Tables COBB has changed

[evidence]

Just wanted to document what COBB has changed over the stock map. Save these as your favorites Here is a list followed by a few discussion points:

Boost Tables:
Boost Comp - 1st-2nd Gear A
Boost Comp - 3rd Gear A
Boost Comp - 4th Gear A
Boost Comp - Baro
Boost Limits - Fuel Cut
Boost Limits - Throttle Close
Boost Targets
WG Duty - Baro Comp
WG Duty - Battery Comp
WG Duty Cycles

Fuel Tables:
Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ (No Knock)

Ignition Tables:
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)

Load Tables:
Abs Load Limits - Fuel Cut
Throttle - Req. Load - 1st Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 2nd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 3rd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 4th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 5th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 6th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - Max A
Throttle - Requested Load : Baro v. RPM
Throttle - Requested Load A
Throttle - Requested Load C

Sensor Cal. Tables:
MAF Table A - Some maps such as Stage2+SR 91/93 have stock values.
MAF Table B - Some maps such as Stage2+SR 91/93 have stock values.

Throttle Tables:
DBW Throttle A

VVT Tables:
VVT Intake Cam Adv. - Only changes here are 6k+ RPM.

First it seems they do not up boost as much in 5th or 6th gear.. Boost Targets is higher, but they did not change the Boost Comp % for 5th/6th. Not a big deal since these aren't power gears anyway.. but interesting.

Then they changed Throttle Requested Load A and C, but not B. Anyone know what these A/B/C are for? No knock, knocking, no knocking AC?

They changed DBW Throttle A, but not B or C, so same question I guess.

One last a probably the most interesting is they did not tune MAF Tables A/B in stage 2+SR maps. Talking with Christian this was just simply because there wasn't enough data. Make sure you tune your MAF straight away when using these are your base!

EDIT: Here are also the tables that differ from the 91 vs 93 oct maps I looked at, not many suprises. These would probably be a good place to start if you wanted to try and tune for higher oct/race gas:

Boost Targets
Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ (Knocking)
Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ (No Knock)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)
Throttle - Req. Load - 3rd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 4th Gear (Norm BAT)


SECOND EDIT: Here are the tables that differ from the Stage1+SF and Stage2+SF 91 oct maps. Really it seems only boost and a bit richer WOT AFR (.3) is updated in stage2, the rest is most likely just differences in the beta cars that designed each map:

Boost Comp: 1st-2nd Gear A
Boost Limits - Fuel Cut
Boost Limits - Throttle Close
Boost Targets
Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ (Knocking)
Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ (No Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knocking)
Throttle - Req. Loader - 1st-6th (Norm BAT)

[dread]

nice work man, this helps a lot

[jahman]

Lots of weird stuff. I could SWEAR that the power on the AP maps in 5th and 6th gear is MUCH different than stock, but they didnt touch 5th and 6th power?

Going up a slight incline in 5th or 6th with the stock map results in boost (and the engine seems to be working harder which in turn makes me uncomfortable), whereas on the S1+sf 103q beta map i run, it rarely boosts and feels strong. Perhaps its getting power elsewhere, maybe timing?

This is quite confusing since power is coming from so many possible locations.

[evidence]

Originally Posted by jahman Lots of weird stuff. I could SWEAR that the power on the AP maps in 5th and 6th gear is MUCH different than stock, but they didnt touch 5th and 6th power? Going up a slight incline in 5th or 6th with the stock map results in boost (and the engine seems to be working harder which in turn makes me uncomfortable), whereas on the S1+sf 103q beta map i run, it rarely boosts and feels strong. Perhaps its getting power elsewhere, maybe timing? This is quite confusing since power is coming from so many possible locations.

Boost Targets was upped, so power in 5th in 6th changed since the tables that didnt change are a % of that target. 3/4 gear are 100% of the target (more than stock), and 5/6th are 85-95% of that target (same as stock)

[timv]

Originally Posted by evidence One last a probably the most interesting is they modified MAF Table A/B in stage 1+sr maps, but all the stage 2+sr maps have stock values? Quite odd.. Many other maps do have these changed so it may have been an oversight in both oct for Stage2+SR

The map I run Stage2+SF 91 v103 FMIC has these adjusted......
Interesting.

[evidence]

Threw up a thread with a link in the atr user maps section:

Stage2+SF 93 correct MAF Tables

[evidence]

Added the changes i found in 91 vs 93 to the OP

[timv]

Originally Posted by evidence The stage2+sr 91oct maps actually have higher req load in both 3rd and 4th over the 93oct maps.. the 91oct map had kr for me on 91oct gas, but the 93oct map with some 91 + octanium booster runs golden with no problems, so I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Need to run 91 with the same booster to give it an extra point or two, maybe the 91 is just too hot or the Shell gas I'm getting is shitty.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm having some knock on Stage 2+ SR FMIC official map and compared the req load 3rd and 4th to the last beta version L of the map, and the official is higher, and is higher than the 93 oct version also in a few spots, like you said.

I'm changing my tables to match the beta L map to see if that reduces my knock.

[bast525]

not sure there's anyone left out there with an MSCAI, but the stage 1 + MSCAI v103 map also does not have the MAF tables changed from stock. This resulted in me having very high LTFT's (+7 to +10%).

Also, another thing I noticed about the Throttle Req. Load tables. Cobb only modified them from 3000 rpm on up. I looked at several different maps ranging from stock to Stage 2++ and the cells below 3000 rpm are all the same on these tables. So I would assume it is a good idea to leave these alone if you are making adjustments here.

At any rate, I did find that if you play with the MAF tables, it directly affects boost, probably timing and fuel as well though boost was all I directly observed. Of course it also changes your LTFT's. To break it down, this is what I saw when adjusting the MAF on my car:

Stage 1 + MSCAI2 91 octane 103 OTS map
My car has MSCAI with airflow straightener, runs 93 oct fuel, AP is only other mod
LTFT's at idle are +/- 1%, all other values are +7 to +10%
Adjusted MAF tables by increasing entire curve by +5%, except idle area
LTFT's now sit from +1 to +4%
Boost dropped 1 to 1.5 psi
Increase Throttle Req. Load from 3000-6000 rpm by 5% in all gears
Boost is back to where it was
Car runs great

[dread]

good info, although I added 5% to my MAF table and my boost is identacle to the preadjustment numbers, so this may not be the same for everyone.

[bast525]

okay and I need to correct one other thing, a stage 2 map that I looked at did have different throttle req load values from stock in the 2500 rpm cells as well, initially every map I'd looked at was only changed from 3000 up.

Interesting that changing maf values 5% had no effect on your boost.... Is your WGDC maxed out? If you see 100% WGDC during a portion of a WOT pull, this means you cant make any more boost. My WGDC maxes out at about 18 psi. On some of the beta maps I ran, wgdc would sit at 100% from 3500 or 4000 rpm on up, but boost would slowly drop off. Turbo was maxed out at that point. Maybe you are maxed out and lowering the MAF didnt bring you below that point yet?

[dread]

My wastegate is usually in the 50's, although on the ms cai maps it used to be in the 90's. I guess it takes a lot more to make boost with the ms cai than the cobb sri.

[Hund]

Silly question but......are you guys calibrating your MAF table or just running with the stock Cobb values?

[dread]

I calibrated mine

[badams118]

I decided to look through the changes made at various stages. Here are the tables effected. Clearly, the ones that include changes to the boost targets table include load changes associated with boost.


STAGE 1 -> STAGE 1+SF
=====================

Ignition Tables:
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)

Load Tables:
Throttle - Req. Load - 2nd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 3rd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 4th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 5th Gear (Norm BAT)

Sensor Cal. Tables:
MAF Table A
MAF Table B


STAGE 1+SF -> STAGE 2+SF
========================

Boost Tables:
Boost Comp - 1st-2nd Gear A
Boost Limits - Fuel Cut
Boost Limits - Throttle Close
Boost Targets

Fuel Tables:
Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ (No Knock)

Ignition Tables:
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)

Load Tables:
Abs Load Limits - Fuel Cut
Throttle - Req. Load - 1st Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 2nd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 3rd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 4th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 5th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 6th Gear (Norm BAT)

Sensor Cal. Tables:
MAF Table A
MAF Table B


STAGE 2+SF -> STAGE 2+SF FMIC
=============================

Boost Tables:
Boost Limits - Fuel Cut
Boost Limits - Throttle Close
Boost Targets

Ignition Tables:
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)

Load Tables:
Throttle - Req. Load - 3rd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 4th Gear (Norm BAT)

Sensor Cal. Tables:
MAF Table A
MAF Table B

[tunersteve]

I was interested in trying to tweak a Stage 2+ MSCAI 93 map for the Fed. MS6, so this is a good place to start. I'll dive in comparing tables later this week and see what I can come up with. Good start for the ATR man!

[badams118]

Since the boost targets did not change between these maps, here is what I am gathering from the changes that were made.

STAGE 1 -> STAGE 1+SF
=====================

Ignition Tables: (It looks like these tables were made slightly more aggressive between 3500-5500 rpm. I am not sure this is required with an equipment change, rather than Christian trying to push ignition to get a bit more power)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (Knocking)
Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)

Load Tables: (1st & 6th load tables not changed. 2-5 were mostly raised going from stage 1 to stage 1+SF. I assume this is equipment related to hit the same boost targets. These values were mostly lowered for 1-5 going from stage 1 to stage 2 (adding TBE) even though the boost target is higher for stage 2. This would make sense due to the DP's effect on the turbo)
Throttle - Req. Load - 2nd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 3rd Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 4th Gear (Norm BAT)
Throttle - Req. Load - 5th Gear (Norm BAT)

Sensor Cal. Tables: (Definitely equipment related. These tables always change with equipment changes & seem to be the most important when adding hard parts)
MAF Table A
MAF Table B

[bast525]

shouldn't the MAF cal only change with intake changes?

I can not for the life of me think of one reason that say, a more free flowing exhaust, would change the MAF calibration. Yes you are flowing more air, but if the MAF was calibrated correctly and matched to the intake you were running, it should be able to easily see and adjust for the flow change from the exhaust.

Maybe I'm stupid, could someone enlighten me?

[Haltech]

MAF scaling is used mostly for 2 purposes:

fine tuning your intake setup...
adding a larger maf to the car...

[bast525]

Originally Posted by Haltech MAF scaling is used mostly for 2 purposes: fine tuning your intake setup... adding a larger maf to the car...

That's what I figured. Yet on the Cobb maps, I see changes to the MAF cal tables even between 91 and 93 oct versions of the same map. That doesn't seem like the correct way to tune....

[dread]

yep I bet that is it, different beta testers.

[badams118]

Just off hand, I have seen MAF values vary by as much as 5% on different maps with the same intake. That seems like a bit much assuming that they should all be the same, ideally.

[dread]

my ltft's vary 3% with temperature changes. Once you add in the other million variable that affect ltft's you can get significant variations.

[badams118]

I'm talking about values in the actual map table.

[evidence]

Originally Posted by badams118 I'm talking about values in the actual map table.

But if the MAF/LTFT logging was done at a different altitude and at a different temp the values will need to be different to have that car closer to 0%. Christian had a unique tester for each map even 91 vs 93, so the values were tuned for that car in that environment.

[badams118]

I understand how it happened; 5% just seems like a lot. Let me find an example...

Ok, Stage 2+SF 91 v103 MAF maxes at 346.05. Stage 2+SF 91 v103 FMIC MAF maxes at 326.57. The relative change should be consistent across the MAF curve. That is more than a 5% variance. The only difference in these maps is the FMIC.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by badams118 The only difference in these maps is the FMIC.

The only difference in the map titles is the FMIC.

The beta testers for those 2 maps could have had: different brands of FMIC with different flowing cores, different BPV's, maybe different filters on their intakes(dry/wet), maybe one had a dirty filter one had a clean, maybe one guy said he had a cobb sri (so he could test) but actually had a Nano............ I could go on and on.

In other words there is more to the map than the map title and map notes.
The map notes for all maps say they are designed for the stock BPV...... I guarantee you most beta testers were not running the stock BPV.

[badams118]

But, of course, only the intake is supposed to make a difference. Christian made different maps for different intakes. So, unless the beta tester was lying to him, the FMIC, BOV or size of the driver's shoes shouldn't matter.

Did you read the thread, or just reply to my post?

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by badams118 But, of course, only the intake is supposed to make a difference. Christian made different maps for different intakes. So, unless the beta tester was lying to him, the FMIC, BOV or size of the driver's shoes shouldn't matter. Did you read the thread, or just reply to my post?

I have read everything in this section.

Are you telling me that the FMIC and BOV are not part of the intake system, and have no effect on MAF????
If so, I strongly disagree.

[badams118]

Don't be obtuse. The intake is the intake, not the FMIC or BOV.

Maybe they all have an effect on the MAF, and maybe they don't. That is what we are trying to determine.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by badams118 Don't be obtuse. The intake is the intake, not the FMIC or BOV. Maybe they all have an effect on the MAF, and maybe they don't. That is what we are trying to determine.

If by obtuse, you mean direct, I am.

The intake has at one end the intake valve, and usually has a filter at the opposite end. In between the two are: manifold, BPV, piping/ducting, intercooler, turbo compressor and housing, MAF sensor and housing, air straightener etc.,

All the parts of the intake (not just the area you are referring to as intake) can and will affect the MAF and therefore maps will have different MAF tables depending on what help or hindrance the air encounters, along its route to the combustion chamber.
Different mods, different MAF.
Different beta testers, different map.
Hope I have been less obtuse and more clear.
Though probably not.....
I am a 2 finger typist, and therefore try to be conservative with words, which leads people to take what I say the wrong way sometimes. I come across as blunt, short, obtuse, whatever expression you care to use....... some would say asshole.
No offense is meant, I am just trying to explain that not just the SRI or whatever "intake" is installed has an effect on MAF. It is the whole pipe from filter to combustion chamber.

[badams118]

Well, you define intake differently than I & pretty much everyone else I have read has, but whatever.

The point is that the different MAF calibrations can have one of at least two different causes (or both):

1) Intakes, intercoolers, BOVs & even exhausts require different MAF calibrations.

2) The different MAF calibrations for different equipment other than the intake is due to different beta tester's (with identical mods) nuances including the car, elevation, weather, etc.

Yes, I included exhaust in #1 because the MAF calibrations differ between maps with the only difference being stage 1 vs stage 2.

[dread]

I agree since I calibrated my maf my a/f ratios are dead on balls accurate. Before I was .5-1 point to lean and that was on a map christian made for me.

[tunersteve]

Looks like calibrating the MAF will be the first thing on my list of things to learn and accomplish.

[bast525]

Originally Posted by tunersteve Looks like calibrating the MAF will be the first thing on my list of things to learn and accomplish.

It is not as easy as I was hoping. In theory it is... you have some miles on a given map and you can do a datalog showing how that map is being corrected by the ECU, then change your MAF tables based on those percentages. Easy right?

But then, I do four different datalogs, and see totally different STFT's being applied at the same measured airflow points.

Example: Log 1, at 8.xx g/s measured airflow, my LTFT is -1 (rounding off, on the graph it's .9x or whatever), and the STFT is ~1% as well. So, pretty close, and I'm not worried about adjusting it.

But then on log 2, doing the test as consistent with the first logged test as possible, and now at 8.xx g/s measured airflow, LTFT is still -1, but STFT is +8%!!

Also, like Dread said, temps DEFINATELY effect trims. Yesterday it was around 90F outside, and though my LTFT's were all around 1%, my STFT's at certain loads was over +10%... now tonight out doing some logs, and it's like 60F, and though LTFT's haven't changed, my LTFT's are all around 1-3%.

So.... easy in theory, not in practice.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by bast525 It is not as easy as I was hoping. In theory it is... you have some miles on a given map and you can do a datalog showing how that map is being corrected by the ECU, then change your MAF tables based on those percentages. Easy right? But then, I do four different datalogs, and see totally different STFT's being applied at the same measured airflow points. Example: Log 1, at 8.xx g/s measured airflow, my LTFT is -1 (rounding off, on the graph it's .9x or whatever), and the STFT is ~1% as well. So, pretty close, and I'm not worried about adjusting it. But then on log 2, doing the test as consistent with the first logged test as possible, and now at 8.xx g/s measured airflow, LTFT is still -1, but STFT is +8%!! Also, like Dread said, temps DEFINATELY effect trims. Yesterday it was around 90F outside, and though my LTFT's were all around 1%, my STFT's at certain loads was over +10%... now tonight out doing some logs, and it's like 60F, and though LTFT's haven't changed, my LTFT's are all around 1-3%. So.... easy in theory, not in practice.

Once you have run the map for a while, forget the STFT's
Once the map is settled, the STFT's are close to useless.

[dread]

you need to accelerate very slowly to get consistent stft reading

[dread]

you do need to consider stft's, when you make the adjustments, especially if the map that you are using hasn't completely settled.

[dread]

Is the info the same for the ms3. I am not saying you should tune before the ecu has adjusted, but you still shouldn't ignore STFT's. Besides the ecu is always adapting. I have my fuel trims within 2 of zero and I did this by adding my stft's to my ltft's.

[bast525]

I think you are both right.

Anyways, I was following the MAF cal procedure from the ATR tuning guide very closely. I did accelerate VERY slowly, as any sudden tip of the throttle of course causes the STFT to shoot up briefly for accel enrichment.

I do think that STFT's come more into play when the ECU hasn't completely learned yet, but a the same time, if your MAF tables are off in different areas, the LTFT can just be a compromise, and STFT's can tell you what's going on more accurately. Let's say between 30 and 50 g/s airflow, at 30 it might have to pull -5% fuel, but then by 50 g/s it might be adding +5%. Now the LTFT for that whole range might settle at 0% as a compromise, and you might think that it's perfect. But really you would do better to adjust the 30 g/s area down by 5% and then taper that up to +5% in the 50 g/s area.

So... it is important to look at STFT's if you really want to get your MAF cals as close as possible, but just tuning to get the LTFT's close would probably be fine for a lot of people and would run great. Ideally I would like to see LTFT's AND STFT's stay at 0% as much as possible, I know it won't ALWAYS be like that, but I think you could get it to where it spends most of it's time there.

EDIT: and I do think the flashing or not flashing CEL applies to the MS3 as well. I've noticed that while I've been doing flashing fairly frequently lately, it does do the 'flash eight times' thing, but when I've left the car on one flash for a while the CEL never flashes. But at the same time, I have seen LTFT's fluctuate even after 100's of miles on a given flash, I don't think they ever stop adjusting.