LOL....better gun for @silvapain too.....his car rips

I'll take him on with his slipping clutch lol

Like I told Justin yesterday: I'll beat you driving in reverse, so I can see your face as I'm pulling away.


Tapadatass

obvi dan

bearded reverse driver mod > Justin's car.

Any good write ups on e85 MPG yet? I've been messing with all fueling tables except for WOT Fueling and have seen about 3 mpg increase.

Something ive noticed... I changed my AFR's to 15 at highway cruizing speeds but keep hitting 14.69....wtf is going on here. But when the engine is cold i'm hitting 15 no problem. Once it warms up...its back to 14.69. It seems like there is a missing table.

What load values are you at when cruising? I have no problem hitting my 1.07 lambda target when cruising. I have found that there is a yet undiscovered fuel table that is referenced when idling.

I'm going to start working on timing at low loads for fuel economy.

As far as I know only Phate and I are doing any tuning work with E85 right now regarding fuel economy.


Tapadatass

Well it's the 3 of us now :) We need this missing table!
My load values at cruizing are between .6 and 1.
Has anyone else noticed that AFR's go back to 14.69 once the engine has warmed up?

I haven't started playing with AFR yet, so I'm still targeting stoich. The couple things I'm trying are helping out gas mileage a good bit on the highway.

On a bit of a different note, I ran a completely closed loop map this weekend in order to get an accurate maf curve.

Worked like a charm.

If I had used a bit more forethought as to where I placed my breakpoints, it would have been a bit better.

In general, on 50/50 e85 (from a straight ots maf calibration), I had to bump the curve about 20%.

There is definitely some sort of compensation activity in open loop wot fueling.
(i.e. my maf curve @ wot was considerably different from that produced by the closed loop map), but I still hit my commanded targets (except in one small voltage area).

I have a hunch that is why Cobb recommends that your closed loop trims be <8%. It must be that the ecu can adjust pulse width, etc. to meet commanded ol wot targets.

WOT on 50/50 afr's are a fine science....

I'm looking forward to seeing a write-up so I know what exactly your doing to increase mpg. So you've only messed with timing? What Ign tables are you tweeking and how? Want me to start up a thread for this?

Interesting...so maybe whats happening to my AFR's is not that a new table needs to be discovered but maybe the ECU is learning after a few minutes....which means I need to adjust my MAF curve (lean out a little to achieve 15 afr instead of 14.69).:hmmm:

id be willing to bet theres an ECU table with ECT reference in it just like all the others.



@rfinkle2

what did you do to stay CL the whole time? ive been considering this for a while and i just couldent find any info on anyone who has done it before

Up your CL/OL transition load values to a number you'll never hit. Also up your TP transition to 100% if you haven't already.

Just shift your LTFT breakpoints to cover the whole MAF g/s range, and adjust your CL fuel and timing tables to be safe at high loads.


Tapadatass

I set all of my closed loop max load tables to 3 from 2000 rpm on.

All of my tables mirror eachother (yours probably do as well), and I just commanded my regular wot afr @ 1.25 load (and above).

There was something strange timing related going on, but I had next to no knock, and was able to get trims > 200 g/s (that was a far as I wanted to push it though).

I think I might to it again, but use the breakpoints closer to eachother in the areas that I am having a difficult time naling down. (mostly spool).

I think, @ least in theory, as long as your combined trims are <25%, your ecu should be able to compensate.

I did take it easy on the go pedal for each breakpoint until I was sure the ecu would follow the tables.

I don't know why you would want to do that, though. The only benefit of CL is the ECU uses the feedback from the HO2S to adjust fueling; you don't need to adjust if your MAF calibration is already good. The downside of always being in CL is that you lose some of the ability of the ECU to adjust dynamically to different situations. That's why I use TP in addition to load as a trigger todo the CL/OL transition; I want to be able to go OL anytime by hitting the happy pedal.


Tapadatass

I was having a hell of a time with certain portions of my maf curve with a 50/50 e85 mix.

I'm starting to throw secondary o2 lean cel codes now, with targets set to 15.5 gas afr. I'm probably going to dial it back to stoich but keep the same scaling and see if that fixes the cel. As a side note, my trims are within 8% (both short and long) when this code pops up, so NFC what the cause is other than potentially missing a table that Cobb hasn't broken into yet.

Are you catted? The downstream HO2S isn't wideband, and can't read AFRs beyond stoich. Running > 1.00 and the sensor will be pegged lean and the ECU will set the DTC because the narrowband signal isn't switching between lean and rich.


Tapadatass

the BMW's dont even have an OL. if you always using feed back from the O2 then your always dead on with your AFR targets as long as your within 50% of your MAF curve (25% for both LT/STFT)

all of my CL fuel/timing tables match my WOT ones for a seemless integration. but its really hard to tune a big dip in your MAF curve from the onset of meth and changes in E85. in CL i would never have to worry about that.

rob, did you just set your last "E" breakpoint to say 500? or just left it at 200 cause you never went over that.

New ATR update = disable it!

Holy crap. I just updated my ATR, you aren't kidding. There must be 100 CEL we can disable now. If only I knew what they all were.

Holy shit.

I left it @ 200, because I was not planning on going up that high g/s wise, but the car seemed to be fine with making adjustments.

Thinking about doing it again, I would definitely make a heavy concentration in my spool area, which probably corresponds to when you start spraying meth.

I'd have to think it is also some sort of tip in / enrichment point also.

Initially I used

5.7, 25, 75, 150, 200, 200...

but should've gone something in the neighborhood of

5.7, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175 (@ least for the k04 anyway).

im also leaning towards blow through MAF but need to get the JMF IM first and have some fun with that before i go changing unnecessary shit haha

i have a horrible problem just leaving shit alone lol

Don't we all?

That's why we have a HUGE thread about E85, among other things...

<---loves how this platform has evolved so much this year!

I'll chime in a bit on the full time CL subject, cause i studied it a bit before, but didn't have a car at that time to experiment with.

There are both short term and long term trims.... and from what i saw initially, each was "disabled" by different tables.

The LTFT zero'd out based on the max break point value(s) in those CL tables. But the STFT zero'd out based on the load value in one of the max load tables (I think it was C, but probably varies based on car year etc).


So i think in conjunction with putting 500 in the last break point, you may also want to set all the max load tables to 5.0.


I can throw a map together today and play with it on the way home if you guys want. It's something i've wanted to do for a long time now.

I think I also noticed timing being pulled.

The strangest thing, @ least to me, is what seems to be some sort of correction applied while @ wot by the ecu to hit wot afr targets.

Also, it seems as maps "mature" (stolen Fobio termimology), fueling continues to change @ wot, when you would expect it to just rely on the maf curve.

Thoughts on wot fueling correction Dustin?

Are both your no-knock timing tables matched? The low throttle no knock has considerably lower timing values in the higher load regions than the high throttle.

I don't have a whole lot of thought on the wot fueling correction, other than i've seen the same phenomenon before too. Sometimes the AFRs on the first pull vary from the second. And usually from the second pull on, they're much more consistent.

If there was a correction, it would appear to be the same each time i think. Simply cause i can calculate exactly what change is needed in the maf curve to hit my desired wot AFR, and it works like a charm. If there was a variable correction being applied, it seems it would be less reliable.


And on the full time CL map i'll make... i'll intentionally bump the maf by like 2 or 3 percent just to give the ecu a reason to trim up there. Right now my wot AFR targets are pretty damn on target. We'll see if we can get some negative trims up there.

Guys, one consideration when doing this: The ecu at low load and in closed loop seems to adjust timing with no regard for what is in the timing tables. Even beyond the max A/B tables. The question here is whether the ecu continues to do this no matter the load if it stays in closed loop...which is a little scary.

A thread was just started about this here:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...3/#post1134944

I actually incorporate those max tables into my high and low throttle maps.

All of my ignition maps are 100% the same.

Yeah, let's take the CL conversation over there. That thread has David's attention anyway, and we can leave this thread for more e85 shenanigans.

Yeah, to bring this back on topic for a second, lol:

My spill valve solenoid has been having more issues than normal, lately. Cleaning it used to work great. I would clean it up, pop it back in and restore pressure until it got dirty again. Over the past week or so, I've been intermittently dropping pressure. I pulled the entire pump Friday night and cleaned everything - it wasn't terrible, but definitely some buildup.

We had Saturday shenanigans, which got video'd, lol, and the car ran great. On my way back home Sunday, my car started dropping fuel pressure randomly. Typically, over ~3300rpm, it will hold pressure no matter what. Not any more :( I pulled it last night and scrubbed the spill valve parts. Put it back in this morning and it still won't hold pressure. I'm waiting on my extra spill valve solenoid to make it back to me, but this may be the first casualty of ethanol.

When I pulled the spill valve last night, the seal inside of it (which I don't think there are pictures of) - it's down by the solenoid spring/bottom of the plunger. It didn't look quite right. Once I get my extra solenoid back, I'll take some pics to compare.


Now, obviously, I like to test some things out, and this was a prime opportunity: I now know that the car is fine after dropping pressure to 60psi at full throttle, lol. It's actually much less violent than fuel cut, because power doesn't instantly come back on. Car is fine after that experience (twice).

Scary phate, keep us posted.

Mine just dropped pressure to ITP pressure sitting in my driveway. I'm almost positive that it isn't my solenoid as the last few times I've cleaned it it has been pristine. I'm pretty sure it's my pump internals that are sticking.

Blend FTW :biggthumpup:

maybe its time for some additives for the 100% E crew?? MMO or something similar?

I'm already on MMO and my spill valve still sticks.


Tapadatass

Maybe a stick of butter in the tank? Butter and corn go great together.

ROFL!

and sprinkle some Cajun spice on top...yum!