dx4picco Posted April 11, 2020 Report Share Posted April 11, 2020 Hello! I was wondering if the formula of the modelled fuel equation has been changed in recent firmwareupdates? I was running the firmareSTI_type_R_3ndtry.pclr (older map revision but was the same firmware) and then updated to the latest 5.6.7.3631 one and my fuel map seems out of wack. Its running about 15% richer than before in the vacuum zones. has something been changed? will it behave the same in boost zones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 11, 2020 Report Share Posted April 11, 2020 No there is only one small change in the fuel calculation between 5.6.5 & 5.6.7. This was a fix to allow the charge temperature to go negative. This would typically only have an effect on users in a very cold climate using ethanol or methanol and when the engine is cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 11, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2020 Is there anything between the 2 maps that can explain this difference? (I've checked an older log and it was pulling 7% at idle, and it was pulling 16-17% with the new firmware) https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BhrTKaj1sgvmS4Y13sRc4Eeuyx-Pgh6n https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BS0TdvLjExr2qhx_0I8KG7e9tB_Md1lh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 I dont see any differences in the two tunes. I would be comparing all the fuel and and air related parameters in the two logs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remski2 Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 From what I see your CLL ECT lockout was set to 248F ... in map v2.. essentially turning off the correction. v3 enables correction @ ECT 104F ... I also see your "102 octane switch" remaped to AC switch.. and.. Your "AFR lambda target" and "AFR lambda target 2" are the same up to 14.5 MAP.. then they scale different.. My guess .. you are running on high octane fuel without the ecu being aware of it.. If not .. the Modelled - Multi fuel is throwing things off as the other fuel's stoich is set at 10.14 AFR.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 6 hours ago, Adamw said: I dont see any differences in the two tunes. I must have downloaded the same file twice. Now I have another look, there are a few differences, would really need to see the logs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 I have put a 3 position switch to be able to run 3 different fuels without the need of reflash, 98Ron in position0, 102Ron in position 1 and pump e85 in position 2. This is why there is a different afr target on the e85 map. I did disable the CL lambda to see what afr it runs at after I saw the high corrections. One question may be, is the MAP and TPS scaling linked to the tune or the ecu ? Namely I put the ecu into 2 similar cars, and if I switch back into the first with the good map file is the calibration also in it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 I know TPS calibration is stored as part of the tune. I assume the same for the small MAP offset that is done during the MAP cal but im not 100% sure on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 Here are two logs. Indeed I redid a Map and tps cal and it didn't improve the matter. the two region that shows are before cl kick in (before 40°ect) before lammbda climb to 0.9 (that was pretty much always like that and its great) and on the new log you can see it stays by 0.8. then at warm engine, idle, its pulling 13%+ instead of 7 to 8% old: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a0VNWx6LH7fUMFcrLsk8xCeoNZ0BPwnS new: https://drive.google.com/open?id=11RTYoIbM4I6XygtMHD2qLUUGeAdAm73r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 The difference is from the fuel table number, you have a big jump in VE numbers between the -60 & -55Kpa cell. Older log is the pink overlay. In the same spot as above, the earlier log is working in this cell: The later log is working here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 what would make it run with less mgp in the same ect and iat conditions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 There is a 5Kpa difference in BAP, that is a bit more than typical but is likely just environmental/weather conditions. The problem is more so the big difference between the two fuel table cells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 I changed that. Thank you for your analysis. Funily enough it only happened since I made the recent firmware update. It did not idled in this region before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2020 I have a question relative to the modelled equation itself, how much "enrichment" or pulse width adder is there with lower ECT if any? Even though i have the warmup enrichment disabled, it seems to run richer when starting at lower ect (which is a good thing, but i'm trying to understand the background actions made) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 18, 2020 Report Share Posted April 18, 2020 2 hours ago, dx4picco said: I have a question relative to the modelled equation itself, how much "enrichment" or pulse width adder is there with lower ECT if any? Even though i have the warmup enrichment disabled, it seems to run richer when starting at lower ect (which is a good thing, but i'm trying to understand the background actions made) Modelled fuel mode calculates the air mass via ideal gas law with charge temp being part of that calculation (PV=nRT). The charge temp used in this calculation comes from the charge temp approximation table and is a blend of ECT and IAT. So, as a rough approximation you will see approx 4% change in injected fuel mass for a 10°C change in charge temp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dx4picco Posted April 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2020 So theoretically if the VE table is good and the warmup enrichment is off, i should have lambda 1 at cold engine too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted April 18, 2020 Report Share Posted April 18, 2020 In theory yes. Always start with warm-up enrichment table zeroed out. In most cases depending how cold it gets where you are you will still need small numbers at the lefthand end the warm-up enrichment table to account for factors such as the lower vaporisation in the port and most engines want to be a bit richer for smooth warm-up too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Schneiderbanger Posted May 16, 2020 Report Share Posted May 16, 2020 On 4/18/2020 at 5:43 PM, dx4picco said: So theoretically if the VE table is good and the warmup enrichment is off, i should have lambda 1 at cold engine too? I have a similar issue which i'm thinking is charge table related but i haven't been able to nail it down yet. I Also have my warm up table zerod out. Cold start "even with post start fuel zerod out" is .78 lambda and slowly increases to .95 target by 180F I didn't understand how it could be charge table related as the IAT and ECT are the same for maybe 30-60 seconds after engine start unless the VE table numbers in my idle areas are higher than they should be BECAUSE my charge table is setup incorrectly for idle and therefor it's over fueling while cold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamw Posted May 17, 2020 Report Share Posted May 17, 2020 Mario, Sorry I just found I had a facebook message from you hiding in my message requests on a similar subject, I thought is was easiest to reply here. I had a quick look at your log. Im not really sure on the cause of the rich warmup but the fuel charge cooling coefficient has quite a big effect as ethanol content goes up so that would be my first suspicion. Its definately weird to have such large VE numbers at idle (I know you have tried to find the cause before and couldnt) so that may tend to exaggerate some of the background calculations such as the fuel charge cooling effect. Probably the quick fix is to turn on a 4D fuel table and pull some fuel out at low temps, something like below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Schneiderbanger Posted May 17, 2020 Report Share Posted May 17, 2020 great idea! What i need to do is use 4D for my high cam fuel map so i can turn on multi fuel mode. i'm currently using ve#2 for this which i'm pretty sure is reserved for the blend ratio table to work in multifuel mode. maybe then my ve numbers will drop because some other e content based calculations become active. if that still doesn't work then i'll just do what you said and use a 4d table to pull fuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.