See, I knew someone had a load excel file. Can I get that file from you? On another note, my 93 octane tune was about 100 revisions ago lol. So I think the easiest thing to do will be get stage 2 tune, and do a maf cal, and AFR adjustment. Then scale for e85, then add boost and timing back in.

Yes, that is most likely the easiest way to do it. Almost done with the other feature that's going to be added in with the Fuel scaling controls :)

-David@COBB

Looks like we'll be changing up the order of releases - the Fuel controls will come out in a Beta release (with the checkbox), and the other feature will follow shortly after. Getting tired of patching people's maps all day :P

Stay tuned for updates.

-David@COBB

David is my fran. :biglaugh:

That just means we have a lot of love for you guys, David. Meet me out behind the woodshed in 5.

*Puts on lipstick*

bring the KY too...

KY for fisting right...Thanks David. Any eta on the beta?

mama mia... poor David. LOL

Has to weed through fisting comments to get to his day job. HAHA!

A small snapshot of what to expect soon.

-David@COBB

tease!







BTW thanks!

I'm getting moist over here!


Tapadatass

We should chip in and send the Cobb guys a gift basket of corn/corn products.

heres my contribution

http://www.instructables.com/files/d...XBV.MEDIUM.jpg

LOL. That would be funny as hell.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1UHWp76QaF.../hi_fritos.jpg

@rfinkle2 @silvapain
@Dano @Enki @Fobio

It's time! Check the beta box in ATR and have at it :)

@djuosnteisn The Injector Latency control allows you to adjust the beginning of injection.... You are welcome!

-David@COBB

Have more to do studying logs from yesterday, but based on what we were seeing I think we were able to pick up inj duty cycle using this feature.

badassness!!!!

do I spy a 708 number under your SN?

Mmmmm... More IDC. :yumyum:

JUST in time for EFR muah ah ah ahhh!!!

Excellent.

Now I opened up my E85 beta map from you after updating, and I've noticed that the scalar is set to 1.00, which is the same as my pump gas tune. My assumption is that you used a different method to adjust the fueling on the beta maps; is this correct? If so, then for this scalar would I need to put in 1.40 to get 40% additional fuel?

I just opened up your map in my version and I see a different value. You sure you are using the right one? If you didn't check "keep non table data" before this when working on the map the values would be defaulted to stock.

-David@COBB

Reload your map; my beta map shows 1.2 with .76 on the 50/50 mix it's set for. For whatever reason, after the update it loaded a <stock map> type thing.

IIIIIIIIIIIIII'm retarded. I reopened the map and now I see what I expected. 1.40 scalar, and 0.7850 specific gravity.


PERFECT!

Specific gravity:

Stock: .74
50/50: .76 (1:1 mixes of e to pump)
E85: .78

Now ya see what I did there? :P

You can see how the blend %'s were experimented with. You might benefit from some small reduction in Injector Latency. Try it in 1-2% increments.

-David@COBB

This is awesome. I will definitely be working with the latency values to squeeze more IDC.

Game on!

:drive:

So to clarify....

For my E30 mix I should:

• Shift the Specific Fuel Gravity to approx 0.755 from 0.740.
  
• Increase my Injector Scalar from 1.00 to 1.12 to account for my 12% extra fueling needs due to the E30.
  
• Drop my MAF curves by 1/1.12 = ~11%.
  
• Drop all of my load targets by ~11%.
  
• Enjoy

Did I miss anything? I shouldn't have to worry about changing my ignition timing and I don't have to update my DBW tables until after I get some logs right?

I switched back the straight 91 octane map I was using to a 2.25 E85 per tank mix with a 1.08 scalar and .7484 specific gravity and LTFT were very close to what I was running on the prior map. Target AFR's were spot on as well.

What was strange was the fuel gauge only showed 3/4 full when I had just filled up but it slowly adjusted to completely full after a few miles. The mileage left per tank reading now seems to be accurate as well.

Great job Cobb!

ugh cant wait to play with this!!!!

what exactly does the specific gravity change in the ECU?

Fuel density. Basically, changes the math for calculating how much to spray to achieve a given target. This number is why MAF scaled cars running pure E have seriously odd looking MAF curves.

Both of you using the cheat sheets?

Yep, the cheat sheet was perfect. As noted earlier unless I'm doing something wrong the scalar resolution is only to the hundredths so the range of adjustment is a bit less precise than the cheat sheets suggest.

Unfortunately I kind of had to go that anal with the cheat sheet to get even remotely accurate numbers; just stuffing in there whatever fits is fine, I'm sure.

No, but in my case the numbers were pretty close to the cheat sheet and so far seem to be working well.

Not knocking your cheat sheets at all, they are immensely helpful. Only suggesting that with a range of adjustment in the hundredths it may take a small amount of MAF scale tweaking to completely dial in the AFR's if at all.

My initial results do not indicate that the fuel scaling helps shift us under LCV2™:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...30112-1log.jpg

I should have been tapering up to 25 PSI by 6500 RPMs where I was targeting 2.05 load, but the throttle started to close and the WGDC didn't go up to support this. So instead I was at 24 PSI and 1.99 load at 6500 RPMs.


Still making decent power though:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...030112-1vd.jpg

Can you link me to the intitial discussion of Load Cap v2. I have searched for it but I think I missed the initial dissertation on it.

do you feel the least bit uncomfortable with 470ft/lbs TQ at 4K RPM?

lots of that info here:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...-again-102597/

Somewhat yes...I actually have pulled WGDC back some there as I had overshot my target a bit there.

That is a little higher than I would expect at that RPM normally. I wouldn't expect every pull to be that high as their was a bit of a spike their on this pull, which was likely related to a hump in the road.

Here is the same pull with smoothing set to 1 to show the spike at 4k:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...0112-1vds1.jpg

I am currently targeting something like 400-430 ft-lbs over as broad a range as possible. Specifically, I am trying to carry the torque higher into the RPM range, which is causing me to bump into LCV2™.

In this pull, I am over 400 ft-lbs from 3300-5600 RPMs, and other than the spike around 4k it looked pretty good.

lol so a road induced TQ spike...got cha...I would still be worried about 430 @3.3k but that's just me. I try to stay under 400 which I do now with my reverse taper. Saves on rubber as well :)