OFT log with UEL header/ Perrin intake

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by steve99

Pretty sure Perrin should have provied MAF scalling figures for the intake, if not ask them for MAF scaling parameters to suit.

You should then be able to edit these into your tune with RomRaider

Just scale your maf properly. It's not hard, and very worthwhile. No need to swap back to stock, and any number provided by petting wouldn't be as good as the ones you can find yourself.

[carlitosway6891]

i tried to get the romraider working on my computer and keep having issues installing it. when i get to the screen where i choose what files to download, the screen where you have to checkmark what you want to be downloaded during the install wizard, the next screen stays blank and nothing ever happens =(

[steve99]

Originally Posted by jamesm

Just scale your maf properly. It's not hard, and very worthwhile. No need to swap back to stock, and any number provided by petting wouldn't be as good as the ones you can find yourself..

agreed, was sugesting suggesting the easiest method (get parameters from perrin) rather than the best (scale the maf from scratch). Both being better than "just drive it out"

[steve99]

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891

i tried to get the romraider working on my computer and keep having issues installing it. when i get to the screen where i choose what files to download, the screen where you have to checkmark what you want to be downloaded during the install wizard, the next screen stays blank and nothing ever happens =(

did you instal java run time prior to install ?

The latest release of RomRaider is available here for Windows and here for Other Platforms. Both variants are installers (ZIP archives also available - see below) and require the latest 32bit (x86) version of Java SE JRE to already be installed.

[carlitosway6891]

Originally Posted by steve99

did you instal java run time prior to install ?

The latest release of RomRaider is available here for Windows and here for Other Platforms. Both variants are installers (ZIP archives also available - see below) and require the latest 32bit (x86) version of Java SE JRE to already be installed.

i had downloaded a version of java that allowed me to run romraider because i have windows 64 bit but no luck on my end =(and i did download the latest version of romraider =(

but here is my latest log of E85 this morning on the way to work. look better? @shiv

http://datazap.me/u/carlitosway6891/...1?log=0&data=1

[steve99]

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891

i had downloaded a version of java that allowed me to run romraider because i have windows 64 bit but no luck on my end =(and i did download the latest version of romraider =(

but here is my latest log of E85 this morning on the way to work. look better?

http://datazap.me/u/carlitosway6891/...1?log=0&data=1

AFR on E85 looks reasnoble in 11's but @jamesm or @shiv@vishnu
would be a better judge.

but scaling MAF for perrin intake will improve things and possibly low throttle drivability as well.

[carlitosway6891]

Originally Posted by steve99

AFR on E85 looks reasnoble in 11's but @jamesm or @shiv@vishnu
would be a better judge.

but scaling MAF for perrin intake will improve things and possibly low throttle drivability as well.

so i finally have the tunerpro working and have the MAF table displayed but i dont have a clue what values i should change things to if i needed to do that so ill just leave that alone....one really cool feature i did see were adjustment tables for accelerator pedal torque request for regular and sport mode....anyone mess around with this??

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by jamesm

the solution is scaling the maf properly.

Any how-to's or tips on how to properly fix the MAF scaling based on logs? Is the scaling just RPM based, or RPM and load?

[jamesm]

that's not very good at all to be honest. very inconsistent afr... trimming out 10+% fuel up to 7k the pulling back to -3% which is sending the afr pretty rich for e85/na.

on e85 though it's not just a maf scaling thing. that's not the only variable at play, as you have fuel density to worry about (e-mix). i'm guessing the biggest part of the fueling error is a result of the mix. this is pretty much unavoidable without a proper way to compensate for ethanol content, and this log is a perfect example of why flex fuel is a good thing.

you could always put 93 back in it and scale the open loop portion of the maf out to be sure, but regardless you'll never repeatably hit open loop targets without compensating for fuel density if you're running e85. the alternative is no rescale the open loop maf every time you fill up (or adjust the port/di scalers), which doesn't sound like much fun.

the beauty of e85 though is that is has a very wide range of 'acceptable' afrs, so the impact of the error is minimized and this isn't damaging in any way. but, if you want it to be perfect all the time you're going to need to go flex fuel.

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Any how-to's or tips on how to properly fix the MAF scaling based on logs? Is the scaling just RPM based, or RPM and load?

i have a screencast showing how to generate fueling error logs and scale the closed loop portion of the maf using excel. if you want to scale the open loop portion, you'd go make 3 WOT pulls, logging the following params at a minimum:

maf voltage
equivalence ratio commanded
afr (preferably from a wideband)
long term fuel trim

normally you'd have long term trims turned off in open loop, though you can't do this with OFT on e85 because you're relying on them to get you kinda-sorta near fueling targets in open loop. so you'll have to factor the LTFT into the correction you calculate for each maf voltage cell (summing it with every calculated correction to come up with a final number).

you'd basically go through and look at each log, each datapoint on the maf scale (it's just a 2d map of voltage vs. maf g/sec values) and figure up a percentage error correction ((actual afr/commanded afr) * 100). you'd then do this for all three runs, average the three corrections for each point and then apply them to every point on the maf scale. generally you'd be looking at the 2.9-3.2v and up range for open loop, not touching anything below that.

if you're on e85 though that's a really good way to end up completely screwing your maf scale (which remember is part of a load calculation, not just a fueling calculation, so timing and other things are ultimately derived from this as well). if you notice that the whole thing is off by pretty much the same percentage (and you're on e85) then you'd calculate fueling error in closed loop, confirm that you're off by something near the same amount in closed loop, and apply that correction globally via the injector (port/di) scalers.

basically, you don't want to correct the MAF to compensate for fuel density if that is why you're missing targets (which is usually indicated by fueling error being uniform across the maf). your maf didn't change, your fuel density did. given that there is no way to adjust total requested fuel volume with OFT, the hack is to adjust the port and di scalers to compensate. it's pretty dirty, really.

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891

so i finally have the tunerpro working and have the MAF table displayed but i dont have a clue what values i should change things to if i needed to do that so ill just leave that alone....one really cool feature i did see were adjustment tables for accelerator pedal torque request for regular and sport mode....anyone mess around with this??

don't mess with that. it's not what it sounds like! lol. no seriously, that's a really good way to screw yourself. just know that the 'wot torque threshold' map curve should look something like your torque curve.

the mistake people make is to go in the wot torque threshold map and increase all the torque values thinking that is going to magically make them more torque. instead, doing so causes the throttle plate to not open all the way. if you'd like to know exactly how all those maps work together and why this is the case pm me. it's far too much to get into here i'd have to screenshare to show you and explain it. dbw throttle is probably one of the most complicated things in our ecu.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by jamesm

i have a screencast showing how to generate fueling error logs and scale the closed loop portion of the maf using excel. if you want to scale the open loop portion, you'd go make 3 WOT pulls, logging the following params at a minimum:

maf voltage
equivalence ratio commanded
afr (preferably from a wideband)
long term fuel trim

normally you'd have long term trims turned off in open loop, though you can't do this with OFT on e85 because you're relying on them to get you kinda-sorta near fueling targets in open loop. so you'll have to factor the LTFT into the correction you calculate for each maf voltage cell (summing it with every calculated correction to come up with a final number).

you'd basically go through and look at each log, each datapoint on the maf scale (it's just a 2d map of voltage vs. maf g/sec values) and figure up a percentage error correction ((actual afr/commanded afr) * 100). you'd then do this for all three runs, average the three corrections for each point and then apply them to every point on the maf scale. generally you'd be looking at the 2.9-3.2v and up range for open loop, not touching anything below that.

if you're on e85 though that's a really good way to end up completely screwing your maf scale (which remember is part of a load calculation, not just a fueling calculation, so timing and other things are ultimately derived from this as well). if you notice that the whole thing is off by pretty much the same percentage (and you're on e85) then you'd calculate fueling error in closed loop, confirm that you're off by something near the same amount in closed loop, and apply that correction globally via the injector (port/di) scalers.

basically, you don't want to correct the MAF to compensate for fuel density if that is why you're missing targets (which is usually indicated by fueling error being uniform across the maf). your maf didn't change, your fuel density did. given that there is no way to adjust total requested fuel volume with OFT, the hack is to adjust the port and di scalers to compensate. it's pretty dirty, really.

I'm running 91 octane (and 94 octane for track events, but not re-tuning, just for some safety margin with extra heat), does that make it easier?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891

so i finally have the tunerpro working and have the MAF table displayed but i dont have a clue what values i should change things to if i needed to do that so ill just leave that alone....one really cool feature i did see were adjustment tables for accelerator pedal torque request for regular and sport mode....anyone mess around with this??

Honestly if you don't understand what your doing don't mess with it till you do, else it might end in tears.

You might be better paying someone to rescale your MAF to suit the Perrin intake unless you can get the figures from Perrin and are confident in using RR or tunepro to enter these parameters into your tune transfer to OFT and flash. (it will still be better to scale it from scratch though)

Shiv does e-tune for about $200 which should include this and any other refinements due other mods. Wait till you have done all your mods then do that or go to another competent tuner or talk to @jamesm for a price maybe.

These "canned" tunes are good value and ok if you stick to the standard "mods" they cater for, even then an individual tailored tune is better, that's why they cost more. If its done on a dyno and not an e-tune then it more again.

In the end you get what you pay for.

[jamesm]

Being on pump gas eliminates fuel density as a variable and simplified things. I can rescale your maf for free, just pm me. I'll screenshare with you and show you how to do it so you can do it yourself next time.