I based 10 on the AEM UEGO which ranges from 7-20. I'll give this a log and see how it goes.
  11. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    I've been trying to figure out the map lookup and logic for the PID control of lambda regulation, but haven't been having much luck. I've tried to find where the maps are referenced in code, but I can't find them addressed in any manner which I'm familiar. I thought about looking at other maps of similar 7x6 size for the way they're referenced, but the 3 P, I, TV maps are the only ones this size. I've cross referenced every .bin and can find no MOV DPTR to a location even close to the location of the maps, even in the 570 .bin. I've also tried looking at where the other lambda regulation parameters are referenced, but that didn't help. Also, Piet and Venderbroeck, where did you find any reference to F1C2 and F1C3? If I cross reference them to the 449.bin I see the same parameters are located at F114/F115, and are referred to in the DAMOS as FTEADMN - 'Minimalwert der Beladung des AKF's' and FTEADMX - 'Maximalwert der Beladung des AKF's' and they are under the category 'Tankentlüftung beladungsabhängig'. I can't find any references to them in the actual code. The reason for the curiosity is that I think the wideband lambda regulation routine could greatly benefit from a dynamic I factor. AFRs could become much more stable if the I factor was a dynamic variable related to the absolute deviation between the target and current AFR, vs a static map based on RPM and load.
  12. Peacocks Wagon Build

    Same thing on my injectors, I lowered my rail about 1/4" with new stand offs.
  13. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    Hey Greg, could you e-mail about these problems? No need to clutter this thread. Thanks
  14. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    The LDR routine is LCALLED from the running loop. At 6000RPM the running loop is fully executed only 3 times a second. Compound that with the change limitation on the I factor and the boost regulation routine is actually pretty damn slow. With that said, I still think it has a lot of practical use. On most TD04H turbos a properly setup target load map can prevent boost spikes and keep boost equal through gears. The difference in driveability between boost controlled via an MBC vs M4.4 is huge. With throttle position controlling target boost you gain a much more linear, naturally aspirated feeling torque output. To maintain a constant acceleration you don't have to roll off the throttle as the RPMs rise like you do with an MBC. The power output with an MBC is nearly binary, very much all or nothing. You don't have to run the target load setpoint routine, you can just run a straight TCV duty cycle map. Even this yields a much better driving experience than an MBC. Without an adaptive routine the ECU is changing the TCV duty cycle in response to TPS and RPM many times faster than would be needed to avoid a boost overshoot. Boost overshoot using this tuning method would only happen due to poor tuning. @Boxman Have you seen this thread? Many of the boost routine stuff you talked about are covered in there, and in the first 45 or so pages of this thread. I always start a tune without any input from the LDR routine. Once boost is tuned to an acceptable range throughout the RPMs I then build a load map based on logs from the TCV map. I don't think it's a revelatory idea, and I don't know why anyone would tune any other way (although ARD still seems to do it this way, lol). To turn off the LDR routine just set KFP and P-Part to 0. Once I implement the LDR routine I usually never increase the P or I values above 50% of stock. For large turbos I designed a routine which holds the TCV fully shut above 60% throttle, if the current load is 1.3ms under the setpoint in the target load map. While doing this it also zero's out the P and I factor, avoiding adaptive overshoot for when the LDR routine turns back on. I've only used this on larger than TD04 turbos, but it might work well with them as well.
  15. Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!

    No, not easily at least. In order to move it back I started from a factory .bin and changed the location of many RAM variables. I deleted/re-coded the majority of Mercuric's code as well and spread it throughout the .bin since there wasn't a continuous section of free ROM space available. You could try decreasing the diameter of the outlet of the EVAP canister so that the venting of the canister wouldn't be as significant a portion of the total intake charge.