Gen 2 Cobb ATR discussion

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by 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...

IMO, the cold air box is not the answer. If you are willing to invest in a wmi kit, I would say that is the best answer for high bat's.

[Ex_WRX_driver]

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

Wont work without the corresponding AP unit. Already tried this.

[Teal]

Cobb should release some viewer software so you can load and inspect other maps

[bewsted]

screen shots of "IMPORTANT TABLES" from tune.

[f-castrillo]

Will got some screencaps of some tables up once I get off of work. I'll screencap the following:

- WG Duty Cycle
- Boost Targets (not used in open loop in load-targeting)
- Load Dynamics
- Throttle Req. Load 1st-6th gear
- WG Duty Boost Error Comp
- WG Duty Load Error Comp

Any other tables I should include?

Originally Posted by 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

Yes, I reach my 3rd gear targets, but I'm under 4th gear targets by .10, roughly. Originally, the TRL 3rd and 4th gear tables were set to the same amount, but I bumped up the 4th gear targets a bit so that the logged calc. load in 4th gear would come close to the logged 3rd gear loads.

There's something up with the Load Dynamics and/or WG Duty Load Error Comp tables, and how they interact with the TRL 4th gear table. Logged WGDC and calc. load is consistently lower than the 3rd gear logs.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo Will got some screencaps of some tables up once I get off of work. I'll screencap the following: - WG Duty Cycle - Boost Targets (not used in open loop in load-targeting) - Load Dynamics - Throttle Req. Load 1st-6th gear - WG Duty Boost Error Comp - WG Duty Load Error Comp Any other tables I should include? Yes, I reach my 3rd gear targets, but I'm under 4th gear targets by .10, roughly. Originally, the TRL 3rd and 4th gear tables were set to the same amount, but I bumped up the 4th gear targets a bit so that the logged calc. load in 4th gear would come close to the logged 3rd gear loads. There's something up with the Load Dynamics and/or WG Duty Load Error Comp tables, and how they interact with the TRL 4th gear table. Logged WGDC and calc. load is consistently lower than the 3rd gear logs.

Is your wg duty boost error comp table 0'd?

Post your ramp limiter tables if you get the chance also (please).

The ramp limiter tables are added into the final wgdc calculation IF certain conditions are met (as is the wgdc boost error comp table if not 0'd).

See the flow charts here: http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...tml#post941139

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Is your wg duty boost error comp table 0'd? Post your ramp limiter tables if you get the chance also (please). The ramp limiter tables are added into the final wgdc calculation IF certain conditions are met (as is the wgdc boost error comp table if not 0'd). See the flow charts here: http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...tml#post941139

No, I left the WG Duty Boost Error Comp table as is, so that the ECU would still properly achieve the values in the Boost Targets table in closed loop. I will post screencaps of both Boost Error Comp and Load Error Comp tables, as well as the high/low ramp limiters

[bewsted]

I give you one guess as to what my WG dut boost error comp table looks like,,,,I bet finkle knows,

[f-castrillo]

OK, here are the key tables from my map. I've scoured my map over and over, but I can't find anything that would be preventing the ECU from hitting 4th gear load targets. Have at it guys, let me know if I need to post up another table screenshot.

[Bucker]

CS DP ordered! Will post results, etc. I dont know if I should expect much from it though seeing as my K04 is pretty much maxed as is. CS TMIC, Racepipe, intake, and upgraded HPFP are on it already.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo OK, here are the key tables from my map. I've scoured my map over and over, but I can't find anything that would be preventing the ECU from hitting 4th gear load targets. Have at it guys, let me know if I need to post up another table screenshot.

If it were me, I would give the following a shot... and I'm basing this idea strictly on the flow charts and thread on how the final wgdc is calculated.

1) Give the ecu a bit more authority in under achieved load positions close to 0 in the wgdc load error comp table

2) Raise the load limiter ramp to something a bit higher than 20 (e.g. 30).

[rfinkle2]

The following were provided by member @bmorrisj, and David @ Cobb...

I wanted to post them here so we don't have to continue to flip back and forth between threads.

http://postimage.org/image/1xpls8kqs/ - main wastegate duty controller

http://postimage.org/image/1xqph4wlg/ - with load error comp 0'd

http://postimage.org/image/1xqufqy2s/ - with boost error comp 0'd

http://postimage.org/image/1xqzeczk4/ - when rpm switch triggers (overboost)

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 If it were me, I would give the following a shot... and I'm basing this idea strictly on the flow charts and thread on how the final wgdc is calculated. 1) Give the ecu a bit more authority in under achieved load positions close to 0 in the wgdc load error comp table 2) Raise the load limiter ramp to something a bit higher than 20 (e.g. 30).

I will try bumping up the under-load values closer to zero and see if it does anything. Although it's strange that if this is the culprit, the current values work well for 3rd gear, but not 4th gear.

The reason I had the high-ramp limit at 20% is because my highest commanded WGDC is 80%, so I've been reluctant to raise it past that. I will consider it though, if my logged values where I'm commanding 80% aren't exceeding 95%

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 The following were provided by member @bjmorris, and David @ Cobb... I wanted to post them here so we don't have to continue to flip back and forth between threads. http://s1.postimage.org/1xpls8kqs/WG1.jpg http://s1.postimage.org/1xqph4wlg/WG2.jpg http://s1.postimage.org/1xqufqy2s/wg3.jpg http://s1.postimage.org/1xqzeczk4/wg4.jpg

My work computer has these four links blocked, so I'll look at them when I get home, thanks!

[phate]

You could possibly try raising the boost targets, to see if they are limiting you for some reason. Just stick like 18 or 19psi across the board (in the high throttle range, that is) and give it hell

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by phate You could possibly try raising the boost targets, to see if they are limiting you for some reason. Just stick like 18 or 19psi across the board (in the high throttle range, that is) and give it hell

I actually had it at 19-20 psi a few days ago, and the ECU was still lazy in correcting the under-load conditions in 4th gear

I may raise the 68%+ TPS Boost Targets to 17-18psi to give part-throttle/closed loop acceleration a nice kick, though.

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 The following were provided by member @bmorrisj, and David @ Cobb... I wanted to post them here so we don't have to continue to flip back and forth between threads. View image: WG1 - main wastegate duty controller View image: WG2 - with load error comp 0'd View image: wg3 - with boost error comp 0'd View image: wg4 - when rpm switch triggers (overboost)

Thanks, I was losing it going back and forth trying to keep up haha.

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I will try bumping up the under-load values closer to zero and see if it does anything. Although it's strange that if this is the culprit, the current values work well for 3rd gear, but not 4th gear. The reason I had the high-ramp limit at 20% is because my highest commanded WGDC is 80%, so I've been reluctant to raise it past that. I will consider it though, if my logged values where I'm commanding 80% aren't exceeding 95% My work computer has these four links blocked, so I'll look at them when I get home, thanks!

Why is your commanded WGDC not set to match logged values already? I know you are load tuning so it will fluctuate but I would have it within +- 5 or 6%, not off by 15% like you have it.

[fywdyl]

Just wondering if there's more room for improvement. Here are a couple of logs, one in 3rd and one in 4th. Amb temp is about 86F.

I'm targeting 19 psi from 3K to 5.5K and taper to 18 by RL. AFRs are 11.47 taper to 11.02 by RL. This is on 91 oct. I don't have e85, but I could go to 94 oct.

Do you think I can raise the AFRs to 11.6 on 91?

Also, the AFRs kinda move around a bit, but might be due to the higher resolution of the new firmware? Is this a cause for concern?

Mods in sig. Thanks.

[Ex_WRX_driver]

Originally Posted by fywdyl Just wondering if there's more room for improvement. Here are a couple of logs, one in 3rd and one in 4th. Amb temp is about 86F. I'm targeting 19 psi from 3K to 5.5K and taper to 18 by RL. AFRs are 11.47 taper to 11.02 by RL. This is on 91 oct. I don't have e85, but I could go to 94 oct. Do you think I can raise the AFRs to 11.6 on 91? Also, the AFRs kinda move around a bit, but might be due to the higher resolution of the new firmware? Is this a cause for concern? Mods in sig. Thanks.

I run 11.8 tapering to 11.6 at RL on 91.

[fywdyl]

Originally Posted by Ex_WRX_driver I run 11.8 tapering to 11.6 at RL on 91.

Did you have to significantly reduce timing to get rid of knock though to compensate for the higher AFRs?

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by fywdyl Just wondering if there's more room for improvement. Here are a couple of logs, one in 3rd and one in 4th. Amb temp is about 86F. I'm targeting 19 psi from 3K to 5.5K and taper to 18 by RL. AFRs are 11.47 taper to 11.02 by RL. This is on 91 oct. I don't have e85, but I could go to 94 oct. Do you think I can raise the AFRs to 11.6 on 91? Also, the AFRs kinda move around a bit, but might be due to the higher resolution of the new firmware? Is this a cause for concern? Mods in sig. Thanks.

Looks fine. I would make all of your target AFRs the same across the board in ALL of the fueling maps. I would also raise them like you said.

[Ex_WRX_driver]

Originally Posted by fywdyl Did you have to significantly reduce timing to get rid of knock though to compensate for the higher AFRs?

I had to pull 1 degree of timing, but Im running the stock plugs still.

[fywdyl]

Originally Posted by Bucker Looks fine. I would make all of your target AFRs the same across the board in ALL of the fueling maps. I would also raise them like you said.

I think I have all of them set to the same AFRs, CL/OL/Base/Part Throttle. Only ones I didn't change were Throttle Closed, and the Knocking one.

Originally Posted by Ex_WRX_driver I had to pull 1 degree of timing, but Im running the stock plugs still.

Gotcha. Gonna try to increase the AFR this weekend. Will post results.

[Bucker]

Ok so I have attached a first gear log. The grey area is where I have a problem. It seems that if I punch it in first ~3500 from a roll I get this crazy cut type feeling during the run. Its like before I even start spinning I get slammed forward, then before I can respond it will take off just fine. Scares the crap outta me. Log attached. The first (white cells) area was fine, no cut. The second (grey) area was where it cut.

[rfinkle2]

I take it you noticed the afr's in your log in the grey area?

That is plug blow-out Bucker.

Note your rpm's go backward, and the AFR's go crazy rich. (sign of blowout)

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I take it you noticed the afr's in your log in the grey area?

Yessir. Stupid rich right? Any idea what would cause it though?

Awesome, thank! Only getting it in first so Ill leave it alone for now. Hopefully adding the DP next week wont screw me too bad.

[rfinkle2]

See above.

Close the gap down on your plugs if you can.

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 See above. Close the gap down on your plugs if you can.

Yup, will do later on. Gotta do an oil change ASAP too. Whats the reccomended gap? .028 or something?

[rfinkle2]

I have mine @ .026 (ITV22).

Also, if you are getting mad torque steer, I've been reading up on the "steering wheel angle sensor" here:

I need SWAS pictures!

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I have mine @ .026 (ITV22). Also, if you are getting mad torque steer, I've been reading up on the "steering wheel angle sensor" here: I need SWAS pictures!

Yeah I was following the SWAS stuff, but this is with the wheel centered. I'm thinking it could be the LC too (Thanks @Spilly). I have it set to 3300ish but maybe its interfering somehow.

[rfinkle2]

When your rpm's go backward in the log, that is tell tale blowout.

[Spirry]

Unless you only drive straight, you should disconnect swas.

[rfinkle2]

I've been on this forum for a while, and read like a madman, and today and yesterday were the first mentions I've ever seen of disconnecting SWAS.

Those using the new wgdc table by Cobb are likely getting a lot more part throttle boost than they were previously.

The new wgdc tables are populated in throttle position areas that were left blank in older ots maps.

I don't know this is the whole problem, but maybe a start.

[Spirry]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I've been on this forum for a while, and read like a madman, and today and yesterday were the first mentions I've ever seen of disconnectin SWAS. Those using the new wgdc table by Cobb are likely getting a lot more part throttle boost than they were previously. The new wgdc tables are populated in throttle position areas that were left blank in older ots maps. I don't know this is the whole problem, but maybe a start.

Took me a hell of a lot of searching and I think this should be one of the first mods especially for people that autox or track their cars.

[Ex_WRX_driver]

Well, that explains one of the issues Ive been having. May have to give this a shot.(SWAS disconnect)

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Bucker Why is your commanded WGDC not set to match logged values already? I know you are load tuning so it will fluctuate but I would have it within +- 5 or 6%, not off by 15% like you have it.

My commanded WGDC is matched to a 75F temperature datalog, so that the car will run less WGDC in cooler weather. I'm probably going to adjust WGDC to match the latest 4th gear logs though, since they were done on a dyno (no significant air movement), and IATs/BATs were consistently above 110F. That way, I'll have have some of the worst-case scenario WGDC values, in case another heat wave comes (or I visit SoCal and/or Vegas) and the ECU will end up pulling DC most of the time.

Holy shit, I'm looking at the dyno logs again, and I noticed that as early as 3500RPM, my calc. loads are off by over .20 now

Here's a little excel graph I did to illustrate the discrepancies between my target load and actual load. For kicks, I threw in a slightly older 3rd gear comparison to show how well the ECU tries to meet 3rd gear targets vs 4th gear.



I truly believe there is a bug somewhere that is preventing the ECU from really trying to meet target loads. I've double checked all my tables, and I don't see anything that could be limiting the ECU from achieving target loads. I don't see how making the Load Dynamics tables and the WG Duty Load Error Comp table more aggressive would help, seeing as it hits 3rd gear targets just fine with those settings. I'll try PMing someone at COBB and post on the forums there and see what they say.

[rfinkle2]

@f-castrillo and @Bucker...

I am starting to believe there is a bug somewhere also.

Bucker, did you highlight from a calculated load of 1.13 for a specific reason?

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 @f-castrillo and @Bucker... I am starting to believe there is a bug somewhere also. Bucker, did you highlight from a calculated load of 1.13 for a specific reason?

Yep! There were 2 runs logged there, the highlighted section was the second, the non-highlighted was the first.

[rfinkle2]

So far, this is 2010 specific I think (Bucker and another person).

i.e. dipping into the 9 afr's.

[f-castrillo]

I shot another PM to Braden @ COBB outlining my 4th gear problem in detail. It's essentially a cut and paste of the post and graph I did here.

The other day, I sent him a PM about the same problem, but in less detail. Here's the original PM and his reply.

Originally Posted by Braden @ COBB Originally Posted by f-castrillo Hey Braden, I have a few issues I wanted to bring to your attention: 1. Checking/unchecking the Boost Tuning box doesn't seem to do anything to the tables. From what I understood, checking the BT box was supposed to zero out the Load Dynamics table, and unchecking filled it with stock Load Dynamics data. Nothing happens when I uncheck the box, and I have to manually zero out/add values to LD. Is this a glitch in my ATR? It's done this in all versions I have used, including the latest beta released to the public just today. 2. On the topic of Load Dynamics, it doesn't appear that the LD table is being used to achieve the load targets I set in my TRL 4th gear table. I posted about my issue on the forums here: Not hitting TRL 4th gear load targets While I was still tuning via boost targeting, I set the TRL 3rd and 4th gear tables to match datalogged calc. loads, and the ECU consistently achieved 3rd and 4th gear load targets. Now that I'm load-tuning (unchecked the BT box, added stock values back to the LD table), I have since set my 3rd and 4th gear TRL tables much higher. All my 3rd gear datalogs show that the ECU still achieves 3rd gear load targets, evidenced by changes in logged WGDC (vs. base WGDC). However, I am consistently missing 4th gear targets by ~.10, i.e. if I target a load of 1.90 @ 4000RPM, I get ~1.80 in the logs at the same RPM. The logs show that WGDC in the 4th gear runs are, on average, 20% lower than the 3rd gear runs. This seems to indicate that the Load Dynamics table and/or the boost/load error comp tables aren't being utilized to make up for the low-load condition. I had to set the TRL 4th gear table higher than I wanted to in order to get logged calc loads where i wanted. My Load Dynamics and WG Duty Boost/Load Error Comp tables are set slightly more aggressively than stock values, in an attempt to get the ECU to compensate for low load. It hasn't worked for 4th gear. Is there any way you can forward this to the dev team to see if there is some kind of bug that's preventing the Load Dynamics and/or WG Duty Boost/Load Error Comp tables from working properly? thanks in advance, Francis Francis, This is all normal behavior. The checkbox simply allows the "WG Duty Boost Error Comp." table to be targeted first instead of load error. If you are using the load based tuning you must have all of the load related tables dialed in perfectly for it to achieve a smooth and consistent load. You must also make sure that the compensations for each of the gears as it relates to load, boost, etc.. are also dialed in adequately as well. Many times the higher gears can have negative (ie. 0.95) values in the boost comps that will result in lower load achieved in higher gears. I would highly suggest using the new BT discoveries to make wastegate tuning for boost a million times easier. Thank You, Braden @ COBB

I'm kinda tempted to make the switch back to boost-tuning. But I like how consistent power delivery is with load-tuning. It's just that this road-block with the 4th gear load targets is a little bit discouraging.