Data Logs! Post them here.

[Bobblehead]

I took two more datalogs, same stretch of road, same map, just this time at night. Yesterday the car almost felt like it pulled timing going up a hill, tonight is the earliest I could check it.

Run 1: 4th gear, AC on.
http://www.datazap.me/u/bobblehead94/run2?log=0&data=1

Run 2: 3rd gear, AC off.
http://www.datazap.me/u/bobblehead94/run3?log=0&data=1

It seems like the engine is running a touch lean? 11.25AFR at WOT?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by bspec

Hi there.. I'm trying to scale my MAF for an AEM airbox + HKS duct, and I'm getting something funky out of the YIKES spreadsheet. I'm still using the AEM in-line MAF module, which I think might be causing an issue, but thought I'd check here first.

When I go to publish new MAF scaling, I get an error 'MAF g/s Values must change at a positive rate'. All of the suggested cor % values are negative or 0.

I'm on OFT v2.066 stage 1 91oct tune.

Here's a recent datalog, FWIW (probably very little).
http://datazap.me/u/bombino/oft-ots-...0?log=0&data=1

Thanks very much

1. Use the VGI utility not the yikes spreadsheet, the vgi utility is very easy to use, see links below

2. If the AEM intake is the one that comes with that electronic device to fool maf sensor get rid of the electronic box and just scale maf without it.
3. use AFR for your measurements not Wideband AFR unless you have installed the correct wideband senso/controller in the second 02 position

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I took two more datalogs, same stretch of road, same map, just this time at night. Yesterday the car almost felt like it pulled timing going up a hill, tonight is the earliest I could check it.

Run 1: 4th gear, AC on.
http://www.datazap.me/u/bobblehead94/run2?log=0&data=1

Run 2: 3rd gear, AC off.
http://www.datazap.me/u/bobblehead94/run3?log=0&data=1

It seems like the engine is running a touch lean? 11.25AFR at WOT?

Its actually running Rich over about 6400 its pegged at 11.25 which is the rich limit of the 02 sensor scaling so its might be even richer than that.

As per the OL Fuel table below should be around 11.7 over 6400.

you could fix it with maf scaling but its not really going to hurt anything.

low afr numbers = richer

their is virtually no knock in either of those logs

[Shady195]

Here is a log from last night. I apologize its about 15 minutes worth or so after I was done fixing an issue I was having with tactrix logging.

Its the OFT Stage 2 EL 93 tune.

I think it may be a little rich at WOT and I only noticed a little knock correction at the start as I started driving. I think it looks decent otherwise? However I'm just finally getting familiar with looking at these things and understanding them.

I think my ST/LT Fuel trims are okay too? That is what I was most interested in when I logged due to not being sure if I had a leak at my header or not.

http://www.datazap.me/u/shady195/log-1432779782

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Shady195

Here is a log from last night. I apologize its about 15 minutes worth or so after I was done fixing an issue I was having with tactrix logging.

Its the OFT Stage 2 EL 93 tune.

I think it may be a little rich at WOT and I only noticed a little knock correction at the start as I started driving. I think it looks decent otherwise? However I'm just finally getting familiar with looking at these things and understanding them.

I think my ST/LT Fuel trims are okay too? That is what I was most interested in when I logged due to not being sure if I had a leak at my header or not.

http://www.datazap.me/u/shady195/log-1432779782

Read links below on logging maf scaling and Knock correction

You IAM is dropping due knock. Their is some knock shown in that log -1.3 flkc arround 6300 occurred a couple of times.

But their was some knock before that log started that has dropped your IAM to 0.86. In that log IAM climbing back towards 1 where it should be.

Try and catch the knock that dropping your IAM its probably around 2000-3500 rpm

AFR looks ok , bit on the rich side higher rpm (needs Maf scaling to fix)

LTFT look ok so you probably only need to do OL maf scaling.

It ok and nothing is going to blow up.

Maybe try some different brands of petrol some are better than others.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by steve99

Its actually running Rich over about 6400 its pegged at 11.25 which is the rich limit of the 02 sensor scaling so its might be even richer than that.

As per the OL Fuel table below should be around 11.7 over 6400.

you could fix it with maf scaling but its not really going to hurt anything.

low afr numbers = richer

their is virtually no knock in either of those logs

Oh, lower AFR = RICH. Learned something new today haha.

All I have in the way of an intake is a K&N Panel filter, and a Blitz intake tube. Is that enough to make it run so rich? I thought that would lean it out a little.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Oh, lower AFR = RICH. Learned something new today haha.

All I have in the way of an intake is a K&N Panel filter, and a Blitz intake tube. Is that enough to make it run so rich? I thought that would lean it out a little.

My intake is stock and mine ran rich (well it used too) , on oft tune. Appears their are some differences in MAF sensors

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by steve99

My intake is stock and mine ran rich (well it used too) , on oft tune. Appears their are some differences in MAF sensors

Okay, so it looks like MAF scaling is needed. Any tips and tricks or anything I should look out for/avoid?

[bspec]

Originally Posted by steve99

1. Use the VGI utility not the yikes spreadsheet, the vgi utility is very easy to use, see links below

2. If the AEM intake is the one that comes with that electronic device to fool maf sensor get rid of the electronic box and just scale maf without it.
3. use AFR for your measurements not Wideband AFR unless you have installed the correct wideband senso/controller in the second 02 position

Appreciate the reply.

I was plugging data into both the VGI utility and yikes in parallel.. I'll dump the spreadsheet then. Thanks

I did bypass the AEM in-line MAF thing, and unexpectedly, the ECM is no longer throwing a Po170/172 (rich fuel bank 1), which was the reason for trying to scale MAF. Car does feel a little sluggish though so it's likely still running rich at low RPM, with low air-speed.

I'll ditch the Wideband AFR metric as well, thanks.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Okay, so it looks like MAF scaling is needed. Any tips and tricks or anything I should look out for/avoid?

just use the VGI utility it has help pages as well

see maf scaling link below

[Shady195]

Originally Posted by steve99

Read links below on logging maf scaling and Knock correction

You IAM is dropping due knock. Their is some knock shown in that log -1.3 flkc arround 6300 occurred a couple of times.

But their was some knock before that log started that has dropped your IAM to 0.86. In that log IAM climbing back towards 1 where it should be.

Try and catch the knock that dropping your IAM its probably around 2000-3500 rpm

AFR looks ok , bit on the rich side higher rpm (needs Maf scaling to fix)

LTFT look ok so you probably only need to do OL maf scaling.

It ok and nothing is going to blow up.

Maybe try some different brands of petrol some are better than others.

At the .8 on the IAM was right after i started the car and as it warmed up is where it seemed to settle off at .955 and thats where it stayed.

I thought the FLKC was the learning correction that kept the motor from actually applying the knock correction IE FBKC?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Shady195

At the .8 on the IAM was right after i started the car and as it warmed up is where it seemed to settle off at .955 and thats where it stayed.

I thought the FLKC was the learning correction that kept the motor from actually applying the knock correction IE FBKC?

Have a read of the knock correction link below
or here
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61820

also have a look at romraider site
http://www.romraider.com/forum/topic1840.html

[P5yk0t1c]

I have been reading a bit about the altitude where I am and there are a few people that say running the 93 maps on 91oct can be ok up here. So I decided to load up the Stage 2 UEL BPB 93 map and give it a shot. These are the first 3 logs that I have taken....after looking at these, I believe my car runs better than it did on the 91 map.


Can someone have a look at these and let me know if I am wrong?


1. http://www.datazap.me/u/p5yk0t1c/first-0?log=0&data=1 (IAM=1, FLKC=0, Knock corr.= 0)
2. http://www.datazap.me/u/p5yk0t1c/second-0?log=0&data=1
3. http://www.datazap.me/u/p5yk0t1c/dee...0?log=0&data=1

[Phantobe]

I'm on Stage 2 91 UEL Tune. Before I started to modify tables & what not, I've seen my IAM go as low as ~.30 IAM that is how bad 91 octane is. I've seen that much knock just running the Stage 1 91 Tune (w/o headers) & similar numbers on the Stage 2 91 UEL Tune, unmodified.

For any SOCAL people, this is what I'm running. Run @JB86'd timing first but if you get more knock, this is pretty much where I ended up.

Stage 2 91 UEL Tune, modified to the tables below. I've seen the least amount of knock with Chevron, Shell was a bit more knocky for me. I've logged alot on this revision & IAM doesn't drop much anymore, my last canyon run it went down to .95 climbed back to 1.0 pretty quickly. In hotter weather, you are gonna get more knock regardless.