Thanks a lot for the explanation Wayne and for the custom ROM.
Messing with the MAF was quite a good learning experience. I might give it another try just to see what happens. If it all goes haywire, I'll revert to the MAF you provided.
Regarding AFR and timing these are my concerns:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayno
|
The 108.2 98 octane tune ran great! Perhaps the best of the tunes so far. Even though the LTFT in log above may not be quite representative of where it would have ended up though. As due to my noobness, I logged with only 50 km after flashing.
Still, I think running lean maybe produced the best performance of the tunes I flashed so far and the engine itself seemed happy. The "rich.au" MAF scale felt like it had the least power, even with more timing, for comparison.
What concerns me about running very lean is the already very hot engine bay and the heat of the header and especially the cat potentially burning ignition coils while tracking. I assume the EGT will rise when going leaner but don't know if it's a substantial difference?
Quote:
|
Your fuel is only E5 so not really enough E% for any great cooling benefit.
|
Actually, I sent an email to Shell and asked. V-power is E0. Apparently, I got it wrong with the 5%. It's a quota where they have to sell 5% E on average. So all the 95E10 sales makes up for the the 100E0 V-power.
Quote:
|
Take the tune attached, drive 100km, then log on the street and pull timing out where needed, keeping it absolutely smooth in the process. Ignore knock on the track, there's no point taking timing out based on track data, you'll just de-tune your car that way. Don't just blanket remove timing on the whole map when there's no knock or knock only in one area.
|
Thanks a lot for putting this ROM together for me!
Regarding timing, I also tried flashing the 102 table already, and it had FLKC above 6000 rpm.
http://datazap.me/u/tor/custom-maf-s...&data=19-26-27
I also need some compromise as there are tracks where I can only get 98 octane. So I’d rather have the timing slightly on the conservative side. Also, I don’t mind losing a bit street performance for keeping IAM=1 on track.
I think I mentioned in another post that I already have more timing than your 100 octane tables. I actually made a mix of the 98, 100, 102 table.
Below 3600 rpm, the 98 octane table
From 4000 to 5600, 100 octane table
Above 5600 it's the 102 table, but with 0.35 less timing.
This is how it looks, compared to the 102 table:
