Notices
ECU Flash

New thread for Speed Density tuning?...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 27, 2009 | 08:11 AM
  #181  
scheides's Avatar
EvoM Moderator
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,827
Likes: 13
From: Minneapolis
Originally Posted by knochgoon24
So all you did was change the STFT limits, and that seemed to fix the problems with part throttle and the BOV randomly fluttering open?

I'm not running SD (yet) but I am using the stock 2g DSM MAF sensor in my car with the Evo 8 Ecu. It's not SD, but it is a different air flow metering device than what the ecu was programmed for. I'm having symptoms similar to what you are describing. My car is fine when running open loop, but has some problems in closed loop.

Can you please describe exactly what you changed? For a while, I've been thinking my BOV was defective. It would be nice if this fixed it.
Speed density takes care of all of your bov/stuttering/fluttering problems. I am in LOVE
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2009 | 11:24 AM
  #182  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
Yeah, the flutter and jerk was taken care of by the SD patch alone.

Changing the STFT limits has helped on an issue where while driving the car, I can feel the car cycle the AFR. My car doesn't seem happy with the AFR moving around a lot. I can run it open loop at about 16:1 under cruise conditions and it doesn't seem too upset. Set the maps up at 14.7:1 though and then turn on closed loop and the car will get a little misfire like feel every time the car cycles lean. The wideband is saying it's only going to like 15.5:1 too so it's within the range I've found it can handle without breaking up under steady state conditions.

Last edited by 03whitegsr; Nov 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2009 | 06:41 PM
  #183  
knochgoon24's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: State College, PA
Originally Posted by scheides
Speed density takes care of all of your bov/stuttering/fluttering problems. I am in LOVE
I'll eventually be converting. I just have to find a little extra cash to buy the parts. The switch will probably happen over my Christmas break, when I have a little extra time.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2009 | 02:11 PM
  #184  
Slo_crx1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 821
Likes: 1
From: Simpson, PA
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr
Yeah, the flutter and jerk was taken care of by the SD patch alone.

Changing the STFT limits has helped on an issue where while driving the car, I can feel the car cycle the AFR. My car doesn't seem happy with the AFR moving around a lot. I can run it open loop at about 16:1 under cruise conditions and it doesn't seem too upset. Set the maps up at 14.7:1 though and then turn on closed loop and the car will get a little misfire like feel every time the car cycles lean. The wideband is saying it's only going to like 15.5:1 too so it's within the range I've found it can handle without breaking up under steady state conditions.
In closed loop that's pretty much how mine reacts as well. I may have to try setting it to strictly open loop or at least open loop up to 3,000 rpm and see how it reacts to that.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2009 | 07:14 PM
  #185  
knochgoon24's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: State College, PA
I switched BOVs and I still have that fluttering/stuttering. It's just not as severe as it was with the SSQV (running a Type-S now).

I'll make my own new thread since this has nothing to do with SD.
Reply
Old Nov 29, 2009 | 04:12 PM
  #186  
Slo_crx1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 821
Likes: 1
From: Simpson, PA
Originally Posted by knochgoon24
I switched BOVs and I still have that fluttering/stuttering. It's just not as severe as it was with the SSQV (running a Type-S now).

I'll make my own new thread since this has nothing to do with SD.
I had the same issue with that valve, the check valve inside leaks and makes things drive a little weird. At first I thought it was my BCS or the wrong wastegate duty cycle lol.

Here, check this out if you want the valve to work properly and hold 30+psi...
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...sqv-users.html
Reply
Old Nov 29, 2009 | 07:01 PM
  #187  
scheides's Avatar
EvoM Moderator
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,827
Likes: 13
From: Minneapolis
Just wanted to make a note in this thread regarding the 2000-2800rpm jitter was on my list of little problems. The issue is completely GONE. At cruise, at any speed (specifically 1800-2800rpm) the car drives SMOOTH AS SILK!

Details here, its an EASY fix thanks to mrfred!
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...006-patch.html
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:36 AM
  #188  
SuPeRNeT's Avatar
Evolving Member
20 Year Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
So I am having an issue with my WOT.. Every thing was fine till I switched to 1600 PTE and FIC Easy tune, I can get the car to Drive/idle fine but my fuel map is maxed and I have no fuel control at WOT. Increased the RPM VE up top and still didnt fix it, car runs lean up top and IDC are at 75-80% at 27PSI. Should I be Increasing my MAF Tables to get that extra fuel? AFR's were perfect with FIC 1150's but IDC's were 112%. I Figured the 1600's would Richen the hell out of my maps but not the case..

Last edited by SuPeRNeT; Nov 30, 2009 at 09:39 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 10:32 AM
  #189  
Creamo3's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (48)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by SuPeRNeT
So I am having an issue with my WOT.. Every thing was fine till I switched to 1600 PTE and FIC Easy tune, I can get the car to Drive/idle fine but my fuel map is maxed and I have no fuel control at WOT. Increased the RPM VE up top and still didnt fix it, car runs lean up top and IDC are at 75-80% at 27PSI. Should I be Increasing my MAF Tables to get that extra fuel? AFR's were perfect with FIC 1150's but IDC's were 112%. I Figured the 1600's would Richen the hell out of my maps but not the case..
What's your global injector scaling?
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 11:10 AM
  #190  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
What are you using for fuel supply?

112% IDC on 1150s at 27 PSI points toward dropping fuel pressure.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 02:20 PM
  #191  
SuPeRNeT's Avatar
Evolving Member
20 Year Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
1300 and my trims come around, 1100 and my WOT works a little better. I am still on the stock reg, An uprated FPR is my next mod

Last edited by SuPeRNeT; Nov 30, 2009 at 02:23 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 02:39 PM
  #192  
scheides's Avatar
EvoM Moderator
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,827
Likes: 13
From: Minneapolis
Then set your injector scaling to 1300 to bring trims inline, then tweak your upper load and rpm VE tables to bring your WOT AFRs back inline.

Did you have good working injector scaling and latancy values before starting this process?
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 02:43 PM
  #193  
GST Motorsports's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 1
From: Hayward
Always scale your injectors for fuel trims and not for WOT fueling to match your old injectors.

If the fuel trims are correct and your WOT is rich or lean, then you need to retune your fuel tables and/or SD tables.

- Bryan
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 02:59 PM
  #194  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
Why?

You are using maybe the first 5% of the injector response curve to adjust the entire fuel curve when going by trims.

If you go by WOT AFRs, you can dial in 95% of the fuel settings with one value (injector scaling), then simply adjusting the latency values gets your trims where they need to be.

Your SD tables should not change with an injector change if the values represent anything of physical meaning.

Brings around the idea though that we have been using a more difficult value for latency all along. Seems like simply changing the base latency value would get us where we need to be without messing up the curve of the battery latency values that holds true for most injectors out there.

Last edited by 03whitegsr; Nov 30, 2009 at 03:02 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 03:06 PM
  #195  
GST Motorsports's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 1
From: Hayward
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr
Why?

You are using maybe the first 5% of the injector response curve to adjust the entire fuel curve when going by trims.

If you go by WOT AFRs, you can dial in 95% of the fuel settings with one value (injector scaling), then simply adjusting the latency values gets your trims where they need to be.

Your SD tables should not change with an injector change if the values represent anything of physical meaning.

Brings around the idea though that we have been using a more difficult value for latency all along. Seems like simply changing the base latency value would get us where we need to be without messing up the curve of the battery latency values that holds true for most injectors out there.
Sorry I realize what I posted was a bit too generic.

Yes if your fuel map is dialed in, then you can set your injector scaling to whatever makes the fuel map match what your expected/before WOT AFR target was/is.

I've seen many a tuned evos that have the fuel map compensated for poorly scaled injectors, the trims are all over the place, but WOT fueling is fine.

I agree with you on base latency. I have yet to mess around with that at all however.

- Bryan
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 PM.