Notices
ECU Flash

Speed Density 2.0 (3D VE Tables, Baro)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 13, 2013 | 10:29 AM
  #781  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
OK so now I am out trying to dial in the VE maps.

I have a ported head with a 2.4L 10.5:1 motor with GSC S2 cams and a 6262. How much do you think those items increased VE? I have heard that cams can increase VE by 15% and a ported head can add 5-10%. The increased displacement could theoretically add 17%. This would make a theoretical increase in VE by as much as 40% or more.


I have cranked the SD VE up to 130% and still was running leaner than my fuel maps were calling for. I moved the fuel map from 12.0 to 10.0 and my fuels went exactly to where I would expect with that percent change. Is there an upper limit to the VE effectiveness where I will have to just use the fuel map AFR as an abstract? I can move the fuel map back and add more VE but I don't want to waste time with a limit I am not seeing. I am ok with abstract AFR numbers if needed but I don't want to give up on a LOGICAL fuel map doing what it is called for.
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2013 | 11:04 AM
  #782  
el.guerrero's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Italy
i think higher displacement doesn't affect the volumetric efficency.
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2013 | 12:19 PM
  #783  
meckert's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,110
Likes: 5
From: Denton, Tx
Originally Posted by batty200
OK so now I am out trying to dial in the VE maps.

I have a ported head with a 2.4L 10.5:1 motor with GSC S2 cams and a 6262. How much do you think those items increased VE? I have heard that cams can increase VE by 15% and a ported head can add 5-10%. The increased displacement could theoretically add 17%. This would make a theoretical increase in VE by as much as 40% or more.


I have cranked the SD VE up to 130% and still was running leaner than my fuel maps were calling for. I moved the fuel map from 12.0 to 10.0 and my fuels went exactly to where I would expect with that percent change. Is there an upper limit to the VE effectiveness where I will have to just use the fuel map AFR as an abstract? I can move the fuel map back and add more VE but I don't want to waste time with a limit I am not seeing. I am ok with abstract AFR numbers if needed but I don't want to give up on a LOGICAL fuel map doing what it is called for.
Think of it in a slightly different fashion. Instead of how much it increased...think about how efficient it was previously say 70% and now its 80-90, could be more being its not NA but turbo--
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2013 | 05:07 PM
  #784  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
I was wondering if there is a maximum effective amount of multiplier that the VE table can use that I wouldn't run out of range. I don't want to just rescale the injectors even though that would be "easier".
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2013 | 09:22 AM
  #785  
Nimpoc's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 402
Likes: 6
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Rescaling the injectors is the correct solution. Sure your 2.4 will look like a 20% VE increase over a 2.0, but it's really a 2.4 so the airflow is relative to that displacement. At the end of the day your maps are going to look much better and you'll have less funniness in all the other tables if you get that first number right.

Good luck!
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2013 | 10:56 AM
  #786  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by Nimpoc
Rescaling the injectors is the correct solution.
Good luck!
I don't understand why many people think this is a good idea. Changing the injector scaling messes up the whole map. I have everything working well in vacuum already. The injector size is a not a variable. They are flow tested and the flow is a known quantity. Once injectors are scaled they should be left alone and the rest can be fixed. No other platform promotes this idea. I only adjust injector sizes to compensate for fuel variations because it doesn't change the engine VE.

My question is what is the upper limit for the VE tables in the program? I don't want to run out of resolution on that table and have to do work arounds such as changing injector scaling.
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2013 | 01:01 PM
  #787  
domyz's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 878
Likes: 7
From: Canada
Originally Posted by batty200
I don't understand why many people think this is a good idea. Changing the injector scaling messes up the whole map. I have everything working well in vacuum already. The injector size is a not a variable. They are flow tested and the flow is a known quantity. Once injectors are scaled they should be left alone and the rest can be fixed. No other platform promotes this idea. I only adjust injector sizes to compensate for fuel variations because it doesn't change the engine VE.

My question is what is the upper limit for the VE tables in the program? I don't want to run out of resolution on that table and have to do work arounds such as changing injector scaling.
You can use MAF compensation at high airflow values if you run out of scale in the VE map. The 1600hz value is used for all fueling over 1600hz.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2013 | 06:09 PM
  #788  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
Is there any downside to having the studder fixes turned on? I had a studder at 2k and below that is pretty violent. I don't want to turn them on for no reason if there is a detrimental effect.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2013 | 08:02 PM
  #789  
domyz's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 878
Likes: 7
From: Canada
Originally Posted by batty200
Is there any downside to having the studder fixes turned on? I had a studder at 2k and below that is pretty violent. I don't want to turn them on for no reason if there is a detrimental effect.
No. Turn them on and be an happy dancing dwarf.
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2013 | 05:54 PM
  #790  
wreckleford's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 11
From: Jamaica
Originally Posted by batty200
I don't understand why many people think this is a good idea. Changing the injector scaling messes up the whole map. I have everything working well in vacuum already. The injector size is a not a variable. They are flow tested and the flow is a known quantity. Once injectors are scaled they should be left alone and the rest can be fixed. No other platform promotes this idea. I only adjust injector sizes to compensate for fuel variations because it doesn't change the engine VE.

My question is what is the upper limit for the VE tables in the program? I don't want to run out of resolution on that table and have to do work arounds such as changing injector scaling.
I don't know if there is a limit, but I think what you are experiencing is a limitation of the stock ECU speed density implementation. ECM Link's SD implementation has a multiplier for engine displacement to take care of this.

As someone said, MAF scaling could sort it out but the easiest way is to rescale the injectors.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2013 | 04:23 PM
  #791  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by domyz
No. Turn them on and be an happy dancing dwarf.
Thanks! How did you know I am a little person? 😜
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2013 | 04:24 PM
  #792  
domyz's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 878
Likes: 7
From: Canada
Originally Posted by batty200
Thanks! How did you know I am a little person? 😜
Ah sorry I didn't meant to be rude
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2013 | 12:42 PM
  #793  
stunt2's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 753
Likes: 1
From: Georgia
not an expert in SD and if it doesn't sound too stupid, where does the ecu get baro signal from ?
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2013 | 07:15 PM
  #794  
211Ratsbud's Avatar
EvoM Guru
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,286
Likes: 43
From: Watertown, NY
The baro never worked. Afaik
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2013 | 08:58 PM
  #795  
stunt2's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 753
Likes: 1
From: Georgia
then what does that table mean "Baro vs Kpa" ?
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 PM.