Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

Yes, 2 of them specifically, the other 2 I believe are for a "limp mode" setting. However a lot of people were saying that the RPM VE affects your open loop as well as closed loop, and such is not the case from my experience. The 2 tables you mentioned can raise or lower the point at which you cross from closed to open loop, but generally has no physical affect of AFR other than what the fuel map designates.


03whitegsr:
I can probably take a good guess as to why it's running lean with those scaling...have you at some point in your tune retuned any maf tables or changed latency numbers/scaling sizes so as to match afr numbers from your fuel table to your actual afr?

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

Nope, I am on an other-wise stock ROM, as far as I know. The base for my ROM is the ROM Phenem posted in the Tephra V7 thread. I just converted over from 94170015 to this ROM and have not touched the MAF tables.

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

Hmm, interesting then...did you add the scaling for the Omni 4 bar to the v7 xml? (I'm assuming you did, not to insult your intelligence but I have to ask lol) Once you have the scaling offset loaded in the xml, then drop the values to what I have posted (that's if you forgot the scaling of course). That's the only reason I could see your MAP sensor kPa values being as high as they are compared to load% is just due to the scaler being missing.

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

These are the two relevant scaling values I am using.

Depending on how you have yours scaled, we may actually have similar values in our tables. Can you post up your scaling?

FWIW, I'm running 1:1 above 120kPa and I still have the RPM VE table peak at 108% to get my actual AFR to match the map AFR. The car runs pretty damn well now so I'm not that worried about the numbers. I turned on the closed loop control and my fuel trims are around -5%. I just revised my MAP VE table a good amount though and I think one more revision should have it pretty well nailed down. I had to add about 30% on the MAP VE below 80kPa to get it where it's at now and now it's saying 5% too rich so, comparatively, it's pretty close. STFT stay very tight too just gotta work that 5% out.

I passed pretty strict emissions testing today as well. All green on the OBD-II check...
Now that the car is registered, I'll be able to get a lot more tuning in.

golruss

iTrader: (3)

Thanks!! this worked for me also after reading it.

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

<scaling name="MAP 16bit" units="kPa" toexpr="x*0.4045" frexpr="x/0.4045" format="%.1f" min="0" max="450" inc="0.3333" storagetype="uint16" endian="big"/>


And...


<scaling name="MAP VE load" units="Load (%)" toexpr="x*(5/32*0.596)" frexpr="x/(5/32*0.596)" format="%.1f" min="0" max="600" inc="0.093125" storagetype="uint16" endian="big"/>


Those are the two I have, my values on both are slightly off from yours. IIRC that first one is the scaling from my old 94170015 SD patched v5.10 rom. At least you've managed to get things pretty well straightened out though, thumbs up to another guy running SD.

Just a note, I didn't push to get my afr maps to match my actual afr's. I never really look at the values as afr, but simply another scaling for injector milliseconds open.

Creamo3

iTrader: (48)

It works for me now as well, thanks

Is it possible to make the MapTracer window larger / stretch it out? Some of the columns get compressed and I'm unable to see the lower graphs RPM rows past 5000
Picture to show what I'm talking about:

Slo_crx1

iTrader: (9)

I have one more issue that seems to be bugging me lately, the initial throttle tip in when transitioning from decel fuel cut back into the throttle. I adjusted the Asynch_vs_TPSDelta table to tighten up the way the throttle responds and it's helped a lot when I'm already on the throttle, but not with that initial tip in. Unfortunately the coordinates X and the "units" tags don't really explain much as to what they actually effect. Would further adjustment of somewhere on this table eliminate the initial lean tip in? And what section (0-8) would have the most impact?

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Better descriptions of the asynch accel tables are in this thread:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...l-options.html

You'll have to replace the Evo 9 table addresses with the ones for your Evo 8.

GST Motorsports

iTrader: (8)

You guys might be interested in this MAF vs No MAF SD comparison I did today:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-w-no-maf.html

- Bryan

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Surprising that there was no power gain with SD. It seems like the MAF should be a pretty significant flow restriction at that power level.

SkyNight

"I think that there is a difference when you replace the stock compressor with a larger compressor. It's normal to find no power gain with stock turbo."

Edit...sorry, I do not read that the turbo is different.

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

Didn't JohnBradley do the same test and documented ~15HP gains by ditching the MAF on a mid 400HP car?

As for tuning on SD, has anybody else noticed the AFRs to be pretty inconsistent when running in open loop under cruise conditions?

3000 RPM, 70 kPa gave me 13.2:1 AFRs on the freeway on my way to work.
I get off the freeway, do a 2nd/3rd pull on a highway, and then drop back to the same 70kPa, 3000 RPM load condition and my AFRs are 14.2-14.4. A full point leaner for the exact same operating condition.

GST Motorsports

iTrader: (8)

I'm not sure, I will search for a thread by him. I'm wondering if it was at the same AFR and Boost (not just peak) all the way across?

One thing I noticed is that the SD needed slightly more WGDC at the low to midrange to match the MAF boost. I'm wondering if the MAF created a little more back (pre?) pressure pre-turbo than no MAF.

- Bryan

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Yep. Don't remember where the thread is located though.