Tightmopedman9 Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 I max out load at around 3800 RPM on my setup, then fueling becomes hard to keep steady. I set up a VE map switcher that switches the VE map based on airflow values when the load is maxed. I'm still working on it, but I can share a version with you once I feel confident in it. By the way, I'm looking for your details about your DW300 in tank install, but can't find it because your sig has DW300 in it. Can you point me to the correct page? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyb5 Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 Here's what I referenced for my DW300 install Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted December 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 I max out load at around 3800 RPM on my setup, then fueling becomes hard to keep steady. I set up a VE map switcher that switches the VE map based on airflow values when the load is maxed. I'm still working on it, but I can share a version with you once I feel confident in it. By the way, I'm looking for your details about your DW300 in tank install, but can't find it because your sig has DW300 in it. Can you point me to the correct page? Interesting. I'm not maxing out the MAF, so if higher load values are not available, your table switching allows a rescale of the load table? At this point I'm hoping it's just tweaking of the upper load cells to refine the AFR. I know my fueling is not an issue. The peak boost does vary with changes in ambient temp/ air moisture content, it seems. The most frustrating thing is the built in 7650 rev limit. At the very least I'd like to be able to log actual RPM again, even if the EMS can't be altered to acknowledge it in its calculations. That link Andy posted outlines the DW300 install - pump polarity is reversed, so be sure you use their pigtail. You can always PM me if there are item specifics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 Interesting. I'm not maxing out the MAF, so if higher load values are not available, your table switching allows a rescale of the load table? The routine switches the VE map so that the fueling values will increase even though the load isn't You're tuning at wide open throttle on what I would assume is the same road. Sure your fueling is fine now, but what happens when you actually go out and drive the car on a different road or under different conditions? I would bet that your actual load is around 18-20ms at peak VE. With your load maxed out your fuel input will be the same whether you're at 12.24ms or load or 20ms of load. When you're on the dyno and your actual load is lower you'll run rich since the ECU will be referencing cells that were tuned for a much higher 'actual' load. The same thing will happen if you're at part throttle while maxing out the load or going down a hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piet Posted December 11, 2014 Report Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Why not fool the ECU by decreasing the slope of the MAF curve after let's say the stock max value of 825 kg/h. A linear line from the 825kg/hr value to the point where both the maf voltage maxes on the x-axis, and the kg/h number maxes the load (@12.24) on the y axis would suffice. This last kg/h number depends on the injector constant. (You can find it by looking at the kg/h number in the logs at the point where load maxes out). This means that you can use the stock maps up to the load generated by the stock max 825 kg/h, and you only need to tune for the part that comes after that. The load numbers will not reflect the same load anymore, but who cares about that anyway... After all load isn't something real, it's just an invention to make it possible to mix the right amount of fuel with the incoming oxygen under varying circumstances. Load can be rescaled itself as well, therefore the max value of 12.24 can be related to a much higher amount of incoming air. Piet & Venderbroeck Edited December 11, 2014 by Piet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted December 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Why not fool the ECU by decreasing the slope of the MAF curve after let's say the stock max value of 825 kg/h. A linear line from the 825kg/hr value to the point where both the maf voltage maxes on the x-axis, and the kg/h number maxes the load (@12.24) on the y axis would suffice. This last kg/h number depends on the injector constant. (You can find it by looking at the kg/h number in the logs at the point where load maxes out). This means that you can use the stock maps up to the load generated by the stock max 825 kg/h, and you only need to tune for the part that comes after that. The load numbers will not reflect the same load anymore, but who cares about that anyway... After all load isn't something real, it's just an invention to make it possible to mix the right amount of fuel with the incoming oxygen under varying circumstances. Load can be rescaled itself as well, therefore the max value of 12.24 can be related to a much higher amount of incoming air. Piet & Venderbroeck I'll have to read this over a few times to absorb it - math related computations do no compute readily Run today - quick 3rd - 4th. AFR's too rich now, so I'll back off the WOT settings .01 60-120 6.67sec, even though I didn't go WOT until almost 70 & shifted 3-4 - feels really good You're tuning at wide open throttle on what I would assume is the same road. Sure your fueling is fine now, but what happens when you actually go out and drive the car on a different road or under different conditions? I use a road that has level, downhill & a long uphill so that the conditions vary but in a consistent way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venderbroeck Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 I'll have to read this over a few times to absorb it - math related computations do no compute readily I made a crappy little graph on my tab, which might clarify: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted December 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 Hopefully (and probabely) you will never have to find out Unfortunately the problem (breakup under load) is back. Happened Friday afternoon. I'm out of town until tomorrow, so just driving it under gentle throttle until I can figure out which pack(s) have failed. Time to get cracking on the GM coil pack wiring - it's been miserable cold/wet weather which is why I haven't done the wiring yet... Thanks Maarten! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piet Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) Odd, weren't they used ones? Edited December 14, 2014 by Piet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted December 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 Odd, weren't they used ones? They were - but all the others were new & that didn't make any difference. Drove about 200 miles home today, and as long as I gently accelerated, I could get up to about 12psi under increasing load before breakup. Trying to rapidly load it created an immediate (negative) response. I have to figure precisely which pack(s) have failed. Unfortunately, I don't recall taking notes when the previous ones failed as to which cylinders were the problem. 3 & 5 (edit- it was 1&5) are what spring to mind, but I'm unsure. I will have to swap out one at a time until I get it figured out. In the mean time, I can hopefully get the adaptor harness made for the GM coil packs. I'm going to add a connector into the harness near the rear cam seals, so I can switch between setups M . I would think there is a good chance that the problem is in the harness, if it's consistently the same packs that fail, no? I did check the connectors for any evidence of overheating, both in the harness & the coil packs without finding anything, though. EDIT 12/15. - found I had one previously unused coil - so I swapped it out starting with no. 5 & worked back towards no.1. Breakup went away once I reached no.2. Now I need to test my other 10 to see which of those are bad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted December 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Been running the GM coil packs for a couple of days. Needs some work on the software side. Fortunately I have some help with that - math is just not my thing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulvaS40T4 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 My friend tested those GM coils in his 680hp gasoline 9-3 Saab (Vigge/Olde) and those were not good. Then hi swapped VAG coils and no problems. VAG coils are equal on power as T5 Volvo Stock Coils. Check your dwell time (ignition coil charging time) ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCain Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Have enough voltage on the coils? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted December 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 My friend tested those GM coils in his 680hp gasoline 9-3 Saab (Vigge/Olde) and those were not good. Then hi swapped VAG coils and no problems. VAG coils are equal on power as T5 Volvo Stock Coils. Check your dwell time (ignition coil charging time) ??? There are different versions. Did they use the LS2 variety like mine with the heat sinks? They are used on 1000HP setups, I think they are fine - Dwell tables are a work in progress Have enough voltage on the coils? Not a power supply or ground issue. Most likely Dwell table adjustments. I've read of similar conditions on the Supra forum. This is a trace from the log at the point of breakup under full load. The table was created based on the requirement of 3.5ms @ 14v . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevensane247 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Woah 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.