Notices
ECU Flash

Question on evo live map, load/timing not corresponding

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 10, 2009, 01:12 PM
  #1  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question on evo live map, load/timing not corresponding

I went out trying to tune my 96530006 ROM (upgraded from 94170008).

I noticed the timing was not following the 1-byte load that I was logging.
From what I understand the timing follows the barrow+temp compensated load, which is what the 1-byte is. But there is a condition where timing will not follow that load, what is that?

Edit: My 1-byte multiplier is 1.2. I'm not sure that makes a difference here.
Old Aug 10, 2009, 01:15 PM
  #2  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
l2r99gst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CA
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Here are some notes that I have from a thread where mrfred posted on the disassembly:

spark advance lookup: For air temp below 77F, baro+airtemp compensated load is used for spark advance. For temps above 77F, then baro compensated load is used.

afr lookup: for closed loop conditions when load is < ~20, uncompensated load is used, otherwise, baro+airtemp compensated load is used. This means that baro+airtemp compensated load is used essentially all the time for AFR lookup.
Old Aug 10, 2009, 01:40 PM
  #3  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks, l2r99gst

I think the ambient air was around 71 that day. But maybe the intake air was about 77.
I didn't log IAT though unfortunately.
Old Aug 18, 2009, 04:25 PM
  #4  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Okay. I logged a 1byte (air+temp load), barometric load, and raw load, all three.

I'm looking at some logs and I have an example...

At 3500 rpm
1byte - 205
barometric load - 219 (should be following this)
raw load - 228

my timing is 5. In my timing map the nearest 5 I have is at load of 260.
Timing at 220 and 240 load is set at 6 in my map.

How am I getting a 5? My logged octane number is 100.

Is the eval formula wrong for timing? x - 20 ?
Old Aug 18, 2009, 05:56 PM
  #5  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One thing I thought of is it could be that I changed the load scaling on the timing and fuel tables.

If I read the map according the the stock scaling then the timing makes sense.

Do the tephra roms not allow rescaling of load on the timing + fuel maps?
Old Aug 18, 2009, 06:22 PM
  #6  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Asmodeus6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is interesting...

I kept quiet about this because maft pro has always fudged my load #'s. But when I recently moved to the new rom V7.6 w/ 1 byte load... they went stupid. I mean total bull****. I was seeing nearly 50lbs/min in GM /sec and 260 load...

I was contemplating dumping the Maft-Pro and going to SD on the ecu - in hopes it would FIX this. But I think it would actually make it a lot worse. Maft Pro locks the IAT down to 80* and does it's own temp compensation for SD. So I should see less variation in load than even you would.
Old Aug 18, 2009, 06:27 PM
  #7  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
l2r99gst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CA
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by roger smith
Okay. I logged a 1byte (air+temp load), barometric load, and raw load, all three.

I'm looking at some logs and I have an example...

At 3500 rpm
1byte - 205
barometric load - 219 (should be following this)
raw load - 228

my timing is 5. In my timing map the nearest 5 I have is at load of 260.
Timing at 220 and 240 load is set at 6 in my map.

How am I getting a 5? My logged octane number is 100.

Is the eval formula wrong for timing? x - 20 ?
Did you have any knock at all? If you expect 6 and get 5, that may be close enough that simple interpolation to other cells or logging speed may be contributing to that.

Let's see the log and your timing map.


Eric
Old Aug 19, 2009, 08:02 AM
  #8  
EvoM Community Team
iTrader: (15)
 
fostytou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 3,143
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by l2r99gst
Did you have any knock at all? If you expect 6 and get 5, that may be close enough that simple interpolation to other cells or logging speed may be contributing to that.

Let's see the log and your timing map.


Eric
Thats what I was thinking. If this was load ramp up on spool the difference in time between logging rpm, then load, then timing could possibly account for the difference.

Silly question since I don't use the live map - are you sure that your load axes are scaled in the map storage location AND the live map location?
Old Aug 19, 2009, 12:27 PM
  #9  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Silly question since I don't use the live map - are you sure that your load axes are scaled in the map storage location AND the live map location?
I haven't looked at the timing/fuel maps in the live app map. I always just read my CSV log and refer to the map in ecuflash.

Did you have any knock at all? If you expect 6 and get 5, that may be close enough that simple interpolation to other cells or logging speed may be contributing to that.
I was thinking this too, but there are some timing values where interpolation would make no sense. You can see timing of 4 at 3715 rpm. Nearest 4 is at 280 load, 3500 rpm. Also timing doesn't get pulled until octane number starts dropping right? My octane is 100 all the way.

I have been logging at the default 15625 baud.
Attached Thumbnails Question on evo live map, load/timing not corresponding-timing_off_log.jpg   Question on evo live map, load/timing not corresponding-timing_map.jpg  
Old Aug 19, 2009, 12:40 PM
  #10  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Should I be using 2-byte RPM? Or speed up my logging rate?
I was under the impression 2-byte RPM is just to get better resolution data, not on-time data.

edit: I logged 2-byte RPM today. No revelations from that. I tried logging at 31250 baud but I kept getting an error. I'll try 62500 tomorrow.

Last edited by roger smith; Aug 19, 2009 at 06:23 PM.
Old Aug 31, 2009, 01:10 PM
  #11  
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
roger smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe I found the answer to my problem.
I didn't know there were two different timing values that can be logged.
MUT06 and 33.
I've been logging 06 which doesn't follow the timing map.

I will confirm this on the weekend, hopefully.
Old Aug 31, 2009, 10:07 PM
  #12  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
ziad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
i log both with live timing(dma) you can log both, i believe the 33 is the real value from the maps and the 6 is the compensated one that is running on the engine
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kartectuning
ECU Flash
5
Jun 14, 2012 08:01 PM
Seijuro
ECU Flash
4
Mar 20, 2010 11:53 AM
tephra
ECU Flash
71
Nov 21, 2009 11:20 AM
racer135
ECU Flash
14
Apr 17, 2008 06:36 AM
NIevo
ECU Flash
11
Sep 21, 2007 07:11 PM



Quick Reply: Question on evo live map, load/timing not corresponding



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 AM.