New OFT Tune optimized for USDM E85 EL with Enhanced Performance vs OTS/Wayno's!

[BRZ Fanboi]

Originally Posted by Thorpedo

Not coming in to bash, but here is your problem..

"This tune is better than Shiv's 2.x OTS EL E85 for sure and is on an equal level to Wayno's tune."

You have NO data to support this, whereas the tunes you are saying are "worse" have extensive testing and data to go along with them. I'm sorry, but your (novice) butt isn't going to tell you if your tune is "better". Thanks for trying to help, but you're risking damage to other people's cars and you should take it down. There are lots of people out there who don't know any better, and you may end up costing them money. You didn't even know what to log....

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. However I believe in the freedom of information. If someone chooses to use the tune good on them. If someone chooses to learn from it then that's good too. I will not remove it solely based on the fact that some idiot who has no business tuning his car in the first place might destroy his car with it, (which is highly unlikely solely based on the tune anyway). There is a very clearly posted disclaimer in my original post and that is the extent of my nannying. You as well as many others have expressed their concern. Ultimately it is up to the people to decide. I value all criticism constructive or otherwise. What I will not tolerate however is baseless bashing by people who haven't even checked the work. I am not saying you have not I am just generalizing.

[BRZ Fanboi]

Originally Posted by phrosty

Wayno has not added timing, as far as I know. There are two tables: base timing, and KCA max. He has shifted some timing between the two to smooth the base timing table. The overall result is that, if you're not getting any FLKC, it should give you the same timing as Shiv. By combining Shiv and Wayno's timings, you've likely exacerbated some of the "rough" timing that was smoothed.

Also, I believe Shiv said that MBT was achieved around E40, so there's no "safety net" needed for timing like the 91/93 maps have. Every engine is different and I'm sure the numbers in the OTS tunes aren't perfect for each one, but anyone saying they can test this with a butt-dyno is fooling themselves.

I am not saying you are wrong, but the Knock Correction Advance A (Load) table is identical in both OTS and Wayno's tunes. Wayno's tune has advanced timing from 3200 - 5200rpm at 1.3 - 1.4 g/rev as well as a few other areas. It is impossible to have the same timing as Shiv as it is obvious when looking at the tables Wayno has relaxed timings mainly from 800 - 4400 rpm at 0.6 - 0.7 g/rev.

[Jaden]

Brz fanboi, here is a log from today of the V3 file...

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I looked it over extensively before using it and didn't see any cause for alarm.

I did get knock correction of up to -1.4 which was a little higher than I had been seeing on Shiv's tune, but still isn't into the dangerous category.

I'll take some more logs of it and see where it ends up.

Jaden

http://datazap.me/u/jaden/brzfanboitunefilev3

[Wayno]

Originally Posted by BRZ Fanboi

It is not like I am just making up random timing. I am using Shiv's Timing with corresponding fuel map to boot except in cases where Wayno was able to improve performance due to more advanced timing. I am not just plugging in random numbers. These timings have been proven on many peoples cars. This tune just hasn't been tested on very many cars yet. Wayno's tune is a huge improvement over the OTS tune, However I am not alone in feeling that I could do without the relaxed timings of his tune vs the timings in the OTS tune which is probably the most tested tune on this forum.

Also my rock solid IAM and little to no detectable knock, (Under 0.7), and good AFR has to count for something....

1. By taking just the added timing and not the whole map, adding random timing is EXACTLY what you are doing.

2. I can guarantee that the added timing by itself in my timing map gives ABSOLUTELY ZERO more power. My map has timing adjustments for smoothing and timing adjustments due to leaner cruise fuel map. By taking the positive adjustments used for smoothing without the negative parts, you're potentially doing more bad than good.

3. Any improvement in power in my E85 roms are from tweaked maf scales and load limits, all fuel, not timing.

4. Knock has nothing to do with MBT on E85. It's been said many times in many threads both on this forum and many others, you can't magically make more power simply by adding timing without a dyno to measure output.

If you had initially asked for help and feedback on your unfortunately misguided ideas as an amateur (like the rest of us) instead of posting wild claims and pretending to be an expert when you're clearly not, you wouldn't have been met with hostility.

I've been working on adding more timing back in under cruise for the leaner map, but it won't be released until it's tested. Just because you don't get any knock driving around the block doesn't mean you won't get knock and drop IAM and power across the board under other conditions. For people who do have sensitive knock sensors the last thing they need is IAM drop at the track due to knock corrections under cruise on the way there.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread again. It doesn't add anything to the forum except noise. You should use the OTS fuel and timing maps together or my fuel and timing maps together. Don't mix and match. Just like if you use 91 or 93 use the OTS 91 and 93 base timing maps. It's that simple.

[Shady195]

@BRZ Fanboi

I really don't think anyone was really trying to be rude even if it did come off that way.

You need to understand that while this is your frankenstein, when you even mention Wayno or Shivs names people may see that as some sort of positive endorsement on their parts. People don't read, people skim and get over excited at the first thing they see, its human nature. So I understand @Wayno being a bit defensive about his work and worried about someone whos just combining different aspects and changing various parameters without any real understanding or long term real world testing.

You also need to understand that OTS tunes are by design very conservative, they need to be to account for different climates and fuel qualities and a million other unknown variables that may present themselves. Tweaking the tune to get the "best performance" even if you did have a dyno and many hours of adjustments may not be safe or optimal for everyone else.

[ztan]

I've got no issues with the OP posting his ROM modifications and stating that he thinks his tune is better using his butt dyno. The disclaimer was in the initial post that it works for his car in his environment and that he did not do extensive testing. That disclaimer should not even need to be in there (what is understood does not need to be discussed) - it's pretty dumb to make tuning changes without knowing what you are doing, how they might affect other things in your car, and how to monitor those changes, be those BRZ_Fanboy's, Shiv's, Wayno's, FA20Club's, Ecutek's...

On a side note, using E85, there is still FLKC under load on your 3rd gear pull in post #10 with this tune - this may be way past MBT or just noise.

I also updated front sensor scaling which gets better correlation with Bosch 4.9 wideband using RON98 (what is understood does not need to be discussed):
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=16

[CSG Mike]

Let me get this straight.

- You copy/pasted tables from Shiv's tune, and Wayno's tune, to makes your own mashup tune
- You have zero actual tangible evidence to show that this tune works better (no dyno, no meaningful logs [single pulls mean nothing to me])
- Your butt dyno likes it.

So, let me ask you this: do you think your car would survive being driven by an experienced driver on track? In other words, is your tune sustainable?

[Jaden]

I got a little over 18 mpg on this tune for the first tank, almost 18.5, I drive HARD...

Typically I was getting around 17 or a little under driving a little less hard than this trip, so it does get slightly better mileage...

A side note, my car's mpg readout was almost DEAD on at 18.3...(181.4 miles and 9.78 gallons).

Which is unheard of for me on E85...I don't know if there was something about this tune that allowed the readout to be more accurate but it has always been about 5 mpg higher reading in the past.

The tune works well for me. I get the same fuel as the op though as we live close to each other and we both have A01D's.

Where I get my fuel it's guaranteed to be above E70.

I took long logs doing multiple types of driving and there doesn't seem to be any major issues with the tune...

That doesn't mean it's the best tune for me, for the op, or for anyone else for that matter, but come on guys, there's no need to rip the op like some of you have.

Jaden

[JB86'd]

@Jaden The problem is, with grandiose claims, comes a burden of proof. This is especially true when you're using someone else's work that they spent countless time on, and claiming your untested version is better.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I got a little over 18 mpg on this tune for the first tank, almost 18.5, I drive HARD...

Typically I was getting around 17 or a little under driving a little less hard than this trip, so it does get slightly better mileage...

A side note, my car's mpg readout was almost DEAD on at 18.3...(181.4 miles and 9.78 gallons).

Which is unheard of for me on E85...I don't know if there was something about this tune that allowed the readout to be more accurate but it has always been about 5 mpg higher reading in the past.

The tune works well for me. I get the same fuel as the op though as we live close to each other and we both have A01D's.

Where I get my fuel it's guaranteed to be above E70.

I took long logs doing multiple types of driving and there doesn't seem to be any major issues with the tune...

That doesn't mean it's the best tune for me, for the op, or for anyone else for that matter, but come on guys, there's no need to rip the op like some of you have.

Jaden

Couple of things would concern me (note I am no tuner just do some reading and testing)

Your giving your car a hard time rpm 6000-7000 before the coolant and oil have reached operating temperature.

you have not logged ignition timing so we cannot see what overall ignition advance your running

you getting a small amount of knock once the car warmed up to operating temp at lower rpm

The engine load values seem low so im guessing your in lower gears doing those pulls like 2nd or 3rd

The measured afr is around low 11 when your higher rpm where commanded afr what the ecu is asking for is around 12, ie your running 10% richer than whats in the tune.

So the Open loop maf scaling is off a bit for your car, this will likely suppress and knock

We have found that running that rich looses power on dyno, you want to be aiming for low to mid 12 at upper rpm on E85 as per the OL Fuel Table, but with your extra timing that might cause issues. Tuning is a balancing act between lots of factors
Ignition timing
fueling
cam timing
injection mode
ect

Myself and wayno have found shiv's basic tunes to be very good.

The only things we had to tweak was fueling via correction to maf scaling , due to the differences in maf sensor performance between vehicles and as a result we had to adjust some load limits.
We pulled a bit of timing at lower rpm where we saw slight knock under extreme circumstances like on track on hot days. We did not try to be too "smart" or get ahead of ourselves making changes. We just tried to make the tune run as the original tuner wanted ie it follows the fueling tables.

This worked well and at local dyno days these slightly tweaked OFT tunes performed very well even compared to local pro tuners full dyno tunes, infact they beat them consistently on petrol and E85 on multiple cars.

But the credit really goes to the OFT guys for producing a good basic tune which was open and allowed us to learn and correct the tune for differences in maf sensor hardware between cars (or cars with aftermarket intakes) not the tune itself, we are just getting the tune to run the fueling the original tuner ie shiv intended.

Most of the other changes are utility changes for
fans
safety high iat and coolant temp ignition retard retard
easier starting on high E% E85 our stuff is almost E90 consistently
quiet start up
ect


the MPG readout was corrected as the romraider guys td-d found the fuel multiplier offset table which has been increased by 33% same as the injector scaling increase for E85 .

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by steve99

you will need waynos modded defs as some of those tables not in standard oft defs

THANK YOU SO MUCH..
I literally just spent an hour+ going why can't I find some of these tables?...
even checked to make sure my OFT defs were up to date which they were.

But im curious.. I guess if there are more known tables.. why are they not part of the standard OFT def distro? Or am I asking dangerous fight inducing questions now?

Edit:
found my defs actually were not up to date, I saw something that wasn't right, so IDK if my above Q is still valid.. but if it is, then that question still!

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Chimera

THANK YOU SO MUCH..
I literally just spent an hour+ going why can't I find some of these tables?...
even checked to make sure my OFT defs were up to date which they were.

But im curious.. I guess if there are more known tables.. why are they not part of the standard OFT def distro? Or am I asking dangerous fight inducing questions now?

Edit:
found my defs actually were not up to date, I saw something that wasn't right, so IDK if my above Q is still valid.. but if it is, then that question still!

The oft guys defs include the tables you need for their tunes , wayno modded them to include extra tables discovered by romraider guys that are needed to make some of the changes required to load limits and a few other things. you need to be very carefull with defs see the romraider tips link below as defs to suit oft tunes and normal or stock tunes are different

also read here if your using D00C rom with recient lc\ffs changes as i suspect @Wayno may not updated his defs yet for the patch on that rom, you need to match patched rom with correct def else it likey a bricked ecu
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94514

[BRZ Fanboi]

Originally Posted by elBarto

US E85 isn't that good of quality. Steve99 said Aussi E85 is guaranteed E85 while US E85 is somewhere between E70 and E85.

I'll just leave this here...

Funny when someone from Belgium tells me what I have in my own backyard. Guaranteed 85% ethanol and it is mixed with better fuel than in AUS. All this for only $2.65 a gallon. Winning!

Originally Posted by steve99

Your giving your car a hard time rpm 6000-7000 before the coolant and oil have reached operating temperature.

you have not logged ignition timing so we cannot see what overall ignition advance your running

you getting a small amount of knock once the car warmed up to operating temp at lower rpm

The engine load values seem low so im guessing your in lower gears doing those pulls like 2nd or 3rd

The measured afr is around low 11 when your higher rpm where commanded afr what the ecu is asking for is around 12, ie your running 10% richer than whats in the tune.

So the Open loop maf scaling is off a bit for your car, this will likely suppress and knock

This. If you continue to use the tune you need to adjust MAF Scaling for your car. Steve has an excellent threads about it here and here.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by steve99

The oft guys defs include the tables you need for their tunes , wayno modded them to include extra tables discovered by romraider guys that are needed to make some of the changes required to load limits and a few other things. you need to be very carefull with defs see the romraider tips link below as defs to suit oft tunes and normal or stock tunes are different

also read here if your using D00C rom with recient lc\ffs changes as i suspect @Wayno may not updated his defs yet for the patch on that rom, you need to match patched rom with correct def else it likey a bricked ecu
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94514

I have B01C.
Anyways, I am looking at table defs here and on waynos thread. I am less interested in gas savings and more so in reliable starts, so I am looking into a hybrid of the oft and Wayno as well, mostly sticking to oft. On the topic, if I use waynos defs, and open the stg 2 oft el e85 for B01C, and start moving table data everything appears fine to me. Is this correct or am I just missing the problem areas with the new defs and the standard oft rom?
I really hope I am making sense and not sounding stupid.