Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1562767)

so this is what i got on 93 octane

http://datazap.me/u/carlitosway6891/...&data=1-8-9-12

this was done a few days ago and since then, my car pulls much much harder now....im going to do another log tomorrow but will be switching to E85 tomorrow afternoon =)

Originally Posted by jflogerzi (Post 1563263)

The KC Learned value. Can someone explain this. When the number is higher IE positive its adding timing, and when this is a negative number does that mean the ecu is pulling timing? If I have this wrong please correct me :)

BTW you love E85 if you have headers.

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 1563489)

Hey @jamesm agree with above but I,ll put a $1 on his AFR rich problem is due to his Perrin intake and not having the MAF re-calibrated. I think they come with re-scalling numbers but I'd say they have not been done.

KC learned looks ok appears to be tracking the Knock correction advance max A table to a stage 2 uel tune.

I'd say he need's maf re-scalled to suit perrin intake (or go back to stock intake)

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 1563476)

Hi Jamesm was kind enough to explain it to me so I'll have a go

KC learned is knock control learned value.

If all is well (significant knock not detected and timing not being pulled) then the KC Learned value should track the value in the "Knock Correction Advance Max A" table in your tune this table is under "Ignition Advance" in Rom Raider".

So you need to look at this table and check at any given RPM vs Load that the value matches the table if its less then timing has been pulled, if its greater then really weird stuff is happening.

Originally Posted by Yobiwan (Post 1563356)

car need learning time after OFT tune. try another log few days later.

you wil get better AFR then .

Originally Posted by StormTrooper (Post 1566962)

If I really remember correctly the kclv starts at 1 or zero and goes up to the number set in the tune. Meaning that for a certain driving period after a flash you will be somewhere above zero but less than the map max let's say 6 for a given load range.

So in order to know if you are not pulling timing you'd have to compare a log to the tune file?

Also has anyone figured out the tip in knock during low rpm high load? This would pull iam on both stock and all tunes I'd heard of.

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1566899)

i never got a chance to do another log before i switched out to e85 gas/ tune.....this happened yesterday so ill be giving my car a few days to learn before i do another log

so if my ARF stays rich, i guess i should switch out to the factory intake?

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 1568424)

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

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1563546)

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..

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1568953)

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 =(

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 1569124)

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.

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1569456)

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

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 1569480)

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.

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1563546)

the solution is scaling the maf properly.

Originally Posted by wparsons (Post 1569561)

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?

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1569543)

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??

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1569577)

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.

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1569543)

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??

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1569797)

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.

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1569610)

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.

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1569919)

I was wondering more if what I was looking at meant you could have two separate throttle maps depending if the sport button was on or off =)

Originally Posted by carlitosway6891 (Post 1569919)

I was wondering more if what I was looking at meant you could have two separate throttle maps depending if the sport button was on or off =)

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1569797)

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.

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1569797)

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.

Originally Posted by steve99 (Post 1569685)

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.

Originally Posted by jamesm (Post 1563412)

your car should not need learning time after a tune, imho. that log is off-the-scale rich and pulling timing. by 'giving it time to learn', you mean allowing time for fuel and timing corrections to be written in, both of which shouldn't be there in the first place.

just my .02, but one of the primary goals of tuning a car is eliminating fuel trims and knock correction. this whole idea of relying on fuel trims and knock correction to tune your car for you is just not a great idea.

the reason is because it leads to inconsistency in the tune. on the timing side, even the smallest bit of flkc can seriously impact how much power you're making. we were seeing losses of 10hp or more (on a turbo car) from just -1deg flkc on the dyno. the ecu is far too aggressive in pulling timing, and will almost always pull more than is necessary. this is why tuning up to the point of correction and not beyond it is so important. it allows you to run the most timing possible, as tuning into correction just results in the ecu pulling more than you could've gotten away with without it.

on the fueling side, relying on trims is a bandaid for inaccurate calibration. it results in inconsistent open loop AFRs (which is exactly what you're seeing here), and in cars with modified fuel systems (injectors and maf size, mainly) significant drivability issues. obviously running off-the-scale rich is not the way to make power.

though the computer is smart enough to correct the afr back to something near target fueling (given enough time to adjust), it's still far less than ideal particularly on the timing side and should be optimized if possible.

it can be argued that these issues exist in the stock tune (high trims, timing corrections) and they do, but the entire point of tuning is to improve upon it. i don't think it should be accepted that high trims and consistent knock correction are 'ok', and certainly not optimal on a tuned vehicle.

these are the natural downsides of an ots tune. they're generic, and need to suit a range of configurations operating under a wide variety of conditions. they're basically well-developed base maps. the beauty of these particular roms is that they're open and editable, and those looking to get the most out of them should certainly look to take advantage of that rather than just accepting mediocrity as 'the way it is'. if it can be ideal it should be, because that's what we're tuning for in the first place. most of this stuff is so easy to optimize (especially given a solid base) that there just isn't any good reason not to.

ok rant over lol.

Originally Posted by milhouse (Post 1611153)

So what's the verdict here? Safe to run an OFT OTS Stage 1 without scaling the MAF on a 2.5" Intake? I ordered an OFT (hasn't arrived yet) but I already have a Perrin 2.5" Intake I'd like to keep. I have no problem rescaling the MAF (if @jamesm is still offering to help guide someone , I, and I am sure the rest of the many Perrin CAI owners, would appreciate the gesture) but I'm not entirely certain on the process.

I am running 91 and not e85, as that's not really available near me.

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu (Post 1611165)

It's certainly safe to run Perrin's 2.5" intake. It will just run a bit richer than the stock intake. We have an intake on order and will be tested it on our car. Will revise MAF scaling as necessary and release the info to those who are running it :)

Shiv