[jester04]

Yours seems different since your car is pulling timing making the timing seem flat

What fuel are you using?

 

[Silver_Shooter]

your map seems to really ramp up the timing under boost, my OTS stage 1 and FSWERKS tuns both have a pretty flat timing model

datazap.me | nathanl91 | 022014


also does anyone see all these weird little spikes, i get huge anomalies in fuel pressure and boost, etc

Biggest difference is his car is adding quite a bit of timing and yours is pulling it, making the final timing graph look way different. Your boost looks ok. Your getting spikes of 8000psi FRP which is just a data error. Those happen from time to time, although I've never seen that many in one log. I'll get 738psi of boost once on a while. Cobb said it's normal.

Jester- looks like you have some ignition advance work to do as well



Sent using Tapatalk

 

[focus13st]

Yours seems different since your car is pulling timing making the timing seem flat

What fuel are you using?

I'm using shell/chevron 92 on Randy's 91 oct file


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Silver_Shooter]

Access to E85? I think Freek said 4 gal on ethanol and top of with your 92. Do another log with the same parameters.





Sent using Tapatalk

 

[focus13st]

Access to E85? I think Freek said 4 gal on ethanol and top of with your 92. Do another log with the same parameters.





Sent using Tapatalk

We don't have E sadly, gotta make a trip to the local track and get 100oct


Got a revised file from randy too, but it's for my FMIC install I'm doing tonight, so tomorrow will be an informative day haha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alex@Stratified]

datazap.me | jester04 | Cobb 93oct modified

Log from today started messing with other stuff in ATR but im going really slow lol

Whatever fuel you're using keep on using it . There's room for both boost and timing in there especially since it's adding a good amount of timing in spite of the hot CATs.

 

[Alex@Stratified]

your map seems to really ramp up the timing under boost, my OTS stage 1 and FSWERKS tuns both have a pretty flat timing model

datazap.me | nathanl91 | 022014


also does anyone see all these weird little spikes, i get huge anomalies in fuel pressure and boost, etc

Those spikes are either a sensor fuel rail pressure sensor issue or a logging issue. Do you get them in all the runs?

The actual fuel pressure is stable as indicated by stable AFRs.

The 92 fuel from WA is quite good - I use Shell and Chevron with very nice results. There are also a number of E85 stations hidden in WA state.

EDIT: When looking specifically at timing make sure you get all cylinder corrections in there. Drop the airflow and the accel pedal position PIDs since airflow is captured in load and accel is captures in ETC actual. BTW the formula for load is Airflow (lbs/min) *370.4526932/engine RPM. So airflow = load *Engine RPM/370.4526932.

 

[focus13st]

Those spikes are either a sensor fuel rail pressure sensor issue or a logging issue. Do you get them in all the runs?

The actual fuel pressure is stable as indicated by stable AFRs.

The 92 fuel from WA is quite good - I use Shell and Chevron with very nice results. There are also a number of E85 stations hidden in WA state.

EDIT: When looking specifically at timing make sure you get all cylinder corrections in there. Drop the airflow and the accel pedal position PIDs since airflow is captured in load and accel is captures in ETC actual. BTW the formula for load is Airflow (lbs/min) *378/engine RPM. So airflow = load *Engine RPM/378.

Good to know. I see the spikes probably 1/4 logs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jester04]

If you are installing the FMIC it should help you out with the ignition correction due to the colder act's

 

[jester04]

Will do and report back! Im using shell 93oct vpower. Will also add the vdyno for that run

 

[COBB]

EDIT: When looking specifically at timing make sure you get all cylinder corrections in there. Drop the airflow and the accel pedal position PIDs since airflow is captured in load and accel is captures in ETC actual. BTW the formula for load is Airflow (lbs/min) *378/engine RPM. So airflow = load *Engine RPM/378.

Where are you getting that constant? I've had the calculations posted here for a while: http://www.focusst.org/forum/cobb-atr-software/14356-load.html#post254311

Cheers,
-Braden @ COBB

 

[FSWerksVP]

Right, I was going to say, the equation Ford uses for Load is nowhere near that simple. Good looking out, Braden.

 

[Alex@Stratified]

Where are you getting that constant? I've had the calculations posted here for a while: http://www.focusst.org/forum/cobb-atr-software/14356-load.html#post254311

Cheers,
-Braden @ COBB

Yes, load is the amount of airflow per engine revolution normalized for temperature and pressure exactly as you wrote in the equation.
Thanks for that equation BTW, I didn't know how the normalization was done with respect to temperature and pressure.

The formula in that thread for Load was posted as Load = Airflow / (RPM*0.0026994)

The normalization constant 0.0026994 is on the denominator.
So if we use it on the numerator like in the formula I posted it is: 1/0.0026994 = 370.45 which is within about 2% off of the number I derived empirically of 378 so we are on the same page.

I do have a question about the constant 0.0026994. At what temperature and pressure is this normalized at and how is the Peak airflow at WOT determined? Is it just a set constant in the ECU at 43 lbs/min?

 

[COBB]

Yes, load is the amount of airflow per engine revolution normalized for temperature and pressure exactly as you wrote in the equation.
Thanks for that equation BTW, I didn't know how the normalization was done with respect to temperature and pressure.

The formula in that thread for Load was posted as Load = Airflow / (RPM*0.0026994)

The normalization constant 0.0026994 is on the denominator.
So if we use it on the numerator like in the formula I posted it is: 1/0.0026994 = 370.45 which is within about 2% off of the number I derived empirically of 378 so we are on the same page.

I do have a question about the constant 0.0026994. At what temperature and pressure is this normalized at and how is the Peak airflow at WOT determined? Is it just a set constant in the ECU at 43 lbs/min?

0.0026994 = 0.0013497 * 2

0.0013497 = Standardized Aircharge (aka cylinder displacement per event)

The standardized aircharge is normally calculated at 100F, 200ECT, and 29.921 inHg Baro at 100% VE. However, 0.0013497 appears to be a calculation based upon SAE J607 which is done at 60F, and 29.92 inHg. The equation I listed originally is exactly what the ECU is using for calculating Load.

Cheers,
-Braden @ COBB

 

[Alex@Stratified]

0.0026994 = 0.0013497 * 2

0.0013497 = Standardized Aircharge (aka cylinder displacement per event)

The standardized aircharge is normally calculated at 100F, 200ECT, and 29.921 inHg Baro at 100% VE. However, 0.0013497 appears to be a calculation based upon SAE J607 which is done at 60F, and 29.92 inHg. The equation I listed originally is exactly what the ECU is using for calculating Load.

Cheers,
-Braden @ COBB

So only the calculated load percentage is normalized for temperature and barometric pressure and the Actual Load is based on the engine constant derived using J607?

A final question about this - is this value measured based on the VE of the stock motor? In other words as we change the VE through the addition of other parts, are we throwing the load calculation off?

I tried using the difference in displacement between the EB 2.0T and Mazda DISI to determine this engine constant (Standardized Discharge) and it didn't match up. So it appears it is not just bore and stroke, but actual VE which is influenced by head, ports, etc?

 

[jester04]

update! and we need a way to put two logs in datazap at the same time so we can compare better
datazap.me | jester04 | Custom tune 93(2 log)

 

[Silver_Shooter]

update! and we need a way to put two logs in datazap at the same time so we can compare better
datazap.me | jester04 | Custom tune 93(2 log)

View attachment 35279

Nevermind! Wrong thread..lol

 

[jester04]

lol

 

[jester04]

ok almost have the fuel where I want it, increased the timing a little too

datazap.me | jester04 | revision 2 of custom tune 93

 

[COBB]

So only the calculated load percentage is normalized for temperature and barometric pressure and the Actual Load is based on the engine constant derived using J607?

A final question about this - is this value measured based on the VE of the stock motor? In other words as we change the VE through the addition of other parts, are we throwing the load calculation off?

I tried using the difference in displacement between the EB 2.0T and Mazda DISI to determine this engine constant (Standardized Discharge) and it didn't match up. So it appears it is not just bore and stroke, but actual VE which is influenced by head, ports, etc?

The value is measured according to the calculations of all of the Speed Density modeling. We pull load from the ECU raw calculation where all of the compensations and modeling has been completed. The final calculation is simply (Cylinder Air Charge / Standard Air Charge) = Load. The speed density modeling for this engine was likely done on an engine dyno, or with Matlab. As we change components on the vehicle that could increase or decrease the amount of airmass at any given RPM the model will lose accuracy. The models are complex enough to account for minor variations, but become further and further inaccurate with higher flowing parts.

-Braden @ COBB