Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB - Calibrating my Stg1 tune after 4-1 EL header install

- Software Tuning (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=88)

- - Calibrating my Stg1 tune after 4-1 EL header install (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124676)

Calibrating my Stg1 tune after 4-1 EL header install

I justed wanted to share my experiences with the header install on my car (remember to think twice about safety if you think about modifying your rom):

Decided to keep my current tune (Stg. 1 with altered maf scaling etc.) and to update the missing bits. Went with the Stg. 2 EL cam maps and their corresponding ignition tables. I'm running 102 octane fuel, so there's an extra safety net.

The lower half of the rpm range felt great right from the start. I couldn't feel the torque dip any more. The engine pulled just linear from down low to top. Sound became great as well. :cheers:

There are a couple of things I noticed:

I don't know if the Stg2EL maps were developed for a 4-2-1 or 4-1 header but they work well enough as a baseline for mine.

MAF scaling in the upper range was way off on the lean side (that's a good sign for a well working header). For safety purpose I enriched the table from 3.20V upwards by 2% before even firing the engine up. After warm up and some cautious logging it still ended up about 4% too lean! The irritations around the 60g/sec MAF range are gone. For the first time I had no issues re-scaling the MAF without excessive bumps.

The clean maf scale exposed an imbalance of the OEM DI/PI calibration on my car. The port injectors seemed to inject about 2.7% less fuel than necessary. This was obvious looking at the log data. I just picked some random AFR value out of said area and divided them through its AFR_CMD like this: 12.5/12.16=1.02796

In the next step I used this result as a multiplier on the Injector Flow Scaling table. The outcome is a mostly perfect-flat AFR curve.

Before:https://i.imgur.com/d3xUzhJ.png
After:https://i.imgur.com/gCrRkcP.png

Now from this point onwards, I could go two routes:
A) adjust timing for my fuel and call it a day
or
B) get the necessary tools up and try to tweak the cam timing.

Very interesting, forgive the ignorance but Stg1/Stg2 EL sounds like OFT tunes correct?

I'll be getting my OFT soon and later on a 4-1 EL header as well (been drooling over the ptuning one). I'll be watching this thread to see how you go about adjust the cam timing.

sub'd

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvarbullet (Post 3031925)

If you buy P-tuning header new, ask the-tuning guys for the cam tables

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 3031942)

If you buy P-tuning header new, ask the-tuning guys for the cam tables

Awesome, thanks for the info. :thumbsup:

It's been a while since the OP. Unfortunately, I had to wait until the winter was over to get stable ambient temps.
Base maps were OFT v4, so the values in the 'cruise area' are original.
All the data in the tables about load 1.1+ have been determined with the help of vgi's mafscaling tool.
All values between cruise and wot have been smoothed manually.

I'm still concerned about the 4200 row in the exhaust table. It just looks wrong, but that's what the mafscaling tool came up with even after multiple tries to de-verify the results.
I've tried to use the highest gear possible, but most of the pulls were done in 3rd gear due to traffic and in particular because I don't want to hand out my driver's license. :)

I would not promise that I leave them in the current state, but here's a snapshot, nevertheless.
If anyone dares to test, please leave a comment here.

Code:

Exhaust retard:

,,0.15,0.20,0.30,0.40,0.50,0.60,0.70,0.80,0.85,0.90,0.95,1.00,1.10,1.20,1.30,1.40

800,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0

1000,0.0,0.0,0.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,5.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0

1200,0.0,0.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,10.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0

1600,10.0,20.0,20.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,15.0,5.0,5.0,5.0,5.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0

2000,10.0,20.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,25.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0

2200,10.0,20.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,28.0,27.0,26.0,25.0,24.0,22.0,22.0,22.0,22.0

2400,10.0,20.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,28.5,27.8,27.0,26.3,25.5,24.0,24.0,24.0,24.0

2800,20.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,29.0,28.5,28.0,27.5,27.0,26.0,26.0,26.0,26.0

3000,20.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.3,30.4,30.5,30.6,30.7,28.0,28.0,28.0,28.0

3600,20.0,30.0,35.0,35.0,35.0,30.0,30.0,31.3,31.9,32.5,33.1,33.8,34.0,34.0,34.0,34.0

3700,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,31.3,31.9,32.5,33.1,33.8,35.0,35.0,35.0,35.0

4000,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,31.0,31.5,32.0,32.5,33.0,34.0,34.0,34.0,34.0

4200,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0

4400,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,32.0,33.0,34.0,35.0,36.0,38.0,38.0,38.0,38.0

4600,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,31.5,32.2,33.0,33.8,34.5,36.0,36.0,36.0,36.0

4800,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,31.3,31.9,32.5,33.1,33.7,35.0,35.0,35.0,35.0

5200,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0

5600,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,28.8,28.1,27.5,26.9,26.2,25.0,25.0,25.0,25.0

6000,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,28.6,27.9,27.2,26.6,25.9,24.5,24.5,24.5,24.5

6400,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,28.5,27.8,27.0,26.3,25.5,24.0,24.0,24.0,24.0

6800,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,29.6,29.4,29.2,29.1,28.9,28.5,28.5,28.5,28.5

7000,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,29.5,29.2,29.0,28.8,28.5,28.0,28.0,28.0,28.0

7200,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,29.3,28.9,28.5,28.1,27.8,27.0,27.0,27.0,27.0

7400,20.0,30.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,30.0,30.0,28.9,28.3,27.8,27.2,26.6,25.5,25.5,25.5,25.5

Code:

Intake advance:

,,0.15,0.20,0.30,0.40,0.50,0.60,0.70,0.80,0.85,0.90,0.95,1.00,1.10,1.20,1.30,1.40

800,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0

1000,0.0,-5.0,-5.0,-5.0,-5.0,0.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0

1200,0.0,-10.0,-10.0,-10.0,-10.0,-10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0

1600,0.0,-10.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,15.0,15.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0

2000,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,10.0,15.0,17.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0

2200,5.0,5.0,5.0,5.0,5.0,5.0,10.0,17.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,25.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0

2400,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,15.0,22.0,26.0,29.0,32.0,36.0,36.0,36.0,36.0,36.0

2800,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,15.0,23.0,26.0,30.0,34.0,38.0,38.0,38.0,38.0,38.0

3000,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,16.0,24.0,28.0,31.0,35.0,37.0,37.0,37.0,37.0,37.0

3600,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,25.0,28.0,30.0,32.0,35.0,37.0,37.0,37.0,37.0

3700,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,25.0,28.0,30.0,32.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,40.0,40.0

4000,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,25.0,28.0,30.0,32.0,35.0,40.0,40.0,40.0,40.0

4200,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,24.0,27.0,29.0,31.0,34.0,38.0,38.0,38.0,38.0

4400,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,20.0,24.0,26.0,28.0,31.0,33.0,37.0,37.0,37.0,37.0

4600,10.0,10.0,10.0,15.0,15.0,20.0,20.0,24.0,26.0,28.0,31.0,33.0,37.0,37.0,37.0,37.0

4800,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,24.0,26.0,28.0,31.0,33.0,37.0,37.0,37.0,37.0

5200,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,24.0,26.0,28.0,30.0,32.0,36.0,36.0,36.0,36.0

5600,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,23.0,25.0,26.0,28.0,30.0,33.0,33.0,33.0,33.0

6000,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,22.0,24.0,25.0,26.0,28.0,30.0,30.0,30.0,30.0

6400,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,20.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,24.0,24.0,25.0,27.0,27.0,27.0,27.0

6800,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,19.0,19.0,19.0

7000,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,12.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,14.0,16.0,16.0,16.0,16.0

7200,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,11.0,11.0,11.0,11.0,11.0,11.0

7400,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,9.0,9.0,9.0,8.0,8.0,8.0,8.0,8.0

PS: don't look at the numbers

Cam maps updated. Power is much better in the lower rpms and the transition from cruise to WOT.
I actually had to pull some percent out of the first third of the DBW torque request maps to not run into drivability issues.
There are some improvements in the last thousand revs as well! :party0030:

PS: The latter vdyno pic is from an old run with the stock header. Found it somewhere on my hard drive. Felt like posting it for a good laugh.

What software do you use for tuning/editing the rom file?

The interface looks very much like Ecuedit that I used to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spec C Wannabe (Post 3084613)

What software do you use for tuning/editing the rom file?

The interface looks very much like Ecuedit that I used to.

Brzedit. It's a spin-off of Ecuedit with some extra quirks for the platform, IIRC.

A friend of mine has a skunk2 EL 4-1 catless header
so do you think these cam settings are better than the normally used taken from OTS v2 stage2 EL?

I don't know if a Skunk header will benefit from my tables, since the calibration was done with a JDL. It could run better or worse compared to the OTS tables. But never perfect.
Closest relative imho is the P&L header. Runner layout looks nearly identical, although that doesn't mean anything. If runner diameter, length and stepping are different, the tables won't fit.
PS: I always thought the OTS EL tables have been developed on a gutted stock/HKS header type of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerunner (Post 3028084)

Decided to keep my current tune (Stg. 1 with altered maf scaling etc.) and to update the missing bits. Went with the Stg. 2 EL cam maps and their corresponding ignition tables. I'm running 102 octane fuel, so there's an extra safety net.

I'm about to install a JDL EL catless header on my BRZ leaving the rest of the exhaust and intake stock. I was going to start with the latest v4 Stage 2+ release but my guess it's based on the UEL. What tune would you recommend to start with. I'm not sure if your's is catless or not so that's why I'm asking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtekdis (Post 3114698)

I recommend going with the V4 or V2EL as base (whatever feels 'better' on your car) and throwing my VVT tables in. But don't use the old ones here or your car is going to be a drinker :) Can post the latest revision I'm running tomorrow. Going to bed right now.

Have fun!
:burnrubber:

I'm using the RomRaider and ZA1JA01C v4 maps, unfortunately I can't find the last 3 tables and it looks like they are not defined. Any idea how to get to those on my version?

Load comp B is available in the stock definitions, it just looks different due to scaling (example 1:1 screenshot added). Important for open-loop fuel trims.

Everything left of -1.16 psi is for closed loop, part-throttle only and may vary from car to car. Zero'ing them out is not perfect, but not worse than leaving the stock corrections in. You may correct these much laaaaaaater, after you have verified your maf scale fits.

Have not tested the definition, but looks ok in Romraider. Just remove the .txt suffix after downloading.

That definition worked! I know the OFT guys always say to use their definitions but how safe is to use this particular one to modify the V4.03 bin? Don't wanna brick the ECU ...

Actually the data in the tables looks right but the parameters are not named correctly. IDK if that has any impact on actual calibration in this case.

Looks like the description has always been swapped around in the original xml.

I don't believe there's something to worry about. For example the tables in the OFT - guide to dialling in... -thread look similar.

I think we would have heard of any problems right now, if there had been anything faulty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerunner (Post 3116791)

I see that now in the section 1.2 STARTER LOAD LIMITS. Thanks for the help freerunner! I'll report later when the tune is loaded and it's got some miles on it.

Last question ... What is the difference between the Safe and Normal AVCS tables. I can't find any info on when is one used vs the other. Romraider doesn't show any info under Table Properties either. Are you only modifying the Safe tables or both?

Safe is used with am >0.7 normal with am between 0.4 and 0.7 or something like that.. Just put them the same

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomm.brz (Post 3117447)

Safe is used with am >0.7 normal with am between 0.4 and 0.7 or something like that.. Just put them the same

^^this

I usually fill the base tables as well. ECU uses these while the car is cold, IIRC.

I dont think it uses base table when cold
At idle vvt are always 0,when cold and vvt not enabled vvt stay at 0 too
When cold. But vvt enabled it just uses the safe. Table
Base is used on particular conditions like limp mode or am less than 0.1 or less than 0.4

Here is a run with my new MAF scale:

https://datazap.me/u/bogusbrz/log-15....60&tmax=66.02

Let me know what you think.

Looks healthy!

Do you feel any leftover of the torque dip at 3600/3800?

PS: that's a smooth maf scale!

It's pretty much gone. :thumbup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtekdis (Post 3122141)

It's pretty much gone. :thumbup:

The whp number on virtual dyno is not that high for a catless header. Was the road level?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikitopo (Post 3122143)

The whp number on virtual dyno is not that high for a catless header. Was the road level?

That's what I was thinking too...

Catless header, stock overpipe, stock front pipe w/ cat and stock midpipe with muffler delete. The road was flat. US 93oct

Here are some previous runs on the same road. Green is the current map.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtekdis (Post 3122155)

Ok, I found the "issue". You are using the Mustang Dyno option which gives lower numbers. If you select the DynoJet option, then you'll get much higher numbers. You are fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikitopo (Post 3122164)

Ok, I found the "issue". You are using the Mustang Dyno option which gives lower numbers. If you select the DynoJet option, then you'll get much higher numbers. You are fine.

LOL picked up 20WHP!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtekdis (Post 3121993)

Here is a run with my new MAF scale:

https://datazap.me/u/bogusbrz/log-15....60&tmax=66.02

Let me know what you think.

Could you please share how you performed the MAF scale?

I mean you don't have to explain the whole thing, only just let me know which program and where I can get the instruction that I can follow.

This one?
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64790

:thanks:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spec C Wannabe (Post 3122486)

Just google brz/frs MAF scaling and you'll find plenty of info. I'm using VGI tool it has all of the functions to perform this task. Do the research first before you start logging. It will save you time and gas.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spec C Wannabe (Post 3122486)

MAF scaling (with crude PI/DI-balancing) in a nutshell:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...99&postcount=5

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerunner (Post 3122539)

MAF scaling (with crude PI/DI-balancing) in a nutshell:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...99&postcount=5

On the part : "6. Feed results into 86inches' maf shaping tool" do you only use the MAFv range up to 3.2v? Since the OL part of the logging/scaling hasn't been done yet? Is your Tau = 3.2 in this case and the range is smaller? What's your Exp Base?

Correct me if I'm wrong regarding the following inputs:
MAF V and MAF row is for the calculated scale out of VGI tool
Comparison row gets the MAF from the scale used in data logging

The shaping tool is slightly confusing to me based on some of the data I've been trying to feed through it. I've been using the VGI smoothing function to do this part but I would like to understand 86's tool better.

Thanks for your help!

I think my intention was to get CL values that actually fit the car (performed via VGI tool) for 86inches' spreadsheet.

I put the calibrated values in the MAF_V/MAF rows. Comparison row doesn't get touched by now.

Then (in the spreadsheet) to adjust the modifiers to get maf g/secs up about 3.0V to 'follow' the precalibrated VGI-curve while focussing on 'matching' the 3.0V value. The spreadsheet then does its magic and pre-calibrates the open loop part automatically.
I copy the results into the comparison row. I tweaked the spreadsheet to get % difference between comparison row and result row, when I'm adjusting the modifiers.
Hm maybe I should attach my spreadsheet, since it's probably easier to simply show it than to explain it.

It's important to get the scaling at around 3.0V (for the final fuel trim) right, else the ECU works against the OL part of the scaling.
After that is done, the upper voltage range can be edited with VGI or by hand, no problem.
But in the end, it just an alternative way for using VGItool or adjusting the tables manually. It's not better or worse if the data is right.

If you have any further questions, just ask right away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerunner (Post 3122605)

Then (in the spreadsheet) to adjust the modifiers to get maf g/secs up about 3.0V to 'follow' the precalibrated VGI-curve while focussing on 'matching' the 3.0V value. The spreadsheet then does its magic and pre-calibrates the open loop part automatically.

This is the part I don't quite understand ...

Why you guys, that spend the time to scale the maf, don't disable directly LTFT in open loop so that the maf is always scaled perfectly and you dont have to care about the ltft at 3v?
Fensport in UK tunes all the cars this way and the afr is always matched to the target, it s so much easier

It's difficult for me to explain, but I'll try:

The trick is to fill the "CAL"-row with numbers to increase or decrease the slope of the new maf curve. It does not need to exactly match the pre-calibrated maf curve - so if there are "hills" and "valleys", you just try to adjust the new curve to go through the middle of it, with the least possible amount of corrections in the CAL-row.
The ECU will compensate with STFT+LTFT in these regions.

No reason to freak out about fuel-trims.

Just the area around 3V should be treated with care, we don't want much interfering from the ECU here, because the final fuel trim throws off the open-loop scale.
edit: I try to get around +/- 0.5% difference to the vgitool-calibrated data here (coloured "red" in the spreadsheet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomm.brz (Post 3122665)

I don't do it because I drive my car in the summer and in the winter.

The UK got neither. Only rain. *cough* ;)