Got Tuned With ECUFLASH.. Results/Findings
Jun 17, 2006, 09:01 AM
#32
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lutz
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EMR8
Im not sure i agree with you. What gives you that idea?
Now if you make changes to the code so it will look up the new columns and make sure you don't write into anything else then its possible. I however don't see many people being able to do that at this current time.
Jun 17, 2006, 09:14 AM
#33
Originally Posted by EMR8
Im not sure i agree with you. What gives you that idea?
Unless you altered the ROM's limits for the lookup table, or the rom's load data, you did nothing other than alter the XML file in ECUflash and of course, wrote data outside of the map if you increased the columns shown..
Jun 17, 2006, 09:23 AM
#34
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by EMR8
Im not sure i agree with you. What gives you that idea?
When the CPU wants to calculate what fuleing to use for a given RPM/load it looks in a cell defined by the maps, now if you start adding areas to the end of the maps, you would have to re define the program to let it know it has extra areas to look at. This can be done, the USDM Evo 8 has extra points in its RPM scale compared to my JDM Evo 7, which both have very similar ECUs. Again you can see this in a hex editor, or if the code is decompiled.
If this has been done, good on you. If not you may want to take a second look at what you have done.
MB
Jun 17, 2006, 09:50 AM
#35
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ChItOwN
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i said before i am by no means a professional tuner, i think i know enough to do some damage though. I will try and see if i can get Jorge to answer and reply to some of your guys statements, for your good and my own! Thanx
Jun 17, 2006, 06:04 PM
#36
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ChItOwN
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
Keep in mind that ECUFlash is a glorified hex editor.. You can tell it to do whatever you want, but the ECU will only do what its programmed to do.. At the least you wrote into an unused area of the rom's data, at the worst, you affected something critical and don't know it.
Unless you altered the ROM's limits for the lookup table, or the rom's load data, you did nothing other than alter the XML file in ECUflash and of course, wrote data outside of the map if you increased the columns shown..
Unless you altered the ROM's limits for the lookup table, or the rom's load data, you did nothing other than alter the XML file in ECUflash and of course, wrote data outside of the map if you increased the columns shown..
My maps are still 18X15. All he did was change the values within the mapping. I think that the ECU interpolates anything inbetween these values. There is no more data here than in the stock rom file. Still18X15! Is that what you guys are getting at?
Jun 17, 2006, 06:06 PM
#37
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ChItOwN
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imean arent the load values based on Maf. If i change the vaules in the table, arent i just increasing the maximum maf reference? Any thing inbetween is just an average that the computer comes up with????
Jun 17, 2006, 06:34 PM
#38
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EMR8
Imean arent the load values based on Maf. If i change the vaules in the table, arent i just increasing the maximum maf reference? Any thing inbetween is just an average that the computer comes up with????
Let the posts begin for the guru's that say they know for sure
.
Jun 17, 2006, 08:03 PM
#39
Originally Posted by EMR8
Imean arent the load values based on Maf. If i change the vaules in the table, arent i just increasing the maximum maf reference? Any thing inbetween is just an average that the computer comes up with????
The only way to actually have it change its load value is to alter your MAF sensor size and calibration, THEN you can alter the axis to reflect the change and it will have a value relative to the change.. But just altering the axis calculation does nothing but change the number read across the top.
If you changed it so it showed more columns, then it could do damage, and that was what the original post implied..
Anyway, it takes some time before people make the clear distinction on what is altering the ROM and what is just a setting for the ECUFlash software.
Jun 18, 2006, 05:32 PM
#41
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glendale Heights, IL
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had asked Mark to post this, as I've been waiting approval from the mods. But since he's been gone the last day or so, I'm just posting up what I'd asked him to do.
As follows.
Moving onto Malibu's last post.
A MAF profile is just that. A profile designed around how one specific sensor reads air in g/sec in a given cross section of space.
In short, the profile itself doesn't change. The only time it needs to change is when you actually hit the reference voltage of the sensor itself. Even looking at the calibration table, it would appear that it's referencing grams per second. The load values are a bit vague, but the concept (that you don't need to screw with that table until you're exceeding that value) is simple enough to test.
The fact that Mark's UTEC log still shows a rise in reported MAF Hz, shows that the sensor itself hasn't been maxed. As a result, there's absolutely no reason to expand on the resolution of the MAF in something like a larger MAF tube (as the Subaru's would do). That being said, it all goes back to calculated load. While I don't know EXACTLY what that load is, I do know it's definately not a static comparison against MAF-v. If it was, that would imply (again, by looking at Mark's screen shot of the timing map) that you'd be running dozens more points of timing at peak torque then are really being run.
If this is still confusing, perhaps the next best option would be to compare this against a log of how the AccessPorts (and subsequently Ecutek's software) handle load calculation in a Denso ECU. That at least will show a bit more of what I'm talking about here.
But, in light of my own methodical testing, and existing experiance with various other OEM ECM reference algorithms, I can confidently say that adjusting ANYTHING with the MAF calibration tables are NOT the answers.
What you guys REALLY need is a logger that can actually plant WHERE in the calculated load % you are. When you can visually see that (and not reliant on the method I used to determine that data), you'll find that this technology will be SIMPLE to grasp and use.
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
As follows.
First off, it's good to see that there is such a wide spread interest in understanding what is going on here.
Let me start addressing some of these items in no particular order.
First off, you absolutely CANNOT compare dyno numbers. You can't even properly compare dyno numbers across different days on the same dyno. Fact remains that even in having discussed this with some of your more knowlegable tuners (Sean Glazer of Extreme Motorsports, someone I collaborate a LOT with), the 330-350 area is perfectly acceptable for the mods. Regardless, tuning is 3 parts art, 1 part science, and what is acceptable for myself, is vastly different to what is acceptable to others. That statement leads to the following:
AFR: Chemically, on gasoline, certain AFRs have always been accepted as ideal. Just because the condition or octane doesn't allow you to reach the following AFR's, doesn't mean their valor changes.
11.5:1: Richest value for best torque production at WOT
12.2:1: Safest value for best power at WOT
13.3:1: Leanest value for best torque at WOT
14.6.1: Stoichimetric
15.5-16.5:1: Leanest cruise AFR (the leaner being for engines that use a stratefied charge; Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, etc)
Ideally, in a given situation, there is one proper boost curve, fuel curve, and ignition advance curve for a given octane and cylinder pressure metric. The problem really lies where people try and use ignition timing as a knob for power. Frankly, IIRC (and bear with me because it's been a LONG time since I've owned my own 1st gen), 12-15 degrees ATDC is where you ideally want peak cylinder pressure to be, that imparts maximum mechanical advantage. So, as a result, it's more ideal to tune a car for the maximum jump in ignition timing, before you start seeing severe decreases in torque production.
In short. As I was doing pulls, at an ideal AFR, timing started producing less and less reported torque, and conversely started to produce a less and less consistent car, to the point where you can visibly feel it start to unsettle itself on the dyno. To play devil's advocate with myself, one would argue that simply increasing AFR (which in and of itself would cause a drop in cylinder pressure due to a drop in VE) and further increasing the point BTDC where you ignite your mixture is the answer. Frankly, all you're doing is needlessly pounding the ever living crap out of the rod bearings... for what? 5 HP, even 10? Frankly, if I have to dial in 6-10 degrees of timing to gain 5 HP, and make the car a LOT more prone to temperature tempermentality, I'll leave that 5HP on the table. But... that's me... remember, 3 parts art, 1 part science. Tuning is a very subjective thing, more a theology and interpretation of how stuff like thermodynamics, dynamic burn rate, and elementary mechanical advantage works.
Moving on...
Column scaling:
I do quite a bit of work with Cobb Tuning's AccessPort. I'm also a certified ProTuner, and work quite extensively with the EJ series engines, and am quite familiar with flashing tools from Ecutek's Flash 2k2, 2k4 suite, and the afore mentioned StreetTuner, ProTuner applications. It was pretty funny, when Mark (the OP) showed me ECUFlash, I was like.... "Wow! This looks awefully familiar..." and it was. Everything I thought would happen in our testing, did.
By scaling the actual columns themselves, you effectively increase resolution in calculated load.
Meaning. If you use something like a UTEC. It's a TRUE MAF reference, meaning. At 500 RPM on a UTEC you'll be in the upper left hand corner of a map. By redline, you're somewhere lower and to the right, but (since it's based strictly on MAF voltage) you will always move diagonally down, and to the right. As the Y Axis is RPM, and the X axis is MAF voltage.
How the ECU differs from this:
Like the Denso ECU's used in the Subaru's, load is actually a calculated value. Meaning, that factors such as TPS deltas, IDC, MAF voltage, etc. Calculate where you are against your X axis, or your calculated load Axis. Some of you already eluded to coming to this conclusion in some of the threads I'd read on this forum, prior to undertaking this little test.
Peak torque will push you furtherst to the right, something that was actually very easy to test.
Since I know the timing values were conservative and setup for 93 octane, it was nothing to set boost at 14 PSI to begin, and do a pull to a mid point in the RPM band. Review of the logs showed a timing value that would land in (just to throw out a number), the 240% column, and say that value was 7 degrees BTDC). Scaling the X axis so that now the 240 value was where the 300 value was, allowed reported timing to drop to say 3 degrees BTDC (which.... as you can imagine, was a value that actually coincided with the NEW 240 columns that was rescaled). Now I had the load reference I was looking for. Subsequent tests (after setting the new X axis scales), further proved what I had thought. As boost (and load) rose, you were selectively moving right in the maps, selecting appropriate values. Once we had reached a target AFR and boost level, it was simple to now visualize WHERE in the map I was at. Obviously, as timing increased, I had to remember that I was also increasing load, and thus always being mindful that I was pushing myself further and further right on the map. I am a firm believer in leaving head room, so I wanted to make sure that there was at least 20% of the resolution open. That area being significantly detuned from the running state, to handle stuff like spikes, as well as temperate conditions.
But I digress.
One of you had mentioned something about temperature corrections.
By definition, Mass air flow is just that, the MASS of air as calcuated by the meter. Meaning, by default, on a colder day, your MASS increases at the same PSI, automatically increasing calculated load, and simply pushing you further to the right on a fuel or timing map. More the reason you leave yourself headroom. In the case of an EJ series engine, boost is programmed (well... at least I do this) to drop based on IAT, thus keeping airflow in g/sec consistent, further keeping the tune consistent.
But, I can go on and on and on. Yes, temperature corrections are a very important thing, but since the XML definitions haven't really identified that data, more the reason I didn't want to push the tune since I'm only assuming that the factory ECU is capable of doing that job currently.
What else? Well.. I guess there's actually a lot left, but for now, I'm having Mark post this, since I'm waiting for a mod to approve my membership. After that point, I'll be more then happy to help out with any other questions you guys/gals may have!
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
Let me start addressing some of these items in no particular order.
First off, you absolutely CANNOT compare dyno numbers. You can't even properly compare dyno numbers across different days on the same dyno. Fact remains that even in having discussed this with some of your more knowlegable tuners (Sean Glazer of Extreme Motorsports, someone I collaborate a LOT with), the 330-350 area is perfectly acceptable for the mods. Regardless, tuning is 3 parts art, 1 part science, and what is acceptable for myself, is vastly different to what is acceptable to others. That statement leads to the following:
AFR: Chemically, on gasoline, certain AFRs have always been accepted as ideal. Just because the condition or octane doesn't allow you to reach the following AFR's, doesn't mean their valor changes.
11.5:1: Richest value for best torque production at WOT
12.2:1: Safest value for best power at WOT
13.3:1: Leanest value for best torque at WOT
14.6.1: Stoichimetric
15.5-16.5:1: Leanest cruise AFR (the leaner being for engines that use a stratefied charge; Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, etc)
Ideally, in a given situation, there is one proper boost curve, fuel curve, and ignition advance curve for a given octane and cylinder pressure metric. The problem really lies where people try and use ignition timing as a knob for power. Frankly, IIRC (and bear with me because it's been a LONG time since I've owned my own 1st gen), 12-15 degrees ATDC is where you ideally want peak cylinder pressure to be, that imparts maximum mechanical advantage. So, as a result, it's more ideal to tune a car for the maximum jump in ignition timing, before you start seeing severe decreases in torque production.
In short. As I was doing pulls, at an ideal AFR, timing started producing less and less reported torque, and conversely started to produce a less and less consistent car, to the point where you can visibly feel it start to unsettle itself on the dyno. To play devil's advocate with myself, one would argue that simply increasing AFR (which in and of itself would cause a drop in cylinder pressure due to a drop in VE) and further increasing the point BTDC where you ignite your mixture is the answer. Frankly, all you're doing is needlessly pounding the ever living crap out of the rod bearings... for what? 5 HP, even 10? Frankly, if I have to dial in 6-10 degrees of timing to gain 5 HP, and make the car a LOT more prone to temperature tempermentality, I'll leave that 5HP on the table. But... that's me... remember, 3 parts art, 1 part science. Tuning is a very subjective thing, more a theology and interpretation of how stuff like thermodynamics, dynamic burn rate, and elementary mechanical advantage works.
Moving on...
Column scaling:
I do quite a bit of work with Cobb Tuning's AccessPort. I'm also a certified ProTuner, and work quite extensively with the EJ series engines, and am quite familiar with flashing tools from Ecutek's Flash 2k2, 2k4 suite, and the afore mentioned StreetTuner, ProTuner applications. It was pretty funny, when Mark (the OP) showed me ECUFlash, I was like.... "Wow! This looks awefully familiar..." and it was. Everything I thought would happen in our testing, did.
By scaling the actual columns themselves, you effectively increase resolution in calculated load.
Meaning. If you use something like a UTEC. It's a TRUE MAF reference, meaning. At 500 RPM on a UTEC you'll be in the upper left hand corner of a map. By redline, you're somewhere lower and to the right, but (since it's based strictly on MAF voltage) you will always move diagonally down, and to the right. As the Y Axis is RPM, and the X axis is MAF voltage.
How the ECU differs from this:
Like the Denso ECU's used in the Subaru's, load is actually a calculated value. Meaning, that factors such as TPS deltas, IDC, MAF voltage, etc. Calculate where you are against your X axis, or your calculated load Axis. Some of you already eluded to coming to this conclusion in some of the threads I'd read on this forum, prior to undertaking this little test.
Peak torque will push you furtherst to the right, something that was actually very easy to test.
Since I know the timing values were conservative and setup for 93 octane, it was nothing to set boost at 14 PSI to begin, and do a pull to a mid point in the RPM band. Review of the logs showed a timing value that would land in (just to throw out a number), the 240% column, and say that value was 7 degrees BTDC). Scaling the X axis so that now the 240 value was where the 300 value was, allowed reported timing to drop to say 3 degrees BTDC (which.... as you can imagine, was a value that actually coincided with the NEW 240 columns that was rescaled). Now I had the load reference I was looking for. Subsequent tests (after setting the new X axis scales), further proved what I had thought. As boost (and load) rose, you were selectively moving right in the maps, selecting appropriate values. Once we had reached a target AFR and boost level, it was simple to now visualize WHERE in the map I was at. Obviously, as timing increased, I had to remember that I was also increasing load, and thus always being mindful that I was pushing myself further and further right on the map. I am a firm believer in leaving head room, so I wanted to make sure that there was at least 20% of the resolution open. That area being significantly detuned from the running state, to handle stuff like spikes, as well as temperate conditions.
But I digress.
One of you had mentioned something about temperature corrections.
By definition, Mass air flow is just that, the MASS of air as calcuated by the meter. Meaning, by default, on a colder day, your MASS increases at the same PSI, automatically increasing calculated load, and simply pushing you further to the right on a fuel or timing map. More the reason you leave yourself headroom. In the case of an EJ series engine, boost is programmed (well... at least I do this) to drop based on IAT, thus keeping airflow in g/sec consistent, further keeping the tune consistent.
But, I can go on and on and on. Yes, temperature corrections are a very important thing, but since the XML definitions haven't really identified that data, more the reason I didn't want to push the tune since I'm only assuming that the factory ECU is capable of doing that job currently.
What else? Well.. I guess there's actually a lot left, but for now, I'm having Mark post this, since I'm waiting for a mod to approve my membership. After that point, I'll be more then happy to help out with any other questions you guys/gals may have!
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
A MAF profile is just that. A profile designed around how one specific sensor reads air in g/sec in a given cross section of space.
In short, the profile itself doesn't change. The only time it needs to change is when you actually hit the reference voltage of the sensor itself. Even looking at the calibration table, it would appear that it's referencing grams per second. The load values are a bit vague, but the concept (that you don't need to screw with that table until you're exceeding that value) is simple enough to test.
The fact that Mark's UTEC log still shows a rise in reported MAF Hz, shows that the sensor itself hasn't been maxed. As a result, there's absolutely no reason to expand on the resolution of the MAF in something like a larger MAF tube (as the Subaru's would do). That being said, it all goes back to calculated load. While I don't know EXACTLY what that load is, I do know it's definately not a static comparison against MAF-v. If it was, that would imply (again, by looking at Mark's screen shot of the timing map) that you'd be running dozens more points of timing at peak torque then are really being run.
If this is still confusing, perhaps the next best option would be to compare this against a log of how the AccessPorts (and subsequently Ecutek's software) handle load calculation in a Denso ECU. That at least will show a bit more of what I'm talking about here.
But, in light of my own methodical testing, and existing experiance with various other OEM ECM reference algorithms, I can confidently say that adjusting ANYTHING with the MAF calibration tables are NOT the answers.
What you guys REALLY need is a logger that can actually plant WHERE in the calculated load % you are. When you can visually see that (and not reliant on the method I used to determine that data), you'll find that this technology will be SIMPLE to grasp and use.
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
Jun 18, 2006, 05:33 PM
#42
Evolving Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SLC UTAH
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
Hmm, to me, that's the OPPOSITE of conservative. The AFRs are ABOVE 12 for a while, then don't drop below 12 until high rpm. I know it's 100oct, but that's leaner than I used to go at the DRAG STRIP when running 12 flat on the same octane. I'd get it near 12 (high 11s) and get some nice timing, but that was only for drag runs. My daily tune is currently setup for road racing on alky with mid-20s boost, and my AFRs are only 11.3-11.5 with conservative timing.
I'm surprised it only made 337/320 on a Dynojet WITH a 1.03 correction (327/310 uncorrected) with all those mods and being so lean. I think you should reconsider calling that "conservative" tuning for road racing. I actually add 104oct at the track when I road race ON TOP of my low-to-mid 11 AFRs running alky.
I'm surprised it only made 337/320 on a Dynojet WITH a 1.03 correction (327/310 uncorrected) with all those mods and being so lean. I think you should reconsider calling that "conservative" tuning for road racing. I actually add 104oct at the track when I road race ON TOP of my low-to-mid 11 AFRs running alky.
Are you measuring you AFR in the pipe or at the tailpipe. If you measure at the tailpipe your AFR will show leaner because it is not completely wrapped in exhaust like it would be when screwed into the pipe. A good dyno tuner knows that and knows what AFR the tailpipe corresponds with actual AFR.
Jorge is a great guy and I would trust him with my car anytime.
Ben
