Here's a short article about afr's for flex fuel.
http://ethanolpro.tripod.com/id213.html

AFR to Lambda calculator:
http://www.wallaceracing.com/air-fuel-lambda.php

Should come in handy while dialing your fuel tables.

@KoolBRZ what changes did you have to make to PFI BRZ and DI fuel pressure to get the LTFT back to where it was before the new PFI DI surface?

People seem to be finding the port injection fueling is a bit low compared to the di.

Seems arround the 5% mark , i moved by PI injector scalar (injector scaling brz in romraider) down 3% which increased port fueling 3%, Did not touch th di pressures ect figured it was easier to match the port to the di than the other way round

That and a bit more
 

I increased the Injector Scaling BRZ by 3%, than by an additional 1.6%. I think 5% should be a good place to start. Load, drive, use the Shiv quick-learn method of accelerating gradually from 2000 to 5000, log, then make changes based on the log.
I'm using custom AVCS mapping, so my trims are going to be off until I re-scale my MAF to suit. I'm making the major changes first, then worrying about fuel trims last, so long as they are trimming richer from lean. That way if it applies the trims to Open Loop it will only make it richer, which is much safer than applying lean trims to Open Loop. I'm also experimenting with large cell groups of -.001 compensations to the closed group compensation tables. It had been running too rich at low loads with less power and worse economy. It's also more unsafe to run rich in Closed loop, because it applies those trims to Open loop. I'm finding out it has more power at Stoich in the low load areas of .3 through .6, and from 1600 RPM's through 2800. I'm using more increased Tip-in instead, to compensate for low-load throttle changes. More power, and more economical.

Thanks! I am about to try the PFI DI map. Wanted to make sure my baseline is good before I did that. I have a Takeda intake so have to work on some MAF scaling and get trims and OL AFR correct before messing with PFI ratios. I am starting with the scaling @steve99 had posted

Remember, it is far far better to make it leaned out in Closed loop, so it applies richer trims in Open loop. You can make up the fuel needed to accelerate with added Tip-in, and if you really need to accelerate, you'll be in Open loop anyway. I'm beginning to think that the entire closed loop should be Stoich. I'm going to try this out today. I left the temp comp tables alone, I still think they are necessary.

Are you logging your CL/OL transitions? The ECU holds CL waay too long. With slightly modified transition settings, I've had the ECU hold closed loop into load 1.4-1.5 with boost of 3-4 psi early in the rev range.

100% Stoich doesn't work. It bogs down after every shift. Went back to tune with Stoich between 1600 and 2800, from.2 to.6 load, and that runs well. @ztan, what minor changes to CL transition did you make?

Reducing or setting the open loop delay counters to 0 really seems to help. I've seen plenty of people suggest to set them to zero.

Depends on what you are trading for. If it is FE then yes stoich or slightly lean will give you that but doing so you need to add some spark to bring combustion back to where it was set by the OEM.
Going slightly rich (very slightly) in the order of 0.95 lambda will give excellent drive feel but ofcourse at cost of FE.
OEMs tune the FAR to get best catalytic conv efficiency. So the FAR can vary from lean to rich depending on speed/load and this is engine specific so I cant tell you how it works for FA20.
Going CL too long can dip into Scavenging region and it can confuse the O2 sensors causing engine to run rich to compensate for it.

My car feels flat all the way to 2.2K rpm. I may go back to OEM cam timings below 2K and follow it up with going 100%DI with some additional spark timing. Right not the IAM =1 all the time so I am sure there is some potential for extra spark timing.
I have seen people get scared by seeing some -0.5 deg knock retard. In the world I work half a degree of spark retard is nothing at below WOT conditions. At WOT ofcourse you dont want a lot of spark pull out but upto a degree is okay as it doesnt change the numbers so much.

PI 0% better for AT's?
 

I've been playing around with straight DI, and for an AT it shifts better and accelerates better. Knowing it is limited in the higher rpms and loads I made a map of solid 20% PI, then using the thresholds to limit it, I limited PI to 0% up to 2000 rpm, and out to 1.0 load. I made a pic of the table, above, and the effective percentages, below.

And then you lose the reason the PIs are used.... to help keep the valves clean and to help get a better mixture. It's a nice feature that ECUtek have got which means you can log the end of DI to spark timing, but only really is useful for boosted applications when you might have enough fuel to get close to the spark timing.

Oh, the PI is still being used all right. I can hardly shut it off
 

I just logged the results of the tunes with those tables and PI is most definitely not staying at 20%. Per the threshold settings it was supposed to be at 0% up to 2000 rpms and out to 1.0 load, and on the other tune it was with oem threshold settings, so it should have been 0% up to 5000 rpms and out to 1.5 load. At certain loads and speeds under 1.0 and under 5000 rpms the PI would actually exceed the DI, even though the whole table was 20%. Then I tried just zeroing out the area affected by the threshold and it made absolutely no difference. I zeroed out the whole table and finally PI shut off. There has to some other coding at work here, because it didn't happen at all times or all rpms. I'll load up the table I partially zeroed out and upload a log for you guys to look at. then maybe you can tell me what the *&^%$ is going on with this crazy PI system.

Datalogs of what should be 20% PI
 

This should be 20% PI. It not only isn't, it's all over the place. There is obviously something else affecting PI. I don't think it's just being used for tip-in. I think there are more thresholds or something.
http://datazap.me/u/koolbrz/log-1458...g=0&data=12-13
http://datazap.me/u/koolbrz/log-1458...0&data=1-12-13

Did you change all 3 ratio tables?

You're logging injector open time for PI and DI, just because the PI IPW is longer than the DI does not mean that it's providing more fuel.

There are min/max DI and PI IPW tables, are these still untouched?

I left the min/max tables untouched. I considered the PW size difference, but regardless, PI should have followed DI, not jumped all over the place. Try making all three tables all zeroes except for a line of 20% down the right side and across the bottom. Drive and log that. Tell me if it does it to your car as well. When I zeroed out the whole tables it turned off PI completely, except for idle. At idle it came on some of the time.
(edit) Could the PI pulse width have been magnified by the manifold pressure? Since I have the Phantom SC with the Procede controller it was on and boosting when the PI was jumping around. Could the PI have been using more PW to compensate for pressure in the manifold?

I have run with 0% PI and it works as it should. I would suggest something not being set right. If the PI ratio table is set to 0 then no PI will be used unless under certain idle or you exceed the max DI fuel volume parameters.

0% PI works better than fine. I hate PI now.
 

0% PI tables work fine showing Pi only at idle, sometimes, 100% DI cures every single problem I have ever had with fueling. Problems I have tried to fix with AVCS tuning. I hate PI now. It's louder, less economical, and accelerates worse than DI. I'm trying to work with AVCS timing now to get the Intake Late/Exhaust Late internal EGR working correctly. I'm not sure if I can do it with DI alone, or if I need PI to get it to work correctly. I'm just concentrating on the area from .3-.5 load, and from 1200-2000 rpms. That should boost my highway mileage.

1st you thought PI was beneficial, now you want to run 100% DI.....

There's a reason the OEM engineers chose what they did. You could run more DI if you like at lower load, but I wouldn't eliminate the PI completely for cruising or you'll end up with all the horrible deposits that the PI is there to help with. And as stated, the PI will help mixture formulation in the cylinder under some circumstances.

EGR is not necessarily beneficial to efficiency, it is more to do with emissions, but that's for a different thread. However, you don't really want the DIs to be injecting when there's hot exhaust gasses in the cylinder IMO.

I wouldn't run any egr timing...... but to do so just bump up the exhaust timing...

For MPG at lower rpm go to about 10-12 on the intake and 8-10 on the exhaust... That should still produce good cruising power and good MPG....

Changing the DI / PI percentage will also change your F/A ratio, I think you van run more fuel with port injection...

I have made some adjustments to 'Port Injector Scaling BRZ' until changing DI/PI ratios did not affect AFR anymore.

Had to decrease the value slightly for my car.

Resurrecting an old thread, but for a good reason
 

I've been comparing DI to PI with DI and found that DI alone doesn't have as much power or acceleration. That is over-simplification, since there are firing times and angles to consider with DI as well, but I happened on a good thing because of it. From working with it in the past, I know that straight DI can handle more spark advance than PI, so I wanted to use the majority of the PI in low load areas. After several phenomenally bland and boring failures, I tried out this table, changing the PI Ratio Threshold to 15% to enable 20% PI. I was surprised to find I liked it. Knowing most people don't have access to the PI Ratio Thresholds, I tried the same design table, with the 20% ranges boosted to 35%, so the normally hidden thresholds wouldn't apply. I didn't like it as much, but it wasn't too bad. Take a look, try it out, and tell me what you think.

This was a very look like a base map scale from motec

U01A safe tables include a cutout for the VVT resonance area around 5000 rpm
 

For those who are still studying 86 VVT, here's an update from the distant future of gen1.5 red intake ROMs: the intake tables are 3 rows taller, having been tuned specifically to reduce intake advance at load 0.0-1.0 x rpm 4700-5200. This is right about where we all hear that tinny VVT resonance on K-series tunes, and it doesn't silence that resonance - but it does limit how loud it gets compared to K tunes, and I figure if they went through the effort of resizing the table to put this in, there must be something worth considering in that. So, duly noted.


EDIT: Also! Some injection-specific changes in S10C/U01A that y'all may be interested in (the S10C XML and BIN elsewhere in the forum can be used to see these in RomRaider):



One value for Direct Injection Quantity Maximum has changed: RPM 2000, from 90 => 120 (increased by 30mL).


The GDI Pressure A/B tables have had nearly every value tweaked.


The Intake/Exhaust Duty Correction A/B/C/D tables have had most values tweaked.


The GDI Flow Rate (correction) table has had most values tweaked, with many cells being set to 1.000 (no correction).

U01A port injection (warm) ratio table
 

Alongside the VVT in/ex table above, here's the ZA1JU01A port injection ratio table. It's been expanded since K-series as well, to make room for the notched series on the right, but you can compress this back down to K-series to fit without losing any fidelity by renumbering the RPM axis to (600, 1600, 2000, 2400, 2800, 3200, 4800, 5200, 6400, 6800) and copying only those rows from U01A below (or S10C, which has a romraider XML elsewhere on the forum).

This is also accompanied by a change to the PI ratio values for RPM and Load from K-series, so make sure to consider those: PI Ratio Thresholds RPM = 3200; PI Ratio Thresholds Load = 0.6. (The table PI Ratio Thresholds is unchanged.)

Related/unrelated note. this is the strategy for the new FA24 engine. much more port injection areas. now if anyone can just rom raider it....

ecu is locked there only ecutek has unlocked and the gr86 is available only to master tuners who bought it

@Jianlun interesting. Any source for that entire document?

S20G port injection ratio table
 

That FA24 graph reminds me of S20G's super fancy port injection table, which is way more complicated than S10C or U01A, so here's that. Different PI thresholds for this one - 10.0/75.0%, 6400rpm, 0.8load - and probably other surrounding tables too, but I haven't finished writing the XML yet.

Found some time back, not sure where. Dumped into my g drive. Probably keeping it shared for no more than a week.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gih...ew?usp=sharing