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

[freerunner]

Originally Posted by Wayno

Attached Stg1 with smoothed AVCS tables at part throttle.
For comparison against vanilla Stg1/v107 only.

It should either feel noticeably improved with better economy
or will feel noticeably rubbish having too much cam advance for stock header.

Originally Posted by freerunner

Going to check it out.

Reporting back. Drove the car with these maps for some weeks now.
The engine has become quite punchy on flooring the pedal. This works well in all rpm ranges.

What didn't work well is throttle response while cruising with super-low loads and heel'n'toe. Fuel consumption was far off. I've been down to 10l/100km (23.5 mpg) in the city and on the highway.

Fiddled a bit around and used avcs angles from factory calibration up to 2800 rpm and 0.50 load and added my usual changes to the avcs tables.
This seemed to fix it.

Changes apply to stg1/stock header only.

File with changes is attached to this post. I wouldn't consider these maps done, but I think it's already been time to give some feedback @Wayno.

edit: don't flash that file , it's just for comparison

[KoolBRZ]

@freerunner, try out these tunes. They have the cold start fix, the fan temp fix, the PI/DI fix, and the AVCS fix. There are 2 throttle maps. One is more aggressive than the other at low speeds. There should be a lot more low-end power in both of these maps, since there is much less valve overlap at low loads/speeds. This valve overlap is used for internal EGR, which is more for emissions/mileage, than it is for power.

[Wayno]

Originally Posted by KoolBRZ

@freerunner, try out these tunes. They have the cold start fix, the fan temp fix, the PI/DI fix, and the AVCS fix. There are 2 throttle maps. One is more aggressive than the other at low speeds. There should be a lot more low-end power in both of these maps, since there is much less valve overlap at low loads/speeds. This valve overlap is used for internal EGR, which is more for emissions/mileage, than it is for power.

Jesus fucking christ, the stupidly non-linear AT throttle map copied in to a MT rom? And your stupid fucking AVCS tables that undo all the WOT tuning done ON A DYNO BY AN ACTUAL TUNER for your pure theorycraft. I kept my mouth shut in the AVCS thread, but please do not post that garbage in here.

I'd prefer the thread to die a slow quiet death than be molested like that.

[504]

[EffaressNOOB]

[solidONE]

This seems like fitting attire for 'ol Wayno.

I recall a guy using KoolBRZ's tables and was about to get it dyno'ed. While I dont particularly trust butt dyno's, we'll see how far off base those tables are if and when he post his dyno results.

[phrosty]

Originally Posted by solidONE

I recall a guy using KoolBRZ's tables and was about to get it dyno'ed. While I dont particularly trust butt dyno's, we'll see how far off base those tables are if and when he post his dyno results.

I'm all for people trying new things out, but when you present yourself as an expert and recommend big unproven changes to other people... it's dangerous.

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by phrosty

I'm all for people trying new things out, but when you present yourself as an expert and recommend big unproven changes to other people... it's dangerous.

There is a lot of that going on on the internet, but I dont think the guy comes across that way. I wouldn't go as far as calling the changes dangerous, though possibly ineffective or counterproductive. lol

[KoolBRZ]

Say what you will. The reason I posted those tunes is to give the guy some options. The tune he was using had no cold start fix, no fan temp fix, the PI/DI tables were too strong to allow any decent timing advance, and the AVCS was jumping all over the place.

The OEM tables are full of compensations. Compensations for the torque dip. Compensations to improve emissions. Compensations to improve acceleration, at the risk of detonation. Look at the OEM tables, and they look as jaggedy as a Rocky Mountain skyline.

Change an Intake or get a new Exhaust, and suddenly those compensations are in the wrong place. That's why people get so upset. Figuring out how to re-compensate is finicky work with lots of trial and error. That's why I've taken a whole new tack on the whole compensations issue. I am methodically removing compensations and smoothing out tables, so they will require fewer changes to compensate for when an Intake and Exhaust is upgraded.

I just got back from a marathon, (24 hours), of driving, (with rest stops), between Vancouver, WA. and Rio Vista, CA. Bringing my mother-in-law, and all her stuff, to her new place. Because I was driving my mother-in-law's 2011 Corolla,which was towing the trailer, most of the time my wife drove my BRZ. As anyone from CA knows, the maximum legal speed towing a trailer is 55mph, so that's what we set our cruise controls for. By the time we filled up outside Sacramento, she had averaged 42.1 MPG in my BRZ, on cheap Cali premium.

This is a car with an unrestricted exhaust, a Phantom Electric Supercharger under the hood, running a PROcede map that boosts at anything over 1200 rpm's, if anything, this should cause it to use more fuel. It's just simple math. More air requires more fuel, right? This average mpg means it was making more power. Enough power to average 42 mpg. I even made 40.5 average mpg towing the empty trailer.

There was one other big change to my 40-20 tune. It was finally making enough power that the OEM Drive-By-Wire throttle table for AT's was causing it to lunge from a dead stop, so I switched to an OEM MT throttle table to make to easier for my wife to drive. The MT throttle table has more of a straight rate then the AT table, but less power at initial launch.

My car has never run this smoothly. Every shift, up or down, it never bogged or surged. The cruise control shifted as necessary to climb the steepest grades with ease, and even downshifted as low as 4th gear automatically to use engine braking on the descents.

This 40-20 tune is all about drive-ability, not peak horsepower on a dyno. I think this latest marathon of driving has proven it's a much better driving tune than the OEM tune, and even better than a lot of off-the-shelf tunes.

[freerunner]

No no, I wasn't actually using the rom that has been posted above.

It was just meant to be a container for the avcs tables, in case anyone left with a stock header (like me^^) wanted to copy and paste them. The increased overlap from wayno's smoothing is quite nice, at least at load 0.70+ and rpm 3000+.

Next time, I'm going to post screenshots instead, to avoid the confusion.

[gonzo]

I'm also on California 91AKI and I'm having problems keeping IAM above .7 on the streets. I have no problem keeping it at 1 on the track, so I know it's the lower RPMs that are causing problems. Can I just pull the timing on my OTS map from 2800-4400 to copy your stg1 98 v111.2.US map? I'm only planning to copy your decreased timing values in that RPM range. Side note: my LTFT stay within 6% range so I haven't messed with MAF scaling.

Also, why did you pull so much timing from 6400 and above?

Edit: I'm going to try the IAT fix first and see if that helps with my IAM. I noticed that my IATs are really high on the streets.

Edit2: Going to do more logging first before I mess with the IAT compensation.

Originally Posted by ryoma

I have read through both this extensive guide as well as the other guide posted by Wayno and wow, it is pretty informative. I am completely new to tweaking tunes and I have a few questions regarding it. Since I am in California and only have access to 91AKI here, what tables are "safe" for me to copy over from the examples to the OTS tune? I'm assuming that the O2 rescaling, MAF scaling, load limits, DI range, and the utility tweaks are safe considering they don't have specific tables that rely on 98RON? and am I understanding correctly that timing shouldn't have to be touched on the OTS ROM for 91AKI unless I am knocking? I just want to make sure that I have my facts correct before logging and making changes.

Originally Posted by Wayno

Yep pretty much keep your existing timing and maf scale. Or keep your entire tune for starters and do plenty on logging on it first.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I'm also on California 91AKI and I'm having problems keeping IAM above .7 on the streets. I have no problem keeping it at 1 on the track, so I know it's the lower RPMs that are causing problems. Can I just pull the timing on my OTS map from 2800-4400 to copy your stg1 98 v111.2.US map? I'm only planning to copy your decreased timing values in that RPM range. Side note: my LTFT stay within 6% range so I haven't messed with MAF scaling.

Also, why did you pull so much timing from 6400 and above?

Edit: I'm going to try the IAT fix first and see if that helps with my IAM. I noticed that my IATs are really high on the streets.

Edit2: Going to do more logging first before I mess with the IAT compensation.

To reduce knock you can use several strategies

reduce timing
run richer
adjust iat compensations
alter intake/exhaust vvt cam timing

just make sure you copy all the changes accross

with timing make sure you copy the base B and the Knock correction max A as they work togeather

[Wayno]

New, experimental maf scales, including USDM. Use at your own risk, but these absolutely smooth scales may eliminate many inconsistencies and bizarre LTFT learning over time. Please run in for 200km/150mi and PM me logs compared to OTS tunes.

[Killadelphia]

Hey, I have MY2013 USDM FRS (Cal ID 700C) and would like to test your new tune, but the Cal ID is incompatible with my car. I know that 700C should be directly compatible with B01C as the OFT OTS tunes just use the B01C tune on my car by changing the model code in one location. Should I be able to change the same value on your B01C tune and everything would work, or would that just brick my ECU? Thanks.