Do you dyno after you make changes to the cam timing? What kind of power are you yielding over baseline with those cam tables?

dyno's don't show what I'm looking for
 

I'm not trying to improve WOT performance. I want to improve mileage and daily drive-ability. These tables have enabled me to get 36 MPG highway, and yet in the city stop and go, it has enough power to be fun to drive. They work perfectly with lower load limit tables, and the AT RTB table for a quick surge of power from a standing stop. I've been to the dyno numerous times, and all it shows me are full throttle numbers. I don't drive at full throttle all the time, so that isn't helping me. I've worked for months making changes to the AVCS tables to get to where they are now. I have the Phantom ESC, so I can still turn it off to feel how it drives without boost. I've felt I must be affecting some kind of limit, since even small changes had a large effect. I know now it was Load Limits. I will be reinstalling my OEM header and front pipe soon, since I need to pass DEQ this November. This will give me a chance to see how my AVCS changes work with a stock header.
I do PC repair and drive to as many as 5 customers a day in the Portland/Vancouver area. I need a car that is fun to drive, yet gets at least 30 mpg on the highway. I like to slide, so I prefer a rear-wheel-drive car. The trunk has enough room for my parts, accessories, and 2 towers, or a tower and a monitor, (flat screen). I'm heading into downtown Portland to see a customer now. Right after I flash a tune with even lower load limits.
:burnrubber:

That's pretty awesome! Take it it to the track and you got a "triple-duty" car! Daily, work/delivery, track. lol
@KoolBRZ can I check out some of your logs if you have them uploaded on datazap?

Good question. There's probably a few things going on. The one's I can think of off the top of my head are:

1. Inherent inaccuracy in the various sensors. Like everything else, they probably have at least a couple of percent error in their readings.

2. Effects of the various compensation tables.

At a certain point we're probably being over anal about getting a perfect match.

Yeah at some point we have to step back evaluate if we've achieved what we set out to do by making these adjustments and if further adjustments will actually yield improvements or if were just chasing our tails trying to make it "perfect."

I have a feeling the cam timing has more to say about that spike in the afr than the maf scale or load limits, so I'll be looking at that more closely.

@Wayno First of all a big thank you for assembling all this information in one place. If DI gives better knock resistance over PFI why did no one adjust the ratio at low speeds to 100% DI? Isn't it at the lower speeds where engine is more knock limited and where the spark efficiency is already bad?

MAF scale spreadsheet updated with improved scales. Few other minor changes in the roms attached in the sister thread.

I've been experimenting with load limits to fix that pesky 3000 - 3800 RPM range that always wants to go rich. Has anyone run into an issue where it seems like the load limits you set are ignored? For instance, I know that the load limit I set in the tune is 1.00 at 3800 RPMs, but when I review WOT logs after the fact, I see readings around 1.08 - 1.10 at that RPM point and I'm still a full point too rich.

I know you're probably thinking: "Did you flash the right tune?" And I'm certain that I did because I made changes to the KCA table in my tune and can see that change in my logs. I know that the actual load limit values get extrapolated between the RPM points, but when I have it set to 1.00 at 3800 RPMs, shouldn't I be getting much closer to 1.00 than the 1.08 to 1.10 I'm seeing? Anything else I could be missing?

like most ecu tables the actual value used is interpolated (kind of a smoothed average weighted value) between the previous and next values in the table, its not just stepped down or up to the next value

Thanks Steve. I do understand that the actual load limit values extrapolate/interpolate between the values setup in the tables, but if my load limit table has a specific value of 1.00 at 3800 RPMs (just like one of Wayno's Stg2 UEL tables above), shouldn't I see a value close to that at 3800 RPMs in one of my logs? Instead, my logs are showing a calculated load of almost 1.10 in the 3700 to 3900 RPM range and I'm still very rich.

You only need to use the load limits to make the AFR curve flat, or at least up to an acceptable angle, then you can move the whole 3.2V cell leaner in the maf scale.

Does the 3.2v area have a tendency to go rich in general?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

The logged load will always read the true calculated value and does not cap at the load limits. Simple solution, if you're still rich, calculate by how much and reduce the limit by that amount.

Not in general, only in late model cars.

And it's a real bitch because the value of the final LTFT bracket seems to start at 50g/s but is determined at exactly 60g/s.

OTS 98 on AU/EU A01I::
http://www.datazap.me/u/wayne/stg2-u...81-16818-16851

OTS E85 on AU/EU A01I::
http://datazap.me/u/wayne/206-stg2-u...&zoom=893-1084

93 OTS on a US A01D
http://datazap.me/u/jbilsky3/cruise-...zoom=6282-6754

Yes, have seen it on MT too, though not in US market.

Guide will be updated soon with new LL and some new things.

I see so we can either bump up the 3.2V area and create a negative LTFT at that point or raise up the area of MAF (where the engine runs OL) which would be the tail end of it or alternatively do what @KOdemname47 says which is play with load limits at certain rpms?

I dont know how rich and lean folks are seeing out in the field in general. I see this on mine. http://www.datazap.me/u/thambu19/12-...5-16&mark=1230

Thanks for the help gentlemen. Over the course of a few tweaks and reflashes this afternoon, I finally got actual AFR to more closely follow the commanded AFR. I ended up dropping the load limit at 3800 RPMs to 0.93 and also made a few MAF scale adjustments in the 3.2 - 4.30 MAFv range.

Hello all, I'm running Shiv's v2.07 Stg 2 UEL e85 tune and my mods are Gruppe-S UEL and K&N high flow filter. Everything else is stock. Below is my data log. Does it seem to be running rich? It goes down to 11.5 or so. Any tweaks I should do?

I use Propel e85 found in Socal which is pretty consistent year round I've heard and is usually above e80.

Thanks!

http://datazap.me/u/brzf/log-1451202...12&zoom=67-229

try wayno,s load limits from first post , you will need wayno,s definitions to be able to alter load limit tables.

Just the load limits for the Tomei/Gruppe-S header and keep the same MAF scales?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I kept the OFT stage 2 MAF scale, used Wayno's load limits (made small adjustment for my JDL UEL), and Wayno's injector scaling, and I'm running much much closer to commanded AFR. Just slightly richer, which I'm fine with because of california 91 oct. sucking.

the open loop maf scaling look ok as its running close to commanded afr at higher rpm so probaly leave that alone.

yep just swap in wayno e85 load limit tables make sure you do A and B tables both the same.

as jb86d said you can swap in the pi\di ration tables as well if you want but not rearly necessary it was just for low end smoothness and idle if you do those make sure you do all three pi\di tables cold\warm\hot

For Gruppe-S/Tomei you want the load limit of 1.0 at 3800 rpm.

MAF scale depends on country/cal code/MY.
Your best first choice is the off the shelf Stg2 MAF scale as JB is using.

I would also at least change the injector ratios so it runs DI until 7000 instead of 5000, just so there's no huge AFR change at 5000 due to PI scaling.

Thanks guys! I'll make the changes and do some more data logging to see the results!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After driving about 100 miles I went ahead and ran a few more data logs with the changes I made.

Wayno's Gruppe-S/Tomei load limits, OTS e85 Stg2 MAF, and DI until 7000 (already like this in the e85 OTS tune so didn't have to change): http://datazap.me/u/brzf/e85-gruppe-...7&mark=711-714

OTS Stg 2 e85 Tune: http://datazap.me/u/brzf/log-1451202...12&zoom=83-211


Seems like it leaned out now from 2200-3000 RPM and a bit more rich at the higher RPMs above 6500. Is it a concern?

No, it's not really a concern.

Next you should plug in the lean maf scale. That will make 3.2V leaner, and the whole lot richer due to higher LTFT and compensate by making 3.7V and above leaner.

Or you could DIY by multiplying 3.2V by about 0.94 (6% leaner), then probably having to multiply 3.7V and above by about 0.98 (2% leaner) to compensate for the increased LTFT.

Great, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Should I change anything to smooth out the 2200-3000 RPM range?

How are you getting your tune in .XML format?

Tunes are the contents of the ECU flash memory and are 1280k bytes long and a hex\binary file. They are a combination of program instructions and tables.

The XML files is the definition file corrsspinding to the tune\rom calubration identifier, this tells romraider how to find the tables in the tune\rom file.

Please read the romraider tips link below and probably the rimraider how to guides over at romraider.com

I've seen two different people, you and wayno, link to the OFT downloads we page for the "definitions." The thing I'm confused about is which download is the definitions. I downloaded the OTS tunes, but I can't find the corresponding XML files for any food.

the definitions are in the tune pack you download from oft downloads page they are in separate folder labeled xml from memory.

you can also use wayno's defs if you need to access some of the extra tables like load limits.

wayno's defs are at end of this post

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94822

You're a massive help bud, thanks a lot.

I was trying to change my load limit table like Wayno shows but my table only goes to 3200 Wayno's goes to 4400. I'm using the OFT C series def's. One other thing Wayno shows load limit table B, Do you change table A too? I'm sure I'm overlooking something.

Copy and paste both tables.

You can edit the axis, not just the values.

Sorry had to go to outatown just got back. Thank you Wayno and JB86'd. I just got a open flash header and I'm going to put it on this weekend, Ill flash the tune then. thanks again.:respekt:

Well I know I don't have enough time (10 miles) on the tune but I noticed my AFR was in the high 11's during a 3rd and 4th gear pull. I don't know if it's anything to worry about but cruising it looks ok. take a look and see what you experts think. http://datazap.me/u/oldgunfan/stg2ue...-2-3-4-5-6-7-9

Your pulls are richer than your O2 sensor can measure. Probably not an issue, rich is usually safe just less performant. Trims there are at 0% right now, so it should even out if you give it time to learn.

I could use some help in dialing in the load limits. My car has an EL 4-1 catted header and apparently, none of the load limits on the first post fit perfectly. Below is the most recent log and the current load limit is attached:
http://datazap.me/u/akyp/20160126-st...4&zoom=825-961

Notice the rich lumps at 2800 and 3200 rpm, then the lean lump at 3800. If I'm understanding it correctly, the rich lumps can be fixed by lowering the load limit which I've been slowly doing. However, raising the load limit at 3800 rpm probably won't help the lean lump, as it's already at 1.10, but the recorded engine load at that point is just 1.06.

Should I think about messing with the MAF scale or just use another scale (I'm currently using one of the scales from Wayno's ROMs but forgot which one)? Or am I doing it completely wrong?

Ok I got about 500 miles on my last flash, ver2.7 stage2 UEL 93oct tune with Wayno's load limit and fan mod. I just did a 3rd gear pull it looks fat like 11.7 to 12.3 afr. any help.http://datazap.me/u/oldgunfan/log-14...0&data=1-2-3-9