2010+ Mazdaspeed 3, I recommend to monitor your fuel pumps closely

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by indianaryan I decreased my boost targets (from 4k rpm, bottom 6 cells, through 7k rpm) by 1 psi. I'm still overshooting my targets by about 1.5 psi. I'll try a little more tomorrow. It looks like it helped lower WGDC in 3rd, but 2nd is still maxing out and FP is dropping as you can see in the 2nd of the two 2nd gear pulls.

Your LTFT's are off a bit too (not too bad). They may settle a bit after driving some.

If you notice, Jwilkins said he changed the boost targets as much as 3 psi in order to get the wgdc as far down as he wanted it.

I'm sure you saw, but your afr's are crazy rich.

[Teethkikr]

Originally Posted by jwilkins88 Also, you're overlooking the fact that the stock solenoid sucks and isn't that great at controlling boost. I honestly think that's one of the biggest issues.

This is the first time I am hearing about the stock solenoid sucking on MY car.. I dont search and lurk in the Slowgen threads for tuning info because our PCM is totally different than theirs so I dont know what I can take as accurate or not... I know that those guys have their shit pretty well figured out but I dont recall hearing about the WGDC being at 100% with stage 1 stuff and early mods.... I know Joel knows his shit(I think) but is there really a "final answer" for these questions?? I dont think so.. I trust the guys at COBB and their R&D.. I hear so many different things and sometimes its hard to filter out the bullshit.. I checked all of my connections when I did the internals and shits good... I am hitting boost targets fine, good FP, no KR etc... This WGDC thing isnt fatal because its only at 100% for a short time.. Would I like it lower? YES... I like what the one poster said about this being version 1 of these.. I am glad they will keep at it.

[rfinkle2]

Directly from the Cobbforums...

italics written by Travis

WGDC is just a measure of how hard the ECU is pushing the turbo to reach boost targets. At 100%, there is no more resolution in the solenoid to make more boost. The wastegate is fully closed and all exhaust gas is passing through the turbine. This should not damage the solenoid. It does indicate, however, that you are unable to make any more boost!

Full answer here:
http://www.cobbforums.com/forums/sho...ning-solutions

[Teethkikr]

Hmm... Dont hear anything about this having a negative effect on the longevity of the solenoid or turbo... Soooooooooooo... Is this an answer we take and live with or will someone who heard from someone who told someone who's cousin has a turbo car who says that this is bad and COBB is full of shit.

[Nataphen]

I think that the point to come away with here is that if you adjust your tune to hit a lower WGDC, you can make the same amount of power without working the turbo so hard, maybe even more power. Cobb isn't full of shit, but these are also OTS maps, so they aren't going to be perfectly efficient, nor maximize power.

How we got on this in the fuel pump warning thread is beyond me, LOL.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Teethkikr Hmm... Dont hear anything about this having a negative effect on the longevity of the solenoid or turbo... Soooooooooooo... Is this an answer we take and live with or will someone who heard from someone who told someone who's cousin has a turbo car who says that this is bad and COBB is full of shit.

@Teethkikr

To echo what @Speed3eak and @Nataphen have said, although I'm confident that the OTS maps could be more precise as far as the ability to make more power (for our specific cars), they are safe to run on your car. I really do feel that the main caution signs to keep in mind / look for come from the datalogging guidelines.

Originally Posted by Nataphen I think that the point to come away with here is that if you adjust your tune to hit a lower WGDC, you can make the same amount of power without working the turbo so hard, maybe even more power. Cobb isn't full of shit, but these are also OTS maps, so they aren't going to be perfectly efficient, nor maximize power. How we got on this in the fuel pump warning thread is beyond me, LOL.

@dizzydtrain

Sorry for the total thread jack. I'm hoping that your fuel pump issue is going well.

[dizzydtrain]

Haha no worries. It's been good entertainment while I wait on Sander to get back to me. He is looking at the logs this weekend and will hopefully get back to me with some updates.

[jwilkins88]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 @Teethkikr To echo what @Speed3eak and @Nataphen have said, although I'm confident that the OTS maps could be more precise as far as the ability to make more power (for our specific cars), they are safe to run on your car.

I honestly think that you have to define "Safe". I wouldn't ever say that running a car with 100% wgdc is "safe". You're overworking your turbo, and you're pushing hotter air into the motor because of the overwork of the turbo.

At the very least, your turbo is in danger of cracking, etc...

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by jwilkins88 I honestly think that you have to define "Safe". I wouldn't ever say that running a car with 100% wgdc is "safe". You're overworking your turbo, and you're pushing hotter air into the motor because of the overwork of the turbo. At the very least, your turbo is in danger of cracking, etc...

I'm simply relying on what Travis @ Cobb said. In addition, there are datalogging guidelines that Cobb gave us, and until gen2 owners become familiar enough with ATR to modify the tables necessary to safely modify the "tune", they (OTS maps) are the "safest" maps we have to run.

Hopefully, this doesn't come off as a challenge, but I am not familiar with any Cobb AP OTS map users who have experienced cracked turbos.

I acknowledge that gen1 and ms6 owners have more knowledge and experience with the platform (and more specifically ATR), and we are all (gen2 owners) doing our best to catch up.

[indianaryan]

Well I'm probably the most responsible for derailing this thread, so I apologize. I'm going to attempt to get this thread back on track (not forgetting about you Dizzy).

I think there is a correlation between the WGDC maxing out, the boost exceeding the targets, and the FP dropping. I have no experience in tuning, so bear with me.

There are a lot of people running the OTS maps and seeing that the boost targets are being exceeded by about 1.5 psi, and the WGDC is at 100%. For me, when the boost hits 19 psi and the WGDC hits 100%, that's when the FP drops and the AFR becomes extremely rich from the CDFP dumping fuel into the engine.

Here's my theory:

If the boost targets and/or WGDC values can be lowered enough so that the boost is not exceeding the target, then the FP will cease to drop to dangerous levels.

I'm testing this out now, be adjusting the values in the boost target tables and by lowering the WGDC values. I'm learning as I go, but I feel that I am moving closer to safety, and so there really is no risk in doing this. I'll keep everyone updated as I experiment, so that others can benefit from this.

Feel free to chime in and let me know if I'm completely off base, or if I'm moving in the right direction.

[Nataphen]

That makes sense, good thinking there. Let us know about your results as you test and tune.

[Speed3eak]

Originally Posted by indianaryan Well I'm probably the most responsible for derailing this thread, so I apologize. I'm going to attempt to get this thread back on track (not forgetting about you Dizzy). I think there is a correlation between the WGDC maxing out, the boost exceeding the targets, and the FP dropping. I have no experience in tuning, so bear with me. There are a lot of people running the OTS maps and seeing that the boost targets are being exceeded by about 1.5 psi, and the WGDC is at 100%. For me, when the boost hits 19 psi and the WGDC hits 100%, that's when the FP drops and the AFR becomes extremely rich from the CDFP dumping fuel into the engine. Here's my theory: If the boost targets and/or WGDC values can be lowered enough so that the boost is not exceeding the target, then the FP will cease to drop to dangerous levels. I'm testing this out now, be adjusting the values in the boost target tables and by lowering the WGDC values. I'm learning as I go, but I feel that I am moving closer to safety, and so there really is no risk in doing this. I'll keep everyone updated as I experiment, so that others can benefit from this. Feel free to chime in and let me know if I'm completely off base, or if I'm moving in the right direction.

Also remember, the alpha testers are the ones who the OTS maps were developed with.

Note that this was around when the AP was released.

Note additionally that this was in the winter. Lower air temps make it more difficult to hit boost targets - on a load based map, you'll see more load at lower boost in the winter, and I suspect it has to do with the density of the air.

At any rate, this means that you need more duty cycle to hit the same boost targets in the winter - what this translates to is 100% wgdc to hit 18 psi on the OEM setup. I suspect the wgdc map was designed to hit boost targets with as little error as possible, because boost dynamics is reactive, and on top of that wgdc anticipates boost targets by ~300 rpm (as per dano's boost tuning thread), so by the time it adjusts, you've already moved onto the next set of targets. So you essentially have the wgdc table to control boost and the boost dynamics table as a failsafe if something goes really wrong - again, just my theory here.

That's my guess at least as to why it seems so ineffective at controlling mild-moderate overboost situations. I did see it intervene however when I set my wgdc table to 20% at 2500 and 3000 rpm like the stage 2 map I saw (OTS stage 1 maps have it at 0%)

That being said, a wgdc map that's aggressive enough to let you hit your boost targets in winter will be too aggressive in summer, hence why you see people overshooting their boost targets (again, just going off of what I've seen logging in different temperatures - I could well be wrong)

Also, the IAT compensation table alters wgdc targets rather than boost targets - in this way it anticipates rather than reacts to the effects of temperature fluctuations on boost targets.

My only thought in regards to this would be to give the IAT comp table higher resolution (every 10 degrees or so, rather than 32F, 68F, 104F, etc.) so that instead of relying on boost dynamics you rely on the IAT table adjusting your wgdc for different temperatures to minimize your boost error. You could also edit the table such that you never see 100% wgdc, at the expense of not hitting boost targets in really hot weather.

Just thinking out loud here, but that's my theory at least as to why we're seeing such high wgdc accompanied with overboosting situations now.

sorry for the long post, short version
- Takes more wgdc to hit boost targets in winter, or even in slightly lower temperatures (~10F)
- IAT doesn't change wgdc enough to prevent overboosting when temperature changes, resolution is in 32+ degree increments
- Boost dynamics is reactive and can't change wgdc quickly enough to have much of an effect unless over/under boost is significant (> +/- 1.5 psi)

edit: nate, this is still derailing the thread, so if you think this should be somewhere else or excluded all together, feel free to delete, move, and/or make an abbreviated version of it.

[Nataphen]

I don't really mind. Maybe we should start a gen 2 ATR thread, hmmm?
Someone who knows more than I should do that though. I've had ATR since right after it came out, and I've been working so much that I haven't even opened it yet. FML.

[Speed3eak]

Originally Posted by Nataphen I don't really mind. Maybe we should start a gen 2 ATR thread, hmmm? Someone who knows more than I should do that though. I've had ATR since right after it came out, and I've been working so much that I haven't even opened it yet. FML.

I've been lucky in being single lol - no kids means plenty of free time off of work to devote to this stuff. I don't think gen 2 ATR is that much different from gen 1 ATR, maybe we could look around and get some information together and put it into a thread - things like snippets from dano's boost tuning thread, abbreviated versions of the functions and applications of various tables, even little tuning tips from the gen 1 guys.

I know those review threads that hal makes have links to different areas within a thread - maybe something like that? I think the help file in ATR is pretty comprehensive, but it would be helpful to see "example" tables that people are using in their own maps or have developed.

I'd really like to see an application where people can text-chat while seeing what each other is doing on a tune - kind of like an e-ATR where members can interface and troubleshoot each other's tunes. That's just a pipe dream though. I'd like something like the shout box, but less general - think of Cobb ATR shout box, with a "live thread" area and a traditional forum.

Anyway, it's late so I'm going to go to bed, but I think a gen 2 ATR thread could be great if we could put it together well - I'll try and flesh out some ideas about the format over the weekend and ask hal to see if they're viable, and if he likes them enough to try them out.

[rfinkle2]

I tried a sticky suggestion thread here:

sticky suggestion thread (gen2)

It failed miserably (awaiting Amazon comment). lol

I think it is important to mention that it is really the Boost Control Solenoid that we are talking about when we say that the WGDC is maxed (i.e. 100%).

The truth of the matter is the factory BCS is bleeding as much air away (as it can) from having an effect on the wastegate, so it is considered ("max duty cycle" or 100%WGDC)

[Amazon]

gtfo you faggot brownie

[dachtler]

CP-E pump shipped on Friday. Unfortunately, UPS Ground will take a week to get it to me, so I'll need to wait until next weekend to install it. That and the Denso ITV22 plugs will go in then, then back to the Stg1 map for me.

[rfinkle2]

I'm going to throw this out there for the guys whose fuel pumps are borderline.

I just noticed someone's log whose fuel pump took a dumper, and when the fp dips, it does so into the 9's (afr's).

There is a "fuel commanded eq max enrichment allowed" table under the fuel tables heading in ATR.

Those who want to give it a shot, may try changing those values to 10.0 across the board.

Try this @ your own risk, and keep an eye on things and log if you do so.

Imo, there is no need to fuel the car @ 9.0afr under any condition.

EDIT: make sure that the "standard units" option is selected in the options menu (Thanks to @Speed3eak)

[Speed3eak]

Also guys, before ATR I tried using a 91 octane map to conserve my fuel pump - it turns out the richer AFR's meant it couldn't keep up as well as the 93 map, even though the 93 map has higher boost targets.

FWIW, I did a datalog recently in 55F ambient temps, where my fuel pump is normally crapping out on the 91 and 93 OTS maps, but I leaned out my AFRs to 11.8 (probably not that safe without meth tbh, but I didn't see enough knock to cause concern so I'm gonna leave it there), and my pump held pressure like a champ for all of my WOT runs.

If your pump is failing, it is something to think about. Pump should be arriving this week so it shouldn't be a problem for me after that. Oh, also - if you lean out your AFRs you should be careful when you WOT - if you stomp on the gas right after the TMIC is heatsoaked from being in traffic, you'll probably get 2+ KR - not exactly desirable.

[indianaryan]

Here's an update. I reduced the boost targets by 3 psi, and I maybe saw a .5 psi decrease in the boost I recorded. It's been snowing here and has gotten about 20 degrees colder (60 down to 40). So that might have been affecting the results.

I decided to go a different route since I wasn't seeing much of a change in the boost levels, so I moved the boost targets back to where they were to begin with, and started messing with the WGDC. The first table is what I tested first. I reduced the values inside the red box by 40% (some of the values I interpolated so there was a smooth transition). Attached are a couple logs taken using this table. I was able to decrease the boost, but I went a little too far, as I'm not hitting the target 17.5 psi. So I'm going to try 30% and see what that does. WGDC never hit 100% either. Boost and WGDC continued to increase instead of peaking and then dropping off towards the end. So I'm not sure what exactly that means other than it was trying to hit the target and couldn't. I'm wondering what will happen when I do hit the target though. If it's soon enough before redline, will it continue to rise and hit 19 psi like I had been seeing? Or will it peak at 17.5 psi and then taper off as I get closer to redline? This is what I'm going to find out. I know that the OTS maps are set up so that it will peak and then taper off, so I'll probably try to do the same if I can.

Good news is that my FP never dropped. I was only seeing it drop about 1 out of 4 runs in 2nd gear, so maybe I got lucky. We'll see as I continue to go WOT every chance I get.

Reduced by 40%:


I'm going to try this table next to see if I can hit the target boost of 17.5 psi and still maintain FP above 1600 psi:

Reduced by 30%


Any comments or ideas?

[Speed3eak]

From my understanding, the wgdc you need to hit a certain psi increases as the revs climb. I see 100% wgdc going to redline and my boost still tapers off. I wouldn't worry about boost creep if the setup is relatively stock though. Stock turbo + at least 1 cat = your boost will be easy to control with just wgdc.

Plus, boost spikes are something you should be more worried about at low rpm's and between shifts.

It's interesting that you're setting boost to increase steadily to red line - normally you have a target that you hit early and taper it off by 1-2 psi by redline. Good stuff man, I've got a EBCS sitting here that I've been waiting to install before I start tweaking my wgdc map from the OTS values.

[Kris Speed3 CWP]

Originally Posted by bertrand_CX_7 Hey men how where you able to log the FP with the DH. In mine it's showing N/A. Didn't bother logging parameter that doesn't display. Please explain.. Sofar DH is reading only Boost, ltft, stft. Thanks

I monitor DI pressure, boost,a/f ratio Long term and short term fuel trims Dash hawk has allot, but I have notice sometimes when you plug in you have N/A in couple of boxes. This happens rarely but all you have to do is shut engine off and then unplug, then restart car and plug back in after couple of minutes.

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by Speed3eak It's interesting that you're setting boost to increase steadily to red line - normally you have a target that you hit early and taper it off by 1-2 psi by redline. Good stuff man, I've got a EBCS sitting here that I've been waiting to install before I start tweaking my wgdc map from the OTS values.

I'm not sure which is better, but I assume that Cobb made the boost taper off for a reason. So I'm going to try to match that, just at a lower level until I've upgraded my CDFP. I think that I'm seeing boost increase until redline right now because I'm not reaching the target because I've lowered the WGDC values. It's trying to reach the target but I run out of gear before it can. I might be completely off, but that's my guess.

[rfinkle2]

Over the weekend, I changed my fueling tables to transition from closed loop to open loop fueling a bit sooner, and also leaned my afr's out to about 11.6 @ wot.
I couldn't have done it without @Dano2010 's thread.

I chose not to rely stricly on load values, and lowered my CL max throttle postion tables to about 60%.
My logs look great and the car still feels seamless during OL / CL transition.

It is interesting to me that Cobb decided to bring the boost on even later than the stock map. I know that Christian mentions the weak point of the ms3 is our rods, but was surprised to see that he moved the boost curve that far up in the rev band.

[indianaryan]

Good to hear. Sounds like that will be helpful when I try to adjust the boost curve. I'm trying to hit 17.5 psi, but I want to hit it sooner, and hold it if possible.

By the time I get all this figured out, I'll have a new HPFP already lol.

[rfinkle2]

I missed this the first 10x's I read through the ATR file and it seems like it would be helpful to the discussion of changing the boost targets etc.

Italics from ATR helpfile / addendum 2 / page #36:

We've found that setting the WGDC table setting to 20-30% below actual driven WGDC is a good strategy that will allow the ECU's Boost
Dynamics tables to increase WGDC to the values that are necessary to achieve the Boost Targets. The stock boost control system adjusts WGDC at a very
rapid rate and is capable of properly controlling turbo boost as long as the WG Duty Cycle or the Throttle – Req. Load – X Gear (Norm BAT) tables settings
are not set too high

@Christian. - I don't want Christian to think that I was questioning his judgement shifting the boost curve to the right if he reads this. I just thought it was an interesting deviation from the stock map.

[rfinkle2]

Sorry to double post, but I had a chance to use the worksheets provided in the atr helpfile to establish protection from boost spikes etc. and they worked awesome.

I took my boost target table, copied into the spreadsheet, and pasted the results from the resulting protective tables (i.e. boost limits-fuel cut , boost limits - throttle close).

I'll post my results when I have the opportunity to get a good log.

[indianaryan]

Another update for you. I was able to hit close to my boost target of 17.5 psi, and hold it through the end of 2nd gear. FP stayed close to 1600, most of time above it. I haven't been able to got WOT much lately with the weather, but I'll continue to test this tune in 2nd as well as 3rd and 4th when I get the chance. You can see that my WGDC is maxing out just after I hit 17.5 psi. What I'll try to do is lower the WGDC values from that rpm and after, so that the boost can taper off and the WGDC will not be maxed out.

[wolly6973]

I don't think lower the WGDC tables will affect that. If your Boost Dynamics allow the ECU to try and reach target boost, it is going to get to that same WGDC point either way.
To not have 100% WGDC, I am pretty sure you would have to reduce your boost target.

[indianaryan]

You might be right. I'll do some playing around with the numbers and see what I come up with. Main thing is that the FP has held up so far. Not to say that it won't drop though. I just haven't had a chance to really test this.

[dizzydtrain]

Another update...here is the response I received.

Thank you for putting together all of these logs. The only other possibility (besides the pump being faulty for some reason) here is that your intake pump is not able to deliver the volume that your HPFP needs at high load. There is a base test for intake pump pressure, but this is only when the engine is off and I fear that the pump will not malfunction if there is no volume requirement. However in any case, if you can show me that the intake pump can develop between 60-71 psi with the electric pump operated then I will accept a returned unit. (You can use the high pressure fuel pressure sensor to read this value out when the car has sat overnight and all of the high pressure in the line has bled down)

I just had a car last week with a pressure drop with a brand new Mazda HPFP, the problem wound up being the volume supply side problem. Replaced the in tank pump and all was well.


If I recall correctly, there was no need to upgrade the in tank pump until you got way past 300hp on gen2's

[Speed3eak]

Originally Posted by dizzydtrain Another update...here is the response I received. Thank you for putting together all of these logs. The only other possibility (besides the pump being faulty for some reason) here is that your intake pump is not able to deliver the volume that your HPFP needs at high load. There is a base test for intake pump pressure, but this is only when the engine is off and I fear that the pump will not malfunction if there is no volume requirement. However in any case, if you can show me that the intake pump can develop between 60-71 psi with the electric pump operated then I will accept a returned unit. (You can use the high pressure fuel pressure sensor to read this value out when the car has sat overnight and all of the high pressure in the line has bled down) I just had a car last week with a pressure drop with a brand new Mazda HPFP, the problem wound up being the volume supply side problem. Replaced the in tank pump and all was well. If I recall correctly, there was no need to upgrade the in tank pump until you got way past 300hp on gen2's

Yeah, in the alpha thread or something cobb said 330 whp is about where the in-tank pump ran out of juice.

I wouldn't rule out a bad batch of in tank pumps though. How much does one of those go for nowadays? I'd listen to the cp-e guys tbh, these are the same pumps they've been making for years and they've had fewer than 5 failures IIRC. 3+ years, pumps always sold out, and fewer than 5 failures. Just saying.

[dizzydtrain]

Originally Posted by Speed3eak Yeah, in the alpha thread or something cobb said 330 whp is about where the in-tank pump ran out of juice. I wouldn't rule out a bad batch of in tank pumps though. How much does one of those go for nowadays? I'd listen to the cp-e guys tbh, these are the same pumps they've been making for years and they've had fewer than 5 failures IIRC. 3+ years, pumps always sold out, and fewer than 5 failures. Just saying.

Oh I am definitely not discrediting what I have been told by cp-e. The purpose of this was to keep track on Gen 2 fuel pumps,etc. Initially I was pretty pissed that I was passed along when the fp drop occurred but they have been pretty good about looking into the issue.

Never really done an in-tank fuel pump swap. Anyone know of a good DIY or site that sells that part?

[rfinkle2]

Walbro 255 is the pump of choice for most aftermarket applications...

I am researching the install, but it looks like they can be had for around $89.00. (if needed)

[indianaryan]

Dizzy, good to hear that CP-E is working with you on this. Let us know what you find out about the in-tank fuel pump. Seems unlikely that it's the problem, but it's also rare that a CP-E HPFP fails. Good luck.

[dizzydtrain]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Walbro 255 is the pump of choice for most aftermarket applications... I am researching the install, but it looks like they can be had for around $89.00. (if needed)

Yeah, I saw streetunit sells that particular pump.

Originally Posted by indianaryan Dizzy, good to hear that CP-E is working with you on this. Let us know what you find out about the in-tank fuel pump. Seems unlikely that it's the problem, but it's also rare that a CP-E HPFP fails. Good luck.

I am happy about that too. I am obviously still a bit skeptical but based on my logs the pressure drops tend to occur during the same rpm ranges. There is a good chance it could be the in-tank pump based on the reliability of the cp-e pumps. I guess we will see.

Thankfully it's not an expensive upgrade (as finkle mentioned it's around $90). I looked into the install real quick and noticed that a special tool would be required to remove some the clips.

[rfinkle2]

@dizzydtrain,

how the heck do you test for the in tank pump strength?

[dizzydtrain]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 @dizzydtrain, how the heck do you test for the in tank pump strength?

haha no idea. I replied to cp-e's email to see if they can provide me with clearer steps. I don't mind upgraded the in tank pump--seems like a good safe fail upgrade in case it starts shitting the bed as well.

.

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 @dizzydtrain, how the heck do you test for the in tank pump strength?

I was wondering that too. CP-E is being awfully hard to deal with. Are they asking you to do something that they know you can't do? IMO they need to be a little more helpful in this situation. I think they should be testing the pump they sent you, and offering a replacement in the meantime.

[dizzydtrain]

I agree, while there is a chance that the in-tank pump is not able to keep up, this would mark the second time in my case that they are blaming other components/companies before considering replacing their own product.

I didn't pay a premium in price for this and would have expected cp-e to be a bit more proactive.