![]() |
RomRaider: Running super rich at high load/low RPM
Hey guys, I was reading through some of the older threads about adjusting GDI fueling, and rather than resurrect one of those I figured I'd make a new one.
Was there ever a consensus as to what the Y axes on the GDI Pressure Multiplier tables actually represent? In the OFT definitions, they list engine load on one and MAF g/sec on the other, yet the values are exactly the same and certainly look like they're scaled to be MAF values rather than load. Additionally, what does the X axis for GDI Pressure Target B point to? From what I've observed, it seems to correlate with "Fuel Pump DC" on the OFT, which I'm assuming is the high pressure fuel pump's duty cycle. Any pointers (heh) would be greatly appreciated! |
Quote:
|
Was just looking at the disassembly for this last night in A01G:
The value defined as Base Pulse Width (FFF89738) logs very closely to Engine load in g/rev. The Base PW value gets passed to a subroutine (at 51518) where it gets multiplied by 0.84460002 then by 100. The new value (Base PW x 85) is passed to the GDI pressure multiplier as the y-axis value. To simplify the Y-axis descriptor: Code:
<table type="Y Axis" name="Load" storagetype="float" endian="big">I understand the result from the GDI pressure target table to be a value sent to the GDI driver as a target for the high pressure pump to hit. |
Quote:
Full disclosure: I'm trying to reduce some really bad over-fueling I'm getting at positive manifold pressure and low-ish RPMs (<3200), which ends up translating to engine loads of >1.7 g/rev. I was hoping to get a better understanding of what the X axis is on the pressure target table so that I can more selectively adjust the pressure multiplier for these conditions, since those tables are rail pressure vs. engine load. |
Quote:
assume you have done maf scaling as well ? im no expert but by changing those gdi tables you may upset the balance between the pi and di injection systems you might want to have a look at the tune tweaks link below, shivalso suggested leaning out the ol fuel table in low rpm high load area , but its better to scale maf and correct load limits. see also @Wayno s tune thread for example load limit tables and maf scaling |
Quote:
So instead of trying to clamp the calculated load via the load limit table, which effectively stops increasing fuel delivery above a certain point, I want to scale back the fueling for those higher load numbers. |
Quote:
does the rich running occurr in open or closed loop mode ? is the problem happening with esc active ? if you mess with the gdi tables i think it going to cause more issues |
Quote:
The Phantom can only flow a set amount of air, and it's independent of engine RPM. From my understanding, with a constant MAF voltage, as engine RPM increases, the calculated load will decrease. So what I'm seeing is basically there's a tipping point where my engine load dips down below this bizarre "threshold" as a result of increasing RPM, and then fueling starts hitting targets again. |
Quote:
What are you using for an AFR source? Have you checked trims against MAP? There are some MAP based compensation tables for AFR sensor 1 and MAF flow (EL Comp) that might be applicable. |
Quote:
Using the factory AFR sensor. When you say trims do you mean AFR error? This is occurring solely in open loop. While I can't rule out sensor error or compensations due to positive pressure, I can feel the car bog and struggle when these rich events are occurring; it is immediately obvious when it happens. I don't believe it's only the AFR sensor reading being thrown off and not actual fueling error. Which tables specifically do you think would be worth looking at? By the way, thanks for that new scaling on the GDI Pressure Multiplier table, it's far more usable knowing what the heck the Y axis actually is! I feel like I should rename this thread at this point as we've definitely gone far beyond the original topic! Thanks for all your help and insight. |
Quote:
Are you using a stock AFR scaling or a modified one? If your sensor scaling is off at the low end, it may read wrong. I made a thread on sensor scaling and the first one I had read a bit rich low down. Updated scaling works quite well. Are you going rich just after transtioning to open loop? If so, do a search for rich dip on the NASIOC forums. I go rich just after transistion to OL and have tried all sorts of things to eliminate it - have not found a solution. Have you had a good look at the engine load limiter tables? My understanding was that with an A/T, the torque converter can make load spike quite high transiently leading to a whole bunch of fuel being tipped in when it is not needed. Take care with these - if you go too low, you'll lean out. |
Quote:
It's definitely not just a spike on tip-in or transition to open loop. It'll stay pegged for as long as I dare to keep my foot in it. Admittedly, I've not held it like that for more than a few seconds at a time, but with how fast the ECU responds, I wouldn't think it would take longer than that to pull out of it if it were going to. I have played with the load limiter tables a bit, but like you already mentioned, I ran into issues with going lean. It's difficult to know exactly where to clamp the values without knowing the underlying equation for how the load is calculated. I found the equation for 16-bit ECUs on the RomRaider forums after the fact, but I don't know that it directly translates: MAF*60/RPM If you think adjusting the load limiter is better than going after the fueling directly, I'll give it another shot. Would it make sense to calculate the max load for each cell using that equation above, then reduce it by the percent AFR error I see as a starting point? I'd really like to understand why this condition is occurring though; clamping the load feels like a dirty hack to me. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Stepping back to the GDI tables, I actually have made significant progress on my problem by scaling back GDI Pressure Multiplier A and B. It still needs to be scaled back a bit more, but I've got my AFR off the peg at least, around 10.5 now, without leaning out the upper rev range / lower loads. The key I've found is to extend and rescale the Y axis so that anything just below 1.7 g/rev isn't affected by my changes. It's bizarre how it's such an abrupt shift in fueling around that magic number, but this strategy works for me. :iono: Once I get this better dialed in I'll post up what I've done. With the typical disclaimer of this could very well break your car and I'm not responsible if it does, but it works on my machine. :thumbsup: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2026 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.