New thread for Speed Density tuning?...
Nov 27, 2009, 08:11 AM
#181
So all you did was change the STFT limits, and that seemed to fix the problems with part throttle and the BOV randomly fluttering open?
I'm not running SD (yet) but I am using the stock 2g DSM MAF sensor in my car with the Evo 8 Ecu. It's not SD, but it is a different air flow metering device than what the ecu was programmed for. I'm having symptoms similar to what you are describing. My car is fine when running open loop, but has some problems in closed loop.
Can you please describe exactly what you changed? For a while, I've been thinking my BOV was defective. It would be nice if this fixed it.
I'm not running SD (yet) but I am using the stock 2g DSM MAF sensor in my car with the Evo 8 Ecu. It's not SD, but it is a different air flow metering device than what the ecu was programmed for. I'm having symptoms similar to what you are describing. My car is fine when running open loop, but has some problems in closed loop.
Can you please describe exactly what you changed? For a while, I've been thinking my BOV was defective. It would be nice if this fixed it.
Nov 27, 2009, 11:24 AM
#182
Yeah, the flutter and jerk was taken care of by the SD patch alone.
Changing the STFT limits has helped on an issue where while driving the car, I can feel the car cycle the AFR. My car doesn't seem happy with the AFR moving around a lot. I can run it open loop at about 16:1 under cruise conditions and it doesn't seem too upset. Set the maps up at 14.7:1 though and then turn on closed loop and the car will get a little misfire like feel every time the car cycles lean. The wideband is saying it's only going to like 15.5:1 too so it's within the range I've found it can handle without breaking up under steady state conditions.
Changing the STFT limits has helped on an issue where while driving the car, I can feel the car cycle the AFR. My car doesn't seem happy with the AFR moving around a lot. I can run it open loop at about 16:1 under cruise conditions and it doesn't seem too upset. Set the maps up at 14.7:1 though and then turn on closed loop and the car will get a little misfire like feel every time the car cycles lean. The wideband is saying it's only going to like 15.5:1 too so it's within the range I've found it can handle without breaking up under steady state conditions.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Nov 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM.
Nov 28, 2009, 02:11 PM
#184
Yeah, the flutter and jerk was taken care of by the SD patch alone.
Changing the STFT limits has helped on an issue where while driving the car, I can feel the car cycle the AFR. My car doesn't seem happy with the AFR moving around a lot. I can run it open loop at about 16:1 under cruise conditions and it doesn't seem too upset. Set the maps up at 14.7:1 though and then turn on closed loop and the car will get a little misfire like feel every time the car cycles lean. The wideband is saying it's only going to like 15.5:1 too so it's within the range I've found it can handle without breaking up under steady state conditions.
Changing the STFT limits has helped on an issue where while driving the car, I can feel the car cycle the AFR. My car doesn't seem happy with the AFR moving around a lot. I can run it open loop at about 16:1 under cruise conditions and it doesn't seem too upset. Set the maps up at 14.7:1 though and then turn on closed loop and the car will get a little misfire like feel every time the car cycles lean. The wideband is saying it's only going to like 15.5:1 too so it's within the range I've found it can handle without breaking up under steady state conditions.
Nov 28, 2009, 07:14 PM
#185
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I switched BOVs and I still have that fluttering/stuttering. It's just not as severe as it was with the SSQV (running a Type-S now).
I'll make my own new thread since this has nothing to do with SD.
I'll make my own new thread since this has nothing to do with SD.
Nov 29, 2009, 04:12 PM
#186
Here, check this out if you want the valve to work properly and hold 30+psi...
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...sqv-users.html
Nov 29, 2009, 07:01 PM
#187
Just wanted to make a note in this thread regarding the 2000-2800rpm jitter was on my list of little problems. The issue is completely GONE. At cruise, at any speed (specifically 1800-2800rpm) the car drives SMOOTH AS SILK!
Details here, its an EASY fix thanks to mrfred!
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...006-patch.html
Details here, its an EASY fix thanks to mrfred!
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...006-patch.html
Nov 30, 2009, 09:36 AM
#188
Evolving Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I am having an issue with my WOT.. Every thing was fine till I switched to 1600 PTE and FIC Easy tune, I can get the car to Drive/idle fine but my fuel map is maxed and I have no fuel control at WOT. Increased the RPM VE up top and still didnt fix it, car runs lean up top and IDC are at 75-80% at 27PSI. Should I be Increasing my MAF Tables to get that extra fuel? AFR's were perfect with FIC 1150's but IDC's were 112%. I Figured the 1600's would Richen the hell out of my maps but not the case..
Last edited by SuPeRNeT; Nov 30, 2009 at 09:39 AM.
Nov 30, 2009, 10:32 AM
#189
So I am having an issue with my WOT.. Every thing was fine till I switched to 1600 PTE and FIC Easy tune, I can get the car to Drive/idle fine but my fuel map is maxed and I have no fuel control at WOT. Increased the RPM VE up top and still didnt fix it, car runs lean up top and IDC are at 75-80% at 27PSI. Should I be Increasing my MAF Tables to get that extra fuel? AFR's were perfect with FIC 1150's but IDC's were 112%. I Figured the 1600's would Richen the hell out of my maps but not the case..
Nov 30, 2009, 02:20 PM
#191
Evolving Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1300 and my trims come around, 1100 and my WOT works a little better. I am still on the stock reg, An uprated FPR is my next mod
Last edited by SuPeRNeT; Nov 30, 2009 at 02:23 PM.
Nov 30, 2009, 02:43 PM
#193
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hayward
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always scale your injectors for fuel trims and not for WOT fueling to match your old injectors.
If the fuel trims are correct and your WOT is rich or lean, then you need to retune your fuel tables and/or SD tables.
- Bryan
If the fuel trims are correct and your WOT is rich or lean, then you need to retune your fuel tables and/or SD tables.
- Bryan
Nov 30, 2009, 02:59 PM
#194
Why?
You are using maybe the first 5% of the injector response curve to adjust the entire fuel curve when going by trims.
If you go by WOT AFRs, you can dial in 95% of the fuel settings with one value (injector scaling), then simply adjusting the latency values gets your trims where they need to be.
Your SD tables should not change with an injector change if the values represent anything of physical meaning.
Brings around the idea though that we have been using a more difficult value for latency all along. Seems like simply changing the base latency value would get us where we need to be without messing up the curve of the battery latency values that holds true for most injectors out there.
You are using maybe the first 5% of the injector response curve to adjust the entire fuel curve when going by trims.
If you go by WOT AFRs, you can dial in 95% of the fuel settings with one value (injector scaling), then simply adjusting the latency values gets your trims where they need to be.
Your SD tables should not change with an injector change if the values represent anything of physical meaning.
Brings around the idea though that we have been using a more difficult value for latency all along. Seems like simply changing the base latency value would get us where we need to be without messing up the curve of the battery latency values that holds true for most injectors out there.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Nov 30, 2009 at 03:02 PM.
Nov 30, 2009, 03:06 PM
#195
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hayward
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
You are using maybe the first 5% of the injector response curve to adjust the entire fuel curve when going by trims.
If you go by WOT AFRs, you can dial in 95% of the fuel settings with one value (injector scaling), then simply adjusting the latency values gets your trims where they need to be.
Your SD tables should not change with an injector change if the values represent anything of physical meaning.
Brings around the idea though that we have been using a more difficult value for latency all along. Seems like simply changing the base latency value would get us where we need to be without messing up the curve of the battery latency values that holds true for most injectors out there.
You are using maybe the first 5% of the injector response curve to adjust the entire fuel curve when going by trims.
If you go by WOT AFRs, you can dial in 95% of the fuel settings with one value (injector scaling), then simply adjusting the latency values gets your trims where they need to be.
Your SD tables should not change with an injector change if the values represent anything of physical meaning.
Brings around the idea though that we have been using a more difficult value for latency all along. Seems like simply changing the base latency value would get us where we need to be without messing up the curve of the battery latency values that holds true for most injectors out there.
Yes if your fuel map is dialed in, then you can set your injector scaling to whatever makes the fuel map match what your expected/before WOT AFR target was/is.
I've seen many a tuned evos that have the fuel map compensated for poorly scaled injectors, the trims are all over the place, but WOT fueling is fine.
I agree with you on base latency. I have yet to mess around with that at all however.
- Bryan