l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

The problem is...I don't think these tables were ever defined for 96530006. I am actually defining them right now using IDA Pro and your thread with the tables for the other ROMs. I may need your help though, so if you already have the locations, feel free to post them.

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Look for the same tables that are in the 96940011. If you have any difficulty with some tables, let me know. I'll add the tables to the boost logging how-to after you find them all.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

I was comparing 96530006 to 96940011 and 96420008 (the defs, as I don't have the ROM) because someone mentioned the defs for 96420008 looked right for 96530006.

Here is what I have so far...I'm not sure about the two maps with the ? at the end of the name. Also, I don't see the 'map scaling' map:

logic

iTrader: (2)

Finally got time over the weekend to repair my cheap Chinese exhaust (hanger tore off last week; welding in 90F+ high-humidity weather sucks), so I was able to look at this again today. I'm planning on driving 2000 miles in a couple of days, so it's obviously a good time to make a large change to how the ECU meters air, right?

First impression: no impression. Runs just like it did before, and that's a good thing. I have a bit of tuning to do to get VE dialed in appropriately, but otherwise it's running fine.

Eric, sorry to hear about your car, glad it was "just" a window!

Now that I'm basically up and running, is there anything in particular you'd like me to look at in the logs first to help with your issue? (Posting from my phone right now, I'll be at a keyboard later tonight and can do a bit of analysis then.)

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

Yes, if you can post some logs of just cruising, trying to hit the 65-85kpa/1800-2500 RPM range. If your boost gauge reads psi in vacuum, that will be about -5 to -2 psi...or if it reads in in Hg, that will be about 10 in Hg to about 4 in Hg.

Be sure to log IPW, as mine seems extremely jumpy in this area (jumping around 2-4ms or so). You can log whatever else you want (load, RPM, map, etc), but I am interested mainly in the IPW when the map and RPM are both within that mentioned range.

A good way to get into that range is to start at about 1800 RPM or so and go about 30% throttle and just let the car cruise through that RPM range. Or just eyeball your boost gauge to get in the proper map range and then transverse the RPM range.


Thanks,
Eric

logic

iTrader: (2)

Bah, I logged the entire drive home from work, and didn't really hit a useful set of data that wasn't a brief transition of some sort, making it not-so-useful.

Now that I know what I'm looking for, I'll try and get a more useful log in the morning.

logic

iTrader: (2)

Actually, nevermind, I had a chance to step out tonight and log the car. I'll just assume .dif format is okay for you?

(EDIT: that file was a little damaged, I've replaced it with a more-correct copy.)

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Sheesh, I'm a numbskull. The EDM Evo 8 has no MAP sensor, so there is no OBD programing or anything else that reads the MAP sensor. There are no tables or anything that need to be changed to make any MAP sensor compatible with the 96530006 ROM.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

OK, that's what I thought. I was just throwing out the idea of whether or not those tables were involved in any way.


Thanks

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

I'm taking a look now.

One quick note: Excel doesnt' display the time column with the three decimal places by default, so you have to highlight that column's data (click first cell then ctrl+shift+down arrow) and format cells and put three trailing 0's instead of the one that shows in the format). Otherwise, the data won't be lined up correctly.

Of course, that's assuming you are using one of my later LiveMap apps with the ms fix.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

OK, for the most part your IPW was very smooth, but for most of the log, you were *just* over the map range that I needed you to be. You were at about 85 kpa or so. Although, the very first part of the cruise seemed to be right in range and looked good.

There was one small area in your log where it looked like you may have had the issue, where the IPW dippied from 4.1ms to 3.3ms, but certainly not a huge jump. It was towards the end of your log. It was at 75kpa and 2300 RPM and there were a couple dips right before it.

If you get a chance to log today, do the same exact thing, but this time, try to target a slightly lower map on your boost gauge. Let's say around -4 psi (which would be about 8 inches of Hg) and try to hit that same RPM range again, both cruising through it, switching gears into it, etc. Also, obviously if our sensors read a little differently, just try to hit all around that range, and of course, let me know if you feel anything weird (hesitation, jerkiness, etc) and we can look at the logs for evidence of a jumpy IPW.

If all looks well, the next step would be for me to try your ROM.


Thanks,
Eric

logic

iTrader: (2)

Even lower boost? I'm not sure I know how to do that. I'll see about grabbing another log at lunch for you. I've attached the other log I made last night, although it doesn't look like it'll much additional help to you.

By the way, thanks for the tip about adding a few extra decimal points on the time column; that's given me no end of grief when trying to punch stuff into Jamie's excel dyno sim.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

That log looks pretty good, too. Maybe slight evidence towards the end of that one as well...one about the same range I saw in your first log and one at a slightly lower mpa (50 kpa and 2000 RPM).



Did you notice any jerkiness in your drive at all, specifically towards the end of the log above where the IPW is jumpy? If not, email me your ROM and I can maybe test it out to be sure it's nothing in my ROM or another patch.

Maybe the issue does exist for you, but at a slightly different map range? Or maybe you don't have the issue or it is small enough not to be an issue. Either way, I wouldn't mind testing your ROM and seeing more logs.


Thanks,
Eric

logic

iTrader: (2)

Nope, the car was very smooth. That's actually the only thing I've noticed since switching to SD: transitions seem slightly faster and smoother.

I'll grab a log at lunch; look for an email in a few minutes with my current ROM.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

OK, I analyzed a few more logs from logic as well as used his ROM on my car, just to make sure nothing in my ROM was the culprit.

Even with his ROM, I still experienced the issue. The issue is definitely subtle and maybe some just don't feel it for some reason, but it's there and the jumpy IPW shows in the log to prove it.

Upon analyzing logic's logs (as one is shown in the screenshot two posts up), it appears that he actually is experiencing the same exact issue I am. His IPW jumps seems to be about 50% smaller in amplitude, but I believe that's because his injectors are about 50% bigger than mine. I'm still on stock injectors, but I'm about to install the Bluemax 1250s.

So, now the question is, why do I feel this issue and logic doesn't? Maybe I just cruise in the range more often and am more used to this particular area being smooth? Maybe the larger injectors help lessen the effect that I can feel in my car? I don't know...I'm a bit stumped. All I know is that the IPW seems way more jumpy using the SD patch in that specific map/rpm range on both my logs and logic logs, as well as gear head's log from a few pages back. Why I can feel it, I think gear head can feel it, and logic can't stumps me. Heck, the whole reason why the IPW is so jumpy in that range stumps me.

I'll obviously continue to test and also see if the new injectors help relieve the problem on my car, but I'm still curious as to why it is actually happening.

I think it would be great if we can continue to have development for the SD patch (I guess this would have to be mrfred with John working on the GTR now) to incorporate maybe a 3D VE table and a few other possibilities.

One thing I have in mind (if this issue actually does turn out to be a widespread issue) is to have a table that sets a specific IPW for map and RPM, or load and RPM, or whatever. Maybe have this table only looked up for a map or RPM range that you can set or otherwise continue on with normal code. That's the only way I see this issue being resolved. That way I can say at 70 kpa and 2000 RPM, I want 3ms of IPW. I don't know...is that doable? What do you guys think? mrfred?


Eric