Gen 2 Cobb ATR discussion

[PapaSmurf]

damn, your boost is pretty spot on, i got to re-read through this and see what i need to tweak.

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 damn, your boost is pretty spot on, i got to re-read through this and see what i need to tweak.

It's tuned with a grimmspeed ebcs, just so you know.

Oh, and I didn't mention it on that last post, but all req loads are at 3.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by Ckmazdaspeed3 It's tuned with a grimmspeed ebcs, just so you know. Oh, and I didn't mention it on that last post, but all req loads are at 3.

what exactly does putting the req loads at an unatainble target do?

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

Ok, I'm at a bar, so I may not say this perfectly, but it keeps the ecu from being satisfied by meeting load... So if boost is X, and load >x, the ecu will hit X. However, if the load value is close to x, it may be met before boost is. If that happens, target boost will not be met because the load target is satisfied... Boost tuning is not perfect, probably because the ecu is programed by Mazda to work off load.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Below are my targets, wgdc table and boost dynamics table. This combination of wgdc and boost dynamics table has made the stage 2 tune as close as I need it to be to achieve targets in the boost targets table.

Also what are your Throttle - Req - Load - X Gear tables?

same as you posted above?

One more thing, how did you come up with those WGDC targets? Just kinda played with them untill u werent pegging 100 past 5500?

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

He mentions them a bit earlier. If I were not on my phone, I would quote them. I know that he lowered them from 2.31 to around 2.1-2.2... Its listed not too far back.

[PapaSmurf]

brought my laptop to work and im working on a revision to the map I have now.

Will post up some logs tomorrow afternoon most likely but im trying this shit out.

I also have my timing tweaked from some other shit i read, so hopefully my maf g's be flying high! haha

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 Also what are your Throttle - Req - Load - X Gear tables? same as you posted above? One more thing, how did you come up with those WGDC targets? Just kinda played with them untill u werent pegging 100 past 5500?

I finally came to that wgdc table and boost dynamics table after trying to tune out some spikes I was having, and trying to keep the wgdc from being pegged.

If you look I added 10's in the top of each of the rpm's so i could try to keep the vertical interpolation straight in my mind. I wanted to gradually hit the boost targets until I'm comfortable that the final row in the 75 position wont cause a spike when I mash the throttle.

I noticed after I shifted, that rpms were in the range where most of the 10's are placed.

In the lower part of the rev band, I wanted to keep the wastegate duty cycle @ 0, so I started most of the interpolation up to the throttle points near peak boost (around 4000 rpm).

Here is my latest 3rd gear log. No 4th gear logs due to so many police in my area yesterday.
(note logs do not represent changes made to throttle - req load x tables, i.e. changes made after log)

[atvfreek]

Originally Posted by Ckmazdaspeed3 Ok, so I'm repeating what I just posted in Danos boost tuning thread, but for anybody looking into 3port boost control, I haz answers! So when I tuned, the first thing I did was figure out wgdc, but because the other tables weren't correct, the wgdc would not work either, so I ended up adjusting it higher than necessary. After the other tables were adjusted, I had no idea that it was too high, and it caused major boost oscillation. Today I checked out Danos boost tuning thread, and he figured (I should say, he already knew most likely) it out in a second. So after I did about 13 maps, I pretty much dialed it in. I get a tiny dip in 4th, but no spikes and no major dips! fuck yeah! Anyway, the point is, 3 port definitely helps me run higher boost than the stock solenoid (which is good, because I was too lazy to be gentile when I removed the hose that connects to the tip, and I broke it; whoops). Here are a couple logs, and my tables in case someone else needs assistance with 3 port tuning.

Nice work man, I've been holding off a grimmspeed because I've been watching the struggle you were having. You just paved the way for gen2. Time for me to order up the 3 port and have more than 16.5psi at 6k rpm.

[Nataphen]

My car must be one of those that isn't really affected by load. My low airflow numbers didn't change much, if any, when I went from OTS load targets to 3.00 in all tables at 3k+ RPM. I'm guessing that the reason that I was registering more air before my mods was because I had advanced timing by a fair amount. Some say timing doesn't affect g/s, some say it does.

I just won't know until after I get a CDFP though, I'm safe right now, but I had to pull back my max boost by 1psi to keep it that way all the time. Timing will come at a later date.

[rfinkle2]

First thing I want to say is PLEASE be careful if you decide to set your per gear tables @ 2.3. I don't think it will kill you or the motor, but you may hit boost cut and possibly poop your pants. You also may want to richen your fuel up a tad in the case you start to see increased boost levels.

I almost did LOL.

@BlueStreak did some testing and posted his results below....

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 First thing I want to say is PLEASE be careful if you decide to set your per gear tables @ 2.3. I don't think it will kill you or the motor, but you may hit boost cut and possibly poop your pants. I almost did LOL. @BlueStreak did some testing and posted his results here.... http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...tml#post818581

Really, you did? Did you post an associated log? I just find that so weird, as setting unobtainable load targets does absolutely nothing like that for me. I am thinking about trying them lower today (around where observed load is actually falling), but I don't think there is a point. I can not see how things could be any better than they are now in regards to that part of my tune.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Ckmazdaspeed3 Really, you did? Did you post an associated log? I just find that so weird, as setting unobtainable load targets does absolutely nothing like that for me. I am thinking about trying them lower today (around where observed load is actually falling), but I don't think there is a point. I can not see how things could be any better than they are now in regards to that part of my tune.

I didn't post the log, but that is why I asked you how long of a delay there was before you hit boost cut in the PM I sent you. LOL

This is one of the reasons I even bothered to "stir the pot" so to speak with the load tables.

I may still have the log, and if I do, I'll post it after I get home from work.

I have my boost cut limit set @ 20 (on an 18.5 psi map), and saw 4 data points above before "cutting" .

@bmorrisj hit cut also. (his post copied and pasted from Dano's thread)

"I upped all my req load tables above OL and hit boost cut for the first time since installing my ap"

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

Well then I guess it really must depend on the car, or maybe things change when an ebcs is installed? I guess we will find out when u install yours.

And I thought that maybe because you have your boost cut at 20, and mine is at 22, that maybe it was working for me because my boost is already at the upper limits (probably past) of what the ko4 can do, but yesterday when I was getting this map dialed in, I started with lower wgdc and was hitting only 16psi or so, and holding it perfectly.

So, FOR MY SET UP (so proceed carefully if deciding to try this), it appears that regardless of what boost I am targeting, setting my req load to 3 does not create any spikes or excess boost, weather I am aiming for 16 or 20 psi... God these cars are weird!

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Ckmazdaspeed3 Well then I guess it really must depend on the car, or maybe things change when an ebcs is installed? I guess we will find out when u install yours. And I thought that maybe because you have your boost cut at 20, and mine is at 22, that maybe it was working for me because my boost is already at the upper limits (probably past) of what the ko4 can do, but yesterday when I was getting this map dialed in, I started with lower wgdc and was hitting only 16psi or so, and holding it perfectly. So, FOR MY SET UP (so proceed carefully if deciding to try this), it appears that regardless of what boost I am targeting, setting my req load to 3 does not create any spikes or excess boost, weather I am aiming for 16 or 20 psi... God these cars are weird!

I may have set the tables to 3, and not 2.3, regardless, I hit a fuel cut and was just waiting to feel the pulsing clutch symptom that everyone said they experienced from bending a rod.

Needless to say, I had to check my underwear when I got home.

I'm glad to see that you are getting you're tune ironed out the way you want it.

[BlueStreak]

There was some discussion around the TRL X Gear Tables being active when using boost based tuning. By the looks of it, the TRL X Gear Tables are active in some MS3s and not in others. It is not yet known as to why this inconsistency exists.

At any rate, I did some sensitivity testing on my '07 and found that the TRL X Gear Tables do affect the behaviour of the (my) engine. My findings are quoted below from another thread.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak It stopped raining tonight so I took the car out for a datalog run. Test Conditions - 3 degress celcius - Meth on - 3rd gear Low Load Targets Corresponding Datalog High Load Targets Corresponding Datalog Looks like in some instances, the TRL X Gear Tables do in fact materially affect Calculated Load by primarily modulating boost. EDIT: I believe the low load datalog was completed faster than the high load datalog because the low load datalog was done on a downhill on-ramp merging onto the highway (10 degree downward slope or so). Cheers, Dave

Here's a message from Christian on the COBB Forums confirming this inconsistency. Thanks to @rfinkle2 for posting the question.

Join Date Jun 2003 Posts 66,666 rfinkle2, we have seen that some cars respond to the settings in the Req. Load X Gear tables. I know...it is odd that not all respond in this manner. I have personally tuned several cars that did not respond to any setting changes for these tables. Being that we cannot consistently confirm that these tables have an affect on all cars, we are looking into the ECU logic to see if we can get a more definitive answer. We will be sure to post up some additional details once we've spent some more time in discovery. At this time, we are focused on getting the 2011 AP out first, then we will look into this further. Thanks for bringing this up, this is something on our radar. We've found that setting the Req. Load X Gear tables similar to what the car achieves negates their effect on the boost control. This is the best that we can suggest for now. Thanks, Christian.

I wouldn't say this is an outright problem. If your car is still affected by the TRL X Gear Tables, you will have to tweak them accordingly so the engine meets its boost targets (in addition to WGDC and BD).


Side Note
I'm wondering if this is a hidden gem for those still affected by the TRL X Gear Tables. I'm thinking they could be used to tame boost in colder weather therefore negating the need for a "cold weather" boost tuned map.

It would work something like this:
- Create a boost based tune that works well on your average hot day.
- Modify the TRL X Gear Tables accordingly to fit the calculated load curve.
- In colder weather, the ECU will cut boost in an attempt to meet the TRL X Gear Table values assuming it doesn't have to reduce boost by more than ~1.5PSI or so.

[Ziggo]

Just use the max load tables to keep the loads from getting too high if that is what you are concerned about.

My "cold weather map" would consist of increased boost targets in the high rpm range and readjusted WGDC. You can make the WGDC adjust automatically for colder temps with the IAT compensation table, but you can't make your boost targets go up.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Ziggo Just use the max load tables to keep the loads from getting too high if that is what you are concerned about. My "cold weather map" would consist of increased boost targets in the high rpm range and readjusted WGDC. You can make the WGDC adjust automatically for colder temps with the IAT compensation table, but you can't make your boost targets go up.

When you say "cold weather map", what temperatures are you referring to? 40 degrees F?

Maybe I'll need 3 maps. One "hot weather", one "cold weather" and one "below freezing weather". Haha.

[Ziggo]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak When you say "cold weather map", what temperatures are you referring to? 40 degrees F? Maybe I'll need 3 maps. One "hot weather", one "cold weather" and one "below freezing weather". Haha.

Below 50f probably. It depends on what temperature I start to see my WGDC below 70 in the upper rpm range.

[indianaryan]

Is there a good place on the WGDC Table to start populating numbers? Currently I've just been adjusting the numbers from throttle position 68.75 and up and then doing a vertical interpolation to the the lowest number that was copied over from the OTS map. What's the best practice here?

@rfinkle2 , you did a vertical interpolation to 5's and 10's. How did you decide what throttle position to put these values at?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by indianaryan Is there a good place on the WGDC Table to start populating numbers? Currently I've just been adjusting the numbers from throttle position 68.75 and up and then doing a vertical interpolation to the the lowest number that was copied over from the OTS map. What's the best practice here?

What do you mean by the lowest number? Can you post a picture of your boost targets?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by indianaryan Is there a good place on the WGDC Table to start populating numbers? Currently I've just been adjusting the numbers from throttle position 68.75 and up and then doing a vertical interpolation to the the lowest number that was copied over from the OTS map. What's the best practice here? @rfinkle2 , you did a vertical interpolation to 5's and 10's. How did you decide what throttle position to put these values at?

I chose to put the max numbers in the 75 throttle position, although the 68.75 would be fine also, imo.

I logged some data while shifting, and wanting to get as smooth a transition as possible into boost after shifts.

I also wanted to keep the car from part throttle boosting in low throttle positions, and I never shift after 3000-4000 if I'm driving around town. ( you can see me trying to close the wastegate earlier in low throttle positions after 4000 rpms's )

I used the 10's @ top of each rpm to vertically interpolate from the largest to smallest (10) values, and to try and create a smooth onset of boost in the case I just decide to punch the throttle in any gear.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak I'm wondering if this is a hidden gem for those still affected by the TRL X Gear Tables. I'm thinking they could be used to tame boost in colder weather therefore negating the need for a "cold weather" boost tuned map. It would work something like this: - Create a boost based tune that works well on your average hot day. - Modify the TRL X Gear Tables accordingly to fit the calculated load curve. - In colder weather, the ECU will cut boost in an attempt to meet the TRL X Gear Table values assuming it doesn't have to reduce boost by more than ~1.5PSI or so.

Lol, why not just use load based tuning.



IMO, i've seen alot of inconsistencies with boost based tuning in the car's i've been tuning. On quite a few, the TRL gear tables were indeed "limiting" the boost, and when set to 3's, all was well. Other cars, like many have said, have had no problems at all.


Another thing i've noticed on a few cars is lagging AFRs when initially going wot. They seem to linger around mid 12's before finally hitting target. I've even bumped that portion of the maf curve up twice on guy's map to help get them down faster, but it made no difference.


For what it's worth, i've returned to load based tuning, cause honestly, it was never really that difficult for me, and always much much more consistent.

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak What do you mean by the lowest number? Can you post a picture of your boost targets?

I'm at work right now so I can't post any of my tables. By lowest number I mean the first number in each column on the WGDC table that isn't a zero. For example, if you look at @rfinkle2 's WGDC table, he placed a 5 in the cell at 18.75 throttle position and 4000 rpm. My question is why there as opposed to (just throwing this out there) 50 throttle position? Does it really matter? Or is there some reasoning behind this?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Lol, why not just use load based tuning. IMO, i've seen alot of inconsistencies with boost based tuning in the car's i've been tuning. On quite a few, the TRL gear tables were indeed "limiting" the boost, and when set to 3's, all was well. Other cars, like many have said, have had no problems at all. Another thing i've noticed on a few cars is lagging AFRs when initially going wot. They seem to linger around mid 12's before finally hitting target. I've even bumped that portion of the maf curve up twice on guy's map to help get them down faster, but it made no difference. For what it's worth, i've returned to load based tuning, cause honestly, it was never really that difficult for me, and always much much more consistent.

Thanks for chiming in @djuosnteisn

Gen2 (@ least) me, has never been through load based tuning, and we all have ots values in our load tables (much lower than 3 lol).

I believe this difference is THE main factor that caused all of our boost target and control issues (not achieving boost targets etc), although some have not had any issues.

@Ckmazdaspeed3 made this change and it solved all of his issues. I believe he, you and Joel are collaborating (lucky bastard)

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Another thing i've noticed on a few cars is lagging AFRs when initially going wot. They seem to linger around mid 12's before finally hitting target. I've even bumped that portion of the maf curve up twice on guy's map to help get them down faster, but it made no difference.

I've seen this personally on my car, and also have seen the AFRs drop to lower 10's in part throttle, which confuses the hell out of me.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Lol, why not just use load based tuning. IMO, i've seen alot of inconsistencies with boost based tuning in the car's i've been tuning. On quite a few, the TRL gear tables were indeed "limiting" the boost, and when set to 3's, all was well. Other cars, like many have said, have had no problems at all. Another thing i've noticed on a few cars is lagging AFRs when initially going wot. They seem to linger around mid 12's before finally hitting target. I've even bumped that portion of the maf curve up twice on guy's map to help get them down faster, but it made no difference. For what it's worth, i've returned to load based tuning, cause honestly, it was never really that difficult for me, and always much much more consistent.

I can also say i have seen an example of my load playing apart of my target boost depending on the weather. I can be out one day and hit my boost targets fine, but the next day if the weather has changed ill be 2-3 PSI off my boost targets.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by Ziggo Just use the max load tables to keep the loads from getting too high if that is what you are concerned about.

This is a bad idea. The max load tables set the upper limit of how much load the ecu can calculate, it's not a load control, it's a logic limit. If you set the max load tables too low, you could potentially introduce the famed "load cap" scenario, possibly screwing up proper wot fueling, and leaning the car out.

IMO, load cap was the leading cause of blown motors back in the day. The max load values should be set to something very high, like 3, 4 or 5. Something unachievable.

If a person is worried about hitting too high of a load, he needs to use proper WGDC values, and boost dynamics / load dynamics to keep it low.

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Thanks for chiming in @djuosnteisn Gen2 (@ least) me, has never been through load based tuning, and we all have ots values in our load tables (much lower than 3 lol). I believe this difference is THE main factor that caused all of our boost target and control issues (not achieving boost targets etc), although some have not had any issues. @Ckmazdaspeed3 made this change and it solved all of his issues. I believe he, you and Joel are collaborating (lucky bastard)

I've seen the TRL gear tables affect 2009's as well, so it's not just you new gen's

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 I can also say i have seen an example of my load playing apart of my target boost depending on the weather. I can be out one day and hit my boost targets fine, but the next day if the weather has changed ill be 2-3 PSI off my boost targets.

This may also be a limit in the WGDC. The best current strategy is to keep these as low as possible, but high enough to allow the ecu's feedback logic to still achieve target boost or load. But if temps increase too much and target boost requires a higher WGDC yet, you'll simply come up short.


Is the boost lower on hotter days or colder days. If it's hotter days, then it's WGDC limiting you, if it's colder days, it's TRL tables holding you back.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn This is a bad idea. The max load tables set the upper limit of how much load the ecu can calculate, it's not a load control, it's a logic limit. If you set the max load tables too low, you could potentially introduce the famed "load cap" scenario, possibly screwing up proper wot fueling, and leaning the car out. IMO, load cap was the leading cause of blown motors back in the day. The max load values should be set to something very high, like 3, 4 or 5. Something unachievable. If a person is worried about hitting too high of a load, he needs to use proper WGDC values, and boost dynamics / load dynamics to keep it low. I've seen the TRL gear tables affect 2009's as well, so it's not just you new gen's This may also be a limit in the WGDC. The best current strategy is to keep these as low as possible, but high enough to allow the ecu's feedback logic to still achieve target boost or load. But if temps increase too much and target boost requires a higher WGDC yet, you'll simply come up short. Is the boost lower on hotter days or colder days. If it's hotter days, then it's WGDC limiting you, if it's colder days, it's TRL tables holding you back.

Could this be achieved with the stock ecbc? or does it have to be an after market one?

if so, i expect my next map to be on point! ahahaah jk mang.

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn This may also be a limit in the WGDC. The best current strategy is to keep these as low as possible, but high enough to allow the ecu's feedback logic to still achieve target boost or load. But if temps increase too much and target boost requires a higher WGDC yet, you'll simply come up short. Is the boost lower on hotter days or colder days. If it's hotter days, then it's WGDC limiting you, if it's colder days, it's TRL tables holding you back.

Colder days for sure. Right now since we are coming to the hotter months ill see 50-60's in the AM and 80+ in the afternoon, so usually in the morning i wont hit boost targets, but once it warms up, ill hit boost targets but like u have seen my WGDC is pegged.

[rfinkle2]

I believe, given this information, if people decide to do this, one should make appropriate changes, and adjust back to more aggressive wgdc, boost targets, and afr's etc. after seeing its effect on the car / tune and logs.

e.g. I hit boost cut for the first time when I tried inserting values of 3.

[djuosnteisn]

Can't wait to do some WGDC analysis Soon enough i'll get you a couple maps for comparison sake.


If that's the case, there's really no way to have higher boost in colder weather, and lower boost in warmer weather. The closest you could do is have 2 seasonal tunes, one that takes advantage of the more efficient turbo in colder temps, and runs more boost, and one that reduces boost in warmer temps to avoid over working the turbo (or at least what we currently believe to be over working the turbo, aka pegged wgdc).


But with such drastic temp changes in a single day, you'd have to switch your maps at lunch time :-P Hahaha, or get an after market EBCS that you can adjust on the fly haha.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn Can't wait to do some WGDC analysis Soon enough i'll get you a couple maps for comparison sake. If that's the case, there's really no way to have higher boost in colder weather, and lower boost in warmer weather. The closest you could do is have 2 seasonal tunes, one that takes advantage of the more efficient turbo in colder temps, and runs more boost, and one that reduces boost in warmer temps to avoid over working the turbo (or at least what we currently believe to be over working the turbo, aka pegged wgdc). But with such drastic temp changes in a single day, you'd have to switch your maps at lunch time :-P Hahaha, or get an after market EBCS that you can adjust on the fly haha.

Is it worth it to have an aftermarket ecbc on the k04? I mean since I'm going BT I'm sure it wouldn't hurt me if I got one.

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I believe, given this information, if people decide to do this, one should make appropriate changes, and adjust back to more aggressive wgdc, boost targets, and afr's etc. after seeing its effect on the car / tune and logs. e.g. I hit boost cut for the first time when I tried inserting values of 3.

+1


Very important note here. Go back to very conservative WGDC and boost target values before doing anything like this.

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 Is it worth it to have an aftermarket ecbc on the k04? I mean since I'm going BT I'm sure it wouldn't hurt me if I got one.

They're expensive and typically less advanced than our oem system (no gear based boost options unless you go really really expensive).


The better approach is to get a turbo that you don't have to baby sit so much. If your going BT, then i wouldnt' bother. You'll just simply run higher boost in warmer weather

In fact, when a properly sized turbo is fitted to the car, that's when load based tuning really shines, cause you can tune the car to achieve a specific airflow (power level), and you'll get it regardless of temperature etc. Lower boost in winter, higher boost in summer, but the same airflow year around. I'm being overly simplistic, and nothing in life is truly that easy, but it's still food for thought

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 Is it worth it to have an aftermarket ecbc on the k04? I mean since I'm going BT I'm sure it wouldn't hurt me if I got one.

@MicaBlueMS3 , where you asking about an aftermarket boost control solenoid, or an entire aftermarket system?

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

DJ, is a 2871 considered a "proper sized turbo", to take advantage of load based tuning?

[djuosnteisn]

I think it's a great fit for our motors. It all depends on your goals. for 350-380whp, 2871 is perfect.

You just don't want to end up with another turbo that your having to push as hard as you do the k04. So it's important to know your goal, and choose a turbo with a lil bit of head room.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 @MicaBlueMS3 , where you asking about an aftermarket boost control solenoid, or an entire aftermarket system?

Just the solenoid.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 Just the solenoid.

I think that Dustin understood your question to be different.

I would imagine that he would say although it isn't necessary there are some benefits to a 3port.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I think that Dustin understood your question to be different. I would imagine that he would say although it isn't necessary there are some benefits to a 3port.

EDIT: I pm'd him and he said there is no appreciable difference in his opinion with the stock turbo 2 vs. 3 port solenoid.

[PapaSmurf]

well ive been sitting here all day being bored as shit so i decided to tweak my WGDC/Boost dynamics/Boost Targets and i did a little timing tweak.

And what can i say, I think it worked extremely well.

I only lowered my Boost targets by .25 from 5500rpm and up

I lowered my WGDC tables by 5* from 6000rpm up.

I also made my boost dynamics table look the same as finkles.

attached are screen shots of my tables and a 4th gear log.

How u like me now?

Ambient temp according to my car was 74 degrees.

Edit: After looking at my log again im maxing out my WGDC @ 94.01, I actually think i might be able to put my boost targets back up .25 from 5500rpm and up and still be under that 99% WGDC, thoughts?