12-05-2015, 08:47 AM | #183 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: Scion FRS
Location: MI
Posts: 229
Thanks: 140
Thanked 78 Times in 61 Posts
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2015, 09:43 AM | #185 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: car
Location: cold
Posts: 599
Thanks: 72
Thanked 607 Times in 185 Posts
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
There's a lot of discussion here among different people and scenarios that I'm trying to unravel.
First question: is this a matter of the fuel trims moving around more than would be ideal or is there an actual driveability, knock, etc problem? Second: Are we talking about stock port injectors, obviously stock DI injectors, and stock MAF scaling or scaling that has been judged ok before the PI and DI balance was changed? I suspect there's a bunch of wall wetting compensation, gas flow model, or injector flow compensation that is poorly understood because we don't have actual block diagrams of how the software works, just whatever has been reverse engineered. My position is, generally speaking and subject to case by case revision--if the fuel trims are just moving around more who cares? That's their job. They're compensating for some inscrutable fuel calculation that hasn't been unraveled, or more likely, production tolerances in injectors, given that the stock values were for some mean spec part most likely. Is there an actual problem with the car here or are we just trying to make the fuel trim lines on an excel graph look pretty Last edited by arghx7; 12-05-2015 at 09:51 AM. Reason: MAF scaling affects spark and has cascading effects |
12-05-2015, 10:01 AM | #186 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: Scion FRS
Location: MI
Posts: 229
Thanks: 140
Thanked 78 Times in 61 Posts
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
My concern is if the fuel trims go up or down too much say more than 10% it will take the estimated load along with it. Estimated load = Originally assumed load through MAF signal +- corrections from fuel trim. This means the cam and spark lookup will move around unnecessarily? I dont know how exactly it works on the FA20 so this is just my assumption. This is assuming that most OEMs trust their fuel modeling more than air flow modeling. So when fuel trim moves the load estimation moves as well. My other concern is how is MAF scaling going to fix this? For example say if by going 100%PFI at low loads causes the LFTF there to go 10% +ve causing a load estimation to go up 10%. The MAF there would be moved up 10% at the same Voltage to bring the LTFT to 0% but we still have the same problem because now the MAF readings are higher (artificially) causing a higher load estimation and hence spark/cam lookup = bad combustion or knock depending on which direction we go in load lookup |
|
12-05-2015, 10:14 AM | #187 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: car
Location: cold
Posts: 599
Thanks: 72
Thanked 607 Times in 185 Posts
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
The code is really not that sophisticated. There's no combustion model based spark control either--or if there is, it doesn't matter enough that anyone has bothered trying to understand it. Have you seen the cooled EGR spark controls on the FA20DIT? It's just a dumb look up compensation table, or at least the one that has been found so far seems that way. No residual gas model aspect to it. Quote:
|
||
12-05-2015, 11:40 AM | #188 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: Silver 2013 BRZ Ltd Auto 45,000 mi
Location: Vancouver, WA.USA
Posts: 965
Thanks: 86
Thanked 450 Times in 277 Posts
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
|
I have a totally different theory. I think the rich condition in CL is caused by sudden "Tip-in" enrichment, which affects STFT, becoming LTFT. This is then passed on to OL. I think Tip-in should have a lower threshold, and smoother transitions, so it wouldn't adversely affect fuel trims in CL, and then corrupting OL. It doesn't require any mysterious ECU reverse engineering, and it is a fuel source outside of usual channels unaffected by the MAF or MAP sensors. What do you think @thambu19?
__________________
If I say yes, will that make you think I understand?
|
12-05-2015, 12:03 PM | #189 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: Silver 2013 BRZ Ltd Auto 45,000 mi
Location: Vancouver, WA.USA
Posts: 965
Thanks: 86
Thanked 450 Times in 277 Posts
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
|
Here are my current Tip-in thresholds above, compared to the OFT OTS map thresholds below. As well as my current Tip-in Enrichment A, and B tables, above, compared to the OFT OTS A and B tables below. I have tried smoothing out the transition between throttle angles 5.86%, and 7.81%, because there is such a jump there, but it didn't work as well when I drove it. So, I just stuck with smoothing the transitions under 5.86% and lowering the thresholds. Do you think the stock configuration of the Tip-in Enrichment and Thresholds could be the source of the problem?
__________________
If I say yes, will that make you think I understand?
|
12-05-2015, 02:38 PM | #190 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Drives: FR-S Whiteout
Location: California
Posts: 2,863
Thanks: 1,808
Thanked 790 Times in 611 Posts
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
2. I don't think the stock MAF scale has been very good for anyone that I can remember. For my case, it's a maf scale that worked well while running less PI (more like the table below), but experienced a good amount of increase in fuel trims in areas where Port injector ratio was increased. This somehow led to an increase in LTFT in OL operation causing it to run even more rich than before the changes to the port injector ratio tables. One would suspect one would spend less time "chasing one's tail" if I simply modified the port ratio table to run 100% DI at .20 load and lower, but where is the fun in that right? lol It's seems that many of the guys that have already done some "tail chasing" had pretty good success balancing the port injectors to the direct injectors after dialing their MAF scale while running 100% DI. This is what I've decided to do now, but I will take it one step further by taking the IAT compensation into account. I've dialed my MAF while running 100% DI at IAT of 66~70*f by making sure my IAT don't go below 66*f throughout the entire range and not using any of the data with intake temps above 70*f. I think this will give me a good base before making changes to the IAT compensation and port injector scaling.
__________________
Intent > Content
cowardice is the mother of cruelty. Last edited by solidONE; 12-05-2015 at 02:50 PM. |
|
12-05-2015, 02:41 PM | #191 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Drives: FR-S Whiteout
Location: California
Posts: 2,863
Thanks: 1,808
Thanked 790 Times in 611 Posts
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
__________________
Intent > Content
cowardice is the mother of cruelty. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to solidONE For This Useful Post: | thambu19 (12-05-2015) |
12-05-2015, 03:25 PM | #192 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: Scion FRS
Location: MI
Posts: 229
Thanks: 140
Thanked 78 Times in 61 Posts
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Those who have had this issue can you chime in? Did you see higher LTFT in areas where you increased PFI or in areas where you increased DI? The LTFT learnt at low loads should not affect OL. Usually it is the LTFT just below OL that gets carried into OL. So if the idle LTFT is off nothing to worry there, atleast not so much Last edited by thambu19; 12-05-2015 at 03:50 PM. |
|
12-05-2015, 03:47 PM | #193 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Drives: UK GT86
Location: UK
Posts: 3,040
Thanks: 185
Thanked 1,629 Times in 1,112 Posts
Mentioned: 155 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
|
At this point in time we aren't sure quite how the LTFT ranges work. There are definitely bands but the standard defined ones don't seem to quite tie in. I think @solidONE has been testing something but nothing conclusive.
__________________
.: Stealth 86 :.
Abbey Motorsport/K47 Tuned Sprintex 210 Supercharger Kodename 47 DJ: Soundcloud / Instagram / Facebook |
12-05-2015, 03:50 PM | #194 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: Scion FRS
Location: MI
Posts: 229
Thanks: 140
Thanked 78 Times in 61 Posts
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2015, 04:58 PM | #195 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Drives: Toyota 86
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 311
Thanks: 44
Thanked 358 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Second: You would think that the Subaru engineers would be quite close with their stock MAF scales and fuelling algorithms. Some cars seem to be close to the mark, others not so. I was happy leaving the DI system stock on the hope that the engineers did their job, scale the MAF to that, then dial in PI system. I had planned to upsize my port injectors so it made sense for me to do it in that order to have a stable base to calibrate my port injectors to. Third: I agree, there is a huge amount in the code that is not defined. I did disassemble the Tau transient fuelling tables, but have not been able to make sense of how to change them logically, so I've left them alone. Finally: I'm happy to let the trims to their work and I have given up trying to control them around idle speeds, but I also like a pretty graph, even if the information it gives me is erroneous. |
|
12-05-2015, 05:05 PM | #196 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Drives: Toyota 86
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 311
Thanks: 44
Thanked 358 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Changing MAF scale does shift load cell - this should be finalized (or stock values accepted as a reference) first before anything else is touched, as most of the other values reference load. Changing MAF scale later in the process screws around with everything under it in the code. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to ztan For This Useful Post: | thambu19 (12-06-2015) |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FR-S Gear Ratio Comparison | SpeedR | Engine, Exhaust, Transmission | 36 | 02-25-2016 09:34 AM |
Best pistons to use and Comp ratio? | Fabron757 | Forced Induction | 36 | 02-05-2014 03:21 PM |
Rear End Ratio | White64Goat | Engine, Exhaust, Transmission | 6 | 07-07-2012 11:37 PM |
FR-S to BRZ Ratio | MannyO | New England | 11 | 03-08-2012 02:23 AM |
86,BRZ MT gear ratio | Yobiwan | Engine, Exhaust, Transmission | 1 | 01-26-2012 02:40 AM |