Minimum IPW
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,486
Likes: 67
From: Melbourne, Australia
do you mean 1.024?
you might want to raise this to 1.1 - i doubt injectors that big can drive down reliably below 1.05ish...
that probably why you are getting afr swings..
unless you running OL..
you might want to raise this to 1.1 - i doubt injectors that big can drive down reliably below 1.05ish...
that probably why you are getting afr swings..
unless you running OL..

My plan of attack shall be..
Lock fueling into OL, tune the OL first.
Then enable the CL and adjust the minimum IPW to desired idle quality...
and probably raise my idle targets to just over 1k rpms.
I'd like for the CL to work...but we shall see.
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
I'm certainly not idling in open loop 
My plan of attack shall be..
Lock fueling into OL, tune the OL first.
Then enable the CL and adjust the minimum IPW to desired idle quality...
and probably raise my idle targets to just over 1k rpms.
I'd like for the CL to work...but we shall see.

My plan of attack shall be..
Lock fueling into OL, tune the OL first.
Then enable the CL and adjust the minimum IPW to desired idle quality...
and probably raise my idle targets to just over 1k rpms.
I'd like for the CL to work...but we shall see.
I guess I'm misinterpreting the open loop enable maps. Is my mistake in assuming that them being populated with values greater than zero for TPS and greater than 60-80 Load in the 500-1500 rpm region?
My understanding was that both conditions had to be met in order to transition from closed loop fueling to open loop fueling? Not true?
I think my mistake may have been assuming that the pedal is @ 0% when at idle. We all know from the data logs that the pedal is @ 12% when its closed. IIRC table 1 for TPS enable conidtions is populated with 10's (10%) for the 500, 1000, and 1500 rows. 10 < 12
:hammer: I'm sorry Aaron I'll actually work on it here shortly lol. I'm wrong.
So whats the deal with the latenct being .032 m/sec? Is that a scaling error after you apply the patch? IT didnt seem to get clarified well enough for me.
Aaron
Aaron
Last edited by JohnBradley; Nov 23, 2010 at 04:47 PM.
does anyone have the patch for minimum IPW on ROM 96531706? I used the one provided by Fast Freddy that he gave to Babi (Crewdawg130), but it won't load. I'm still running stupid rich at idle because of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I installed FIC 2150's and running e85 all the time, just FYI
I installed FIC 2150's and running e85 all the time, just FYI
yea, I tried it again and it still wouldn't install. Not sure what the problem is. And I know you said that it shouldn't matter if its specific to the ROM ID as long as its the 9653 base, but could it be an issue? Just curious since it doesn't seem to want to populate. Thanks Fast Freddie for the help.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,486
Likes: 67
From: Melbourne, Australia
whatever the formula dictates...
Eval = x/1000
so assuming x changes in 1 degree intervals, then 0.001ms would be the minimum step.
0.256 doesn't sound right??
Oh - do you mean the resolution of the IPW rather than the logger resolution?
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ion-patch.html
Eval = x/1000
so assuming x changes in 1 degree intervals, then 0.001ms would be the minimum step.
0.256 doesn't sound right??
Oh - do you mean the resolution of the IPW rather than the logger resolution?
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ion-patch.html
This is the first problem, the standard ECU will only allow jumps of 0.256ms, so you can use 1.024ms or 1.28ms.








