New ATR is out Jan 25 2012 build: 1.9.1.0-3289

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Not necessarily higher or lower... just "close". The only two tables i make sure are set higher are the throttle close and fuel cut. Then i just kinda set the targets to something close.... and turn my attention to load tables. I have one guy currently who's WG is dropping on me... so i'm gonna take a close look at his tune tonight and see what i can come up with. I'm hoping there's something obvious (like boost based toggle empty, or throttle close table too low), but if not i'll let you know.

Prior to this update my boost tune had evolved to where my boost targets were actually being achieved from 3000-5500 and then I was targeting 1-2 PSI over what would actually be achieved above that trying to force things higher.

I had to limit the High limits on WGDC to ~7% and drop the WGDC from 3000-4500 from actual required to prevent overshoot and then I was lifting up the WGDC targets from 5500 + well above actual to try actually get close to what I wanted.

It just seemed like something was missing as it really shouldn't be this hard to have a PID loop actually achieve setpoints...

[superskaterxes]

jesus MBC has made me stupid lol

why does everyone like to run EBCS?

[Ziggo]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes jesus MBC has made me stupid lol why does everyone like to run EBCS?

For programmed boost creep fun!

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes jesus MBC has made me stupid lol why does everyone like to run EBCS?

MBC = it ain't broke

Me = Engineer

Since it ain't broke I have to fix it until it is...thus EBCS!





But seriously, my Mustang AEM EMS with ECBS and PI control on the boost works fucking awesome by gear (straight to target and holds to like 0.1 PSI solid). I would sooo like to be there on the Mazda...

I really don't see why this isn't easy for us too...

[rfinkle2]

actual release notes here:

MAZDASPEED AccessTUNER Updates

[Fobio]

I have been load tuning with the "boost toggle" checked since v200 and it has been great. From what I'm reading, nothing about this update changes that. With regards to the TRL tables, I run ~ +0.05 uprate from actual. I might have said this before but I guess since I'm not as active anymore, it not noticed...lol...

David, please elaborate on some logic/methodology on how we can use calculated values to adjust the VE table. Thanks.

[chintastic]

is the idle on the gen 2 able to raise with this update?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by chintastic is the idle on the gen 2 able to raise with this update?

Yes.

[chintastic]

thank u sir finkle

[08cosmic3]

What is being done to resolve the lose of ecu contact when logging, happens to me way too often. Hit the log button, get into WOT and the AP quits. This only started with the last update for me.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by 08cosmic3 What is being done to resolve the lose of ecu contact when logging, happens to me way too often. Hit the log button, get into WOT and the AP quits. This only started with the last update for me.

Maybe I just got lucky, but this didn't happen to me either on the way to or from work yesterday after the ATR update. It had been happening daily.

[YokiMazoku]

08cosmic3 this happened to me as well. So i made sure my AP and everyrthing was updated then loaded my map in ATR and saved it back to the AP then reflashed it seems to have fixed my problem. Went on a 30min driver logging on and off without a problem.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes jesus MBC has made me stupid lol why does everyone like to run EBCS?

Originally Posted by Ziggo For programmed boost creep fun!

if you have FWD you def want EBC or else all hopes of traction is but a pipe dream on street rubber.

I too employ a "reverse boost taper" in my maps.

[08cosmic3]

Originally Posted by YokiMazoku 08cosmic3 this happened to me as well. So i made sure my AP and everyrthing was updated then loaded my map in ATR and saved it back to the AP then reflashed it seems to have fixed my problem. Went on a 30min driver logging on and off without a problem.

I just updated to the new ATR, loaded and saved my map. I'll flash it to the car before going back out and see if this helps. Thanks.

[Lex]

A lot of people have the disconnection issue with the newer AP style and dongle connector. Mine is the old and low resolution model and I haven't had issues with disconnection - ever.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by Lex A lot of people have the disconnection issue with the newer AP style and dongle connector. Mine is the old and low resolution model and I haven't had issues with disconnection - ever.

Same here.

I'm sure I haven't done nearly as much logging as most guys, but I've never had a disconnection issue with my USB-dongle AP...

[Dano]

I don't think any of the V2a APs have the disco issue...only the V2b's....I have a V2a, log a TON, probably on flash v 12387463 to the ECU and never a disco issue.

BTW I am 99% certain there is no flash limit in our ECU

now watch me go out to flash later today and brick my ECU hahahahahahah


























*knocks on wood*

[cld12pk2go]

I am on map 269, so it is good up to that many at least.

[Ziggo]

I am still having a ton of trouble figuring out what the VE table is used for in fueling calculations for a MAF based car. I know you say it is normalizing the numbers but I don't get it. I understand it fully for speed-density but not in this application the SAE load calculation doesn't include a VE number.

Absolute Load Value (PID 43) The absolute load value has some different characteristics than the LOAD_PCT defined in PID 04 This definition, although restrictive, will standardise the calculation. LOAD_ABS is the normalised value of air mass per intake stroke displayed as a percent. LOAD_ABS = [air mass (g / intake stroke)] / [1.184 (g / intake stroke) * cylinder displacement in litres] Derivation: — air mass (g / intake stroke) = [total engine air mass (g/sec)] / [rpm (revs/min)* (1 min / 60 sec) * (1/2 # of cylinders (strokes / rev)], — LOAD_ABS = [air mass (g)/intake stroke] / [maximum air mass (g)/intake stroke at WOT@stp at 100% volumetric efficiency] * 100%. Where: — STP = Standard Temperature and Pressure = 25 °C, 29.92 in Hg (101.3 kPa) BARO, WOT = wide open throttle. The quantity (maximum air mass (g)/intake stroke at WOT@stp at 100% volumetric efficiency) is a constant for a given cylinder swept volume. The constant is 1.184 (g/litre 3) * cylinder displacement (litre 3/intake stroke) based on air density at STP. Characteristics of LOAD_ABS are: — Ranges from 0 to approximately 0.95 for naturally aspirated engines, 0 - 4 for boosted engines, — Linearly correlated with engine indicated and brake torque, — Often used to schedule spark and EGR rates, — Peak value of LOAD_ABS correlates with volumetric efficiency at WOT., — Indicates the pumping efficiency of the engine for diagnostic purposes. Spark ignition engine are required to support PID $43. Compression ignition (diesel) engines are not required to support this PID.

And after the load calculation is made, its not like you want to reduce the injected fuel by up to as much as 13% in some cases. The air the MAF measured coming in didn't just disappear, and the MAF accuracy isn't affected by the RPM or load the engine is operating at. Unless there is some switch that forces the ECU into a speed-density mode (scary) it almost seems like this would be some vestigial table from an earlier version of the ECU software, or some unused mode.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by Ziggo And after the load calculation is made, its not like you want to reduce the injected fuel by up to as much as 13% in some cases. The air the MAF measured coming in didn't just disappear, and the MAF accuracy isn't affected by the RPM or load the engine is operating at. Unless there is some switch that forces the ECU into a speed-density mode (scary) it almost seems like this would be some vestigial table from an earlier version of the ECU software, or some unused mode.

Form the other thread, it reads that we're to basically adjust VE according to STFT's. So if we normalize by adjusting the VE table, will it ultimately affect LTFT's?

Your logic makes sense to me tho, on the surface and as I understand it. I just want a straight answer that doesn't come from pulling teeth, one question at a time.

[rfinkle2]

Damn you your extensive vocabulary Ziggo. Googling vestigial now. LOL

[djuosnteisn]

I'd like to use the VE table to potentially fix those few cars that go lean post spool for a bit.

Seems like yet another method for afr tweaks, but it's nice, cause it's far more specific, considering it's a load vs rpm point.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn I'd like to use the VE table to potentially fix those few cars that go lean post spool for a bit. Seems like yet another method for afr tweaks, but it's nice, cause it's far more specific, considering it's a load vs rpm point.

Dustin, have you had the chance to compare any of your beta e85 scaled maps to any ots gasoline maps in terms of the VE table?

[Lex]

David mentioned that this release does not include the E85 scaling ... so he is probably not using the VE tables to achieve this.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Lex David mentioned that this release does not include the E85 scaling ... so he is probably not using the VE tables to achieve this.

He mentioned the different injector related functions he was using in the past, I was just interested to see if there was any other tweaks involved that we may be able to glean some info from.

[djuosnteisn]

I can take a look next time i'm on my tune computer. Couldn't hurt.

[cld12pk2go]

I am playing with the new tables in ATR and I have also cut back to 5 gal E85/tank (~E30 ish), which required pulling about 2% from my MAF curves.

I did this to try to get around the WGDC pull and throttle close up top. While it looks like it is still wanting to shut the fun down up there, I did squeeze some more out while trying to develop a nice reverse taper boost curve...




And the power is getting sick:




My next tune will call for another 0.5 PSI / 0.05 load at 6500 RPMs...

[phate]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn I'd like to use the VE table to potentially fix those few cars that go lean post spool for a bit. Seems like yet another method for afr tweaks, but it's nice, cause it's far more specific, considering it's a load vs rpm point.

I'm days late on posting, but that was the first thought that popped into my head when I heard VE tables I see it more so on the E85 cars than gas cars, and especially on the E85 cars with extensive bolt ons....where it might be enough to drastically change the VE of the engine.

I think @GLORIFIEDBOZO's car will be a good candidate for this, as he's checked his hardware for the 1,000th time since I told him it was too much and too weird of a maf correction to get the fueling right lol. If it works, we can start a thread about it or something.

[djuosnteisn]

Yup.


While i totally see the application and potential usefulness for the VE table..... i'm still not 100% convinced on reason for it's existence. The whole purpose of a MAF sensor is to account for airflow. If VE falls off for some reason or another (like higher rpms, or inefficient turbo, etc etc etc)... airflow drops, and the maf completely accounts for it.

Lex had a decent idea suggesting it may have been used to account for air lost during over lap..... but i think even that's a hell of a stretch, hahaha.


But i'm not going to complain. Hopefully it sets the stage for potentially better uses down the road... like speed density. I heard Cobb had a similar release on the gtr shortly before they started supporting SD on that platform. So who knows... maybe they're just starting to get their ducks in row.

[phate]

Totally agree there. Airflow should define fueling, which is metered by the MAF sensor. But if it works, I'm not going to complain too much. I'll do some testing with it in the next few days before I implement it on anyone else's car, just in case it does unexpected things.

[Ziggo]

I like the idea of it accounting for overlap, but it's completely ass backwards if that is the case, and completely dependent on the stock VVT table. It could be a divisor instead of multiplier I suppose.


Zigatapatalka

[phate]

We shall see. It's an exciting table, nonetheless

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by David@COBB That table is what has been plaguing some of you on the Load tuning side. When the WG Duty Throttle Close Baro Threshold is reached, it branches from using WG Duty Load Dynamics to using this WG Duty Baro Error Comp. Notice as well that all the values are negative, as the ECU suspects that it needs to pull WGDC. There are two ways to combat this. First of all you could do it the easy way and make it all 0's. At that point, it wouldn't pull WGDC at all when going over there. The more CORRECT way of doing it is to use the WG Duty Throttle Close Baro Threshold values to raise the threshold of when it changes logic branches on you. You could raise threshold of Load/RPM area to see if helps. -David@COBB

I had an issue while load targeting a while back where my datalogs showed that my ECU failed to get anywhere near targeted load values - it would meet targets for the first few seconds of a pull, but then at some point, it starts to deviate by over .06, with the gap widening as the pull continues.

i.e. at 5K RPM, my load target for 4th gear was 2.24, but the car was only hitting 2.06. Logs showed no throttle closure, and the throttle close, fuel cut, etc. limiter tables were all set high enough to prevent this from happening, yet it still happened.

I'm curious if this new table is the key.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I had an issue while load targeting a while back where my datalogs showed that my ECU failed to get anywhere near targeted load values - it would meet targets for the first few seconds of a pull, but then at some point, it starts to deviate by over .06, with the gap widening as the pull continues. i.e. at 5K RPM, my load target for 4th gear was 2.24, but the car was only hitting 2.06. Logs showed no throttle closure, and the throttle close, fuel cut, etc. limiter tables were all set high enough to prevent this from happening, yet it still happened. I'm curious if this new table is the key.

Make sure your "use boost based" toggle is enabled (checked), and all your load tables are set up accordingly. Then set your "max boost throttle close" table to like 24 or something for good merit. Should fix your issue.

[atvfreek]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I had an issue while load targeting a while back where my datalogs showed that my ECU failed to get anywhere near targeted load values - it would meet targets for the first few seconds of a pull, but then at some point, it starts to deviate by over .06, with the gap widening as the pull continues. i.e. at 5K RPM, my load target for 4th gear was 2.24, but the car was only hitting 2.06. Logs showed no throttle closure, and the throttle close, fuel cut, etc. limiter tables were all set high enough to prevent this from happening, yet it still happened. I'm curious if this new table is the key.

2.24 sounds like an unachievable load at 5k on stock turbo. Every stock turbo car Ive played with are at 2ish for load. Was your wgdc maxed or close to maxed (above 80%)?

Tappin

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by atvfreek 2.24 sounds like an unachievable load at 5k on stock turbo. Every stock turbo car Ive played with are at 2ish for load. Was your wgdc maxed or close to maxed (above 80%)? Tappin

Agreed fully. But... The load target greatly depends on the maf cal. If his maf cal is just wildly off, and he's compensating by targeting overly lean afrs... may still be feasible.


But yeah, f-cast.... make sure your load targets are even feasible first, haha.

[phate]

OK, so I just set up two different variations of the VE table that I'll be testing on the way home. My car has been neglected lately, so I'm excited to see how this affects things.

[djuosnteisn]

What did you vary? And what effect are you hoping for?

If the table was MAP referenced, instead of load (maf), we could honestly start playing around with the possibility of SD, haha.

/in before someone wires in a MAP and temperature sensor into the MAF connector.

[phate]

I increased the VE table values in hopes that I will see more fueling...negative stft's and hopefully richer at wot. Its a small increase, so hopefully the car doesn't freak out. I'm burning 93 and its been dead consistent for the past few weeks. I'll get logs and post everything later.

[djuosnteisn]

So you want to see negative STFTs? Or are they fairly positive, and you wanna bring them back down?


It'll be a great test to see how the table behaves Make a new thread maybe.