Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

How about a new thread dedicated specifically to the tuning of SD? I know it would help alleviate a lot of clutter in the patch threads, and give a general space to discuss any tuning/logging related issues/thoughts/comments/etc. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would love to give this patch a shot, but are pretty much overwhelmed by all the spread out information (like I was a couple weeks ago lol) and probably just as confused as to how they should set it up. Plus we all know how wonderful the search feature is on this site, so maybe a singular area would greatly help keep the information neat and orderly.

I can't claim to be one of the better tuning guys on here, but I've learned a lot in the past few weeks about SD and I know there are a few others that know quite a bit more than I do. I'm willing to help out what best I can. If anyone has any questions or problems or even just comments, post them up and we'll try to get this ball rolling. If nothing else it may just help alleviate some of the stress placed on the more knowledgeable people on here and keep their mailboxes a little less full.

lan_evo_mr9

iTrader: (10)

Sounds good to me...Here's some questions...
If running the omni 4 bar, would you want to scale your load on the big maps to the max of the sensor (what is it 405 or 450?), or would you want to scale it to your max actual load that you see on a normal basis? 320 is my max load.

I've also noticed people with lower posted loads (minimum) than I've seen on my car. For example, I've seen some as low as 7, where my min is 10.8. Is that normal, should I put in a lower number just in case?

I've also noticed that most peoples map table is basically 1:1. I've done many a log and my logs aren't 1:1. Is there something wrong with my setup, or is this normal?
Example: On my logs at 40 load I have 55kpa. Others are 40 to 40. Good, bad, indifferent?
All of my kpa figures vary from 7 all the way to 20 over the load figure.

That's all I can think of now, I'm sure I"ll have more later. I hope this thread will help out the doubters in the community ie, me. Doubters is the wrong word....lacking in confidence may be better, at least in my case. I want to convert so bad because everybody says "once you do this and have it dialed in, it's awesome"...."my car has never driven better".....etc.

Creamo3

iTrader: (48)

I'm wondering who is running Tephra SD V7 and is able to correctly log MAT in EvoScan. I was running 94170015 SD w/o any issues, but have a couple little things that I noticed in V7 that I would like to correct.

1. The car idles much richer in V7 w/ the same settings I used for 94170015. The only way to correct it is to drastically increase injector size, force open loop, and lean out the idle fuel cells.
2. MAT logging doesn't seem to be correct; ambient temps in the 50's and Evoscan shows MAT around 18* F. The Evoscan formula is setup to log off MUT 09. I used Mrfred's MAT patched 96530006 ROM to populate my V7 tables.

Otherwise the Big Maps are great for those planning on running a lot of boost on a 4-bar and still able to keep resolution from 0-100 load. I have my maps scaled out to 420 w/ the 4-bar. I'm also running a 1:1 ratio for loads over 120 (seems to be the norm for big turbos)

Dennis F

iTrader: (22)

This would be great!

I made the switch to SD and used the value's in the patch. The car does run and drive nice but I am getting PO172 over rich condition codes and the small changes I made didn't seem to help.

I don't want to change anything to much because I lack the confidence to take that jump, I really don't want to **** up my car.

knochgoon24

iTrader: (2)

What MAF tables do you guys mess with to run SD? I've heard there's a few. The 95630006 rom and the 90550001 roms have different values for some of the MAF settings. 94170015 may be different too.

A difference there may be throwing your settings off.

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

You bring up some pretty good points, one's that I struggled with too. My MAP to Load% table sounds like yours, my scalings are all over the place and not a perfect 1:1. I also use the Omni 4 bar, so it's possible that the voltage range of the sensor has something to do with it. Believe it or not, my car actually runs better with the scaling a hair off than being a perfect kPa to load% match. My lower end load% scaling almost matches the stock "rescaled" settings for the JDM 3 bar, up until around 100% load range (I know this patch is supposed to replace load with kPa, but in the long run if they don't quite match up, load% is still what's really being used by the ecu). Even as far as matching the VE table properly, I still wasn't able to get a good setting and ended up leaving them where they were and scaling the MAF table down instead to get my fuel trims where they belonged. I ended getting the idea from here... https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...irst-test.html
I personally only have my fuel/timing maps scaled out to 320 since I won't be going over that anytime soon. I really doubt the size of the table has any effect on the range of the sensor since it'll still work on the same theory of the load-based system where any value above and beyond your map will keep the last values on the map.

Drivability is pretty good for the most part, there is no more lift-off jerking or compressor/bov surge causing the car to buck like crazy. My only minute issue currently is the fact of throttle tip-in. There is a very minute lean period during tip-in that I just can't seem to chase away (regardless of any table I try), and at 17-20% throttle I get a small bit of breakup. Normally it wouldn't bother me, but for some stupid reason every person in my town has to do at least 5-10mph under speed limit (of 25mph in town ) which always seems to put me right at that 17-20% throttle position.

On the plus side, I think I found out what the "incorrectly labeled" throttle enrichment table is...it does sort of do as it says, but only as you let off the throttle instead of getting in to it, which may help out some people with aftermarket bov's on the stock MAF systems with ultra-rich shifting.

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

I'm wondering if your first issue with v7 might be scaling related? I had the reverse issue at first, I wasn't scaled properly and my car ran a full 3 points leaner than my maps. The one nice thing about the 94170015 rom was the ability to input the correct voltage range for the sensor being used instead of having to try and match loads to kPa like in 9653 (due to the 96530006 rom never having a MAP sensor in the first place). I may just try swapping back to 94170015 with SD to see if my throttle issue is still present on it. If that's the case and the car runs better, I could care less about v7 since I don't use most of the features anyway.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

Adjust throttle tip-in leanness with the Asynch_vs_TPSDelta table. Just in case you have it named something else, it's the table at address 0x38a2 for 96530006.

Edit: mrfred calls this table 'Async Accel Multiplier vs TPS Delta' in his advanced fuel control thread.


Eric

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

Yeah I had tried that table earlier, it didn't really seem to do anything noticeable except perhaps make things a bit jerkier when transitioning from the stumble to smooth. Perhaps I just didn't take it high enough? I added 8 on top of the existing values as was mentioned in JCSBanks' post on it... https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...hment-tip.html

Creamo3

iTrader: (48)

I feel the same as you; the only thing I wish I could use from V7 is the Big Maps and Launch Maps. Otherwise, I love 94170015 and seems to run great on that ROM.

rolly1818

good thread and good idea, i will be dialing in this weekend so i am damn sure i got some questions

lan_evo_mr9

iTrader: (10)

I wish some of the SD gurus could chime in to help us "non genius computer folk" out. At least that's me, not speaking for others.

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

Agreed, those 2 features are the only reason I'd hang on to it. Tomorrow I'm redoing my entire tune from the ground up, if it still gives me the throttle issues, then I'm going back to 94170015.

lan_evo_mr9

iTrader: (10)

Off topic, but the biggest reason I went to V7 was the big maps. My car has never driven better at low speeds, ie parking lots and bumper to bumper traffic. After seeing this result from the big maps, it makes me hesitate even more to convert to SD. But I'm hoping SD will make it even better, smoother, driveable, etc. Don't really care if there's any power gained, but it would be cool to run a mafless intake pipe....just because.

Also COMPLETELY off topic, but does any have or heard of an autosmoothing sheet for injector latencies? I had my injectors dialed in {so I thought) and then compared the graph of my latencies vs. the stock latencies....ugly. Although my STFT and MTFT was about +2/+1. I started trying to make my latency graph more like stock, and I basically end up with the same numbers, just a tad bit smoother. Car drives a little smoother, but stays lean at stop lights for a bit. I would really like to get this cleared up before converting. I'm not sure what to adjust since the trims look so decent.

The reason I brought up the injector thing, is because I want to be absolutely sure that they are dialed in before I convert. That's just so I can rule out a possibility if something isn't going right with the SD.

Back on track here, what's the consensus of where to tap the IAT sensor in. I'm thinking manifold. Are there pro's/con's on different locations? '

Is everybody using the asynch tables? If so, could anyone post a pic of how they were modded?

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

As far as your latency values go, how does your o2 feedback look when you're at a stop? Is it trying to take away a ton of fuel and overcompensate, or try adding a ton in? You could probably scale the maf frequency in that low Hz area to add in or subtract what needs to be cleaned up if slight changes to the lower voltage latency doesn't help it at all.

On a slightly separate note, I decided to redo my entire kPa->Load and RPM vs VE tables to see if they would make a noticeable difference with my stumbling issue. I set my MAP sensor to evenly match kPa to load%, and set the 500rpm VE table to 90%, the 1000rpm to 95%, all the rest to 100%, reset my fuel trims and started logging. Interesting enough, the stumble seems to have disappeared, and with a slight bit of rescaling on the first 2 Hz ranges I managed to keep the idle afr in check, although now I'm stuck with a LTFT Low of -12 and LTFT Mid of -12. I also tried scaling the MAF for those frequency ranges as well, and as soon as I did the stumble came back. Also, I now have a range where the stumble did occur at 17% throttle that doesn't follow the open loop standard 14.7afr, it drops to anywhere between 12.5 and 11.4 afr and will stay steady there until you push through it with more throttle (which then returns to 14.7 cruise afr like normal). There is no lean spike at all, and other than that throttle point where it loads up with fuel, it runs incredibly smooth for having such bad fuel trims. I'm actually at the point where I think I'm going to leave them so far out (unless I can adjust the injector size or latency to compensate) just to keep the smoothness and drivability, since every time I attempt a rescale it hates me lol.