2009 Aussie RA - Tweaking and Tuning
Nov 17, 2010, 02:32 PM
#46
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Well spotted - I hadn't noticed that. The laptop on which logs are collected has EvoScan set to Metric"... so it's Bar. I loaded the logs into another PC for screenshots, and the setting must be "Imperial" on that one... so it used the wrong units.
Hey, I found your thread from back in Jan about the lower boundary table...
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...wer-bound.html
In this, there was a discussion on how this lower boundary table could be used to affect SST mid-gearshift (over)boost behaviour. Is this something I need to take into consideration? Can the short burst of retaded timing spool up the t/c?
Rich
Nov 17, 2010, 04:20 PM
#48
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
The critical test will be during on-track driving. If I continue to see knocksums of 7 and 8 during upshifts, that high octane spark map timing is getting pulled back in those regions. In the absence of any sensible lower boundary map usage on the part of the ECU, that's the only logical alternative I can see...
Rich
Last edited by richardjh; Nov 17, 2010 at 04:20 PM. Reason: Fixed quote.
Nov 20, 2010, 04:49 AM
#49
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
This SST "Lower Boundary Timing Map" usage sure is quite a puzzle!
I found this little gem. Just a single logged entry uses the lower boundary timing...
I got the downshift occurring right when throttle-off began.
It's as if there is some TPS threshold at work here.
I've gone back through some old logs I took from the factory ROM (just with mode23 enabled), to see if the same sort of thing was evident there too. It was... just as inconsistent. But no direct TPS relationship apparent...
Found one set of upshifts at around 25% throttle that used the lower boundary map.
Another set of upshifts at 35% throttle didn't - they just followed the high octane spark map.
Moments later, another set of upshifts at 33% throttle. Used the stock lower boundary map again.
There isn't any pattern I can see. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm just not smart enough to spot it.
When I next get some trackside playtime, we'll see how the engine management handles things... I really don't want to see any of that upshift knocksum activity!
Rich
I found this little gem. Just a single logged entry uses the lower boundary timing...
Code:
RPM Load Timing TPS
---- ---- ------ ---
5063 224 11 87
5094 223 11 87
5156 221 11 87
5219 221 11 87
5250 219 12 87
5313 218 12 87
5344 218 12 87
5438 216 13 87
5469 214 13 87
5531 213 13 87
5531 212 13 87
5594 211 13 87
5594 210 13 87
5375 212 13 87
5000 220 11 86
4719 227 9 86
4594 232 9 86
4500 233 9 83
4500 232 9 72
4531 229 9 38
4438 196 4 34 <- Hello, lower boundary spark map!
4469 156 16 30
4594 123 20 27
It's as if there is some TPS threshold at work here.
I've gone back through some old logs I took from the factory ROM (just with mode23 enabled), to see if the same sort of thing was evident there too. It was... just as inconsistent. But no direct TPS relationship apparent...
Found one set of upshifts at around 25% throttle that used the lower boundary map.
Another set of upshifts at 35% throttle didn't - they just followed the high octane spark map.
Moments later, another set of upshifts at 33% throttle. Used the stock lower boundary map again.
There isn't any pattern I can see. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm just not smart enough to spot it.
When I next get some trackside playtime, we'll see how the engine management handles things... I really don't want to see any of that upshift knocksum activity!
Rich
Nov 22, 2010, 04:25 AM
#51
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Yeah, it kind of is, actually! 
I got to retry some on-track testing - with the Lower Boundary map set a good 8* to 10* below the High Octane Spark Map where it counts.
The bad news is, my ECU didn't use timing values from that other table at WOT. It just used the straight "high octane" map.
Because I'd spotted this previously, the timing in that area was already retarded by a degree. I didn't see any significant upshift knock this time...
...but there was some nastiness occurring elsewhere.
Note that most knock occurs at points where swift load changes are occurring, due to my getting on/off the throttle rapidly. The part at the beginning is a straight-line run, and is clean...
If I'm reading all this correctly, I have work to do tidying up the transitions occurring as the throttle rolls on or off.
On the day, I applied a simple "blanket retard" (1* to 2*) at and above the cells showing knock... as I didn't have a lot of time to finesse things. After two reflashes, I got myself a lap with knocksum not exceeding 2. The trick will be to get the same result in a broad cross-section of conditions without necessarily going for the scorched earth policy.
So I'll probably be rolling back to the "first run" map to try a more surgical approach when I get the chance.
I'm a little interested/concerned in the load values reported during the top part of 4th gear...
What's the deal with the oscillating load? Is this something to do with the higher road speed affecting air pressure baro readings?
It didn't seem to upset the timing, boost or anything.
Or perhaps my car had just hit 88mph. If anyone can send me the address for logging the Ralliart's flux capacitor, I'd very much appreciate it. :P
Rich
I got to retry some on-track testing - with the Lower Boundary map set a good 8* to 10* below the High Octane Spark Map where it counts.
The bad news is, my ECU didn't use timing values from that other table at WOT. It just used the straight "high octane" map.
Because I'd spotted this previously, the timing in that area was already retarded by a degree. I didn't see any significant upshift knock this time...
...but there was some nastiness occurring elsewhere.
Note that most knock occurs at points where swift load changes are occurring, due to my getting on/off the throttle rapidly. The part at the beginning is a straight-line run, and is clean...
If I'm reading all this correctly, I have work to do tidying up the transitions occurring as the throttle rolls on or off.
On the day, I applied a simple "blanket retard" (1* to 2*) at and above the cells showing knock... as I didn't have a lot of time to finesse things. After two reflashes, I got myself a lap with knocksum not exceeding 2. The trick will be to get the same result in a broad cross-section of conditions without necessarily going for the scorched earth policy.
So I'll probably be rolling back to the "first run" map to try a more surgical approach when I get the chance.
I'm a little interested/concerned in the load values reported during the top part of 4th gear...
What's the deal with the oscillating load? Is this something to do with the higher road speed affecting air pressure baro readings?
It didn't seem to upset the timing, boost or anything.
Or perhaps my car had just hit 88mph. If anyone can send me the address for logging the Ralliart's flux capacitor, I'd very much appreciate it. :P
Rich
Nov 22, 2010, 10:01 AM
#52
Richard, are you logging a wideband? You might be chasing your tail on a bunch of this without knowing what your AFR is.
As far as the zigzag load... The Evo 10 / RA runs a type of pseudo speed density where the ECU bounces between MAF and MAP lookup tables. What you are logging is when it does this and the MAP lookup table is too far from actual load.
As far as the zigzag load... The Evo 10 / RA runs a type of pseudo speed density where the ECU bounces between MAF and MAP lookup tables. What you are logging is when it does this and the MAP lookup table is too far from actual load.
Nov 22, 2010, 03:52 PM
#53
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
At the very least, though, my latest timing tweaks get me a safe starting point for on-track testing when the new LC-1 arrives - I'll be able to log AFR in a variety of conditions without knocksum spikes dirtying up the logs.
Rich
Dec 16, 2010, 10:42 PM
#55
Evolved Member
ok, a draft pdf of my tuning guide for the EvoX and RALLIART is up and available on our local 4g63/MEEK site.
It is 13mb, not much I can do about that, except maybe make it bigger!
Its a draft, so I would like useful feedback on errors and typos and whatever you think.
here is the link
http://www.4g63evolution.net/viewtop...8&p=7444#p7444
Dave
It is 13mb, not much I can do about that, except maybe make it bigger!
Its a draft, so I would like useful feedback on errors and typos and whatever you think.
here is the link
http://www.4g63evolution.net/viewtop...8&p=7444#p7444
Dave
Dec 17, 2010, 02:43 PM
#56
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave - check the link. It gave me a 404. I got the doc by registering at 4g63 - brilliant piece of work, many thanks.
Any thing you can add around the SST would be appreciated.
Any thing you can add around the SST would be appreciated.
Jan 2, 2011, 07:50 AM
#58
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Happy 2011, everyone!
I'm finally on the road with a functioning Innovate LC-1 wideband, logged via EvoScan.
Tonight, I went out and put in 4-5 runs in 3rd gear. Here's a quick chart from one run... of boost (in BAR, not PSI - sorry to all you Imperials
) and AFR...
Note: All runs were very consistent indeed - same boost curve, same fuelling. Nice!
So, it's now time to play with EcuFlash again!
First off, I'll be wanting that boost curve a little less peak-and-trough. That means poring over Merlin's mega guide PDF and learning all about boost control.
** Something I noticed in this area... T the definition for the Reactive Solenoid WGDC Correction Interval (Low Gear Range) in the EcuFlash XML I'm using seems to point to a strange value. This setting is apparently 27 - which would be 2.7 seconds, would it not? I can't quite believe the address in the XML is accurate.
The Reactive Solenoid WGDC Correction Interval (High Gear Range) from my stock map is reading 7... also odd, as Merlin's tuning guide indicates this should have a value of 10 when stock.
So there's some sanity-checking to be done before I get changing anything!
Once the boost is a bit cleaner, I'll have a crack at getting better AFRs. The mantra I've read in this (and other) Evo X forums goes along the lines of...
- Aim at AFR around 12.5 for spool-up.
- By max torque/boost, drop to 11.5.
- Hold 11.5 until 5500rpm/6000rpm.
- Drop down gradually from 11.5 to 11.2 by redline.
In contrast, by vehicle seems to:
- Bounce around between 12.5 and 13.5 for spool-up.
- Hits 12.5 by peak boost (3300rpm).
- Drops to 11.0 by 4000rpm.
- Blunders up to 11.3 at 6500rpm, before racing for high 10s...
- ...with a hint of getting slowly leaner again over 7000rpm.
Plenty to do, plenty to do...
Rich
I'm finally on the road with a functioning Innovate LC-1 wideband, logged via EvoScan.
Tonight, I went out and put in 4-5 runs in 3rd gear. Here's a quick chart from one run... of boost (in BAR, not PSI - sorry to all you Imperials
) and AFR...Note: All runs were very consistent indeed - same boost curve, same fuelling. Nice!
So, it's now time to play with EcuFlash again!
First off, I'll be wanting that boost curve a little less peak-and-trough. That means poring over Merlin's mega guide PDF and learning all about boost control.
** Something I noticed in this area... T the definition for the Reactive Solenoid WGDC Correction Interval (Low Gear Range) in the EcuFlash XML I'm using seems to point to a strange value. This setting is apparently 27 - which would be 2.7 seconds, would it not? I can't quite believe the address in the XML is accurate.
The Reactive Solenoid WGDC Correction Interval (High Gear Range) from my stock map is reading 7... also odd, as Merlin's tuning guide indicates this should have a value of 10 when stock.
So there's some sanity-checking to be done before I get changing anything!
Once the boost is a bit cleaner, I'll have a crack at getting better AFRs. The mantra I've read in this (and other) Evo X forums goes along the lines of...
- Aim at AFR around 12.5 for spool-up.
- By max torque/boost, drop to 11.5.
- Hold 11.5 until 5500rpm/6000rpm.
- Drop down gradually from 11.5 to 11.2 by redline.
In contrast, by vehicle seems to:
- Bounce around between 12.5 and 13.5 for spool-up.
- Hits 12.5 by peak boost (3300rpm).
- Drops to 11.0 by 4000rpm.
- Blunders up to 11.3 at 6500rpm, before racing for high 10s...
- ...with a hint of getting slowly leaner again over 7000rpm.
Plenty to do, plenty to do...
Rich
Jan 2, 2011, 07:10 PM
#60
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Hi Bryan.
Great - so my "High Gear" def is good! What's the story with the "27" value for the "Low Gear" value?
Will it be advantageous to do the following?...
- Reduce the "Reactive Solenoid WGDC Correction Interval (High Gear Range)" from 7 to 3.
- Halve all values in the "Reactive Solenoid Turbo Boost Error Correction" table... smaller adjustments because the ECU will be error-correcting the boost curve more frequently?
I want to get a smoother boost curve before I hit the AFR tuning. Right now, it hits 1.6 bar -> 1.4 bar -> 1.5 bar -> 1.6 bar, before starting its tail-off. This seems like a good place to start getting some experience in ECU boost control.
edit: Until I can confirm the validity of that Low Gear Correction Interval "27" value (and fully understand it), I won't be adjusting anything. Like, is it really 2.7 secs? Is it even used? Should that be adjusted too? etc. etc.
Rich
Great - so my "High Gear" def is good! What's the story with the "27" value for the "Low Gear" value?
Will it be advantageous to do the following?...
- Reduce the "Reactive Solenoid WGDC Correction Interval (High Gear Range)" from 7 to 3.
- Halve all values in the "Reactive Solenoid Turbo Boost Error Correction" table... smaller adjustments because the ECU will be error-correcting the boost curve more frequently?
I want to get a smoother boost curve before I hit the AFR tuning. Right now, it hits 1.6 bar -> 1.4 bar -> 1.5 bar -> 1.6 bar, before starting its tail-off. This seems like a good place to start getting some experience in ECU boost control.
edit: Until I can confirm the validity of that Low Gear Correction Interval "27" value (and fully understand it), I won't be adjusting anything. Like, is it really 2.7 secs? Is it even used? Should that be adjusted too? etc. etc.
Rich
Last edited by richardjh; Jan 2, 2011 at 07:21 PM.