l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

You can't do that because of closed loop. Your fuel map is an open loop fuel map.

What you can do is make both tables 100% and then use the maf smoothing table for adjustment. This was jcsbanks 'easy speed density' method.

But, just do what I stated. Tuning SD really isn't that hard.

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

L2r99gst, as I stated, I don't have any logs on the MAF on my current setup and the driveability is so terrible on the MAF that I don't plan on getting any.

Also, I'm running the car open loop anyway so mapping out as I had suggested above isn't a big deal and should function just as I am expecting it to.

Also, as I already said, tuning isn't an issue. Actual tune wise, I've only done maybe 3 datalogs and I already have it very drivable and from where it started, it's vastly improved in just a few tune revisions.

Using the MAF comp tables isn't really a solution either, IMO as you can get to a given MAF frequency through different loads and engine speeds. It's not a constant relationship. I'm not concerned about WOT, just driveability and you can get to 40-400Hz through nearly infinite loads and engine speeds.

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

Yep, I agree, and is why I recommended a 3D map many times.

But, the two 2D map and RPM VE tables work very well and you should be able to get things driving very well. They are multiplied out to a 3D table. Of course, once cell in either table would be affecting and entire row or column in the virtual 3D table, but the two tables should still work well.

If you want, post up your map and RPM VE tables and I can post up mine (from when I was running SD). My car was running 95% perfectly within a few hours, except the jumpy IPW issue. Or you can email/PM me to discuss.

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

This thread is slowly becoming a mess like the others.

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

Yeah, I agree I was hoping for 3D maps as well. But I also agree that what is here will work and will probably be easier to set up for most people. It's a very quick and dirty method to map out the typical engine response characteristics with two 2-D maps. Very innovative actually on JCSBanks part.

But, I really don't like how my "load" changes with changes to the MAP VE table. You don't really deal with "load" in a SD setup. You deal with MAP.

I was hoping I could get the MAP VE table and the RPM VE table setup so that the fuel table was actually a target AFR table. This is similar to how the MOTEC, Autronic, and (gasp, it's ok, you can say it) Hydra 2.6 are all setup and is similar to an AEM on boost comp. You have a couple scalars for engine configuration (injector size, engine displacement, fuel used, etc.), a 3D VE table, and a 3D target AFR table.

We kind of have the same thing here but with a pseudo-3D VE table and a combination of injector scaling and MAP scaling to get the configuration scalar. 90% of the fuel map I'm sure I can get to function as a target AFR map. It's mostly just the low throttle stuff where the MAP VE doesn't seem to work out too well. Which I also believe you had suggested a TPS correction table of some sort a while back?

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

Yes, but realize that as of right now, I don't think there are a whole lot of people actually using speed density.

I truly don't believe we are at the stage where anybody can write down a "How-to" that will guarantee the best possible results.

As of right now, I can see three potential methods for tuning this system:
1: Log the car on the MAF, set up your MAP VE and RPM VE tables so you approximate your original engine loads and AFRs. Should work reasonably well if you have good reference logs on the current setup.
2. Set up the MAP VE for 1:1 and use RPM VE and MAF Comp settings to tweak in you AFRs to match the base fuel map AFRs.
3. Give up on the idea of the base fuel map actually reflecting anything at all, set the MAP VE and RPM VE tables 1:1 and tune the base fuel map like it's a "corrected IPW" map of sorts (MAP changes are compensated for).

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

I still think we need a detailed How To thread. Then we can have a discussion thread on all of the discussion that is happening here. I would love to see How Tos for ECU stuff setup like the How To section for installs.

todd6027

iTrader: (10)

good idea as it is you have to trawl through 2 zillion odd posts to find what your looking for.

knochgoon24

iTrader: (2)

Keep an eye on:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...sub-forum.html

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

03whitegsr...try the scaling settings I used for my car, AFAIK they're the closest I've seen yet to how the 4 bar should match up...

MAP/kPa______Load%

10.9___________7
21____________15
31.1___________27
41.3___________36
60.7___________55
101.1__________91
120.9__________119
340.2__________340


Give those values a shot for the Omni 4 bar, that is calculated straight from the voltage scaling through Ecuflash and not what I "thought" they should be.

As for adjusting the MAF Smoothing table to compensate for VE, I really don't recommend it from my experience from trying it that way. You can set your RPM VE table close to where it should be and then do slight "tweaks" to the smoothing table, but to alter the smoothing table by large percentages usually has some "unwanted" consequences...such as my encounter with cruise afr's at a certain rpm and load% where I would dip from ~14.7 to a solid 10.4afr, or would experience a decent amount of misfiring and general break-up. The MAF Hz frequency seems to be very picky about where it's supposed to sit in relation to all the other changes. I'm willing to bet though that if you set your MAP kPa/Load% to the numbers I posted, your car will run a decent amount better and you can concentrate fully on setting your RPM VE table.


To clarify what I have seen (not sure if this has been noted anywhere in the 10,000,000,000,000 threads I've read on SD so far lol) RPM VE does NOT seem to affect your crossover into open loop, it seems to be strictly related to your closed loop cruise afr. Like I mentioned, not sure if it was ever clarified, and I know that point threw me off a bit for quite a while in the 3 weeks I fought to get this set up right.

ssg_petty_210

iTrader: (13)

I dont have to much knowledge on speed density, therefor i do have a few questions. What all do I need to do to convert to speed density? I know there are people to have done it on stock ecu. So if anyone can tell me what I need to do, I would really be thankful. Thanks guys in advance for any info I might or will recieve.

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

Slo_crx1, what's odd is I'm already running my table as multipliers and yet my car is still running lean across the board. I'm using scalings for the 4-bar, but converting my table into a similar scale as to what you are using, my values are below.

8.3 - 13.5
17.3 - 25.0
25.3 - 35
33.6 - 45.0
49.6 - 64.0
72 - 89.8
98.3 - 120.0
340 - 415.3

I tried using similar values to what you posted and the car ran insanely lean.

These values on the top end (above 120kPa) still leave my actual AFRs leaner then what the calculated AFR is. Before I tore my car apart, I was able to get a VERY good match beween my actual AFR and my fuel table.

I am using an injector scaling of 812 on the ID1000s.

Creamo3

iTrader: (48)

Are any of you using EvoScan w/ this ROM? I can't seem to get my logs to come up in MapTracer w/ the BigMaps. I searched in the V6 & V7 threads but couldn't find the correct info. I thought I remembered reading something about modifying the XML, but can't find the post. Any info is appreciated

the_mork

iTrader: (1)

It used to be an issue with the v6 roms but the super easy way to get it taken care of is simply place your v7 xml in the evoscan folder designated for rom definitions. Worked great for me with no issues, it even lets me select the altmaps for comparison if I like. Tested on v2.6 and all of the 2.7betas.

knochgoon24

iTrader: (2)

Aren't your crossover points from closed loop into open loop controlled by 4 tables?
2 Load based and 2 TPS based.

If you exceed the load or TPS at the given RPM, you enter open loop.