Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!


Recommended Posts

With electronics, you can have a chassis ground and a signal ground, which are different. To insure accuracy, it should go right to the ECU and use the same ground that the original sensor used. Its more work, but it will make a difference.

Rod

Edited by Rod'sT-5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey s70r I connected both grounds to the cig lighter ground. I think by sharing the grounds it means the gauge and the lc-2 have to share the same ground... My lc-2 does work now but only on medium to heavy load.

The manual says: The LC-2’s ground should share the same grounding source as the device to which you are feeding the analog outputs, the easiest wait to accomplish this is to run an aux ground wire from the ground point of the LC-2 to the ground or signal ground of the device you are interfacing with."

They don't talk about (at least only about) LC-2 and gauge sharing the same ground. They say that LC-2 should share the ground of the devices to which is connected to.

With electronics, you can have a chassis ground and a signal ground, which are different. To insure accuracy, it should go right to the ECU and use the same ground that the original sensor used. Its more work, but it will make a difference.

Rod

Imagine the sensor (LC-2) uses both 12v and ground from the cigarette lighter. Once I'll be sending data to the ECU from LC-2, should the LC-2 be grounded on the ECU instead of the lighter?

Edited by S70-R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOT pull this morning to check Load & MAF flow :) Too much traffic to go all out, but got a decent amount of hard accel. Load did not drop off. Max flow so far, around 1800, so it seems the 3.75" housing should suit my needs OK. I'll find out for sure when I wind it out to 8500rpm... Now I can try refining the WOT table appropriately, since it's not dropping to lesser load rows anymore :)

2nd

Screenshot2014-04-17190347_zps29183052.p

2ndWOT-04-17_zpsb3ba817f.png

3rd

3rdWOT-04-17_zpsc7761dfd.png

partial 4th

4thWOT-04-17_zps3efaacc1.png

4th again - too lean between 4400-6300, then OK after that. Drop box link if anyone cares to look 14-23sec for 2-3-4, then 4:21-:31 for 4th pull

4thWOTa-04-17_zps8ff61cc5.png

revisions to WOT & VE table after log above

Rev4aVE-WOTrevisions-04-17_zps3d84935b.p

...some knock evident during that lean area - hopefully the adjustments are sufficient to bring the AFR's back to the mid 12's.

Rev4WOTknock-04-17_zps3df9ea5d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lookforjoe: You now already have maxed out the load the ecu can measure, 12.24, (pfff ..such power)

That means that, and that will be the more difficult part, you will have to fool the ecu by lowering the upper maf table values and adjust values in the upper parts of the tables accordingly.

Did you already rescale the load axis?

Edited by Piet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PIET

Just need to double check, Which table do we use now, Airflow S90 newer (more accute vs) or Airflow S90 third version? Im presuming Airflow S90 newer (more accute vs)

http://www.meditekst.nl/M44/maf/S90%20maf%20third%20version.xls

Third version is the best.

The second version is purely derived from measurement. The third version is the stock maf values multiplied with 1.34

Both are practicallyt the same, the second version is good enough but the third version is even better.

Received 5 measuring cylinders for my injector flow meter, but something is weird about them

measuring%20cylinders.jpg

Edited by Piet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lookforjoe: You now already have maxed out the load the ecu can measure, 12.24, (pfff ..such power)

That means that, and that will be the more difficult part, you will have to fool the ecu by lowering the upper maf table values and adjust values in the upper parts of the tables accordingly.

Did you already rescale the load axis?

Just trying to get a clear understanding - before, I was maxing out the MAF flow around 5K, which was causing the EMS to then drop to the next lower load cells, so it wasn't using the max load cells for WOT, etc.

Now, I'm not maxing the MAF flow (yet), so it maintains max load cell values. Why does this necessitate lowering the flow values? What would I gain by reducing the flow values? My peak torque range is still 5100 - 5800rpm, (in the above log, shifting as I did, I hit 12.24 onset in 2nd @ 5880, 3rd @ 5100, and 4th @5280) so no matter what, I'm going to max the load in that range, regardless of how I manipulate the tables.

Why wouldn't I just adjust the VE / WOT table to bring AFR down? My timing values are good.

Aaron gave me values to use for the load axis - seen here -

Rev4aVE-WOTrevisions-04-17_zps3d84935b.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... It isn't absolutely neccessary, I agree. It's just about resolution.

You have already rescaled your load axis, that's a good thing.

The last row (load 11.84) dictates everything above load 11.84.

If your calculated maximum load doesn't get higher then , lets say, 13.5 i would leave it as is.(at that point the ecu shows no more then 12.24)

With even higher loads, you can not rescale the load axis for higher loads anymore while the max load the ecu can "see" is 12.24.

You could resolve that by fooling the ECU with lowering the mass air flow values, this way you let the ecu see, for example, a load of 13.5 as a load of 12.

But on the other hand .... if you're getting satisfactory values for afr etc. all over, you better not go there because it really does complicate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your load maxes it cannot compensate more boost that rpm. So if load is 12.24ms and boost rises for some reason it goes lean. Of course you can tune richer with VE or WOT enrichment.

I understand. I'm not using built in boost control so that aspect is not so relevant. I already have to tune the VE and WOT tables to get satisfactory levels, it's just slightly different now I have the max load row to work with, that's all.

What's clear in the log is that it likes to be around 12-12.5 for no knock. The knock arrived when the AFR rose long enough to get up around 13. I'm pretty certain the logging values are still .2-.3AFR over, since they routinely show idle AFR that much over the AEM gauge controller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just to get a few things straight.

The 8 bit value that you guys are seeing (that only goes up to 12.24), is only the load value used for the maps, etc.

The load value that is actually used in the fuel equation is a 16 bit number (meaning load probably goes way over 12.24).

If your load maxes it cannot compensate more boost that rpm. So if load is 12.24ms and boost rises for some reason it goes lean. Of course you can tune richer with VE or WOT enrichment.

To answer this, if boost rises, air flow will also most likely rise, and since Husseins MAF isnt clipped, this extra air flow will be taken into account and more fuel added, so most likely it will not go lean and since this is a target lambda map, as long as MAF isnt clipped it should target the AFR very close to what you tell it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, then there's no problem at all.

With that 16 bit number for the load value the ecu still can calculate the amount of fuel to be injected way above a load of 12.4

But since the load axis does not go further then 12.4, eveything above a load of 12.4 will be dictated by the values in the bottom row of the tables, right or wrong??

Edited by Piet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share