SD - first test success
Jul 24, 2009, 04:21 AM
#662
Very nice. My 4" Dejon pipe is sitting right here. The Amsoil 4090 should be here this weekend. Is that a 4090 that you have there?
Let us know how you like the no recirc. I chose to include the recirc fitting on my pipe. I didn't like that loss of boost between shifts on my DSM when I ran VTA.
Let us know how you like the no recirc. I chose to include the recirc fitting on my pipe. I didn't like that loss of boost between shifts on my DSM when I ran VTA.
Aug 15, 2009, 08:51 AM
#666
How should I go about tuning SD without any MAF based logs for reference data? I understand setting SD up using MAF based date (MAP, RPM and Load/MAP). How does this data change once the MAF is removed? Could I still reference this data with SD to come up with the correct values to input into MAP VE and RPM VE?
Aug 17, 2009, 08:24 AM
#667
I'm in the process of switching to SD and am wondering if it is normal for load to exceed MAP (in kPa) in the 240+ load region? At 24 psi, I see 300 load but am obviously no where near 300 kPa pressure (~29 psi). Does that sound right? I'm close to 1:1 around 100 kPA.
EDIT: I mean a max of 24 psi in a pull - no spike with my ebc.
When setting the max values in the Map VE table should I use the highest load and kPa that I see and it will extrapolate beyond that if the boost goes higher? I suppose I could put the known correlation in the 2nd to highest row and then put in a more conservative ratio at the top that would push the load way up if I get an unforseen spike (so that it adds more fuel and pulls more timing)?
EDIT: I mean a max of 24 psi in a pull - no spike with my ebc.
When setting the max values in the Map VE table should I use the highest load and kPa that I see and it will extrapolate beyond that if the boost goes higher? I suppose I could put the known correlation in the 2nd to highest row and then put in a more conservative ratio at the top that would push the load way up if I get an unforseen spike (so that it adds more fuel and pulls more timing)?
Last edited by EVO8LTW; Aug 17, 2009 at 08:27 AM.
Aug 19, 2009, 08:38 PM
#670
Ok so I did some logging last night but, the harder I try to understand this the more confused I get 
This is on a 35R cam'd equipped VIII with no previous MAF data to reference.
From my idle log I calculated kpa from the Evo X MAP sensor data by multiplying the values by 6.8948. Doing this I get negative numbers?? The values in kPa I get average -52.094 at idle.
For the VE I took the 2-byte Load and divided it by the Evo X MAP data, which at idle gave me an average VE of
-4.17036?? Should I have divided the Load by MAP in kPa?? That would have yielded an average VE at idle of -0.68316.
These numbers make no sense to me so I'm thinking I'm doing something wrong.
The awesome thing though is that the idle afrs are damn near perfect, with an average afr of 14.72489 and a trim of -4.88281
Cruise afrs averaged 14.7253 but, the trim was at -11.5234 so it looks as though the cruise could use some adjustment via the MAP VE I assume?
I have a few problems though:
1. I don't think I'm logging the correct data and/or I'm using the wrong formula to determine kPa and/or VE.
2. How is RPM VE determined? I realize the the VE of an engine theoretically can exceed 100% but, for this application 100% is the max we want to do, correct? I'm confused on what data I should be referencing to determine if the VE settings in the MAP are correct for my application.
3. If my data and kPa and VE was correctly obtained than how do I interpret it to make adjustments to the VE tables? ie. so if I'm seeing an average of 35% Load with an average of 52 kPa than do I adjust the 41 kPa column in the SD map since there is no 55 kPa cell and change that from 36% Load to 35% Load? Or do I adjust the 61 kPa cell and change the 55% load to 35% I assume the cell I want to change is the load for the 41 kPa.
Any help or suggestions would be very much appreciated
This is on a 35R cam'd equipped VIII with no previous MAF data to reference. From my idle log I calculated kpa from the Evo X MAP sensor data by multiplying the values by 6.8948. Doing this I get negative numbers?? The values in kPa I get average -52.094 at idle.
For the VE I took the 2-byte Load and divided it by the Evo X MAP data, which at idle gave me an average VE of
-4.17036?? Should I have divided the Load by MAP in kPa?? That would have yielded an average VE at idle of -0.68316.
These numbers make no sense to me so I'm thinking I'm doing something wrong.
The awesome thing though is that the idle afrs are damn near perfect, with an average afr of 14.72489 and a trim of -4.88281
Cruise afrs averaged 14.7253 but, the trim was at -11.5234 so it looks as though the cruise could use some adjustment via the MAP VE I assume?
I have a few problems though:
1. I don't think I'm logging the correct data and/or I'm using the wrong formula to determine kPa and/or VE.
2. How is RPM VE determined? I realize the the VE of an engine theoretically can exceed 100% but, for this application 100% is the max we want to do, correct? I'm confused on what data I should be referencing to determine if the VE settings in the MAP are correct for my application.
3. If my data and kPa and VE was correctly obtained than how do I interpret it to make adjustments to the VE tables? ie. so if I'm seeing an average of 35% Load with an average of 52 kPa than do I adjust the 41 kPa column in the SD map since there is no 55 kPa cell and change that from 36% Load to 35% Load? Or do I adjust the 61 kPa cell and change the 55% load to 35% I assume the cell I want to change is the load for the 41 kPa.
Any help or suggestions would be very much appreciated
Aug 19, 2009, 09:03 PM
#671
Disclaimer: I'm a novice SD tuner, but I think I can help. See below in RED:
Ok so I did some logging last night but, the harder I try to understand this the more confused I get This is on a 35R cam'd equipped VIII with no previous MAF data to reference.
From my idle log I calculated kpa from the Evo X MAP sensor data by multiplying the values by 6.8948. Doing this I get negative numbers?? The values in kPa I get average -52.094 at idle.
You need to add 100 kpa to that to account for atmpheric pressure, assuming sea level altitude.
For the VE I took the 2-byte Load and divided it by the Evo X MAP data, which at idle gave me an average VE of
-4.17036?? Should I have divided the Load by MAP in kPa?? That would have yielded an average VE at idle of -0.68316.
Yes, use kpa for VE calculations.
These numbers make no sense to me so I'm thinking I'm doing something wrong.
The awesome thing though is that the idle afrs are damn near perfect, with an average afr of 14.72489 and a trim of -4.88281
Cruise afrs averaged 14.7253 but, the trim was at -11.5234 so it looks as though the cruise could use some adjustment via the MAP VE I assume?
I have a few problems though:
1. I don't think I'm logging the correct data and/or I'm using the wrong formula to determine kPa and/or VE.
I think you are fine on the conversion except for not accounting for atmospheric pressure.
2. How is RPM VE determined? I realize the the VE of an engine theoretically can exceed 100% but, for this application 100% is the max we want to do, correct?
I'm not sure that's correct. My MAP pressures in kpa definitely exceed my loads substantially in the mid range with an FP Red. Either that needs to be accounted for in the MAP VE table or the RPM table. If in the RPM VE table, then I think I'd need to use values over 100%. I haven't tried it yet and am not sure whether that will work.
I'm confused on what data I should be referencing to determine if the VE settings in the MAP are correct for my application.
3. If my data and kPa and VE was correctly obtained than how do I interpret it to make adjustments to the VE tables? ie. so if I'm seeing an average of 35% Load with an average of 52 kPa than do I adjust the 41 kPa column in the SD map since there is no 55 kPa cell and change that from 36% Load to 35% Load? Or do I adjust the 61 kPa cell and change the 55% load to 35% I assume the cell I want to change is the load for the 41 kPa.
I don't think you need to stick with the values in either column of the original MAP VE table, but I could be wrong. I've assumed that you can choose whatever points of the curve to define that work best for your car and the ECU will interpolate the curve between them (on a straight line), but that is an educated guess. It'd be nice to hear confirmation from one of the gurus on this.
Any help or suggestions would be very much appreciated
I tried!
This is on a 35R cam'd equipped VIII with no previous MAF data to reference. From my idle log I calculated kpa from the Evo X MAP sensor data by multiplying the values by 6.8948. Doing this I get negative numbers?? The values in kPa I get average -52.094 at idle.
You need to add 100 kpa to that to account for atmpheric pressure, assuming sea level altitude.
For the VE I took the 2-byte Load and divided it by the Evo X MAP data, which at idle gave me an average VE of
-4.17036?? Should I have divided the Load by MAP in kPa?? That would have yielded an average VE at idle of -0.68316.
Yes, use kpa for VE calculations.
These numbers make no sense to me so I'm thinking I'm doing something wrong.
The awesome thing though is that the idle afrs are damn near perfect, with an average afr of 14.72489 and a trim of -4.88281
Cruise afrs averaged 14.7253 but, the trim was at -11.5234 so it looks as though the cruise could use some adjustment via the MAP VE I assume?
I have a few problems though:
1. I don't think I'm logging the correct data and/or I'm using the wrong formula to determine kPa and/or VE.
I think you are fine on the conversion except for not accounting for atmospheric pressure.
2. How is RPM VE determined? I realize the the VE of an engine theoretically can exceed 100% but, for this application 100% is the max we want to do, correct?
I'm not sure that's correct. My MAP pressures in kpa definitely exceed my loads substantially in the mid range with an FP Red. Either that needs to be accounted for in the MAP VE table or the RPM table. If in the RPM VE table, then I think I'd need to use values over 100%. I haven't tried it yet and am not sure whether that will work.
I'm confused on what data I should be referencing to determine if the VE settings in the MAP are correct for my application.
3. If my data and kPa and VE was correctly obtained than how do I interpret it to make adjustments to the VE tables? ie. so if I'm seeing an average of 35% Load with an average of 52 kPa than do I adjust the 41 kPa column in the SD map since there is no 55 kPa cell and change that from 36% Load to 35% Load? Or do I adjust the 61 kPa cell and change the 55% load to 35% I assume the cell I want to change is the load for the 41 kPa.
I don't think you need to stick with the values in either column of the original MAP VE table, but I could be wrong. I've assumed that you can choose whatever points of the curve to define that work best for your car and the ECU will interpolate the curve between them (on a straight line), but that is an educated guess. It'd be nice to hear confirmation from one of the gurus on this.
Any help or suggestions would be very much appreciated
I tried!
Aug 20, 2009, 06:06 AM
#673
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wausau WI
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You shouldn't ever need to go over 100% on the RPM VE table. In fact you don't need any specific range at all. If I understand correctly the RPM VE table is just a list of multipliers that modify the load value that gets fed to the ecu. You could easily put 50% as your highest value but then you would have to double the values in the MAP VE table to get the same tune. What is important is the relationship between the maximum value in your table and every other value that isn't the maximum value.
Aug 20, 2009, 06:12 AM
#674
Correct. The two values are multiplied...you can think of them as two 2-D tables that are multiplied into a 3-D table.
However, I hope that when mrfred has time to develop the SD patch more, we can use a 3-D table instead. There are some areas that two 2-D tables just can't cover properly. But, for now, it does seem to run very nicely for most people.
However, I hope that when mrfred has time to develop the SD patch more, we can use a 3-D table instead. There are some areas that two 2-D tables just can't cover properly. But, for now, it does seem to run very nicely for most people.
Aug 20, 2009, 07:42 AM
#675
For my setup (larger turbo) I found it easiest to use a 1:1 ratio in the MAP/VE table and then adjusted the RPM VE table to get my wideband readings to match my fuel tables. I could do the opposite and adjust the MAP/VE tables and leave the RPM table alone, but I just found it easier to do it in the RPM table.