Did you add the new scale to the evo7 base file?

I hesitated a long while before I made the change. I would think if this was the pump relay the afr's would get leaner rather than richer.

The diable point is the same offset other were using for ipw step setting. I don't recal where I found the info, but it was in an xml def somewhere, probably one that was done for ecuedit.

Anyway, it is working fine for me, Others should use caution! Jack has way more experience with this than I do so.....

 

Yeah the scale is the same as RPMStatLimit scale I already had.. If this is a 16 bit value then it should be an even number.. When I used 1680 and 1684 it came out to 2500 and 7000 which makes more sense.. HOWEVER, that first value overlaps the Anti-Lag value also.. Hence the reason why I'm concerned about one or both of the definitions of what they do.

The problem is, one or the other is incorrect for their function, and/or the stop RPM value is also incorrect for one or the other.. OR, the start RPM value overlaps both functions, which is entirely possible.

FWIW from my logical thinking, the Anti-Lag, and LEAN SPOOL, means the same thing to me.. as I would typically run the car leaner to improve spool.. The difference is in a true antilag system, it would also retard the timing somewhat to allow combustion in the exhaust manifold as rapidly expanding gases will reduce lag (at the expense of potential damage to the turbo)

 

My guess is the anti-lag code, and lean spool for american cars, are likely one in the same..

 

Hey Jack found the threads where I found the info, or at least part of it:

http://www.aktivematrix.com/forum/vi...=92&highlight=

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...0&page=3&pp=15

http://www.aktivematrix.com/forum/vi...light=ipw+step


this is the 1685 offset, the only one I actually changed.

 

mad VIII

I've had the same good results as you when changing my lean spool code to 2500 both low and high in three evo 9's. Also if disabling this code caused a driveability problem then three different people who daily drive their cars would have mentioned something to me by now.

 

On my car the anti lag turned off causes afr's in the 9:1s at low throttle.

 

I'm not talking antilag I'm talking the leanspool code. That is probably where the confusion is coming from. I have NOT altered the antilag settings whatsoever. I have made new definitions for the lean spool enable and disable code however that is not in ecuflash when you install it. You have to find your leanspool enable and disable code on your own. On most evo's the leanspool enable is 2500 rpms and the disable is 7000 rpm's. All I have done is made the disable 2500 (the same as enable).

I do now know what the antilag does and I have never messed with it.

 

Um no. You apparently have something else causing 9:1 AFR's. Antilag has no wiring outputs connected to anything from the factory ECU. My antilag is currently disabled (enable/disable rpm are the same).

Lean spool for the IX is 1281 enable 1285 disable. GSR/RS are set at 2500/7000 and for some reason my MR was 6000 and 7000 (never been touched before I was given the def's from JC).

Lean spool is not Anti lag (though it may be related just as ignition and fuel are related to a running engine). It will cause a large knock event when enabled and otherwise not expected (as in my car I had a sudden jump of 9 counts at 6K that held to 6750). My car as well as 10 others that I have tuned are disabled (as is Dan I, apparently) with the values set at 1500 and 1500.

What you might notice are some minor cold start driveability issues that go away once the car has reached 100* or more engine temp. This is the only side effect that I have been able to log, though its even then its odd. My car will register a coolant temp of -20* for the first 2 minutes of idling and then around the time the needle starts to move it ramps up drastically. I really think Lean spool in a US market car is unneeded.

My car gets 18 around town and 24-25 on the highway with almost zero soot buildup on the bumper with a catless exhaust and flow through muffler. I have no odd or unexplained AFR fluctuations. I didnt realise until I read this thread that everyone else was having such interesting issues.

 

Like MalibuJack said One of the definitions is either wrong or overlaps the other. Offset 1680 is the same as the 1681 in fact 1680 and 1681 changing either will change both, so lean spool and antilag have the same start point. The stop points are in different locations 1682 and 1685.

BTW Jon don't sit there and tell my ecu is not doing this or doing that when clearly I have logged the differences and tested it The **** you guys call antilag in ecuflash is not the same as the mechanical antilag hardware that runs the piping into the exhuast manifold.

If you have doubts go set 1682 to the same rpm as 1680 and go for a ride I guarantee taking off from a stopsign will be interesting.

 

Okay so after a long test drive this morning making sure the car was fully warmed up I changed back and forth a couple of times between antilag on and off. Much as I had already pointed out there was no change or very little change (but nothing I can attribute to the software side of the antilag). I think the problems you faced (AFR at 9:1) IF they are in fact directly related to the anitlag control, are different than the IX. You must admit that you have an interesting prototype setup that doesnt fit the normal realm of VIII tuning.

I "can tell you" what your car is doing when I have tested it and already seen that it did/didnt affect anything. I am sure you wouldnt argue if I told you that 8* timing at peak torque on pumpgas and 30# of boost would cause knock. I dont make comments lightly, cause I hate wading through BS later. I should have asked if it was an VIII or IX before though (or at least remembered your car), as I can only test the IX. That would be my fault. But when I see someone make claim A, and I know for a fact that Claim A is not supported by evidence (I myself have gathered) of course I would make Claim B to the contrary.

Anyway, problem resolved. We'll chalk it up to an VIII/IX ECU difference.

John

 

It looks to me like the setting for stop rpm is the point when the ecu comes off the lean spool/antilag maps the antilag maps are overlayed or added in during certain conditions making it very hard to tune unless you know what it's doing. I could turn it off and tune but I decided to turn it up and tune. I set the stop rpm to 7000. But either that map is not used under some conditions or the rpm is actually a timer because I can tell when it comes off the lean spool maps it will go alot richer.
Funny you mention boost though I had the wastegate line pop off the other day during a 2nd gear pull hit 19psi and tapered to 17psi as I hit 3rd. Also hit 334 calculated load this is on a stock 10.5 hotside.

 

Okay, here's what I came up with..

1680 would be 2 bytes, 1681 would 1 byte.. I noticed the scalings were different, but referred to the same byte which is 1681, Therefore they do indeed overlap. The reason the 1681 worked correctly was because the scaling definition designated a UINT8 and made perfect sense..

BUT, They are indeed the same memory location as most 16bit locations tend to be even, and the only time they would be odd is if they were a single byte

1685 is still different (1684 if it were a 16 bit integer, and not 8 bit) so thats still different..

So, what it looks like is the 1680/1681 refer to the same thing..

 

I don't see running a bit richer in 4th and 5th a bad thing at all. I tune in 3rd and set the boost accordingly in 3rd, and what happens is that on the mbc 4th and 5th gear tend to have higher boost. I think its nice that the car runs richer in higher gears to compensate for some of this increased boost.

On pump gas from what I've seen there is negligible difference in power between 10.8 to 11.0 AFR.

 

Which would make sense when the two functions were actually being used to control the antilag hardware. In the IX, the 1281/1285 accomplishes the same thing. 1282 is listed as the antilag stop rpm, but when the 2 are set to the same value nothing happened for me. I now know the reason my MR seemed weird and different from everyone else (because the lean spool was set at 6K) was in fact my own doing when I was trying to "enhance" the launch limiter boost building capability.

My question then would be, is it worth looking for another value for the lean spool? Lets say that 1281/1681 is not the enable but for instance 1285/1685 was. Would this mean that maybe the rest of the control value is 2 places higher? 1287/1687? Or am I simply misunderstanding?

 

Here are the lines from the 941700008 It looks like 1687 is the same value as the 1682 and is set to 4000 stock also

; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROM:00001680 unk_1680: .data.b 0 ; DATA XREF: ROMff_15388o
ROM:00001681 .data.b h'50 ; P
ROM:00001682 unk_1682: .data.b 0 ; DATA XREF: ROMff_15390o
ROM:00001683 .data.b h'91 ; æ
ROM:00001684 unk_1684: .data.b 0 ; DATA XREF: ROMff_14914o
ROM:00001685 .data.b h'E0 ; a
ROM:00001686 unk_1686: .data.b 0 ; DATA XREF: ROMff_151F0o
ROM:00001687 .data.b h'80 ; Ç
ROM:00001688 ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

John your basically correct but the antilag defined so far in ecuflash does not control the antilag hardware they should have named it differently so as not to be confusing.