Jump to content
Volvospeed Forums

Hussein's 1998 V70 Xr : The Force Awakens


lookforjoe

Recommended Posts

Did a harder pull 3rd-4th-5th with the modified 608 file. Way to rich - so I'll lean out the upper cells & lower the WOT values. It seems the stock VE map is pretty good as is - just needs the work to move the peak load area up to 3600-5200rpm range

VE map in spreadsheet - lower section shows conversion applied to target AFR values

Screenshot2014-01-21204320_zpsa52eb214.p

graph 3rd - 4th - 5th

Screenshot2014-01-22201156_zpsbf78a1d1.p

data

ScreenShot2014-01-22at103129PM_zpsf56189

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you still planning on moving over to standalone at some point?

That requires much more time, so if I do it it won't be until a summer. I have the VEMS ecu ready, just have to switch some hardware around.

Megasquirt maybe? :D

Yeah, right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hitting 100% load at part throttle - running way to rich

EDIT: I don't have boost or AFR hooked up! - this dash is based on one from TMM9 that includes inj voltage

STFT seems better - not stuck negative as before. Have a stutter/hesitation when going part throttle tip in. Not sure whether to make changes to the VE map or tweak the injector constant back closer to calculated value of .26, currently .32

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hitting 100% load at part throttle - running way to rich

reduced MAF scaling 10%

trim levels at end of run

STFT seems better - not stuck negative as before. Have a stutter/hesitation when going part throttle tip in. Not sure whether to make changes to the VE map or tweak the injector constant back closer to calculated value of .26, currently .34

stutter because its too rich? there is also an AE map, Acceleration Enrichment. Do you ever register any knock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stutter because its too rich? there is also an AE map, Acceleration Enrichment. Do you ever register any knock?

Stutter after I rescaled the MAF map to reduce registered air mass - there was no stutter before, when it was too rich overall.

I have no timing pull or knock with the TT timing map I'm using - probably because it's so rich - I get AFR's in the 11's & 10's :( under load

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stutter after I rescaled the MAF map to reduce registered air mass - there was no stutter before, when it was too rich overall.

I have no timing pull or knock with the TT timing map I'm using - probably because it's so rich - I get AFR's in the 11's & 10's :( under load

If the stutter wasn't there before the MAF re-scale then the problem is most likely the MAF re-scaling, wouldn't you think?

If you're too rich overall the best course of action would be to reduce the injection constant or specific VE map values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the stutter wasn't there before the MAF re-scale then the problem is most likely the MAF re-scaling, wouldn't you think?

If you're too rich overall the best course of action would be to reduce the injection constant or specific VE map values.

Yes, the rescaling introduced the stutter, but the whole scaling seems off since it is too rich overall, and substantially rich (10 AFR's) at part throttle, even with reduced VE map values..

H, I can't tell on your dashboard what the gauges are, with the titles being white on blue background.

Rod

I'll have to fix that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the stutter wasn't there before the MAF re-scale then the problem is most likely the MAF re-scaling, wouldn't you think?

If you're too rich overall the best course of action would be to reduce the injection constant or specific VE map values.

I tried running your scaled MAFtable with VE maps reduced by 1-3% and it didn't work so well. Tried the current table with inj constant reduced, that didn't run well either.

I've made a revised VE table, with reductions mostly up top, since I hit 100% load cells pretty early in terms of throttle angle, and added a little timing in the 90-100% load rows, since I have no pull as it stands.

I'm going to try both MAFtable BINs with reduced VE & added timing & see how it goes. The main problem with the original scaled table is that I got around 11 miles to the gallon (180mi/17.5gal) with relatively few heavy accel runs - since part throttle resulted in clouds of (black) fuel smoke.

I'm losing track of what I have & haven't tried with all the mix & match between the base rescaled MAF table, and the additional 10% rescale. The logs generated aren't that helpful - it would be easier if I could attach a note to the bin somehow - in TT I had this option, which was actually useful for keeping track of changes to tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaned out the upper cells again, on a base rescaled MAF from TMM9, with an additional 5% rescale

Screenshot2014-01-28213957_zps4efd7f81.p

feels responsive, and I think the trim values have improved, still trying to properly understand the LTFT_I and PL relationship & values.

Gas consumption has been horrendus - the weather doesn't help, but I've been getting about 11-12mpg (!!) with this revision, my EGT's have dropped back to the 1000 degree range that I was used to under part load/cruise (had risen to 1200 with the earlier MAF scaled tunes), so I'm presuming its runner a tad leaner now.

I still have the stutter, but it does seems to be a rich condition that builds rapidly at part throttle, until the AFR's are so rich it bogs & then recovers. I still have to figure out which areas of the map to adjust. Typically data logging fails to connect in Tpro precisely when I'm planning on trying to capture this. The one log I did get the other night is corrupted somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your LTFT_I has settles at 8µs then you're golden.

I would reccomend setting LTFT_PL to zero in your .bin. Like I've said before I think it is ineffectual at controlling AFRs on a non-stock motor setup.

I took a look at your log and was unable to recover it, sorry. You should get your wideband hooked up your ECU and send me a long (15minute) drive to go over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your LTFT_I has settles at 8µs then you're golden.

I would reccomend setting LTFT_PL to zero in your .bin. Like I've said before I think it is ineffectual at controlling AFRs on a non-stock motor setup.

I took a look at your log and was unable to recover it, sorry. You should get your wideband hooked up your ECU and send me a long (15minute) drive to go over.

Thanks for all your help with this!

I hope to get the WB signal hooked up in the next couple if weeks - I can't easily work in 8-20 degrees f temps :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your help with this!

I hope to get the WB signal hooked up in the next couple if weeks - I can't easily work in 8-20 degrees f temps :-(

You sissy! :lol:

I just did 5 hours work on my car today and yesterday. I don't have a garage at my new house so I had to do all the work outside, uncovered. Yesterday it was 5° and snowed 4"!

Edited by Tightmopedman9
  • Upvote 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...