Jump to content

Jareds

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jareds

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This seems to be resolved now. I dropped the value to 150ms! Works wonders again!
  2. Running a 6-spd STI gearbox. Had a quick look at my setup table - i think that the Re-activation timeout is the issue. Currently sitting at 300ms. This twin plate allows one to engage gears very very quickly compared to a stock clutch. Could I be shifting sub-300ms?
  3. Hi All. I was running a stockish clutch and the flat foot shifting with some serious negative timing worked wonders! After installing a new dual clutch ( a lot more bite, and NO slip whatsoever), my FFS has gone out the window. Literally seems like the ecu cuts the power? Could the lack of slip be an issue? Could the faster engagements between the gears be an issue? Im baffled! Thanks, Jared
  4. and THIS is the answer I was hoping for! THANKS ADAM! No retuning for me! haha.
  5. Im relying on the default Subaru V9 scaling thats available in the G4+ unit - no idea what this curve / how the scaling is done. I havent compared o the internal barometric sensor - however i did do a MAp sensor calibration once upon a time! The fact of the matter is that there is clearly a difference between the OEM 06 and the 08+ STI MAP sensors - Below are the Offsets and multipliers as stated in the OEM maps in terms of the MAP sensor calibrations: 06 STI - Offset (psia) = -8.005. Multiplier (psia/v) = 9.943 08+ STI - Offset (psia) = -5.666. Multiplier (psia/v) = 9.943 How this info relates to a linear curve I cant say.
  6. Hi All. Long story short, I have tuned and been driving my 2006 Subaru STI (ADM model) for a while now. I have since found that out that the actual OEM MAP sensor being used is that from a 08+ Subaru STI. I am however using the default Link Subaru V9 MAP sensor scaling. To my knowledge the factory ECUS on the 2006 STI vs the 2008+ STI do definitely run a different scalings and offset in the OEM mapping. Any idea how I can get the relevant scaling info on the 06 vs 08+ OEM map sensors, or can someone confirm the best thing to do here? Definitely not looking forward to retuning the vehicle if the scaling has to change! But my main concern is what has my peak boost been to date! Thanks, Jared
  7. Fare enough - My main issue is I normally have my go to values that I know just work. Whats the equivalent of 11.8AFR on E50 converted into Lambda? hehe
  8. Hi All. Is there anyway around the fact that Lambda units is forced to be used while the Multifuel equation method is in play? I understand that Lambda is often used, and might be the go to readout for some, but personally I prefer AFR and being 'brought up' on AFR values its very hard to 'know' off the bat so to speak what Im looking at. Thanks, Jared
  9. I want to cry - was just about to hook up my DIY can display - and guess who has BD series connector!
  10. Hi Ken. I did a lot more fiddling with the Charge Temp Compensation table....seems like I have found a happy place more or less. It has sorted out the low down manifold pressure/minimal throttle fueling to within 5% or so. This is more than good enough considering that I will be running with Closed Loop Fueling once the tune is done. Its not easy to get right - but you have to find a happy place in between the numbers in your fuel map, and the charge temp comps. I do still have some areas that need more refining - but just takes time. EDIT: I do know that on OEM subarus that I have tuned in the past - running them in pure open loop will always keep the AFR a decent way out based on pure air temp compensations. One has to run in closed loop to keep the fueling within a few percent - even with changes in the air temp.
  11. Jareds

    Launch Control

    Wowsers! OK - i never though about the 4d / 5 d tables. EPIC! I'm going to see how far I can get with this!
  12. Jareds

    Launch Control

    Just played with this - only issue i have is that I cant retard timing to a static value (with the GP RPM limit) as I do with my current Single RPM launching. So close yet so far! hahaha
  13. Jareds

    Launch Control

    Hi Gents. Any update on this - no way to use GP / Virtual Aux channels to get this right? Maybe keep the launch mode as 'Latched launch' - When Speed < X km/h (DI for launch is the Clutch switch), when speed > X km/h (DI for launch is the push to hold button for rolling launch)? Dont know if this is possible? Thanks, Jared
  14. Hi all. So Ive spent a lot of time refining my map (all road tuning) and making the AFRS nice and precise. I never have enough time to do the entire map in one shot. I always do bits and pieces - Some cruising, some low down, some foot flat, some high RPM etc. But I break it down so I can make sure things are perfect in those particular areas until I move on. Ive been using the Modelled Fueling equation and I find with my IAT varying by around 10-15 degrees I see as much as 1 full AFR off. In the early morning I will dial in a particular part of the map for lets say 14.5 AFR (IAT's around 30degC). That afternoon when things have heated up (IAT's around 40degC) the areas that I tuned in the morning around almost 1AFR leaner - so around 15.5 now. If i correct the fueling when the IAT's are around 40degC - to 14.5AFR - the next morning Im at around 13.5AFR. I do find that certain areas are more heavily affected than others obviously. SO last night I watched the GREAT webinar on the Charge Temp Corrections done by HPAcademy. Long story short there is no way I will dial in my table as accurately as Andre. I dont have access to a dyno and to simulate the different conditions is difficult on a Turbo Charged Vehicle. During all of these tests there is no other Compensations taking place (With regards to warm up / coolant etc). The only hidden ones would be the actual corrections taking place in the background to deliver the right amount of fuel as per the Modelled Fueling equation. So my question is - how much extra fuel is added /subtracted for every 10degC change in IAT/Charge Temps? I know Andre says that for every 10degC below 20degC one adds 2.5% of fuel, and we take away 2.5% for every 10degC above 20DegC. Im loosing/gaining around 7% of fuel for the give or take 10-15degC changes. Will things pan out any better with the traditional fueling? Can I not just zero out the Charge temp comps and use the IAT as 'normal' even though im in the modelled fueling? OR do i add a decent bit of Charge correction and try and dial in the charge temp correction bit by bit? But it just seems like im getting drastic fluctuations! Difficult for me to chose the right path! Hope someone can advise? Thanks, Jared
  15. Maybe i can assist here - ive just been throught this myself. I too used a DBW setup, and the ECU hold functionality. Is your ECU hold output applying the ground for your main relay? I found the only way out of this - after disconnecting EVERY SINGLE IN/OUT to and from the ECU with NO effect - was to disconnect the ecu hold. Long story short - If i applied a ground straight from the body for example to hold the Main relay in - i got no chattering from the relays. I then tried to isolate the ecu hold ground from the main ignition relay ground by switching a GOOD ground through a relay. Been about 1 month now - no issues.
×
×
  • Create New...