Multiple Target Lambda Tables

[Grant Baker]

Would it be possible to add additional Lambda tables in G4X?

For example, with a map switch we would like to alter target Lambda, Fuel Table, Ignition Table and Boost tables.

[Vaughan]

The Lambda Overlay table will be switchable by a selectable input in the next release if that helps

[mapper]

We need many more target lambda tables, like for: 

• post start 
• ECT based
• IAT based
• Exhaust Temp
• Throttle Position
• average load based
• knock fuel trims (apply target trim instead of enrich, which the CL pulls back) 
• NOS compensation
• two separate targets for Multi fuel mode
• Launch 

One way I can think of to do it, is use 4,5,6D and better some more tables as a target lambda or target lambda trim instead of a fuel trim. However, the ECU should just use the richest target within the calibration, so it doesn't get too rich when several conditions are meet. Like high IAT, ECT and Exhaust Temp, which are usually hit at the same time. Using target modifier for each condition, would end up in extensively rich target lambda. 
 

[0x33]

1 hour ago, mapper said:

We need many more target lambda tables, like for: 

• post start 
• ECT based
• IAT based
• Exhaust Temp
• Throttle Position
• average load based
• knock fuel trims (apply target trim instead of enrich, which the CL pulls back) 
• NOS compensation
• two separate targets for Multi fuel mode
• Launch 

One way I can think of to do it is used 4,5,6D and better some more tables as a target lambda or target lambda trim instead of a fuel trim. However, the ECU should just use the richest target within the calibration, so it doesn't get too rich when several conditions are meet. Like high IAT, ECT and Exhaust Temp, which are usually hit at the same time. Using target modifier for each condition, would end up in extensively rich target lambda. 
 

+100000000000000000000000

[RyanG]

Would be cool to have a little more flexibility for sure. Anything which has the ability to be enriched in open loop should really have the ability to also adjust the target lambda so that closed loop doesn't just over-ride it. Overlay tables can get you part of the way there, but you quickly run out of axis' and need to carefully consider the compounding effect like Mapper mentioned.

[Electredge]

On 3/16/2023 at 4:58 PM, mapper said:

We need many more target lambda tables, like for: 

• post start 
• ECT based
• IAT based
• Exhaust Temp
• Throttle Position
• average load based
• knock fuel trims (apply target trim instead of enrich, which the CL pulls back) 
• NOS compensation
• two separate targets for Multi fuel mode
• Launch 

One way I can think of to do it, is use 4,5,6D and better some more tables as a target lambda or target lambda trim instead of a fuel trim. However, the ECU should just use the richest target within the calibration, so it doesn't get too rich when several conditions are meet. Like high IAT, ECT and Exhaust Temp, which are usually hit at the same time. Using target modifier for each condition, would end up in extensively rich target lambda. 
 

when you say post start, I assume your wanting a richer target when starting up a warm car?  if you are using it for cold start then obviously you could just use the overlay table with ect as the axis, and if you wanted to implement IAT you could use charge temp as the axis instead... I agree IAT could be useful in certain conditions if separate. 

I like the exhaust temp one :D, I have requested exhaust temp boost target trim. 

if you did throttle position it would likely need to be a trim target table, I'm assuming your wanting throttle and map to be involved in the target calculations. if NA you can just make the target table axis throttle instead of MAP. 

average load over a specific time? like around a race track? 

multi model fuel mode does have 2 target tables

 

And I think the problem they will have implementing all of that is the processing power needed for using tables. If I'm not mistaken the tables is the largest draw on resources for the ecu, I'm even quite sure they have a table limit.  Someone from Link can chime in here if I'm wrong.  @Adamw @Vaughan