OFT - Example alternate maps for AT, 98RON, E85, MAF Scales

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by BXRCHTR

BTW Is there a way to do AT Launch control yet

No.

[BXRCHTR]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

No.

Ughhhhhhh

[Indie77]

Hey folks,

I'm new here, and first off, thanks to all the people who make this such an informative place. Noobs like me wouldn't learn a thing without you, much obliged!

I live in Germany and run my 2012 manual on 98 ROZ pump gas, which wikipedia says is about equivalent to 93 AKI in our region. I've used Wayno's Stg1 98 v111.2.US.Stg1 A01G ROM, did the closed loop learning phase and then some 3rd gear WOT pulls. Data is here (first one in 2nd gear, was too excited to shift )

http://datazap.me/u/indie77/log-1481...1-8-13&solo=13

How's that looking? I'd be very glad for feedback!

Thanks in advance

- Indie77

[Tor]

Originally Posted by steve99

shiv initially zeroed them all out in the base oft tunes, i think he put them back in in the latest ofh specific maps.

you would rearly need to be looking at individual cylinder knock counts to make your own specific tables, i suspect waynos are based of the ofh specific tune

Searching for timing compensation per cylinder led me back to this thread. I wonder why Shiv zeroed it out in the most recent OFH tune but kept it in the regular stg 2 UEL tunes?

Otherwise, Wayno uses the AVCS from the the OFH tune. Total timing (base plus KCA) on the 102 tune is not significantly different - give and take (some areas more, some less). Except above 6800 rpm and load 0.9 and in 0.6-0.7 load, lower rpm range, where OFH has significantly more.

- I'll might add the timing difference above 6800 rpm to the Wayno 102 tune, but I am not sure if I should leave the TCPC or zero it out?

- Or I could start with zeroing TCPC out (without adding timing) and see if it makes a difference first.

- Of course, I could also just leave it all alone and enjoy hassle free timing.

Decisions, decisions. The bite of the damn optimization bug is annoying. Does anyone have the antidote?

Originally Posted by Indie77

Hey folks,

I'm new here, and first off, thanks to all the people who make this such an informative place. Noobs like me wouldn't learn a thing without you, much obliged!

I live in Germany and run my 2012 manual on 98 ROZ pump gas, which wikipedia says is about equivalent to 93 AKI in our region. I've used Wayno's Stg1 98 v111.2.US.Stg1 A01G ROM, did the closed loop learning phase and then some 3rd gear WOT pulls. Data is here (first one in 2nd gear, was too excited to shift )

http://datazap.me/u/indie77/log-1481...1-8-13&solo=13

How's that looking? I'd be very glad for feedback!

Thanks in advance

- Indie77

A bit late reply. Judging from the LTFT, it didn't finish initial learning. From so far it seems slightly on the rich side, but not far off. You could easily use the 100 octane tune for German 98. As you can see in your log, there is not even a hint of knock.

Do a 3rd gear log after 3-500 km normal driving (don't baby it, but don't drive all 500 km WOT either) and recheck and that it didn't change LTFT significantly and AFR stay in the ballpark where it was in this log. My guess, though, is that it will go richer above 5k once it finishes learning, it did all the time on my car with the old tunes. However, if it doesn't and you don't want to mess further with it, what you have is fine.

If you do want/need to change it further, PM Wayno for the updated tunes. They are much better both performance-wise and with regards to learning with much more predictability. And don't forget to send Wayno a donation, so he continues doing work on the tunes. Remember donation is not paying for a product, but appreciation of the work that was done in the past. Work, that you are already enjoying with the 111.2 tune.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Tor

Searching for timing compensation per cylinder led me back to this thread. I wonder why Shiv zeroed it out in the most recent OFH tune but kept it in the regular stg 2 UEL tunes?

Otherwise, Wayno uses the AVCS from the the OFH tune. Total timing (base plus KCA) on the 102 tune is not significantly different - give and take (some areas more, some less). Except above 6800 rpm and load 0.9 and in 0.6-0.7 load, lower rpm range, where OFH has significantly more.

- I'll might add the timing difference above 6800 rpm to the Wayno 102 tune, but I am not sure if I should leave the TCPC or zero it out?

- Or I could start with zeroing TCPC out (without adding timing) and see if it makes a difference first.

- Of course, I could also just leave it all alone and enjoy hassle free timing.

Decisions, decisions. The bite of the damn optimization bug is annoying. Does anyone have the antidote?

I believe the timing compensation per cylinder is because some cylinders may run slightly hotter or be more knock prone than others. So theoretically you may be able to run more base timing and just retard the problem cylinder or cylinders slightly, but going to be difficult without getting individual cylinder knock data

[Tor]

Originally Posted by steve99

I believe the timing compensation per cylinder is because some cylinders may run slightly hotter or be more knock prone than others. So theoretically you may be able to run more base timing and just retard the problem cylinder or cylinders slightly, but going to be difficult without getting individual cylinder knock data

I was thinking to zero it out and add timing and if I subsequently get knock then to remove it from TCPC A+B first?

Somewhere I read it could be because of where the knock sensors are placed and to ensure that C+D knocks first so the sensors can actually pick it up. I doubt that is the case since the sensors are located between the cylinders each side on the FA20.



Besides, the tables are already zeroed out up to 6000 rpm anyway.

A is probably cylinder 1 according to RomRaider. B is 2 or 3? If 2, those would both be the best cooled cylinders facing the front of the engine? If 3, could the right side run hotter maybe (exhaust cat below)?

Could it rather be because of flow in the stock header? In which case, the compensations may not make any sense with an aftermarket header? Are there any changes to these tables in the MY17 with the revised header/intake?

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by Tor

A is probably cylinder 1 according to RomRaider. B is 2 or 3? If 2, those would both be the best cooled cylinders facing the front of the engine? If 3, could the right side run hotter maybe (exhaust cat below)?

Could it rather be because of flow in the stock header? In which case, the compensations may not make any sense with an aftermarket header? Are there any changes to these tables in the MY17 with the revised header/intake?

Have you considered differences in fueling between cylinders due to unequal airflow? Heat management as cylinders will always run different temps within the block? Then you have all the external factors that you mentioned.

AFAIK cylinders A-D are 1-4 in firing order.

I would expect that the changes in the MY17 are more to do with the intake manifold than exhaust manifold, but there are also internal changes in the block that may also have an impact.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

Have you considered differences in fueling between cylinders due to unequal airflow? Heat management as cylinders will always run different temps within the block?

Thinking out loud, from that logic, maybe they shouldn't have been zeroed out at and below 6000 rpm either?

Does anyone have definitions for the MY17 ZA1JK00C rom? I would be curious to peek inside.

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by Tor

Does anyone have definitions for the MY17 ZA1JK00C rom? I would be curious to peek inside.

Romraider.

[Tor]

The TCPC A+B are retarding timing in the same areas as the pre-MY17 as well. Even a bit more above 6k. Could it be because the stock tunes run so rich at high rpm (why btw?)?

From a logical perspective, the tables should either be left fully intact or be possible to zero out completely. Since we happily accept to run without these compensations below 6k, where we are at most of the time, I am zeroing them out completely next time I flash and will see how it goes.

[oldgunfan]

Hey Wayno or Steve99 I have a drop in, OFT OFH, perrin overpipe greddy catback. I'm running a mav modded OFH tune with your cold start and fan edit's. The only thing I don't like is I'm getting some off idle hesitation. I have been looking at Wayno's stg2 uel_imre98v111.2 lean. and DAMM you have been busy there's a lot different. would this tune be good for me or should I play with some tip in on the OFH tune. and will this tune work for B01C rom I noticed it was A01G.

[neilvosko]

awesome thread.

definitely spending the weekend absorbing and learning.

i have a question: in loading your roms (left in attached), i noticed that total injection ratio (hot.cold.normal) are scaled at 100x different from OFT (right in the attached) per attached and as stated in this post
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...io#post2157873

, just curios which one is best?

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by neilvosko

i noticed that total injection ratio (hot.cold.normal) are scaled at 100x different from OFT (right in the attached) per attached and as stated in this post

, just curios which one is best?

Ones a ratio, the other a %. Its just a difference in the definition, 0.2 is 20%.

[pym19109]

Hi every one, I'm from Thailand.
First I have to tell you I'm a noob.
My car is F20P completely stock and I flashed Stage2 EL E85 last week.
After read some thread in this forum I saw from somewhere adv multiplier should be 1 but mine is 0 all the time.

This is my data log from this morning.

What should I do to fix this problem?
Dose adv multiplier=0 is serious problem? and if yes what is the effect?
Please advise me.
Thank you