so are we all agreeing 7.06% or 6.67% for street?

 

Did not have a chance to test out 7% or 6.67%, but 8.6 produces a noticeable side effect, hell like Rich said, 5% is even enough? Just not 3.5%

 

Just give 'em all a try... report back!

Rich

 

6.67% seems very smooth to me but, I have been giving lower values a try but, notice some spool knock still.

 

Here's the cool logging I promised. This can log all of the funky MAPCalcs/MAFCalcs/IMAPCalcs/ChosenCalc stuff...

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...t-logging.html

Rich

 

I have given the following a try:
4.71% - Notice the same spool knock as 3.53. Not much of an improvement over the feel of the drive.
5.49% - Notice less spool knock (1-3) but, smoothness and response has slightly improved.
6.67% - Knock values are in the range of 1 and, smoothness and response of the car has greatly improved (Under light throttle and low boost driving). Will be testing it out under heavy throttle and high boost driving later today.

 

I've been trying different values too. Currently trialling 7.84%, which seems to have none of that abrupt jerk when throttling off under part-throttle boost.

As yet, I haven't got any logging verification that load tracks correctly. Need to get out there and try going WOT at 4000rpm in 3rd, lol. That's not really something I can fit into my daily freeway commute... without ramming the car in front!

Rich

 

i tried 7.06 today. somehow it felt the car was making more power, but infact it lost power due to 37degree celcius scorching heat but it felt more responsive. @ ~3k rpm chosencalc is the same as mapcalcs. ~4krpm it'll be behind by ~10 and 5k rpm by ~1. What does all this mean?? Are there any problems if u place the load ramp rate up to high(besides the side effects)?

 

Try 7.84%. No side effects on that for me. See what you think.

I don't know what effect larger values will have. Tephra runs 100%!... but he's not SST. Load greatly affects SST behaviour, so let's listen to what the drivetrain tells us when we use values over 8%...

Rich

 

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Getti...2/article.html

I came across the above article when I was reading up on something else. Section 4 under 'acceleration' talks about ignition timing transients that may be applicable to this topic at hand.

 

I am seeing this issue with my X. Were can I can this table for ROM 52680018. My turbo spools much faster then stock and when logging MAPcalcs and load they are way off from each other during spool and my I have had to adjust my fuel tables accordingly so they look pretty wack. I am having to set my fuel as low as 7.6 in some places to get in the 12's during spool. And it still goes too lean sometimes and I get knock. I have attached a log which shows this.

 

Goldenevo.com !

Rich

 

So I downloaded the definition and when I checked the load ramp rate table it is already showing it is at 9.80! Should I set this even higher?

 

Perhaps your problem is that you're comparing "MAPCalcs/MAFCalcs" against a separately logged final load. Load,Fuel and Load,Timing will have Baro and/or Temp correction applied to them.

For my RAX Fast Logging, I'm logging MAPCalcs/MAFCalcs/ChosenCalc - all from the exact same ECU cycle. So it's easy to see if ChosenCalc lags the lower of the other two.

Load,Fuel and Load,Timing won't exactly match ChosenCalc.

Hope that is meaningful!

Rich

 

this is 7.06%
haven't had chance to try 7.84% yet