[BoostedSTIG]

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.

 

[Bugasu]

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.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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

 

[Bugasu]

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.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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.

 

[Bugasu]

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.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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

That's the single biggest mod, hands down. IMO, an FMIC and a pro-tune is all most people really need if all they want is just a decent power gain over stock.


Look at my log, I have a c-pe FMIC. It's a whole new ballgame when you have ambient temp to throw timing at for the entire RPM range.

 

[Alex@Stratified]

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.

There will be variances and stack up errors - there always are in any control system and that's why the feedback sensors are involved. You will see variances from run to run as well on the exact same car, tune and setup.

 

[jester04]

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.

You will be a happy camper, i did my fmic and like stig said the charge air is now acceptable even for hot days.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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...

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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.

 

[Silver_Shooter]

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

 

[jester04]

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.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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

Honestly, I know I couldn't just add 15 monitors to my current log set and I wanted to be able to get as much data as I could with one run because police here are crazy and windows of opportunity are slim. I figured I could estimate with some degree of accuracy which tables were being used by the cam data and reference sheet alone. Enough for a minor tweak at least.

I'll do an HDFX log one of these days though.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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.

There's two things I don't like about vdyno.

One: there aren't any perfectly fits roads near me, so I always choose the slightly uphill instead of slightly downhill because id prefer logs with more load than less.

Two: I don't trust the accuracy of the weight of the vehicle. I have every single option you can get on the build sheet and I weigh about 220-225. If I could get an accurate weight to input, that would be great.

 

[jester04]

There's two things I don't like about vdyno.

One: there aren't any perfectly fits roads near me, so I always choose the slightly uphill instead of slightly downhill because id prefer logs with more load than less.

Two: I don't trust the accuracy of the weight of the vehicle. I have every single option you can get on the build sheet and I weigh about 220-225. If I could get an accurate weight to input, that would be great.

The weight on vdyno for the ST is pretty much spot on from what members with st1 have been getting. My roads arent perfect either so i have a slight uphill too .

 

[BoostedSTIG]

The weight on vdyno for the ST is pretty much spot on from what members with st1 have been getting. My roads arent perfect either so i have a slight uphill too .

Yeah but the st1 doesn't have heated leather seats, a power driver's seat, nav, upgraded audio with the amp and woofer, or all the associated wiring and motors for the seat. I'm willing to bet there's a decent weight difference between them.

 

[jester04]

Yeah but the st1 doesn't have heated leather seats, a power driver's seat, nav, upgraded audio with the amp and woofer, or all the associated wiring and motors for the seat. I'm willing to bet there's a decent weight difference between them.

But that is what im saying they weigh slightly less than 3200 pounds and between the st1 and st3 fully loaded its about maybe a 80 pound difference give or take at most, i have to recheck the threads but it was already talked about the weight in vdyno was close to the real thing on a fully loaded car.

I also have a fully loaded st3 and im sure that they don't weigh more than 3223 without driver.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

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

 

[Silver_Shooter]

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