Gen 2 Cobb ATR discussion

[Dano]

simple math right...remove as many variables as possible.

We are slowly learning how the ECU logic works but far from total understanding. Until then, the more variables you can remove from its logic the easier it is to understand it and manipulate it.

I personally successfully load tuned before the new tables were uncovered and suspect it can be done. As realgib said in the other thread, I bet neutering all the boost based comp tables will make it that much easier to load tune.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 hum...there really should be no need to adjust the LD table values unless you change turbo or boost controller. are you not reaching your load targets in 4th? is your logged WGDC at or above the table values? I would negate the IAT comp table [make sure 1.00 is entered for the 68-104-and 140 cells] until you get your tune finialized...hell I keep mine neutered.

Correct, I'm not hitting4th gear targets consistently. Over the last week, I've done a handful of 4th gear logs, and only one of them reported me reaching load targets. The next 4th gear run immediately after that undershot load targets by ~.10 across the RPM range. All the 4th gear runs I've logged lately are hitting 20% lower WGDC then I was targeting.

I do hit my 3rd gear load targets every time, and WGDC reads consistently higher than my 4th gear runs. my 3rd gear WGDC usually reads 60-70%, while my 4th gear has been reading 40-50%.

This only started happening recently, too. I've never had problems hitting 4th gear targets before. Could it be a glitch in the new AP firmware and/or ATR beta?

Originally Posted by phate I've neutralized all comp tables except for boost error and ramp limiters. Should give you a very good idea of what WGDC you should be commanding in your main table. Then allow the boost error compensation do the rest when the weather changes.

Both boost and load error WG comp tables remain active, and I've adjusted the ever so slightly for a more aggressive correction for underboost, and toning down correction for mild overboost. Do we know at what point the car will target boost vs. load? The helpfile suggests the ECU switches between load and boost target logic as it sees fit.

[Dano]

hum...I know you said it only started happening lately but what does your 4th gear boost comp A table look like? All 1.00 right. And your BATs are not going above the high bat flag?

in OE trim that would almost never happen but some guys will lower that flag from the 150* setting, so if you are hitting it then you would run the High Bat TRL table. long shot but I'm just throwing stuff up there to see what sticks.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 hum...I know you said it only started happening lately but what does your 4th gear boost comp A table look like? All 1.00 right. And your BATs are not going above the high bat flag? in OE trim that would almost never happen but some guys will lower that flag from the 150* setting, so if you are hitting it then you would run the High Bat TRL table. long shot but I'm just throwing stuff up there to see what sticks.

Correct, my 4th gear Boost Comp A table is all 1.00. And BATs are FAR below the flag trigger limit, ~110F ish during the runs where it wouldn't hit 4th gear load targets.

I changed out the plugs for ITV22s recently too, so maybe one of the boost tubes are loose or something, though I don't see why that would be causing the ECU to undershoot load targets in 4th gear but not 3rd.

[f-castrillo]

Has anybody attempted to eek out better fuel economy by going leaner than 14.8 AFR at cruise loads? I know I asked this way back when I first started using ATR, but now that I have a much better understanding of the tables, terminology, and ECU logic, I want to explore the idea again.

Right now, I have my CL Commanded AFRs set to 11.6 from 1.25 load and up (1.25 is also where I enter OL), and then vertically interpolated to the stock 14.8:1 at lower loads. I can't help but wonder if we could safely run 15.x:1 at the bottom spectrum of the load axis.

[bewsted]

UPDATE!

Dynod today. I will post the graph later.

288whp 340 lb/ft. 13.5 degrees = MBT with 6 gallons for me as dustin confirmed.

It was a hot motherfucker today so who knows what the numbers would have been with cooler weather but for now I'm happy with the way the car is running.

[phate]

Originally Posted by bewsted UPDATE! Dynod today. I will post the graph later. 288whp 340 lb/ft. 13.5 degrees = MBT with 6 gallons for me as dustin confirmed. It was a hot motherfucker today so who knows what the numbers would have been with cooler weather but for now I'm happy with the way the car is running.

If you don't mind, post your fueling and timing curves along with the dyno graph. Could you explain how you tested, as well?

[Bucker]

340 is pretty bad ass man, must pull like a mofo

[bewsted]

It pulls. Check out the data point on the line. Again I didn't dyno tune I just more or less wanted to see what the e85 was doing for me.

5 whp 20 lb/ft with 5-6 gallons over my last dyno same mods. I'm sure there is more to squeeze out.


Oh btw check out my AFRS....DEAD on targetted.

[phate]

Originally Posted by bewsted 13.5 degrees = MBT with 6 gallons for me

Originally Posted by bewsted It pulls. Check out the data point on the line. Again I didn't dyno tune I just more or less wanted to see what the e85 was doing for me. 5 whp 20 lb/ft with 5-6 gallons over my last dyno same mods. I'm sure there is more to squeeze out. Oh btw check out my AFRS....DEAD on targetted.

Without quantifying gains from spark advance on the dyno, how did you determine you were at MBT? I'm not saying you're timing isn't optimized, I just want to be sure we're getting the info we need here.

[JS + MS3]

It was nice outside so did couple datalogs with a cooler tune.. Car feels pretty good.. Nataphen has been helping me tuning my car for couple months now. I've been getting some consistent KR when the ambient goes above 80, so we decided to have two tunes for my car. Safe for hot temp and Power for cooler temp.. But I've been running power tune for everyday, I just gotta drive slowly during the day.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by JS + MS3 It was nice outside so did couple datalogs with a cooler tune.. Car feels pretty good.. Nataphen has been helping me tuning my car for couple months now. I've been getting some consistent KR when the ambient goes above 80, so we decided to have two tunes for my car. Safe for hot temp and Power for cooler temp.. But I've been running power tune for everyday, I just gotta drive slowly during the day.

What are the changes between your two maps? Just timing?

[bewsted]

Originally Posted by phate Without quantifying gains from spark advance on the dyno, how did you determine you were at MBT? I'm not saying you're timing isn't optimized, I just want to be sure we're getting the info we need here.

Right....I will try to get on a dyno again soon and do some comparisons between 11,12,13.5 degrees to show the gains.

More or less we looked at the curve and the point in which the drop out occurred is where it would be transitioning to the next target which i had set to 15 from 13.5.

And as you can see the power didn't slowly fall off it dropped roughly 10 whp in a couple hundred RPMS.


OH i do have logs from the pulls...I will post soon.

[bewsted]

So the logs are here as follows.

I apparently need to work on my MAF cal a bit yet.

On a cooler day I usually see 300 maf g/s pretty regularly.

Like i said I would have spent more time on the dyno but this wasn't about me it was about the other guys getting their cars tuned.

First log was the 288 whp 331 lb/tq
Second log was the 283 whp 340 lb/tq

[Monotonous ONE]

holy fuck Boo


your essentially making bad fucking ass power from 3300rpm or so all the way to redline...theres a SICK amount of area under those curves. It looks like it pulls like a fucking freight train.

find that motherfucker gen1 that you raced in that 1 vid and race him again so we can truly see the improvements.

i swear that graph looks awesome as shit

[bewsted]

Umm i did race him.....the videos are out there...Somewhere.,..Or will be.

There are improvements to be made there is no doubt about it. I really was just interested in where my testing and tuning had gotten me off the e85 alone.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo Correct, my 4th gear Boost Comp A table is all 1.00. And BATs are FAR below the flag trigger limit, ~110F ish during the runs where it wouldn't hit 4th gear load targets. I changed out the plugs for ITV22s recently too, so maybe one of the boost tubes are loose or something, though I don't see why that would be causing the ECU to undershoot load targets in 4th gear but not 3rd.

a leak would drive WGDC up and I believe you indicated you were lower in 4th than 3rd so I doubt that's it.

so your logged WGDC in 4th is lower than the raw table value?

or is it lower than what the table value + comp table values would allow.

Trying to determine if a comp table isn't being triggered.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 a leak would drive WGDC up and I believe you indicated you were lower in 4th than 3rd so I doubt that's it. so your logged WGDC in 4th is lower than the raw table value? or is it lower than what the table value + comp table values would allow. Trying to determine if a comp table isn't being triggered.

My commanded WGDC values were based on ~60F weather, so my midday runs at 80F temps are logging higher than commanded. Still, the ECU is achieving 3rd gear targets at 80-90% WGDC, and 4th gear is still missing targets by 0.10, WGDC consistently ~20% lower at 70-80%.

I can't help but wonder if the latest AP and ATR beta updates may have partially broken the TRL 4th gear table. There are a number of oddities with the latest betas, I'm sure you've seen reported around here, like CEL P2610 (engine off timer malfunction) suddenly happening after flashing a map with the beta firmware. The WG Duty Boost Error Comp table is scaled from 0.00 to 1.00, while the WG Duty Load Error Comp table goes from 0-100%.

It's either a glitch in the latest ATR and/or AP firmware, or I need to further alter the load dynamics and the boost/load error WG comp tables to make underboost comp even more aggressive, and overboost comp slightly less aggressive.

[bewsted]

Dunno if you read the post over on cobbforums about all the changes but you might if not.

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by bewsted It pulls. Check out the data point on the line. Again I didn't dyno tune I just more or less wanted to see what the e85 was doing for me. 5 whp 20 lb/ft with 5-6 gallons over my last dyno same mods. I'm sure there is more to squeeze out. Oh btw check out my AFRS....DEAD on targetted.

No smoothing: 5 no care.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by bewsted Dunno if you read the post over on cobbforums about all the changes but you might if not.

I'm aware of the changes made by the latest beta updates, but it just strikes me as strange that the WG Boost Error Comp table is scaled differently than the WG Load Error Comp table.

Also, I noticed the MS6 received a minor revision from the latest beta ATR and AP that we're using. The changelog: fixes a bug where the DBW Throttle A-C tables were broken. So it's not too far fetched of an idea that the TRL 4th gear table may be broken in this release, as well.

Release Notes - AccessTUNER - MAZDASPEED

[bewsted]

Yea I would imagine they might have some bugs to work out with these new tables....

[f-castrillo]

I may try reverting back to the latest official AP and ATR versions and do a datalog of 3rd and 4th gear tonight, see if anything changes.

I really don't want to lose access to the WG Load/Boost error comp tables though

[f-castrillo]

So I rolled back to the latest official AP firmware and ATR software, saved my latest map under the older ATR, datalogged, and found that my 4th gear load targets are still not being met. I am going back up to the beta AP and ATR software, since that test failed.

Digging deeper, I went back to some of my older datalogs, and it appears that I've always had trouble hitting my 4th gear load targets. I pulled up a datalog from an old boost-targeting map, and calc. load matches that of my more recent 4th gear logs, +/- .03.

The depressing part is that this older map is pre-SRI/TIP install. So my 4th gear targeting has been flawed for over a month now

The TRL 4th gear table seems to behave differently than the 3rd gear table, at least for my car. I looked at a log from last week where I was targeting 2.4 load from 3k to redline, and the datalogs reported hitting 2.27 load, and WGDC maxxing out @ ~5500RPM due to the ECU still trying to achieve 2.4; by this time, actual calc. load has dropped considerably, which I expected from our little K04. I then adjusted the TRL 4th gear table to match those datalogged loads, and after subsequent logging, I found the car was not meeting the new targeted loads, rather, it was lower by .07-.10, despite hitting those same numbers previously when I had targeted much higher loads.

I'm going to try a new strategy by raising my TRL 4th gear table by 0.10, since my ECU does not appear to want to compensate for low load conditions. I'm also going to up the TRL 3rd gear table a little, since I was lowering load targets while simultaneously pulling timing in an effort to quell knock. Since I have my ignition tables where I want it, I'm going to try and up the load a little bit.

[rfinkle2]

I can tell you without a doubt that my wgdc boost error comp table is inactive. (@ this point, after trying to increase the ramp limit tables)

I don't think that the ramp limit tables act exactly as we / I thought. i.e. see this thread where I've done some experimentation with pretty high value in the ramp tables, and no affect on wgdc.

tl, dr, = input wgdc values 40... logged wgdc = 40 equals negated wgdc boost error comp table with aggressive ramp limit tables.

http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...tml#post940341

[rfinkle2]

After looking @ the math on Cobb's site, I believe there may be an error in their documentation:

from their site:
Boost Error = Actual Boost - Requested Boost Target;
Boost Error Compensation = (2D Lookup table of Error vs. Compensation);

Load Error = (Actual Load - Requested Load Target);
Load Error Compensation = (2D Lookup table of Error vs. Compensation);

If (WG Boost Error Limiter (Past calculation) < -10%) then (WG Boost Error Limter = 0);
elseWG Boost Error Limiter = (Boost Error Compensation + Previous WG Boost Error Limiter);
if (WG Boost Error Limiter > 10%)
(WG Boost Error Limiter = 0); I believe that this should read= (WG Boost Error Limiter = 10)

else if (WG Boost Error Limiter < -100%)
(WG Boost Error Limiter = -100%);

Load Error Limiter/Final = (Load Error Compensation + WG Boost Error Limiter)
if (Load Error Limiter/Final > 20%)
(Load Error Limiter/Final = 20%);
else if (Load Error Limiter/Final < -100%)
(Load Error Limiter/Final = -100%);

Final WG Duty = (Wastegate IAT Compensation * WG Duty)
Final WG Duty = (Final WG Duty + Battery Compensation)
Final WG Duty = (Final WG Duty + Load error Limiter/Final)

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 After looking @ the math on Cobb's site, I believe there may be an error in their documentation: from their site: Boost Error = Actual Boost – Requested Boost Target; Boost Error Compensation = (2D Lookup table of Error vs. Compensation); Load Error = (Actual Load – Requested Load Target); Load Error Compensation = (2D Lookup table of Error vs. Compensation); If (WG Boost Error Limiter (Past calculation) < -10%) then (WG Boost Error Limter = 0); elseWG Boost Error Limiter = (Boost Error Compensation + Previous WG Boost Error Limiter); if (WG Boost Error Limiter > 10%) (WG Boost Error Limiter = 0); I believe that this should read= (WG Boost Error Limiter = 10) else if (WG Boost Error Limiter < -100%) (WG Boost Error Limiter = -100%); Load Error Limiter/Final = (Load Error Compensation + WG Boost Error Limiter) if (Load Error Limiter/Final > 20%) (Load Error Limiter/Final = 20%); else if (Load Error Limiter/Final < -100%) (Load Error Limiter/Final = -100%); Final WG Duty = (Wastegate IAT Compensation * WG Duty) Final WG Duty = (Final WG Duty + Battery Compensation) Final WG Duty = (Final WG Duty + Load error Limiter/Final)

Yes, that's a typo. I noticed that quite a while ago.

[rfinkle2]

Got this response from Braden in a pm from Cobb...

Rob,

Good catch. I think overall the logic might be flawed as you cannot achieve >10% if the limiter is set to 10% We also don't mention the WG Comp by RPM in there either Either way, I've updated the guide there as well as the upcoming ATR helpfile coming soon!
Thanks!
-Braden @ COBB

[rfinkle2]

Hyperlink to flow charts of how the new wgdc tables work:

http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...tml#post941139

[f-castrillo]

Newer versions of ATR and AP firmware were released yesterday. It fixes the CEL bug that some people had

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[f-castrillo]

Tip for load tuners that may be experiencing terrible MPGs: the stock Boost Targets table works well for part-throttle gas mileage. I was doing some reading, and the Boost Targets table is only used at part-throttle on a load-based tune, and the ECU switches to load targeting at WOT.

I was getting horrendous MPGs as of late, because I had matched my Boost Targets table to the datalogged values from my higher load targeting. Plugging in the stock values solved my issues. I'm not sure why it works, but it does.

[dachtler]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo Newer versions of ATR and AP firmware were released yesterday. It fixes the CEL bug that some people had

Looks like it may be just for the 2011 MS3. No update present for the 2010 MS3 ATR.

[bewsted]

beta update sir

[dachtler]

Originally Posted by bewsted beta update sir

Correct. I have the beta box checked in ATR, and the update dialog tells me there is no update as of today. Since the CELs were only occurring on the 2011 Gen2s, my guess is there's no update for those of us with 2010 Gen2s.

[bewsted]

i have a 2010 and have the beta software/update.

[dachtler]

Originally Posted by bewsted i have a 2010 and have the beta software/update.

Thanks, Bewsted. There must be some kind of problem with my install of ATR then. I'll send in a request for a fresh download.

EDIT: I just tried unchecking the "Beta" checkbox, and downgraded ATR to 1760. I checked the "Beta" checkbox again, and it downloaded 2212 again. How are you getting the most recent version?

[f-castrillo]

I'm beginning to get a little bit frustrated with my tune. Rather, I'm ripping my hair out trying to figure out why the car doesn't even try to try to hit my 4th gear load targets. I put the car on the dyno today to see what gains all my tuning efforts and Corksport TIH/SRI have amounted to.

I'm up ~4whp and gained ~20wtq. I'm at 236whp and 280wtq with my current mods. I'm a little disappointed, because I thought all that tuning would've resulted in much higher WHP numbers. I'm hitting higher loads than the last time I was on the dyno, and significantly higher boost than the last session (boost was ~19-20 psi, determined by the ECU in order to hit the high load targets I had...which was still under .10 from target load). The numbers just don't add up IMO. If I'm hitting higher loads, and thus, higher boost, shouldn't I be netting more horsepower?

Granted, it was a 90F day and since the dyno was in a garage and the car stationary, the rush of air to the engine bay/SRI at freeway speeds was not there. On the dyno, IATs were always above 120F for the entire run. On the drive home, I looked at IAT at 85MPH, and it was ~96F.

I'm at a loss as to what to do next. I already have a Corksport TMIC on the way to help deal with heat soaking and high BATs. Should I go for their Cold-air box as well, to help with high IATs? As far as ECU tuning, i don't know what to do next...

[phate]

Post your tune!

PS - Can someone send/post the .exe install file for the 2nd Gen ATR???

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by phate Post your tune! PS - Can someone send/post the .exe install file for the 2nd Gen ATR???

Attached is the map I'm currently using, and also the one I went to the dyno with. Also attached are the datalogs from today's session (I'm not too worried about the KR, since the car was sucking in hot air to begin with from being stationary). The boost-targeting box is unchecked, so I should be load tuning. However, the TRL 4th gear table and/or the Load Dynamics and WG Duty Load Error Comp tables are just not working their magic.

I'll try to post the ATR install file for you tomorrow if no one else does. I'm heading off to work and I can't find my USB cable (the file is on my phone lol). But isn't the install file locked to my individual AccessPORT serial no.?

[BlueStreak]

So you reach your 3rd gear load targets but not 4th? Are the load targets the same or is 4th higher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk