Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB

Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/index.php)
-   Software Tuning (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=88)
-   -   Openflash Tablet v1.31 beta maps (including Stage 2!) now available for download (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49832)

SloS14 10-25-2013 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSH (Post 1294086)
Thank you. reading these threads reminds me once again why I am thankful I do not live in California. Octane and emissions just a small part of that equation.

Does that mean that this build has already turned off the 2nd sensor?

Not sure it turns the sensor off (i.e. heater), but keeps the CEL from coming on in relation to at least catalyst check (possibly heater malfunctions too).

Shit Luck 10-25-2013 11:45 PM

stage 2 test drive tomorrow.
also on a side note the tuner pro update solved my no start issues when adjusting the launch control. :cheers:

jeebus 10-26-2013 12:51 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Hmm, maybe it's just me but 1.3 feels more sluggish than 1.2. I did some comparisons and ignition advance looks to have been adjusted significantly in the low rpm range. I know you did this in the interest of knock prevention, but what does it look like on a dyno?

For comparison, here is stock vs 1.2 vs 1.3

Shiv@Openflash 10-26-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeebus (Post 1294897)
Hmm, maybe it's just me but 1.3 feels more sluggish than 1.2. I did some comparisons and ignition advance looks to have been adjusted significantly in the low rpm range. I know you did this in the interest of knock prevention, but what does it look like on a dyno?

For comparison, here is stock vs 1.2 vs 1.3

From the testing we have done, dyno looks the same. But with the earlier map, the brief MAF voltage spikes would make ecu follow the high load cells that had big ignition correction values. This caused the knock activity in the 2500-3200rpm area. The new map just accounts for the MAF spike and limits total timing under load.

jeebus 10-26-2013 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu (Post 1295023)
From the testing we have done, dyno looks the same. But with the earlier map, the brief MAF voltage spikes would make ecu follow the high load cells that had big ignition correction values. This caused the knock activity in the 2500-3200rpm area. The new map just accounts for the MAF spike and limits total timing under load.

Hmm, it feels less peppy down there to me. Seems about the same everywhere else though.

TopGearSolutions 10-26-2013 06:36 PM

Stage 2 W00T

solidONE 10-26-2013 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeebus (Post 1295160)
Hmm, it feels less peppy down there to me. Seems about the same everywhere else though.

I just loaded 1.3b as well and it does seem not to have that pull right before 3k rpms anymore.

Another thing I noticed is the crickets seem to have gotten really loud after loading 1.3b. When I go to start the engine it would chirp very loud on a slightly warmed up engine. The kind of loud chirping that would only show up after being run very hot (track and/or very hot ambient temps) with the factory tune. Not sure if anyone else is also getting this.

Shiv@Openflash 10-26-2013 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solidONE (Post 1295610)
I just loaded 1.3b as well and it does seem not to have that pull right before 3k rpms anymore.

Another thing I noticed is the crickets seem to have gotten really loud after loading 1.3b. When I go to start the engine it would chirp very loud on a slightly warmed up engine. The kind of loud chirping that would only show up after being run very hot (track and/or very hot ambient temps) with the factory tune. Not sure if anyone else is also getting this.

You can do a file comparison between v1.3 and v1.31 and you'll see the only change is ignition advance map at moderate to ful load below ~3500rpm. This should only effect ignition advance learning during those load/rpm conditions. Definitely won't make a difference to any cricket noise issue. For those who prefer the feel of the earlier map versions, by all means still run it. Next revision I'll see if we can add more timing down low without sacrificing stability. Buy this is the stuff end users can do themselves once we enable datalogging/viewing.

solidONE 10-26-2013 11:45 PM

Awesome! Can't wait for the data logging features. I also noticed that the OFT auto updated something when I plugged it into my laptop to load the new 1.31 map.

Edit: I actually went from 1.2 to 1.31. Did not get a chance to try 1.3.

SliverBrz 10-27-2013 01:26 AM

so do i remove the o2 spacer?? anyone?

jeebus 10-27-2013 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solidONE (Post 1295610)
Another thing I noticed is the crickets seem to have gotten really loud after loading 1.3b. When I go to start the engine it would chirp very loud on a slightly warmed up engine. The kind of loud chirping that would only show up after being run very hot (track and/or very hot ambient temps) with the factory tune. Not sure if anyone else is also getting this.

there's no way the tune did anything to your crickets. Probably just some especially ethanol-y gas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu (Post 1295692)
You can do a file comparison between v1.3 and v1.31 and you'll see the only change is ignition advance map at moderate to ful load below ~3500rpm. This should only effect ignition advance learning during those load/rpm conditions. Definitely won't make a difference to any cricket noise issue. For those who prefer the feel of the earlier map versions, by all means still run it. Next revision I'll see if we can add more timing down low without sacrificing stability. Buy this is the stuff end users can do themselves once we enable datalogging/viewing.

Yeah, I did a file comparison and that's how I found it. I'll leave 1.31 on there for now as I'd rather have a bit more knock correction than that tad bit of extra pep down there. Once datalogging is enabled I plan on testing minor changes to that area.

RSH 10-27-2013 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeebus (Post 1296517)
there's no way the tune did anything to your crickets. Probably just some especially ethanol-y gas.



Yeah, I did a file comparison and that's how I found it. I'll leave 1.31 on there for now as I'd rather have a bit more knock correction than that tad bit of extra pep down there. Once datalogging is enabled I plan on testing minor changes to that area.

I have 93 here. Any reason i shouldn't just use 1.2 based on your observations of 1.3?

jeebus 10-27-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSH (Post 1296577)
I have 93 here. Any reason i shouldn't just use 1.2 based on your observations of 1.3?

I say run whichever one you prefer, and once datalogging is here, fine tune it a bit. If anything, 1.2 still felt safer than the stock tune.

clintavo 10-27-2013 11:13 PM

I cant find the 2.0 tune. Is it still up?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.