MattR
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by MattR
-
-
Final update on this one - took the car out with someone a lot more experienced with Link & tuning than I at the start of last month to iron out the fuel & ignition maps.
He managed to get the tune reasonably good in most places, but couldn't fix the lean spike on accel issue, and also was unable to get the idle AFR any leaner than 13:1, we were bottoming out the injector if we tried to remove any more fuel. Compression tested the engine (came back averaging 208psi on all 6 cylinders) so added a vacuum gauge to discover we were only seeing 12 inHg at idle. Analysed a few logs and saw that even on decel the map never ventured much below 50kPa. After much to-ing and fro-ing I narrowed it down to the exhaust cam being too far advanced leading to quite a bit of overlap on what are fairly mild cams (244º, 9.7mm lift intake & 240º, 9mm lift exhaust). My theory is the lack of vacuum at low load was preventing the fuel pressure reg from opening the return line fully, leaving higher than usual rail pressure at low load and consequently overfuelling. I don't have access to a dial gauge or degree wheel so opted instead to swap the M54 Vanos exhaust cam for an M50 non Vanos one that came from the engine I pulled to do the B30 swap in the first place. Post cam swap the engine now goes beyond 80kPa on decel, idles around 65kPa and no longer lean spikes when throttle is initially applied. Very happy!
On 12/2/2018 at 9:19 AM, Adamw said:Its not a deadtime problem, in the lean areas you have 6-10ms of pulsewidth in the screenshot above and constant battery voltage, even if the deadtime was out by 50% its going to make FA difference.
Yep, I would try that next. I would also try more accel hold (try 12events) if sensitivity doesnt get it. Also turn CLL off as that is having an impact as well.
Adamw thanks very much for your input on chasing this issue down.
-
On 11/6/2018 at 3:36 PM, Adamw said:
You can do either, often easier to change it while it is running - then you can just bump it up or down until it runs best.
After changing Master to 14ms as suggested, I've discovered that the data I had re injector cc rating was incorrect. Instead of the 282cc/min I was told it turns out they're more like 236cc/min @ 3 bar. To get my idle closer to 14.7 the fuel table cells are around the 16% mark, which is leaning the engine out to the point of stalling once all warmup enrichments are removed. From what I can tell from the logs the 16% value puts the injector at or very close to below its minimum injection time - would I be increasing the Master to say 16-17 and continue to lean the cell values out until I get 14.7afr? Or do I need a smaller Master number?
(start the log file at 8:10, I forgot to edit the irrelevant bits sorry)
Thanks again
-
On 12/12/2018 at 6:39 PM, krohelm said:
You might want to turn off accel enrich & spend a little more TLC time on your fuel? I went looking for a problem in your fuel table around ~85kpa at 2700-2800rpm, and you've got a canyon right exactly there that is 14% lower than the values of the cells on either side (11-12% absolute). Wildly configured accel enrich can throw your fuel table totally wonky (ask me how I know), it's best to get your fuel table right and then fix dynamics like dumping fuel when stabbing the throttle.
Modelled fuel mode is great too... ;-)
Yeah, I understand that the rubbish fuel table isn't helping things. I've been having an issue with Mixture Map not updating after correcting the calibration table for Lambda 1 so have been using Quick trim whilst reviewing logs. As you can imagine I'm not getting the best results as I'm changing a table value based on one sample instead of the aggregate value that mixture map applies.
-
Looking at some of the logs I'm noticing a slight delay between the TPS moving and a corresponding change in MAP - could this be a contributing factor in the
throttle hesitation I'm experiencing?
Have bumped Accel Sense up to 70 & Accel Hold to 10 with only a marginal improvement to the issue I'm encountering.
Thanks again
-
Quick trim
in G4+
14 hours ago, MarcD said:What about mixture map?
I've managed somehow to screw up the settings somehow, for unknown reasons I can't update the map
12 hours ago, Rob W said:It pays to check your Throttle Position when using mixture map. Decel screws the readings.
yep, have set the TPS column right beside MGP in logged values for that exact reason
-
Quick trim
in G4+
8 minutes ago, Adamw said:Yes that should be fine, generally, if you are within about 1/4 the width/height of the cell centre you will be good.
Awesome, thanks
-
Quick trim
in G4+
How accurate / reliable is quick trim? I.e if I use a log file from a run, found the nearest recorded rpm & kPa point to a corresponding cell on the fuel table, would that give a reasonably accurate cell calculation? For example 69kPa @ 3903rpm, 15.38 AFR with 14.16 target AFR would the calculated value in the target 4000rpm 70kPa cell be close enough?
Or do the rpm & kPa data points need to match the fuel table exactly?
I'm having a few difficulties road tuning my car solo, stumbled across the quick trim function while noodling around last night, wondered if this might be the solution I'm looking for. I realise it'll take a long time to gather enough data to fill out all the regularly used cells in the table.
Thanks
-
7 minutes ago, Adamw said:
Its not a deadtime problem, in the lean areas you have 6-10ms of pulsewidth in the screenshot above and constant battery voltage, even if the deadtime was out by 50% its going to make FA difference.
Yep, I would try that next. I would also try more accel hold (try 12events) if sensitivity doesnt get it. Also turn CLL off as that is having an impact as well.
I did spot CLL was on while trawling through the settings late last night. Have now disabled it until I get my head around whats happening here.
Awesome, thanks again!
-
2 hours ago, motomattx said:
Are you certain that your injector dead times are correct?
To the best of my knowledge, yes. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of data around for the OEM M54B30 injectors, but what info I have come across gives me 1.03ms @ 14v, which is what I'm currently using.
-
On 11/29/2018 at 2:24 PM, Adamw said:
If you mean the lean spikes below every time you move the throttle, then yes I would say that is accel enrichment related.
I would change the "accel hold" to 6 events and bump the load correction up a bit. Try something like this:
Have implemented the changes, and it has made an improvement, though has not eliminated the condition. It does still spike full lean but doesn't seem to stay lean for quite as long.
Would increasing the Sensitivity % be of any benefit in this situation? Still trying to figure out how all the enrichment settings work together (slow learner sorry)
-
On 11/29/2018 at 2:24 PM, Adamw said:
If you mean the lean spikes below every time you move the throttle, then yes I would say that is accel enrichment related.
I would change the "accel hold" to 6 events and bump the load correction up a bit. Try something like this:
Thanks Adam, will give it a go tomorrow
-
On 11/24/2018 at 2:26 PM, Adamw said:
It is better to attach the actual log file rather than a screenshot, cant tell much from what is shown above.
Log attached
Friday 22-11.llg
-
23 minutes ago, krohelm said:
Yeah, tough to see much without a log, but some of this looks really familiar to me. (everything looks like a nail, right?) 2 cents:
- You have Overrun Fuel Cut set to 1% TP. If your foot is light on the gas and the engine is warm you'll see "very lean." That part is "by design" and like an OEM system. If your TP sensor is good, you should consider using a TP lower than 1% for fuel cut. I have ITB's, but my TP sensor is well-configured. I use 0.1% throttle for overrun fuel cut. At 1% it surges and bucks really terribly while in slow traffic in my particular engine (TP ends up at around 0.2-0.4% in those situations for my engine. ymmv.)
-
Accel Enrich was necessary for me to smooth out those spikes you see when you stab into the throttle. I was unable to achieve a repeatable tune without carefully configuring accel enrich.
Get a low RPM cell (like 1000rpm) in good shape with steady state (find a hill and go up in 5th at 30mph WOT while logging haha) then do idle throttle stabs at 1000rpms while tuning out the lean spike with your accel enrich.
This is what I did with my VE tune, but you're on Traditional fueling. Not sure how much different it may be to get your accel enrich roughed in.
Good luck, and post logs! You'll get sorted. :-D
Sorry guys, thought I had attached the log as well - here we go
-
Managed to take the car (e36 with M54B30, E36 G4+ plugin) for a coupe of logging runs this weekend, and have noticed that irrespective of engine RPM it goes full lean at low throttle % and also while starting to accelerate. It's making it rather difficult to start to tune the fuel maps - is this likely to be related to the Acceleration enrichment tables? This is my first attempt at tuning an engine, am a little lost as to where to start. It's still running on the basemap E36 tune, excuse the messy state of the current maps.
Thanks!
-
32 minutes ago, Adamw said:
No, you want to log the parameter "Lambda 1". Just fix your cal table.
Thanks!
-
Just realised that I needed to log the AN3 channel that the wideband is wired to. Oops.
-
Hi, I've (finally) started tuning my M54 conversion using saved log files & mixture map. However I have noticed that AFR is expressed in a much higher value than what is seen on the gauge - i.e when the gauge reads 14.5AFR I'm seeing a value in the 40s on the logging screen. When updating the fuel table with mixture map it's changing the cells to ridiculously rich, could someone take a look and tell me what it is that I've screwed up in my settings?
Thanks!
-
4 minutes ago, iceman_n said:
its 100 kpa because he change the axis setup just to suit in his application, so it was tps in the original map with itbs...
i disagree with you, with itbs you cant hook up map sensor with corrent readings of vacuum, tps is a must for both fuel and ignition with itbs in my experience
i have seen some applications with vacuum box on itbs but doesnt work right sometimes, the wave pulses make odd readings on the map sensor
Screenshots are of the map as supplied, I haven't made any changes to either
-
57 minutes ago, iceman_n said:
ok thats fine but the problem here is that its a totaly different thing to map an engine with TPS and different with map sensor....the alpha N method its totaly different than density method
its not as simple just to switch from TPS to map sensor just changing the axis setup on the map, thats why the second map goes until 100 and first at 105, the second map 100 is the percentage of throttle the first 105 is the kilo pascal of air entering inside the engine
Righto, that makes sense. I had a similar question regarding the possible conversion of a TPS fuel map to MAP, stands to reason that the timing maps wouldn't work for the same reasons - thanks!
-
8 hours ago, iceman_n said:
there is no answer if it would be safe or not, you need to tune your engine and find out where is the knock limit, a map from another engine setup its just a base map for starting your engine nothing more
also you said it runs ITB's how its possible to run ITB's and he uses map sensor for load ?? instead of TPS...
Yes, the donated map does use TPS as y axis. Unfortunately my budget didn't extend to ITBs (
) so I'm using traditional MAP for fuelling.
-
Hi guys
I'm nearly finished with an M54B30 swap into my E36, but I have a couple questions around some ignition maps I've been given I'm using an E36 plugin G4+, and so far have got the engine running on the M50B25 map supplied. I've been lucky enough to have gotten a tune from a guy that has run the same engine in his rally car, although he's using S50B30 ITBs & injectors, whereas I have standard B30 injectors and an M50B25 intake manifold instead. I've compared the two ignition maps and the second one is noticeably more aggressive.
First map (Standard Link M50B25 tune)
Second map (supplied M54B30 ITB tune)
Would the second map be safe enough to run, given its a road car? Also, I noticed that the second map only goes to 100kPa, is that likely to cause any trouble?
Sorry for the (probably dumb) questions, this is my first attempt at swapping and tuning an EFI engine.
Many thanks
-
One last thing - I assume I'll need to change the master fuel value before starting the engine? Have spoken to a couple of people about it and I'm not 100% sure if I should change the value before startup or after the engine is at running temp?
-
3 hours ago, Adamw said:
I would calculate it like this:
If your measured lambda was 0.61(9:1AFR). Lets say your target was typical NA target of 0.87. So 0.61/0.87 = 0.70 (i.e need to remove 30%).
New master fuel = 20 x 0.70 = 14ms.
Thanks Adam, much appreciated
-
1 minute ago, cj said:
Yeah about 12 should be approximately correct. Might need to be a few points up or down on that depending on how close the base + current numbers match the real values of the injectors, but your calculations are right.
Brilliant, ta.
) so I'm using traditional MAP for fuelling.
E36 G4+ crank sensor troubles
in G4+
Posted
HI, am running an M54B30 in an E36 on the pnp ecu. The VR type crank sensor has died, and I'm considering reinstating the M54 Hall type CAS. (I have a new m54 one here whereas I need to order a replacement if I stick with the VR)
Can I splice into the +5v supply from the TPS or do I have to buy an expansion loom and use the 5v feed from there?
Thanks