Installed the intake manifold last night, hopefully I'll have some time to run my own tune for data-logs soon.

 

Did my first log today for this map. The map is just the Cobb OTS Stage 3 map with the volumes for the intake manifold and intercooler changed in the filling model.

datazap.me | BoostedStig | Self Tune rev 0 log 1

I'm going to be attempting to follow some of Cobb's tuning guidelines for tweaking this map, we'll see what happens.

Take a look at the log, let me know what you think.

 

Log looks good!

Lots of room for timing on that fuel

 

Log looks good! Lots of room for timing on that fuel

Yeah that's what I see there as well. I didn't take much time yesterday to get into ATR, but I was looking at the tune file and I'm trying to decide which method, which tables, are the best way to go about adding that timing.

 

Log looks solid for pretty much just OTS. I've never seen my coolant temps get that high before. You have the CP-e fmic right? I wonder if that thing is impeding flow to the radiator a bit. I put a bunch of hard miles on my car yesterday and never saw above 195 degrees, and it was around 90 degrees ambient out.

 

Actually I didn't notice the coolant temp until you mentioned it. I'm sure the cp-e impedes flow a little bit, but that's actually the highest I've ever seen temps even since the FMIC install. They're normally in the 195 range you described. Although I was in some traffic just before this log, not much air flow when you're at a dead stop.

 

I add to the ceiling as I add to borderline so it still allows the knock sensor to add, and yea I add the same amount to all 15 borderline tables, be careful with timing in the 3-4k range, I usually add .5* at a time here, and 1-2* at a time further up

 

That seems reasonable. I'll be taking my sweet time with this tune being as careful as I can be. Not only is this my first time actually tuning my own vehicle, but this is my only car, so I can't blow it up!

That's a big reason why I had Randy do a tune for me as well, that way I always have something good and reliable to drive the vehicle on.

My goal here is to get my own tune to a point that I'm happy with. Learn the process, learn the quirks. Then I'll probably start from scratch again and do a VE tune. To me, it seems much more complicated, but I think it's ultimately the best way to tune.

 

Pretty sure mine go to 7kand 2.0 load... If not then my bad

Whatever the bottom and far right limits are is what I'm referring too

 

Sounds good, seems like you can't rescale the tables anyway, you can only rescale BL Timing Compensation (Open Loop), not for the 16 borderline tables (Optimum power and 1-15)

 

Okay so heres what I did.

I added some timing, .5 in the 3-4k cells, 1.0 in the 5k, and 1.5 in the 6k. Looking at the log, its right on par with what the cylinders were asking for without being more than the smallest addition. I've raised the pressure timing ceilings by the same amounts, respectively.

I've adjusted Scalar Stoich to represent the 10% Ethanol fuel that we have here in Chicago (by law), and adjusted the dashboard calculations for MPG to the correct fuel weight for E10. Hopefully that makes the dash MPG a little more accurate.

I made the power demand AFR's a tiny bit more rich for safety purposes as I learn to go about this process. It's an identical taper to the OTS Stage 3 map, with 11.75 being the richest instead of 12.05.

I also took the liberty of adjusting the Closed Loop base AFR's in low load situations to be a bit leaner to try and pick up some MPG on the expressway since my entire commute is highway, 30 miles each way.

I might be going on a cruise with some local car guys in a little bit. I'll try to log it tonight as see what it looks like.

 

Sounds like you're on the right path. FWIW load and rpm can both be modified, but as I said it's not really needed.
If/when you get close to MBT, you'll want to attack the KS strategy so it's not over killing your max timing. You'll most likely need E30 or 100 icy to get to that level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've scaled the load axis up to 2.000, a small chore to have to copy and paste the cell values as you move the load values over on the scale. For the time being, I've left the 1.800 and 2.000 load rows the same for timing as I understand that anything above 1.8 was using the 1.8 cell values anyway. I will log and adjust as necessary.

 

An update after my drive to work this morning:

Lean burn needs tweaking. I was trying to keep AFR at 14.7 at idle but it appears that on the highway there's barely more load than idle. I think it's blending the values of the nearest cells and hangs around 15 flat until the road pitches uphill a hair and load increases, then it hits my target 15.

I'm gonna have to fool with it when I get home. Other than that, I did a 3rd gear pull, we'll see how that looks when I get to a computer as well.

 

Okay so I did a pull on the file I'm running right now...

Here's the log datazap.me | BoostedStig | Self Tune rev 2 log 1

And the vDyno from that log.

I'm getting a throttle closure as boost builds initially, but I think it's cause I'm hitting a MAP ceiling. I'm gonna check it out. I'm also gonna add some spark up top.

 

Okay so I did a pull on the file I'm running right now...

Here's the log datazap.me | BoostedStig | Self Tune rev 2 log 1

And the vDyno from that log.
View attachment 56790

I'm getting a throttle closure as boost builds initially, but I think it's cause I'm hitting a MAP ceiling. I'm gonna check it out. I'm also gonna add some spark up top.

A race from my car and yours would be interesting lol i have just a little less power than your car but my tune is almost finished.

 

That tables are you guys using to correct for fueling? I'm having some trouble figuring out the best way to adjust for the positive STFT and LTFT I'm seeing in the log.

 

Have to adjust the VE for that

 

According to Cobb's ATR help file, I've got to log to monitor VCT positions and then use the reference chart to figure out which tables are being used and then modify VE from there. I understand that pretty well I think.

My thought is that if STFT is adding let's say 5% for a 3000rpm window under WOT, isn't it also possibly trying to add some fuel under cruise as well? Are you guys making very small changes to all of the tables to compensate for VE changes or are you only tuning for WOT table weights? It seems like I should be logging my entire drive home from work and picking it apart to find out where it needs VE adjustments.

 

I haven't touched mine yet, matt@pandamotorworks has done extensive VE work

 

Crash Course in VE tuning:

Near impossible to get right without a load-bearing dyno.

It's a very common problem for people to adjust their VE tables due to WOT pulls, but the problem is, VE during a WOT pull is a function of Base VE of Engine + Transient effects.
It's very easy to thus adjust your base VE table due to what is a transient event, and then your base table will be wrong during smooth acceleration.


That said, the stock car with all stock components has almost 9-10% STFT when you tip-in to WOT. There's a lot of things that can cause this.
- VE Table is wrong.
- VE transients are wrong. (The ST doesn't really appear to have a set "transients" table as it uses equations to calculate VE at all times)
- Fuel transients are wrong.

That said, you have changed out the intake manifold, which means your VE tables probably need some minor adjustments. The hope would be that the intake manifold created positive VE changes in some areas because of standing-wave tuning and more even flow, but whether that's true or not, or even if the effect is noticeable, remains to be seen.

If you want to really get it right, it'll require some steady state tuning on a load-bearing dyno.

That said, minor adjustments to you VE can probably be done that'll improve your trims a little. But don't forget there are also fuel accel tables you can also mess with to get those trims in check.

 

But don't forget there are also fuel accel tables you can also mess with to get those trims in check.

So after having adjusted VE and driving around for the weekend, I've decided that there's something kind of quirky. It's not "bad" or unsafe... But it just feels like it bucks a little bit going from off throttle coast to on-throttle cruise. I flashed back to a previous calibration and it goes away, so....

I think what I'm going to do is take a step back and revert to the COBB OTS Stage 3 values for VE and take Bugasu's advice and try to add fuel with fuel accel to level the trims a bit.

Hopefully I don't flood the thing in fuel with my tinkering LOL

 

More importantly, take a look at the log I posted.

It seems like LTFT holds steady at +0.7ish the whole time, but STFT is correcting for more fuel the entire run.

It's at +4 the moment ETC goes full open, slopes quickly to around +10 as boost builds to peak and then slowly tapers the whole run until the upper 5k RPM range where it matches the LTFT at +0.7

To me, that seems like a pretty good indication that VE model is now slightly incorrect due to the changed manifold. The only reason I think that way is because generally you see corrections in certain areas and they fluctuate. I don't often look at logs that just have such a (relatively) smooth request for more fuel like that.

I'm not sure how much broad range correction I can make with fuel accel? I'll have to look at the tables later when I get home.

 

The stock car has the same peak.
Stock

I honestly wouldn't expect a stock car to do that. You would think VE would be perfect from the factory.
Perhaps someone like Braden @COBB or @Alex@Stratified can shed more light.

It's very common to see that happen during tip-in on these cars.

 

That's interesting. I don't know what to make of that.

 

Same

I corrected it on my stock car some using transient fueling, so I only get 5% STFT, but there's still a split second when I first open the throttle up that it goes a tish lean.

 

You mean that little -0.7 STFT correction that happens for a microsecond as the throttle opens? I don't think that's a concern. LOL

But yeah, looking at that log makes me sad. I see all that charge air temp rising and the pig rich fueling after 5k and It gives me gray hair.

 

Nah, not on the stock map. On my map.
2.4 E30

Notice my STFT stays low, but when I go full WOT, I get 15.14 AFR for a split second
I think it's kind of funny, as I have all the stock limits on with this tune, (but the LTT and TTL are messed up as I brought up in the ATR forum, so my estimated torque goes out the door at high RPM), and I don't get the pig rich portions because I never hit temp control issues.

Ford was always saying that the stock car would have catalyst temp issues tuned, and I have had not a single overtemp issue causing the fuel dump to happen, and I've maintained the stock temperature limits and left them all turned on. Of course those temps are inferred, but I must be doing something right.

I have an intercooler on the way for the CAT rise.

 

Here's a log from my way home today with some more monitors for cam angles and VE, Estimated VE.

datazap.me | BoostedStig | Pre VE; WOT & 60mph

LTFT is negative but STFT is positive... Hmmm...

 

Alright... So... Made some changes to VE.

I went through the WOT log by hand and notated every 500 RPM where the cams were phased. Then I referenced the cobb chart that tells you which tables are associated with which cam positions, I did some rough math to estimate what I felt the weighting was for each position vs rpm and compared it to the sum of the respective fuel trims.

Then I did some math... Lots of math... And I made what I felt were very conservative adjustments to the tables. I'm not at my computer right now but if my memory serves me right the run starts favoring tables 13-14 early in the pull and then skips to a blend of 9-8 and then tapers 8, 8-7, 7-6, 6-5 by redline.

I made adjustments that equaled roughly half of the percentage of fuel trim sums (ex. If trims added 6%, I changed VE by 3%)...

I also slightly targeted WOT AFR to 11.75:1 from around 4500rpm and up.

Flashed it. It drives well, we'll see what the logs say when I get a change to do a few pulls.

So far, so good.

 

Curious why you didn't log the 15 HDXF tables? They give you all the weighted % through the rpm range. Makes it a lot easier!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'll take it to the scale by my work one of these days and weigh it. Inquiring minds need to know! Haha

 

Use it for what it's worth to show gains and loss.

I usually log going slightly uphill to put a little more load in 3rd as well. As long as you log in the same stretch of road and keep the weight consistent, it's a good tool to see if your changes are paying off. I have always used the default weight plus my occ weight. (St2)
My vdyno and dyno jet HP lined up almost exact. TQ curve was off but the car spooled better on the street with actual load.

Did you use the spreadsheet to do VE?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Use it for what it's worth to show gains and loss. I usually log going slightly uphill to put a little more load in 3rd as well. As long as you log in the same stretch of road and keep the weight consistent, it's a good tool to see if your changes are paying off. I have always used the default weight plus my occ weight. (St2) My vdyno and dyno jet HP lined up almost exact. TQ curve was off but the car spooled better on the street with actual load. Did you use the spreadsheet to do VE? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did look at the spreadsheet, I don't fully understand it to be honest. I understand that it's a prediction model for showing what changes will look like...? I made such small changes that I didn't feel it was entirely necessary to visualize the differences.

 

Sounds good. Without looking at it, I'm thinking the time can probably stay the same for starters and I can just fool with the rate

 

You did adjust the Intake volume for your manifold right?

 

That's what I did, I changed some of the values operating on the percentage basis as that's really the only thing that makes sense there (to me at least).

I didn't make any broad changes, I'll fire it up and see what happens in a little bit here when I go to pick up dinner.

In the meanwhile, have I ever mentioned how much I hate that damn take-off assist? Christ, it feels like the gas pedal isn't even remotely controlling the throttle blade when you're letting the clutch out. It's probably okay for people who learned how to drive in the 5 years, but holy hell is it horrible to people like me that learned how to drive on carbureted 4-speed cars.

 

Tuning it is also a pain in the butt. The tables aren't 100% clear. It also bothered me a lot, but I've gotten used it and have actually turned it up a bit to make starting in 2nd easier.

 

First of all, I've figured out the small 'buck' I was experiencing. I did some searching, apparently there's some sort of relationship between being off throttle under 2500 rpm and the "takeoff assist timing retard" being the culprit of the small jerk when resuming throttle input. I unchecked that box to disable the timing retard on the advanced options in ATR, fired it up and it stopped doing it. It also smoothed out clutch engagement (to my liking, at least) in 1st gear from a stop. Problem Solved! Woop Woop!

But now for the real issue:

I've updated to the Alpha firmware for the APv3 in order to take advantage of the re-worked HDFX weighting, it's much easier to read the logs. The only thing I noticed was that LTFT for some reason, isn't logging? It just stays zero at all times while logging or monitoring. I checked my tune file, learning is still enabled. Everything else seems to function normally. I can only assume there's a quirk with the Alpha firmware resulting in the AP being unable to display LTFT.

So I did a lot of reading last night, and then got a log today.

HDFX + VE

Attention!!! @matt@pandamotorworks I read all 47 pages of your Self-Tuning GTX thread last night. I'd like to start by thanking you for shorting me out on sleep. It was awesome.

I noticed you had mentioned that attempting to adjust via STFT/LTFT was giving you grief. You said you began looking at VE Act vs VE Mod % and used the difference between the two to determine how much to alter the tables. I'm struggling to understand the relationship between the two values from the log. Are they direct? Is one a percentage of the other? Clueless is me.

Here's my question(s) for the day; How were you calculating the difference between the two to figure out how much change to apply?

Example: Est VE Act Corr % reads 90, Est VE Model % reads 120. How are you figuring what % of change to apply to the table? I can only think of two ways.

1.) 120% - 90% = 30%, so, subtract 30% from the appropriate MAP vs Air-Charge tables?... or

2.) 90% / 120% =0.75, so, multiply table values by 0.75 (subtracting 25%)... or

3.) I have no clue what I'm doing or looking at and I need special training from @COBB (likely)

 

So for example, if the stft+ltft was +15%, and I changed the air model in the proper tables by 15%, I saw very little change in FT's after that. So I started looking at the two VE pids, and saw that some places they were 30% different where the fuel trims were only 10%, and I made the changed by 30% based on the VE pids. Then I started to see the fuel trims show a result.
Now that they fixed the HDXF table weights that may not hold true.