Tightmopedman9 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I highly doubt those STFT numbers are correct, unless you changed the limits of you open loop mode. Do the values match up with the values you get from TunerPro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I highly doubt those STFT numbers are correct, unless you changed the limits of you open loop mode. Do the values match up with the values you get from TunerPro? Honestly, I've not bothered to compare - I don't reference them in any way, so they really have no value. Perhaps Logworks is misrepresenting them, but I haven't made any changes to how that data is represented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yeah, those are the values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Volvo Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Hussein, Any plans to go to a even larger MAF? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hussein, Any plans to go to a even larger MAF? I'm not sure there's any point - that would mean scaling back the MAF table even more - is there any advantage at this point? I seem to have enough problems with getting warmup settings as it is, I would think those would get even more pesky with lower resolution. Really getting to be a PITA trying to get the settings right. Still need to disable TCV P0243 code if anyone has any pointers. Today - third & fourth at peak load - AFR's more in keeping with what I'm looking for below WOT. Still rich at (lower) part load, though - I can see the soot smoke. MAF table was rescaled an additional 2% (off the 95%) on 2/06. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Still playing with this. Want to get the cold start nailed down. I've played with the warmup tables, and cranking injection - so I reduced the inj. constant, and moved the MAF table back closer to the original rescale from TMM9. May need move it around some more, seems to take a couple of days to settle down. dropped constant to 2.813 after this, and warmup table lowest load to .328 - 810-1290rpm Data logs from the two peak areas. AFR's at part load load look pretty good - if a tad rich - in 4th gear all values are typically leaner, which should put them right around 12-12.3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Added 2% back to the MAF scaling (so back to TMM9's original rescale values 1263@4.998v), and reduced inj constant to .2731. No knock recorded, but I never got into 5th on this log. Maxxes at 1263 kg/H. Hopefully the LTFT will settle down tomorrow - took about 50 miles or so for it to drop with the last major change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 On that log it looks like your 65-100 took 6.5 seconds. Is that right? Seems a bit on the slow side to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 On that log it looks like your 65-100 took 6.5 seconds. Is that right? Seems a bit on the slow side to me. I wasn't doing a WOT pull per se - that included a 3-4 shift and I didn't go WOT until around 72mph. I haven't done any "hard" WOT pulls since I wasn't sure about my AFR's. I'll do a couple when the weather clears again. With TTusb, I was at 4.3sec 60-100, so I need to be sure I haven't lost ground from that. I'm still maxxing out the recorded MAF by 5500 - only 350g/s (1263Kg/H). Can it be scaled any higher, or is that pretty much it? I'd love to know how much air it's actually flowing up top I guess now that I have the other tables tweaked for my setup, your MAF table rescale is working well overall with the lowered inj constant (@.2731, haven't tried .26 again yet) - initally it wouldn't run worth a damn with those values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Your MAF voltage is maxed. That means you're flowing more than the maximal amount of air that MAF can measure. Now, for what 5v corresponds to in actual air mass, who knows? I'd wager 1250 is pretty close. If you want to measure more air you'll need a larger MAF housing. However, as it is you're maxing out your load, so it probably won't do anything beneficial for you, except give you an idea of how much air you're actually flowing. You can do the following to give you more resolution up top: When you get a larger MAF, increase your injection constant to make up for the MAF scale increase. This will lower your load values artificially by the percent you scale your injectors. This is mimicking what your did in TT. Alternatively, or additionally, you can do what I did and make the slope of airmass vs voltage more aggressive uptop. Without a wind tunnel it's hard to know what the flow curve looks like at high air mass values. I just made my curve more aggressive at the top so I move through the upper load values more slowly. It seems to work pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Your MAF voltage is maxxed. You can do the following to give you more resolution up top: When you get a larger MAF, increase your injection constant to make up for the MAF scale increase. This will lower your load values artificially by the percent you scale your injectors. This is mimicking what your did in TT. Alternatively, or additionally, you can do what I did and make the slope of airmass vs voltage more aggressive uptop. Without a wind tunnel it's hard to know what the flow curve looks like at high air mass values. I just made my curve more aggressive at the top so I move through the upper load values more slowly. It seems to work pretty well. So, increase the inj constant to reflect the increase in recorded flow (by the EMS) since it will be scaling the fuel delivery accordingly? More air will tell the EMS to deliver more fuel, yes? For now, I like the idea of altering the MAF scale from the linear graph. Since I'll still be maxing it out - I'd rather not build a new intake just to register an additinoinal 50kg/h or whatever. Do you have a non - linear graph I can look at as an example? I would appreciate it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 All MAF curves are highly non-linear, look at this comparison spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar2g6ew-FJhDdC1XcHFwS052cWh1YWhLQ2pFNFZodUE&usp=sharing#gid=0 Changing your MAF curve won't do anything for you at values where your MAF voltage is currently maxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted February 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 All MAF curves are highly non-linear, look at this comparison spreadsheet:] Changing your MAF curve won't do anything for you at values where your MAF voltage is currently maxed. Yes I went and looked at (rudimentary) graph in the Bosch document right after I said that.... I don't follow the point of altering the curve if it makes no difference? What am I missing? Are you saying that in your case it's not maxxed out, so changing the curve makes a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bum2kev Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 What if you do what the Bimmer guys do and install a resistor inline to the MAF? http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1798679-Does-anyone-have-experience-with-map-to-maf-converters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 I was only saying that it will make a difference if you get a new MAF. I'm not near the voltage limit on my MAF yet, so altering the scaling does make a difference for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.