I'm pretty disappointed its not working. I'm not totally sure it's an issue with the scalar changes though; I haven't had time to comb through the map thoroughly and make sure I didn't fuck something up myself (been putting In 12-16 hour days this week at work). I'm sure It's a tune issue though, as my car runs perfect on my MAF-scaled E85 tune.

If I post it up will you guys be willing to look through it for me?


Tapadatass

Oh. I thought you were having good luck with the beta scaled map.^

My initial impression was good, but I then noticed the continuing issues stated above.


Tapadatass

Here's my data.

Rather than experimenting with different e85 mixes for the maps, i had David send me 5 different maps, a 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, & 50% scaled versions of my previous 2 gal e85 mix map. I then adjusted the maf on each scaled map by the inverse percentage (1/1.1, 1/1.2, 1/1.3..... 1/1.5).

Here's my preliminary data, simply combined fuel trims, AFR, calc load, and MAF g/s. I'll email my complete logs to David, and anyone else who wants em, they're attached below.

One thing to remember though, each higher % scaled map has the maf considerably lowered, so it took a fair amount more "air" to register the same "g/s". This may certainly have skewed the data some. For instance, the fuel trims @ 50 g/s on my initial non scaled map would correspond to the fuel trims @ 33.3 g/s on the 50% map.


Here's lè data:

Initial map MAF:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...initialmaf.jpg

And initial plot:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...lnoscaling.jpg


10p map MAF:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...isn/10pmaf.jpg

10p plot:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...nteisn/10p.jpg


20p map MAF:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...isn/20pmaf.jpg

20p plot (series names got screwed up but it's obvious what's what):

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...nteisn/20p.jpg


30p map MAF:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...isn/30pmaf.jpg

30p plot:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...nteisn/30p.jpg


40p map MAF:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...isn/40pmaf.jpg

40p plot (note y axis minimum is now -10 instead of -5 in upper plots):

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...nteisn/40P.jpg


50p map MAF:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...isn/50pmaf.jpg

50p plot (note y axis minimum is now -10 instead of -5 in upper plots):

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...nteisn/50p.jpg



I'll go through the data a bit later. One more hectic day, then a day of travel, and then i can finally kick back for a few days. But figured you guys could chew on this for the time being.

My first blush opinion is that fuel trim's slope becomes more and more positive (increasing with higher g/s) as the scalar is increased. This is probably a side effect from having to scale down the maf so far to compensate.... almost like the maf curve is becoming more linear and losing the appropriate exponential shape corresponding to the maf tube diameter. Pure speculation on my part, i'd have to think about it some more to determine if that could indeed be possible.

Aside from that, i think the scalar is doing a pretty good job. I mean considering i was dropping the maf down to 66% of what it was, and my trims weren't astronomical. I think the scalar could certainly be used to compensate for e85 mixes, if matched with a proper maf cal.

You guys must be further along in testing than I am.

I was asked to send my current e85 based map, along with my 93 octane maf curve (@ least I think that is what I was asked).

I had to take all of my tables with load axis down, as well as some other minor things.

I also probably spooked David when I forgot the "toggle".

Oh well. I guess I will wait for the e85 scaled maps to come to fruition.?! :thinking:

So to answer a few of the questions from this thread:

-There are several parameters that also change when you change to a different fuel - not just the scalar. There are lots of things to test and tweak. Seeing how "customized" these parameters need to be to each vehicle gives us data on how we should present the controls when we are ready to release them.



-We've used an in-house car at a stage 2 level, and we've used mixes from 30% E85 to 100% E85. Without tweaking the MAF, we've gotten the trims to settle in all fuel trim ranges. I'm relatively confident in what I've found, but as always we need verification of it. This beta test that I'm running is to see if those changes apply to the masses just as easily.


-For clarification, the method in which I'm making the E85 changes isn't just a hack to the final pulse width - I'm making changes to the injector size/flow rate and fuel weight references/calculations. I'm trying to make changes at the fundamental level. Not making the changes at the fundamental level will result in issues with closed loop, open loop, STFT/LTFT, shifting, cold start, weird map behavior from MAF scaling, etc.

-David@COBB

i seriously cant wait to see what you have to offer!

Excellent. I wonder if those of us with high trim numbers (By high I mean +-10 or higher) at idle have something else going on...

I had some high trim numbers (about -10 iirc), but @ the second breakpoint. (5.7-18) rather than idle.

Remember that rounding issues become a big factor at very low values, like those in the MAF curve at idle speeds. My idle LTFT is +7 right now on the COBB beta map while my other trims are +/-2 at most; my thought is that when I scaled my MAF up for E85, then back down for the beta map, the values got off a bit because of rounding.

I'm going to do a MAF cal just for my lowest LTFT breakpoint to correct.


Tapadatass

By the way, I made some changes to my beta tune with respect to the clutch tables and timing, and the car is running MUCH better. No DTCs either. I still need to sort out the stutter at extremely low throttle position though.


Tapadatass

I was having this issue on my e85 based map (mostly in 2nd gear).

My studder had something to do with the way I was limiting boost per gear with the APP tables, and again, @ that time, my map loads were all off due to scaling.

Setting my APP tables back to ots cleared it right up, although I haven't had a chance to look @ the APP tables vs throttle req load A, B, and C to see where the problem came from .

I put in for my e85 map to get "the treatment" but have yet to hear back :(

Working up a second beta that involves some other changes. You'll hear back from me in January.

We are doing some research on the Dyno w/ an oscilloscope to determine if it is doing injector phasing to lengthen the time, or if it is using just a plain addition of injector open time.

The other thing to note is if we are legitimately running out of injector at 100% E85. We now have a way to control and test it in a controlled environment.

Stay tuned for updates :)

-David@COBB

I can tell you I'm over 100% IDC if I use WOT AFRs richer than 0.86 lambda.


Tapadatass

Sweet. Does this mean i'm off the hook on doing my scope stuff?

hell your car doesn't even run long enough to test the scalar out...lol

j/k

Sadly, that's true. Plus, with the latest developments, I'll be going back to an unscaled 3 gallon mix, so there's little point now. Lol

I have this >< much room to talk...my fueling issues cropped up again....momentary drop to 900PSI for no apparent reason...usually unplugging the FP sensor connector and reconnecting it back solves the issue...for awhile at least. bah!

maybe time for a new sensor.

I think we'd all like to run that SkyActiv sensor... Not to mention 2500+ psi (Waving hand at Cobb):1zhelp:

No changes in the HPFP Sensor Calibration. You can already use the one in the 2012 :)

-David@COBB

Um, come again? Direct replacement you say? no modifications for any year 'Speed?

Nice! And the second part of my wishlist? Haha! (2500+ psi)

It should be. Looking into each of the years, the calibration, offset, scalar, and other tables are all the same.

Another thing to remember is skyactiv is DI, but not turbo. So their sensor won't have to go up that high anyways as they aren't having the same cylinder pressures a the MS3/6 cars. Why re-engineer something you don't have to? However, it still will be limited to the same restrictions, so don't go thinking it'll allow you to read higher pressures. That still requires a LOT of work on the ECU side (not as easy as the MAP sensor)

-David@COBB

So it's a bolt on sensor that we can install with no changes while we await the software to eventually read the higher pressure we seek?

Subbing.

Cobble Cobble....I has datas.
Also looks like I need to do a MAF cal.

what type of mix are you doing Enki?

50/50

Any updates on availability of the new beta, @David@COBB?

yes how is this testing coming along?

And don't forget the "max KR allowed" tables @David@COBB ;)

And it would be awesome if you could find the odd load table that drops WGDC in certain conditions (high fuel requirements possibly???).

Still need to Dyno test the changes. Have been focusing on the latest bugfix/Beta tables for ATR (which I want to get out soon).

-David@COBB

Step 1: Clone yourself [rinse repeat as necessary]

Step 2: Expose all tables and fix everything in one week


Glad you're on our side @David@COBB

I am willing to donate a few cases of Red Bull to the cause to help expedite!

:cool:

Bawls Guarana > RedBull any day.

Any time I see Guarana, I always think of Guano first.

mmm... bat shit...

I know it's only been 12 days, 2 hours and 35 minutes, but any updates for us regarding the new beta maps, @David@COBB?

*puppydog face*

Doing some research on Injector startup dwell and Injector phasing (Branching off of djuosnteisn's findings) with the oscilloscope on the dyno. I want to make sure we are utilizing the full potential of the injectors, as 100% E85 on our beta scalars ran us out of injector. If phasing and startup point can get us a bit more time, we might be able to run 100% with stock injectors.

-David@COBB

We are already running our injectors >100% with e85 and seeing no ill effect. I regularly see 110%, and as high as 120% in my car. Bozo's car has seen as high as ~145% without issue.