Official OpenFlash Tablet FA20 Tuning Tech Discussion Thread

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Migero86

Got my tablet in... Came pre-loaded with all I needed to cover my mods... Flashed the Stage2 UEL tune running on 94 oct and so far the car is running awesome... I am sure as I put more miles on the tune it will adapt even more. For now, its already running smoother then the OEM tune and this truly is how the car should be.

Excellent. That's what we love to hear

[2point0]

So, since having the dealer check out my coilpack (nothing was actually replaced), I haven't had the misfire CEL come back and it's been about 3 weeks. I think I'm going to go back to the E85 map tonight, I miss the extra oomph. Although, I don't miss the extra stops at the gas station.

[01s0uljah]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Glad to hear it! On a stock car, definitely run a Stage 1 map as Stage 2 will likely make the car run a bit rich.

Shiv

Thanks Shiv.. I feel like I bought a new car when i loaded it up.

I'm debating between either a header or catbak exhaust. What do you recommend first? and obviously a stage 2 tune would be required this right?

[phrosty]

Originally Posted by 01s0uljah

Thanks Shiv.. I feel like I bought a new car when i loaded it up.

I'm debating between either a header or catbak exhaust. What do you recommend first? and obviously a stage 2 tune would be required this right?

Header removes torque dip. Catback looks good.

[2point0]

Originally Posted by 01s0uljah

Thanks Shiv.. I feel like I bought a new car when i loaded it up.

I'm debating between either a header or catbak exhaust. What do you recommend first? and obviously a stage 2 tune would be required this right?

Stage two is just if you upgrade the header. Catback doesn't change anything power-wise, but is for looks/sound.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I would definitely revise the ignition map judging by the logs. Assuming you can't run higher grade fuel, the first step would be retard 1 degree under load between 5k-6k rpm. And retard 1.5 degrees above 6k and try again. And the re-test. You probably wont need to retard more than that.

@shiv@vishnu

Ok I pulled some timing as suggested, I now have no areas where FBKC or FLKC is above 0.6 and only for less than a second. Is it worth pulling more timing , or is that level just expected now and then.

Noticed may AFR is about 11.4 at WOT but target AFR in Pri Open loop fueling table is 12.5. my fuel trims are about +2%.

I believe you target 11.6 to 11.8 WOT on gasoline

Is that 02 sensor error MAF ??

Once I get this sorted I'm happy to post up the ROM or changes for other in Australia having same issues with 98 RON fuel.

[Nardi330]

Originally Posted by steve99

Once I get this sorted I'm happy to post up the ROM or changes for other in Australia having same issues with 98 RON fuel.

how about both?

I am a noob and would love to learn how to make small adjustments so i can further fine tune my setup if needed.

appreciate your help, thanks.

[Kodename47]

@steve99 any variation on WOT between target and resultant AFR is due to the MAF scaling being off. The correlation is also direct.

If you want to calculate it:
((LTFT+100)/100) x AFR)/Commanded AFR = MAF Error

Find the relative MAFv point and multiply the g/s by the MAF error. This is true for any open loop fuelling.

To capture good reliable data, you want to do 5-6 3rd/4th gear pulls. Have you not looked at the spreadsheet I sent you?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

@steve99 any variation on WOT between target and resultant AFR is due to the MAF scaling being off. The correlation is also direct.

If you want to calculate it:
((LTFT+100)/100) x AFR)/Commanded AFR = MAF Error

Find the relative MAFv point and multiply the g/s by the MAF error. This is true for any open loop fuelling.

To capture good reliable data, you want to do 5-6 3rd/4th gear pulls. Have you not looked at the spreadsheet I sent you?

Yes, thanks for spreadsheet, I put it on the backburner a bit as I have been concentrating on the knock issues first.

now I have that sorted I'll get back on it.

I probably need to do some more 3rd gear pulls back to back at a cool time of day so the IAT compensation does not foul thing up.


Thanks again, might need your assistance again once I obtain the data.

Whats your opinion on FBCK or FLCK knock values of 0.6 or less, need to pull more timing or too small to worry about. ?

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by steve99

Yes, thanks for spreadsheet, I put it on the backburner a bit as I have been concentrating on the knock issues first.

now I have that sorted I'll get back on it.

I probably need to do some more 3rd gear pulls back to back at a cool time of day so the IAT compensation does not foul thing up.


Thanks again, might need your assistance again once I obtain the data.

Whats your opinion on FBCK or FLCK knock values of 0.6 or less, need to pull more timing or too small to worry about. ?

I'd be pulling 0.3 deg and see what happens. I care more about FLKC as this is having a bigger impact. From reading it seems that occasional FBKC is almost unavoidable and if it is just occasional then I'd just ignore it. If it happens regularly then it may be worth pulling 0.3 as see the outcome.


It is worth noting though that if you're going to do the MAF, I would make this a priority. Changing the MAF will impact on the resultant load, and thus will have an impact on the timing table. If you're running richer, the resultant load will be lower than before and then your target timing will be more. Therefore if you do the timing 1st and then the MAF scaling, you'll only end up having to re-do the timing tables.


Just an example from the data you sent me, at around 6000rpm your current load is about 1.22, but the MAF error is about 94.75% which would make the resultant load be 1.16. That's a whole load cell shift down the advance table. That's roughly 1 degree of timing that's added. If you had experienced knock and had brought timing down below the knock threshold, you've now just pushed yourself straight back into it again.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

I'd be pulling 0.3 deg and see what happens. I care more about FLKC as this is having a bigger impact. From reading it seems that occasional FBKC is almost unavoidable and if it is just occasional then I'd just ignore it. If it happens regularly then it may be worth pulling 0.3 as see the outcome.


It is worth noting though that if you're going to do the MAF, I would make this a priority. Changing the MAF will impact on the resultant load, and thus will have an impact on the timing table. If you're running richer, the resultant load will be lower than before and then your target timing will be more. Therefore if you do the timing 1st and then the MAF scaling, you'll only end up having to re-do the timing tables.


Just an example from the data you sent me, at around 6000rpm your current load is about 1.22, but the MAF error is about 94.75% which would make the resultant load be 1.16. That's a whole load cell shift down the advance table. That's roughly 1 degree of timing that's added. If you had experienced knock and had brought timing down below the knock threshold, you've now just pushed yourself straight back into it again.

I learn something new every day

Something that puzzles me is Shiv often says he targets.looks for 11.6-11.8 AFR WOT on gasoline in the logs, but the ROM tables indicate AFR target is 12.5. And everyone with oft seems to be out this much ?

I'm just wondering whether Shiv does this on purpose ie they are deliberately offset maf or something to make it run rich ?? for safety. or they know the stock AFR sensor has some inaccuracy.

I see my LTFT drop from +3 to +2 during the pull attempting to lean it to meet AFR target, suppose LTFT is not able to act fast enough. The LTFT being out due MAF out and spending most time running in closed loop.

There is only one MAF scale in tables & sensor so when you do closed loop its mainly for low speed and open loop scaling for higher end. Where they overlap you take the average. ??

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by steve99

I learn something new every day

Something that puzzles me is Shiv often says he targets.looks for 11.6-11.8 AFR WOT on gasoline in the logs, but the ROM tables indicate AFR target is 12.5. And everyone with oft seems to be out this much ?

I'm just wondering whether Shiv does this on purpose ie they are deliberately offset maf or something to make it run rich ?? for safety. or they know the stock AFR sensor has some inaccuracy.

I see my LTFT drop from +3 to +2 during the pull attempting to lean it to meet AFR target, suppose LTFT is not able to act fast enough. The LTFT being out due MAF out and spending most time running in closed loop.

There is only one MAF scale in tables & sensor so when you do closed loop its mainly for low speed and open loop scaling for higher end. Where they overlap you take the average. ??

I reckon he does just that. The car will lean itself out on the trims.

The car uses 4 different areas for LTFT, this is determined by the AF Correction ranges table. These are usually denoted on other forums by called A, B, C and D and will have a constant LTFT per range. Anything over 60g/s (D) is the final range. As this can only be created by STFT's occurring in CL (as OL has no STFT), that range will have it's trims take longer to come into affect. Remember that OL fueling is using no feedback from the AFR sensor so the trim itself isn't being slow to react, that's just what that range has set itself to. If you check where the trims go from +3 to +2, I bet it's at 60g/s. Now you can go and turn off WOT LTFT by raising the last range setting, as the car will never be in CL at that high g/s to apply them, but I wouldn't advise that to someone who's yet to dial in the MAF.

As for CL/OL operation. The ECU will switch to OL after a set of parameters. These are generally higher RPMs. You can log whether you're in OL or CL operation.

If you're looking at how to calculate them from my spreadsheet, take that as a bit of a simplistic view. Look for trends, don't go changing the curve by varying amounts. I've found that in ranges where OL and CL operation can occur in the same MAFv range (from about 2.5v-3.1v) then the resultant error can be different so I average the 2 calculations. You really need to analyse the data too, you need large amounts of data to get good results. This method has worked so far for me.

I think I've also worked out how to dial in the MRP Comp table for even smoother fueling, I'll be posting up about that later.

[nelsmar]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

I'd be pulling 0.3 deg and see what happens. I care more about FLKC as this is having a bigger impact. From reading it seems that occasional FBKC is almost unavoidable and if it is just occasional then I'd just ignore it. If it happens regularly then it may be worth pulling 0.3 as see the outcome.


It is worth noting though that if you're going to do the MAF, I would make this a priority. Changing the MAF will impact on the resultant load, and thus will have an impact on the timing table. If you're running richer, the resultant load will be lower than before and then your target timing will be more. Therefore if you do the timing 1st and then the MAF scaling, you'll only end up having to re-do the timing tables.


Just an example from the data you sent me, at around 6000rpm your current load is about 1.22, but the MAF error is about 94.75% which would make the resultant load be 1.16. That's a whole load cell shift down the advance table. That's roughly 1 degree of timing that's added. If you had experienced knock and had brought timing down below the knock threshold, you've now just pushed yourself straight back into it again.

Just a tip: if you are pulling out that much fuel and you were hitting that load cell and still knocking I personally pull timing out of both the 1.1 & 1.2 cell's in the event you further modified the car or had weather conditions that would result in you hitting those loads cells. Because if you were hitting that false load cell with running overly rich, and you were to hit it again with the correct target AFR you are going to likely knock in those conditions regardless. I try to make sure im not digging a "pit" in my timing table that would cause the car to further advance timing as i hit a larger load cel because I wasn't "smoothly" pulling timing in the region I was getting FLKC. Try hitting that RPM range at a higher gear so that way you can verify exactly where the load cell is that you are knocking to avoid having to do large area ignition adjustments.

Just for comparison I run supercharged cars at these AFR's (11.5-11.8 at redline). Typically getting -1 FLKC simply shifting 0.1-0.25AFR richer resolves this, as well as a -0.3 ignition correction. So if I am seeing 0.25 AFR rich fueling error and i see -1 FLKC at that event i will pull 0.3 from both the current and new "target" load cell. As the next time if I were to hit that load cell it is likely I would be running even leaner and more likely to knock.

Does Australia fuel have ethanol in it? If not I would possibly try restoring the factory MAF scaling and start from there.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by nelsmar

Just a tip: if you are pulling out that much fuel and you were hitting that load cell and still knocking I personally pull timing out of both the 1.1 & 1.2 cell's in the event you further modified the car or had weather conditions that would result in you hitting those loads cells. Because if you were hitting that false load cell with running overly rich, and you were to hit it again with the correct target AFR you are going to likely knock in those conditions regardless. I try to make sure im not digging a "pit" in my timing table that would cause the car to further advance timing as i hit a larger load cel because I wasn't "smoothly" pulling timing in the region I was getting FLKC. Try hitting that RPM range at a higher gear so that way you can verify exactly where the load cell is that you are knocking to avoid having to do large area ignition adjustments.

Just for comparison I run supercharged cars at these AFR's (11.5-11.8 at redline). Typically getting -1 FLKC simply shifting 0.1-0.25AFR richer resolves this, as well as a -0.3 ignition correction. So if I am seeing 0.25 AFR rich fueling error and i see -1 FLKC at that event i will pull 0.3 from both the current and new "target" load cell. As the next time if I were to hit that load cell it is likely I would be running even leaner and more likely to knock.

Does Australia fuel have ethanol in it? If not I would possibly try restoring the factory MAF scaling and start from there.

Australian 98 RON is generally Ethanol free

The only pump 100 RON fuel available contains 10% ethanol, basicly 98 RON with 10% ethanol to bump up RON by 2 points, it does lean out your fueling a bit. Logging shows it has better knock resistance especially higher rpm.

My main question now is why the fueling table shows target AFR = 12.5 WOT on gasoline but logs show 11.5 AFR 2% LTFT.

Shiv says in posts this is what he targets ie 11.6-11.8, and that what most peoples logs show. Just wondering why its not getting closer to 12.5 in logs o2 sensor error or MAF ?. In the Thread on OFT wideband sensor" shiv suggests o2 sensor is inaccurate at WOT.

Even if the sensor was inaccurate the ecu would not know so why doesn't it try to get AFR to 12.5 ?