Chrome V3, need a place to organize my thoughts

[Jeff V.]

All I'm pointing out is where to get reference values for the various sensors. How you put the Legos together is up to you.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Exactly it’s a different size and style maf. I’m not trying to be a difficult but are 3.8l MIVEC builds going to be properly represented in this equation?[/quote]

That adder value came from an 03 Padjero running a 6G75 SOHC motor with MIVEC.... So yes.

The MAF Scaling is the exact same as a 3000GT as it runs the same style MAF.

I can get you the MAF size value later tonight if you need it.

[DCIV]

Sooooo....about my enrichment table?


Coop

[Monochrome]

[quote=""DCIV""]Sooooo....about my enrichment table?


Coop[/quote]

Which one?

[DCIV]

[quote=""DCIV""]You said the enrichment tables were wrong. I have Messed with these tables to try and cut out extra fuel as I smell fuel heavily only on start up.

What do I need to change in v2 to make it correct and basically 0 enrichment?


Coop[/quote]

This one.


Coop

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Monochrome""]That adder value came from an 03 Padjero running a 6G75 SOHC motor with MIVEC.... So yes.

The MAF Scaling is the exact same as a 3000GT as it runs the same style MAF.

I can get you the MAF size value later tonight if you need it.[/quote]

Oh, you went overseas on me. Nice!

Proper size would be nice to plug in.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""DCIV""]This one.


Coop[/quote]

The ones that were wrong aren’t going to have that kind of affect on your tune. These tables are only effective for a fraction of a second after start up.

Ginger Nate was also complaining to me that his car “runs” rich on startup and wanted to “disable” that. Well... it’s supposed to. Closed loop doesn’t even start till after the excess post start fuel burnt up and the narrowband heaters are warmed up.

If you’re spitting fuel you should cut back the coolant temp fuel enrichment from the fuel section.

[DCIV]

[quote=""Monochrome""]The ones that were wrong aren’t going to have that kind of affect on your tune. These tables are only effective for a fraction of a second after start up.

Ginger Nate was also complaining to me that his car “runs” rich on startup and wanted to “disable” that. Well... it’s supposed to. Closed loop doesn’t even start till after the excess fuel is post start fuel burnt up and the narrowband heaters are warmed up.

If you’re spitting fuel you should cut back the coolant temp fuel enrichment from the fuel section.[/quote]

I talked to future man a lot about this when I noticed. Maybe that’s why I feel it’s more of an issue than it is.

I messed with the temp/enrichment section. Which is what I think your talking about. Also I may have read your other post wrong about this then.


Coop

[aaronatstate]

Coop do you have catalytic converters still?

[DCIV]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]Coop do you have catalytic converters still?[/quote]

The main. Not the fronts.


Coop

[aaronatstate]

So messed around a bit this morning with the MAF settings.

So I set everything to stock, except for the VE Smoothing table, which I set per Adam's recommendation here.

When I started the car, everything seemed good, except when the car went into closed loop mode, my wideband pegged LEAN and seemed to idle rougher. The car had been idling around 15.5:1 or so. It still seemed to rev OK, but seemed much leaner than it was before the changes.

So I changed the MAF adder back to the Evo setting, 140, and tried again. This time when the car went into closed loop, the idle was back to ~15.5:1 and the car was idling better. It seems like the adder value 100% made the biggest change (at least at idle and rev in the garage).

Right now my settings are stock Scaling and Size, VE Smoothing per Adam's page, and Evo setting for the adder value. I haven't done any driving yet, as I just had a bit of time to mess around in the garage idling.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]So the higher the value in the VE smoothing table, the richer it will run? So I'm probably going to be pig rich on the first go since the values are so much higher than the Evo values. But I assume the size will offset that some.[/quote]

This is 100% true. I did some more messing around. If you want your VE smoothing to be closer to 100, you have to add units to the MAF adder. I got more or less equivalent AFRs with the ~170 VE smoothing and 64 MAF adder (stock ROM values) as I got with the ~100 VE smoothing and 140 MAF adder (Evo Rom values).

This makes sense to me now, because say 100=nominal, so 172 gets you an extra 72 points plus 64 MAF adder points for a total of 236 points. With the Evo values, you get 7 extra points plus 140 MAF adder points for a total of 247 points. Pretty darn close...

Oh and as an FYI, I am getting 2200-2300Hz with my current setup (13t's at 20psi with E85). That was a second gear pull too. Not enough room to do a 3rd gear pull where I went today.

[ChargerX3]

I’m going to need to Sit down and attempt to digest what you just said.

[DCIV]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]I’m going to need to Sit down and attempt to digest what you just said.[/quote]

You and me both. I wish I understood the tuning aspect more.


Coop

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]I’m going to need to Sit down and attempt to digest what you just said.[/quote]

[quote=""DCIV""]You and me both. I wish I understood the tuning aspect more.


Coop[/quote]

Assume 100 is baseline.

Stock 3/S values are 172 scaling, and 64 adder, so you get (172/100)*100+64=236

Evo values are 107 scaling, and 140 adder, so you get (107/100)*100+140=247

I tried the stock 3S scaling of 172 and the Evo adder 140 and it ran stupid rich, like 10.5:1 at idle. I assume this gave me like (172/100)*100+140=312.

When I used the Evo scaling of 107 and the 3S adder of 64, it ran stupid lean, like 20:1 at idle (wideband was pegged lean). I assume this gave me like (107/100)*100+64=171.

I could be WAY off, but that’s what I experienced messing with the values.

[ChargerX3]

That was much clearer. So which setting runs best on your build then since the other are way off?

[DCIV]

And I have a GM mas. So I really have no idea.


Coop

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]Assume 100 is baseline.

Stock 3/S values are 172 scaling, and 64 adder, so you get (172/100)*100+64=236

Evo values are 107 scaling, and 140 adder, so you get (107/100)*100+140=247

I tried the stock 3S scaling of 172 and the Evo adder 140 and it ran stupid rich, like 10.5:1 at idle. I assume this gave me like (172/100)*100+140=312.

When I used the Evo scaling of 107 and the 3S adder of 64, it ran stupid lean, like 20:1 at idle (wideband was pegged lean). I assume this gave me like (107/100)*100+64=171.

I could be WAY off, but that’s what I experienced messing with the values.[/quote]



Adding more to the adder value is going to richen the whole MAF range. Adding more to the smoothing table will only richen the mIxture at the HZ range you edited.

Also, there's the fuel side of all this. What injectors are you running and what injector size? Sometimes people running E85 will lower the injector size to get more fuel across the whole range. Same thing you're doing by adding more to the adder value. In fact that's probably smarter anyway!

When tuning E85 cars I completely disable closed loop and tune using only the MAF smoothing tables. Takes a few pulls but when you're done and reenable closed loop, the car runs stock smooth.

Don't let the 172 number in the smoothing table scare you either. I've gone higher than 200 in some tunes. Remember you don't have factory ICs or pipes AND you're running E85 which is 33% MORE fuel by itself.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]That was much clearer. So which setting runs best on your build then since the other are way off?[/quote]

You're going to have different results because you will have a completely different setup.

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Monochrome""]You're going to have different results because you will have a completely different setup.[/quote]

Agreed. That wasn’t lost on me, just his process.