Thanks all for your help guys!
It turned out to be fuse number 11 in a fusebox I didn't know existed! Hidden away behind the immobiliser keypad, which you have to pull off it's hinges to reveal the fuses.
Apparently this fuse feeds Engine ignition system and SRS airbag. It pretty much immobilsed the whole car!
Not sure why it blew, perhaps I have an underlying fault that will come back to bite me!
Thanks too to https://shopbhp.com/ - great tech support as always
I have actually had some great success tuning with the CLL information for fine adjustment on my own car.
So I use the car to drive around everyday creating a log and every now and then I grab that log of an evening and see where the CLL is making the most changes and I alter the map where it is adjusting the most, eventually you will get it down to the CLL only making tiny adjustments.
This fine tuning is something that is normally not done as dyno time is expensive, it is sometime also parts of the map where its hard to get into on a dyno.
Currently with mixture map you set a threshold so that samples within say 25% of the centre of a cell vertically and horizontally.
This pool of results are used to contribute towards an average value in the centre of the closest cell.
However this means that you've got 25% variation of rpm and load, contributing to a static value in the centre - and you need to throw away 75% (?) of recorded values.
I have another idea that can let you use all of the data instead, and improve the results.
For simplicity's sake imagine a 4x4 grid, and our current load and rpm point is 25% of the way towards the lower RPM value and 25% of the way towards the lower Load value.
If we interpolate these values, as per what the ECU does.
Note: I have just titled the columns and rows with percentages to show what percentage of the each cell we are interpolating from.
We get a value of (25% * 25* 10) + ( 25% * 75% * 30) + (25% * 75% * 20) + (75% * 75 * 40)
= 0.625 + 6.075 + 3.75 + 22.5
= 32.95 is the table value that interpolation produces.
Now lets say that you wanted to add 10% to this value.
If we just adjust the closest cell by 10%, as per current Mixture Map strategy. Then our bottom left cell changes to 44 so our table now looks like this:
If we do the interpolation again, but with the new value to represent running the car again after the update:
We get a value of (25% * 25* 10) + ( 25% * 75% * 30) + (25% * 75% * 20) + (75% * 75 * 44)
= 0.625 + 6.075 + 3.75 + 24.75
= 35.2 as the new overall value. Which is only makes 6.8% difference to the interpolated value, rather than the 10% we wanted.
On the other hand...
If PCLink De-interpolated the 10% that it wants to add.
Instead of adding 10% to the one cell, we split the 10% addition across the 4 cells based on the same percentage that the value was interpolated from initially.
Top left cell: (10 * 1.1 * .25 * .25) = 0.6875
Bottom left cell: (30 * 1.1 * .25 * .75) = 6.1875
Top Right Cell: (20 * 1.1 * .25 * .75) = 4.125
Bottom Right Cell: (40 * 1.1 * .75 * .75) = 24.75
= 35.75 is the table value that de-interpolation produces.
We were trying to add 10% and this new value produced is 10.5%. So that's pretty good!
(The 0.5% error comes from rounding to 3 decimal places in my example)
So it's accurate to the provided data in every instance. Which is especially relevant when it's applied 1000s of times across all of the cells. You dont need to throw away any of your recorded data, it all contributes to the cell values.
Mixture map is pretty good for roughing out a map initially but because of the inaccuracies of the "nearest cell" method I don't really use it that much anymore when trying to dial in a fuel map. You always overshoot or undershoot unless you set your cell tolerances impossibly tight and have millions of samples.
And, since this is all only done in PCLINK rather than the ECU, there's not really any worry about the overheads of the extra maths involved. It's worth having it chug away for a few minutes longer if you can get an awesome result on first or second iteration of Mixture map logging.
So - that's my Friday night suggestion.
Thanks for reading if you got this far, haha.
For what it's worth, I wrote up my experience of setting up knock control on my Impreza STI 2007. It's all based on the Link help files... I believe what I have done is correct (comments welcome!) Feel free to have a look at the attached word doc...
BTW, I found the sound levels of each cylinder to be quite 'noisy', so had to have a fairly large headroom in threshold to prevent false knock detection.
Just an idea... Perhaps you could try logging to ECU at 100 Hz, only logging the relevant parameters at this rate though.
Might help to understand whether the PC just can't display/log data fast enough (as Adam was suggesting)?
When you blip the throttle the idle valve will return to whatever position is in the base position table. If the base position table is incorrect then the engine RPM will settle outside of the control range so closed loop will never engage. It appears your base position table hasn’t been tuned at all. You need to switch idle control mode to open loop and tune the base position table properly before switching to closed loop. There is a guide in the help file.