Quote:
Originally Posted by tomm.brz
but the AM doesn t really have anything to do with a "conservative" map, i that case you want something like a 91oct tune, you put 91 and modify the Base timing table with less timings, maybe a bit richer too
You still want AM at 1 in that map, and when AM drops it would indicate that something happened
LTFT like that is ok, best thing for open loop though is to disable LTFT on open loop (as ecutek suggests) and rescale very well the maf after 3V
No need for speed density if you are NA and a standard airbox, maf tuning is stable and precise enough
|
Yes, that's what I mean. Aiming for 1.0 AM on all maps, with one being optimized for the 93 octane fuel I normally run and one more conservative (reduced timing advance, etc.) for running with 91 octane fuel. As it stands right now from the logs I've done, even stock would need to be made more conservative to be at 1.0 AM on 91 octane, since I'm not quite there on the stock map with the best fuel I have available.
RE: speed density, I don't intend to run it under normal conditions, since I would prefer the greater sensitivity of MAF tuning. I'm talking about using ECUTEK's procedure to rescale the MAF using Speed Density (
here's a link) rather than using the VGI tool / logging.
Interesting that they say in that article that LTFT's within +/- 5% are acceptable, while in other posts on the forum here, folks are saying to aim for within +/- 3% or better. They also say in the article that if you can't get within +/- 5% after a couple of attempts with that procedure, that you can then "move to the other methods of MAF scaling in closed and open loop", which sounds like the method used with the VGI tool, so it may just make more sense to jump straight to that method.
All that said, again, I'm pretty happy with the +/- 5% LTFT's I'm at right now, so likely won't bother rescaling at all unless I add any mods that could potentially affect the scaling (E.G. Grimmspeed intake, though they say it doesn't require rescaling).