[BoostedSTIG]

If you're going to run the external BOV from the intake manifold vac source, then yes, uncheck that box. If you don't have a vac source or want ECU tunability of the valve, then leave it checked and connect the valve to the factory solenoid. That's how mine is set up. Can't say it's better one way or the other. I have the stock intake mani and didn't want to drill and tap for a port, so I used the stock solenoid.

Doesn't the ECU always close the throttle to control boost anyway? It seems to me like it would hit the boost ceiling, close the throttle, and then the BOV would open anyway. I'm not sure one way is really better than the other. I think manifold vacuum is the possibly the safest, because if there's ever an electrical failure of the solenoid, the valve would still work to let boost off? I dont know. I'm sure either way has it's pros and cons. I think I may just run it off the manifold because I already have ports tapped since I'm running the TTR manifold. We shall see!

 

[BoostedSTIG]

My girlfriend was watching me look at logs while I was tuning VE for light/medium throttle drivability and noticed that they all come from excel spreadsheets. I was explaining that I have to make adjustments so that the end goal is to have the total of LTFT and STFT be within 5% for every single situation...

She called me silly... and then took the keyboard click click clickity click click and BAM... new row of data for which each cell is the sum of LTFT and STFT for its respective row.... I loaded it into datazap, so much easier to look at.

HDFX Driving Check

Whyyyyy has no one mentioned such amazing things before? I did a search of the forum and couldn't find anything about anyone doing this for themselves to ease data analysis....

 

[BoostedSTIG]

Any of you guys have a look at the update for ATR and the v2.04 maps? My self tune is based on a v2.03 map, but I understand there are some significant changes in 2.04.

I'm wondering if it's worth just copy/pasting my VE table's over to v2.04 and starting a new self tune from there? Any of you have insight on this?

 

[Gh0st]

I don't see why not. The BP change is nice. I had a lot of fluttering before that is now gone.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

I don't see why not. The BP change is nice. I had a lot of fluttering before that is now gone.

Is the boost target about the same? I didn't change my target from the factory cobb stage 3 map. I also don't see myself using the map switching.

What I may do is just load up the 2.04 file and turn off map switching, swap out VE tables with my current file, swap my power demand and closed loop fuel targets over, and then flash that to the car to start logging and adjusting spark from scratch

 

[Bugasu]

Is the boost target about the same? I didn't change my target from the factory cobb stage 3 map. I also don't see myself using the map switching.

What I may do is just load up the 2.04 file and turn off map switching, swap out VE tables with my current file, swap my power demand and closed loop fuel targets over, and then flash that to the car to start logging and adjusting spark from scratch

Targets are the same, but I didn't look at WGDC compensations, which could affect the targets substantially depending on how they're set.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

Targets are the same, but I didn't look at WGDC compensations, which could affect the targets substantially depending on how they're set.

I haven't looked yet either, I'll have to investigate later.

 

[Gh0st]

they're set to 1 so nothing changes

 

[BoostedSTIG]

Swapped over my VE values to the 2.04 base map, also swapped the spark tables and scaling and LTFT breakpoints and such. Everything seems good. Smooth. Switching is cool (never used it before)

I mentioned in the Cobb Alpha firmware thread that my OAR isn't moving from 0.0 though... Couldn't get it to learn at all last night or on my way to work this morning. Don't know what's going on with that yet.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

OAR has moved from zero to -1.0 as it should. Took a lot more miles of driving for it to budge at all initially.

I guess some people are seeing less boost on 91oct 2.04 tunes? I haven't paid much attention to mine, but I'll try tomorrow and see if the 93octane 2.04 tune has the same issue for me.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

Car seems to be running really well across the board. Trims are good. I'm going to start tweaking WOT for power when I get back from this work trip that I'm on. Got a dog last weekend so I've been a bit busy and unable to do pulls for logs.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

Well, I've gone and broken my clutch foot. Gonna be out of commission for a while during the healing process. In the interim, I'm going to try to do some reading and sharpen my understanding of the systems we have here on our cars. If any of you have any suggested reading, please send it my way. Thanks.

 

[willfromfreeport]

Well, I've gone and broken my clutch foot. Gonna be out of commission for a while during the healing process. In the interim, I'm going to try to do some reading and sharpen my understanding of the systems we have here on our cars. If any of you have any suggested reading, please send it my way. Thanks.

Ouch. That's one of my big fears with driving stick. Especially since the wife doesn't want to learn lol.

Get well soon!

 

[Unorthatrox]

Well, I've gone and broken my clutch foot. Gonna be out of commission for a while during the healing process. In the interim, I'm going to try to do some reading and sharpen my understanding of the systems we have here on our cars. If any of you have any suggested reading, please send it my way. Thanks.

Read the references on the bottom of the of Cobb's Access tuner ford table descriptions. Engineering Explained on YouTube. And maybe this

 

[Gh0st]

@BoostedSTIG

Starting to mess with VE corrections as some of my LTFT are 9% and have some STFT on top of that. Starting with idle as that seems the easiest and then perhaps some steady state and then WOT. From the tuning guide, looks like we just identify which HDFX table is being used an apply STFT+LTFT at a given RPM to correct the VE? How are you handling situations where you have multiple HDFX tables being used in terms of applying correction based on percentage of weight?

 

[BoostedSTIG]

What I've done is started at certain points where two or more tables are at near even weights.

For example, if WOT at 4500rpm tables 7 and 8 are both at 50% and combined trims are +9... I start at tables 7 and 8 at 4500 and make even adjustments of about half that. Tapering in both directions.

I don't do the mathematical calculations and weigh the adjustments, I make even adjustments to all of the active tables. Small ones. Then reflash and retest.

I'm not home at the moment, but once I get home I'll pull up a datalog and make some example points for you.

The easiest ones are where there's two or less active HDFX tables.

I started at the higher RPMs WOT and went downward because there are less tables active there.

as far as cruising situations, I make logs of using cruise control and adjust from there. Usually steady state cruise is only using a blend of two tables at any time.

Remember that LTFT is associated with the Learnjng breakpoints scaled in CFM, so at low load cruise at almost any speed, LTFT will be similar because airflow will be similar. You won't ever get it perfect, but I've gotten mine to stay within 4-5% in almost every situation I've logged (WOT, Cruise, medium throttle, heavy throttle, light throttle) it took a long time, but it's close.

 

[Gh0st]

Cool, I think I'm getting the hang of it. The 4500+ part of WOT tuning seems pretty easy as it appears to favor HDFX 7 the most. Idle is another easy one...HDFX 1.

Going back to the days of HP Tuners, maybe we should be doing STFT corrections only and just disable LTFT while doing this. It seems like LTFT is applying such a broad correction that isn't exactly specific to what is happening at the time we are logging.

 

[BoostedSTIG]

You could disable LTFT. I wouldn't sweat it too much though as long as you can get the sum of the two trims to be at 5 or less when you turn it back on.

I left mine on because I wanted to be able to see the adjusted values when I loaded it and be able to log again on the new flash without having to re-flash to disable LTFT again.

 

[Bugasu]

I've honestly had to make zero changes to VE with my modifications so far, and I'm still just a downpipe short of 'Stage 3'.

I've never had LTFT issues, and the normal STFT we see (on tip-in as we boost, and at 4500RPM+) I corrected purely with transient tuning.
I'm pretty sure none of the standard modifications would cause significant VE changes, except for an intake manifold. VE is like "how much air does this MAP pressure cause to go into the cylinder".

That means everything pre-map should already be fairly well accounted for, because they really don't significantly effect the airflow. After air has gone through an intercooler, through the long piping we have, its pretty solid by the time it reaches the MAP sensor. I'd only expect post MAP (like intake manifold and actual head changes) to really affect VE. Everything pre-MAP honestly should have almost zilch effect on your VE. Air should be laminar by the time it hits the throttle body (else throttle position wouldn't be consistent in controlling air flow). So it should really only be items directly connected to the heads that will affect VE much. Intake Manifold and turbo.
I wouldn't even expect the downpipe to make too much of a difference on VE to be honest, at least on this car.

Tuning VE is something a lot of people jump to very quickly, but tuning VE correctly means removing transients from the calculation, which for a WOT pull just won't happen.
So be careful!

 

[Gh0st]

I've never tuned a car that had perfect MAF calibration or VE tables 100% accurate. Outside of idle, my fuel LTFT is generally 5%. Idle has been fixed though where it was running 12% at most times and my car has stopped smoking like....a smoke stack....on startup.