Member Profile - Bass_Straitener

[bass_straitener]

Is the current tune a "hybrid tune"?
Either Matt/Bruce or MSR/Bruce or ???

MSR/Bruce

Not convinced about the amount of AVCS Matt runs and I always had boost spike issues through implementation of per gear requested boost setups.

Gone back to a more basic setup that I can understand which seems to generate enough power, hits boost target with WGDC initial and max only 10% difference so turbo dynamics isn't called on too often to reach targets. Hence no oscillation etc.

The fuel economy seems to have improved as well with nice clean exhaust tips.

Happy for now but check it every couple of days to make sure I'm safe and the car lasts for the trip up to see Mick.

[<GB>]

Crazy stuff bruce hope u can sort this out!

[PoidaGT]

Mick will fix it.

[jacks-GTB]

you can watch dr OZ in his office

hope everything goes well Bruce...let me know when your up...I'll drop in

[KiDo_Tuning]

Having tuned quite a few Cobb boxes recently, all of them have run on the initial 'rich' MAF scaling yet gotten perfect wideband AFR's and good fuel economy. It may be worth considering that the issue may in fact be the MAF sensor itself(which MSR has experienced)

Sam0 on ozfoz/rexnet had the reverse situation with fuel economy, struggled to get 300km from a tank from his dyno tune.

Might be worth borrowing a known good MAF and seeing if your wideband goes lean

[<GB>]

If it was the maf them why would he be getting an improved fuel economy now with his own tune?

[bass_straitener]

My MAF is perfectly fine. I've been logging and tuning this car over the last 400kms. Calculated g/s logged against voltage matches my MAF scaling perfectly and g/rev under various loads also corresponds. Also both Wideband and factory O2 sensors read the same.

I've also managed to set up my tip in to only see a minor swing in AF between 13.9 - 14.2 hence avoiding the wild lean corrections seen by your restoration of stock tip in throttle enrichment.

I'm actually running 1-2% rich intentionally in CL as I test a theory.

Anyway, as stated I just feel your workload is starting to take a bit of a toll on accuracy and timeliness so after 4 months tuning with limited success I thought I'd try another option.

Whilst I don't have pgwc I do have boost targets being accurately met with limited boost error 2-3% max

My max g/s has seen 286.8 so I reckon I'm pretty much on the right path and after the weekend with what I'd consider great economy under cruise I'm confident the car is running right.

Thanks Matt for all your help and for teaching and sharing of your ideas.

[KiDo_Tuning]

By MAF error, the MAF reads correctly since it generates a voltage which the ECU interprets and converts to a g/sec based on the voltage created by the MAF.

However, just because the car gets 270g/sec which is accurate for the right amount of fuel needed, if that was at say 4.55 volts and if it was normally 4.4 volts on a working MAF, you need to lean out the MAF scaling to get fuel targets right

This is where AF#1 correction takes closed loop based on MAF correction from o2 sensor. You saw my post about the CL correction on legacygt.com then I assume? Benefits of having a wideband scaled MAF under closed loop

My MAF is perfectly fine. I've been logging and tuning this car over the last 400kms. Calculated g/s logged against voltage matches my MAF scaling perfectly and g/rev under various loads also corresponds. Also both Wideband and factory O2 sensors read the same.

I've also managed to set up my tip in to only see a minor swing in AF between 13.9 - 14.2 hence avoiding the wild lean corrections seen by your restoration of stock tip in throttle enrichment.

I'm actually running 1-2% rich intentionally in CL as I test a theory.

Anyway, as stated I just feel your workload is starting to take a bit of a toll on accuracy and timeliness so after 4 months tuning with limited success I thought I'd try another option.

Whilst I don't have pgwc I do have boost targets being accurately met with limited boost error 2-3% max

My max g/s has seen 286.8 so I reckon I'm pretty much on the right path and after the weekend with what I'd consider great economy under cruise I'm confident the car is running right.

Thanks Matt for all your help and for teaching and sharing of your ideas.

[jaydece]

Bruce?

Thanks for all the input and feedback...very interesting indeed...

Wishing you all the best with your future mods and developments....Fun times ahead

[bass_straitener]

I guess that's the whole purpose of scaling the MAF to manipulate the g/s against volts for the different intake mods.

My AF correction is within 3% independant of atmospheric conditions so I'm pretty happy there.

Anyway I'm pretty much convinced I don't have a MAF issue.

Also whilst offering an explanation please let me know why AVCS was changed so radically following my RTR tune in the cruise range without changes to timing. From the reading I've done I understand these two tables are linked.

I've attached pics of the RTR dyno day cruise AVCS table and the same table from your fix supplied last Monday. I was under the impression based on my LV and the FLKC ranges changes were only required in fairly specific low load areas.

As I've said previously and still do that perhaps my config is a bit more individual and requires a bit more time and effort. It's a much more repeatable process tuning a dump pipe and panel filter setup than a turbo upgrade, injectors, Cobb intakes etc. And as much as I've tried to fall in with the rest of the gang chasing a tune from you, my personality dictates I either get the attention to sort out the sum of my parts or find someone with a bit more time.

[KiDo_Tuning]

Yes, that is the purpose yet if the MAF scale moves in the RR MAF tab on the dyno a few times, you have to consider why.

Timing WAS changed, take a closer look Reasoning: the DBW has a Requested Torque threshold to change from Cruise to Non-Cruise tables, so the AVCS regions affected are designed to offer more engine braking which is something immeasurable on the dyno, since when you brake your usually off the throttle you probably want more compression braking via very low AVCS at high engine load which with the RT switch point values exposed in your ROM, I was able to dial in. Yeah, it looks and feels more responsive on the dyno as your holding stall before the ramp rate but on the road, your losing that engine braking scenario. Yes, as I have said ignition timing and AVCS should be different(ignition timing being identical despite different AVCS on your Springy tune if you remember)
As you will find, timing at low load was a smooth ramp down so you need to consider if the issue is cam timing or fueling so cam timing was tweaked

Yes, the ID1000's have a shorter pulsewidth which means the spray pattern ends earlier so dialing in injector pulse with the MAF is crucial especially at low loads

I guess that's the whole purpose of scaling the MAF to manipulate the g/s against volts for the different intake mods.

My AF correction is within 3% independant of atmospheric conditions so I'm pretty happy there.

Anyway I'm pretty much convinced I don't have a MAF issue.

Also whilst offering an explanation please let me know why AVCS was changed so radically following my RTR tune in the cruise range without changes to timing. From the reading I've done I understand these two tables are linked.

I've attached pics of the RTR dyno day cruise AVCS table and the same table from your fix supplied last Monday. I was under the impression based on my LV and the FLKC ranges changes were only required in fairly specific low load areas.

As I've said previously and still do that perhaps my config is a bit more individual and requires a bit more time and effort. It's a much more repeatable process tuning a dump pipe and panel filter setup than a turbo upgrade, injectors, Cobb intakes etc. And as much as I've tried to fall in with the rest of the gang chasing a tune from you, my personality dictates I either get the attention to sort out the sum of my parts or find someone with a bit more time.

[bosc0]

So many acronyms, so little time.

[Bezzza]

So many acronyms, so little time.

+1 haha!
Interesting reading though, just have to get the acro down now.

Car certainly is a beast Bruce! Nice job indeed

[bass_straitener]

Yes, that is the purpose yet if the MAF scale moves in the RR MAF tab on the dyno a few times, you have to consider why.

Timing WAS changed, take a closer look Reasoning: the DBW has a Requested Torque threshold to change from Cruise to Non-Cruise tables, so the AVCS regions affected are designed to offer more engine braking which is something immeasurable on the dyno, since when you brake your usually off the throttle you probably want more compression braking via very low AVCS at high engine load which with the RT switch point values exposed in your ROM, I was able to dial in. Yeah, it looks and feels more responsive on the dyno as your holding stall before the ramp rate but on the road, your losing that engine braking scenario. Yes, as I have said ignition timing and AVCS should be different(ignition timing being identical despite different AVCS on your Springy tune if you remember)
As you will find, timing at low load was a smooth ramp down so you need to consider if the issue is cam timing or fueling so cam timing was tweaked

Yes, the ID1000's have a shorter pulsewidth which means the spray pattern ends earlier so dialing in injector pulse with the MAF is crucial especially at low loads

Checked and found that timing had infact been changed. Reduced considerably it would appear.

And the AVCS cruise table was changed considerably.

I just don't understand how things like tip in can suddenly be returned to stock if setup correctly for the ID1000s.

The AVCS table is almost identical to the stock map too. Much more than a tweak.

At the end of the day the car is running much better now with my hybrid map, than it was with the post dyno revision, and I've regained some of the fuel economy I was missing with the tunes provided.

Following the loading of the post dyno revision 1 map the car ran like a dog. It chewed through the fuel and infact with AFRs fluctuating to extremes I thought best to pull over in the Freeway emergency lane and flash back a previous tune.

As I said I realise I've got a few more mods than a lot of the cars on here, but after 4 months of tuning the issues couldn't be resolved and a fault diagnosis not forth coming.

Hence I've looked elsewhere for results.

[bass_straitener]

So many acronyms, so little time.

+1 haha!
Interesting reading though, just have to get the acro down now.

Car certainly is a beast Bruce! Nice job indeed

Thanks Ian.

Yeah a lot of acronyms there to get your head around. But all very interesting and some of the opensource software available for checking how your car is running are essential to stop any long term or costly issues in my opinion.

As most people would know that tuning a car is about getting their mods to work successfully within the ECU whilst also reducing the margin of safety built into the factory tune.

I run a wideband O2 sensor and boost gauge to ensure all parameters are in check.

I also use Learning View about once a week to check for minor changes the ECU is managing.

Once all the physical bits are bolted on I thought this is where the natural progression should be unless you're the type that just keeps driving till it goes pop.

I have been told by friends I'm a bit OCD which might also be why my tuning with Matt has at times been frustrating.

I guess getting a car to run successfully with all the mods whilst making good power, drives smoothly and returns good economy is a challenge. And prehaps I should accept and compromise my ideas.