Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I don't have a wideband yet but I will be getting an AEM Uego unit hopefully tomorrow if this guy answers his phone!

I'm close to the money on the settings as it seems, maybe ill give it +14ms and tune from there.

At the moment, I am not doing anything fancy, just sorting out the pops and splutters on idle and cruising, so ill be adding more fuel rather than pulling which should be safe to do without a wideband. I just listen to it and when the pops are gone I know I'm done lol.

Quite interesting this tuning stuff.

I wouldn't touch your injector settings till you have a wideband installed

I was just having a read around and from what Ive read it seems that injector settings are just a correction to compensate for the changed injectors, an easy fix so to speak. If you are going to tune the car from scratch, for example, after you init the power fc, could you use those standard settings of 100% 0ms to tune the car to the correct afr? Technically this should work as the car will be tuned around the injectors on that setting. I don't see it not working like this.

The correction is just the easy way out for when you have a tune and then don't want to retune because of injectors, just get the correct settings and bam. But if you start from a clean slate at 100% and fix setup the AFR's in the injector map, it should be fine. Right?

Unfortunately you can only go to a max of 1.5 and min of 0.5, so apologies but that idea goes right out the window.

Don't be lazy, correct your injectors.

Also, the map doesn't scale exactly how you're hoping.

Its not about being lazy really lol, I know the settings for my Nismo injectors 50 and 14ms but just wanted to ask as I read in a different thread that you can leave it at 100% 0ms and tune the car based on that.

This scaling shit is weird to me. There are many places which can affect scaling. Example, my % for my AFM aren't at 100%. Each voltage gets a lower %. At 0.64 its 100%, the next one is 96 next one 95 then eventually 85. I don't know why it is like this(They are all 100% by default) but that is how it got tuned for $800 so there must be a reason behind it.

Also I done an init on my ECU, let it self learn the idle(after setting the AFM and injectors settings) and it started and idled just fine. I went to copy my old map across and now it feels the same again. Weird shit.

I corrected my injector settings. Only thing that would have changed is the AFM voltage settings thing. All the boxes after the init were 100%, on my tune they taper down to 85%. I am using the settings which my car was tuned on, 52 10ms but I am aware that the nismo are 50 14 but as it was tuned, it how it will stay. Before I fiddle further I will do a compression test when my coils arrive and new plugs get dropped in.

Some tuners tune by afm correction obviously advan is one of them. If i did notice that i would have set to 100% and tune like i normally do.

I think u should start from an init and leave the afm at 100% and tune it

Some tuners tune by afm correction obviously advan is one of them. If i did notice that i would have set to 100% and tune like i normally do.

I think u should start from an init and leave the afm at 100% and tune it

When the car is ready, I'll leave that up to you lol. I'm just tinkering with low tiny load and idle.

Its not about being lazy really lol, I know the settings for my Nismo injectors 50 and 14ms but just wanted to ask as I read in a different thread that you can leave it at 100% 0ms and tune the car based on that.

This scaling shit is weird to me. There are many places which can affect scaling. Example, my % for my AFM aren't at 100%. Each voltage gets a lower %. At 0.64 its 100%, the next one is 96 next one 95 then eventually 85. I don't know why it is like this(They are all 100% by default) but that is how it got tuned for $800 so there must be a reason behind it.

Also I done an init on my ECU, let it self learn the idle(after setting the AFM and injectors settings) and it started and idled just fine. I went to copy my old map across and now it feels the same again. Weird shit.

unfortunately your accel pulse, crank pulse and everything that requires accurate injector pulse timing will be up the creek, yes you could do it but every single fueling curve would need changing and it would still be behid the eight ball when finished. The PFC has a lot of areas that are non adjustable in the back ground which rely on the lag time and % correction to bring it back into check.

I corrected my injector settings. Only thing that would have changed is the AFM voltage settings thing. All the boxes after the init were 100%, on my tune they taper down to 85%. I am using the settings which my car was tuned on, 52 10ms but I am aware that the nismo are 50 14 but as it was tuned, it how it will stay. Before I fiddle further I will do a compression test when my coils arrive and new plugs get dropped in.

Tuning in the AFM percentage table is a sign of pure laziness, poor form unfortunately. I like the write my fuel map so that it accuratley resembles my target lamba / AFR i then re write the AFM table to get my results. This means its easy to make correction in the future as inputing the desired afr in the fuel table means you will get the same result out the tailpipe. Especially handy with fuel changes or a trip to the drags or a turbo swap etc.

Tao from hypergears fuel and afm curve is so close to being perfect we can swap between different size turbos and the tune requires only 1-2 pulls to be spot on the target AF in the fuel table. Timing is still a dynamic thing.

ahhh very interesting, that explains alot. I never really understood fully why the air flow curve was not a linear relationship, ie airflow to voltate. But now it makes a little more sense.

Trent, what is the best way to actually setup an airflow curve. do you set the fuel map to represent the target AFR first, then slowly tweak the corresponding Air flow load points. until the target afr matchs the actual afr?

regards

Chris

What exactly do you mean when I write that. Do you mean that you initially leave your curve at 100% across the board then setup the injector table to reflect the afr you want. Meaning if you wanted the whole map to be stoich, 14.7, you would set that on the whole map then adjust the air flow to get 14.7 out the rear?

ahhh very interesting, that explains alot. I never really understood fully why the air flow curve was not a linear relationship, ie airflow to voltate. But now it makes a little more sense.

Trent, what is the best way to actually setup an airflow curve. do you set the fuel map to represent the target AFR first, then slowly tweak the corresponding Air flow load points. until the target afr matchs the actual afr?

regards

Chris

Bingo. Just make sure you do it smoothly, no big jumps that way all load points regardless of boost match your desired afr in the fuel table.

What exactly do you mean when I write that. Do you mean that you initially leave your curve at 100% across the board then setup the injector table to reflect the afr you want.

yes the table with percentages should always stay 100%, use the table below it to fine tune.

Meaning if you wanted the whole map to be stoich, 14.7, you would set that on the whole map then adjust the air flow to get 14.7 out the rear?

Exactly, but 14.7 would be difficult on a turbo car.

yes the table with percentages should always stay 100%, use the table below it to fine tune.

Exactly, but 14.7 would be difficult on a turbo car.

Yeah, just for example lol.

That is very interesting but it seems like a harder way to tune. It would be easier in my mind, or the mind of a novice, to leave those as standard and adjust the fuel injection as necessary across the load points.

Ive sent you a PM. I actually didn't it wouldn't let me...

Edited by SargeRX8

Does any 1 want to share there Inj map so that I can have a quick gander at what they used as a target AFR's across the board?

Would I be correct in saying that every car would need a slightly different airflow curve?But for the most part the target afr or inj map would stay pretty much the same. For example my car is a neo RB3025 with a GT3576 and z32 AFM. it would have a different airflow requirements to a RB25 with a GT3576 and z32 AFM due to the extra capacity. But the fuel map would be quite similar.

I obviously did it the other way by using the standard airflow curve and tuning the inj map to compensate. So once I get the idea through my head of how it works, I might start slightly tweaking it via the airflow curve.

regards

Chris

Does any 1 want to share there Inj map so that I can have a quick gander at what they used as a target AFR's across the board?

Would I be correct in saying that every car would need a slightly different airflow curve?But for the most part the target afr or inj map would stay pretty much the same. For example my car is a neo RB3025 with a GT3576 and z32 AFM. it would have a different airflow requirements to a RB25 with a GT3576 and z32 AFM due to the extra capacity. But the fuel map would be quite similar.

I obviously did it the other way by using the standard airflow curve and tuning the inj map to compensate. So once I get the idea through my head of how it works, I might start slightly tweaking it via the airflow curve.

regards

Chris

Yeah, just for example lol.

That is very interesting but it seems like a harder way to tune. It would be easier in my mind, or the mind of a novice, to leave those as standard and adjust the fuel injection as necessary across the load points.

Ive sent you a PM. I actually didn't it wouldn't let me...

you would be suprised it actually is the same time wise and if you use the numbers enough (like evryday like we do) then you can nearly write the map without a dyno.

you would be suprised it actually is the same time wise and if you use the numbers enough (like evryday like we do) then you can nearly write the map without a dyno.

If I send you my tune can you have a look at it and if possible make any suitable adjustments? I am happy to $ for your work if you believe you can make a difference. It seems sloppy in the lower range. If you are able to, PM me.

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

    • H2 (for cars) will never happen. It's not reasonable for any number of reasons. It's also not reasonable for almost all of the industrial uses that the fanbois say that it will be used for, again for a large number of reasons. There are some cases where it will be good. But, even those will be massively hampered by the economics. The only way that H2 can be economic is if we somehow manage to get from where we are to the other side of the economic-valley-of-death in which no-one can operate. You need there to be sufficient renewable generated electricity to be available so that it is effectively free. Once you are there, you can do whatever the hell you want and hang the efficiency. But until you get there, the ever diminishing value of electricity makes it harder and harder to encourage businesses to build the new generation capacity, and they will simply stop investing in generation projects. (I kinda think there needs to be just government money spent on building the required capacity in a non-commercial way, similar to how the first fossil fueled grids were built, as national-government owned utilities. And probably some nuclear in there to start. But this all should have started 10-15 years ago to avoid the chasm of death that we face right now). Synth fuels will be much more likely, but will only occur is there is at least some renewable H2 production, because you need H2 to do it. And you need stacks of free (or at least extraordinarily cheap) energy because assembling molecules back into fuels is exactly the opposite process to burning the fuel, and the reason we burn fuels is because there is so much energy squeezed into each molecule. So you're somewhat subject to the same economic valley of death problem as above anyway. That is unless people are willing to pay the current equivalent of $5 or $6 per litre of petrol-ish liquid fuels. Can you imagine it? The squealing at $2 now is bad enough.
    • This is so cool. Get a dashcam that records audio and hopefully you'll catch it.  Maybe there's a brand or some kind of markings on the back ? Are the pics hand drawn? I love it so much.
    • Hahaha yep, point(s) taken. I just like seeing different things and an EV in an R32 is pretty different. I'm not on the EV band wagon, I'm waiting for synthetic fuels or hydrogen personally. 
    • I mean it's probably likely that people overestimate their skills in dialling in a setup and noticing the changes. I had SK shocks and springs, and added heavier springs and got them revalved by Sydney Shocks to suit based upon what I told them I wanted the car to handle like. I got back a completely different feeling set of shocks, which probably (?) feel great on track but holy hell are they rough on tram tracks and the like. The shock dyno actually looks pretty similar to Shockworks (from what I can surmise from a screenshot of a youtube video - and my dyno printout...) Truth be told I doubt I'd be any faster or slower with either setup, or camber/castor combination. I also had whiteline eccentric castor bushes up front of my R34. I removed them and put in poly non-adjustable ones to soothe my OCD (nobody ever set the castor the same side to side, and it'd be near impossible to do) and be happy the wheel is centered in the well now for clearance reasons. Yes I wanted it to move 1mm 'back' :p I've effectively set my castor back to stock, negating all the benefits of that which is supposedly massive. I've probably also altered toe and camber in a negative (detrimental) way. I can't tell any difference steering the car.
×
×
  • Create New...