Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Modified PULP map and I don't do the 4500 + . The reason the light load areas are so advanced is because that's where it seems to make best part throttle torque , on E70 . Not spiking now . I will agree the timing is mild around 1 bar but that is dyno tuning territory in my opinion . I think the PULP tune was pretty tame and until I added a fair bit of light load timing felt quite flat . 

I have heard this engine rattle twice in 10 years and 88000K so I highly doubt it'll go bang . Bores looked good at 90 and ~160K . At idle no breathing out the oil filler hole at all .

Like I said lets see other peoples E70/85 timing maps , and AFR target tables .

 

Appreciate that you're sharing the important bits.  Couple of constructive observations:

Your ECU interpolates between cells quite effectively.  The MAP row 95kpa on AFR target is largely redundant.  Looks nice, does very little IMO except divert attention.   I get the gist of the 115kpa row, but unless your logging shows that the engine often hovers around that point, and the fuel and ignition mapping is done to reflect/capitalise that, maybe not a lot to gain.

Similarly with the ignition map showing a row at 90kpa.  I take a pragmatic approach, and if logging shows you rush through that zone very quickly or don't actually spend "that much" time at that load point, don't add complexity to the map. Get rid of it.

You're on ethanol.  Add 3 degrees of timing across all cells from 140-200kpa (and play carefully).  If you're running decent advance sub 100kpa then quickly take it away as boost rises, it's going to feel flat.  You know it's going to need a dyno session with someone who is at least moderately competent at some point to get ignition right, across the full load range.

Run an AFR log or two, with steady accel, and then with decent throttle above 50 percent.  The data streams will show rate of change of throttle, boost, and accel enrichment + how closely actual AFR follows the target.  To say the accel enrich values "look big" could be mistakenly ignoring that it potentially needs more. 

Finally - Have an experienced driver who doesn't know your tune pedal the car in those situations, and get their honest impression about "feel" once it's tuned more satisfactorily.  It may be better than you're thinking, and over analysing the performance of an old car.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...