I'll give the HTP 3.5" beta a shot too. I'm also inputting the breakpoints you suggested to Deldran, @Lex.

As I'm a student of the tune, do you mind explaining those breakpoints? Are they merely temporary as you're refining the 3.5 HTP sensor table more? It seems like placing them close like that near the beginning can help you gather helpful data. Why jump from 40 to 150? That seems like a really big jump with all of the other breakpoints so close...

you have to think about spool, once the turbo gets going it starts pulling in substantially more air. Do a data log of daily driving, then get on it a bit part throttle and take a look at what your G/s do and those break points will make a lot more sense.

I realize that it would also help one to dial-in the lower region of the MAF sensor table a lot better too. Wouldn't it avail more resolution in the 0 to 40 range by having so many breakpoints? My logic may be flawed, but that's what I would think.

Then, to dial in the high side of the MAF cal table, maybe using breakpoints that are far spaced down low (in terms of grams/sec) and closer together up top (also in terms of grams/sec) could help?

Are you saying, @Voltwings, that these suggested breakpoints aren't temporary? That they're for more than just getting the 3.5 BETA table dialed in? If these breakpoints work well and are meant for continual (rather than temporary) use, I'd happily do so. I'm just really used to 5.7/18/50/75/120/150 (Bucker's suggested) which seems to be a more balanced, evenly-distributed scheme.

I'm using buckers breakpoints on my 4" and they work just fine. However, your maf cal is based off whatever breakpoints you are using, if you do a Maf cal and then change your breakpoints, you will more than likely need a new calibration so its a bit of a step in the wrong direction.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'll gladly use new breakpoints to gather data and help the community, in general, and Lex's MAF chart for the HTP 3.5, specifically.

I was just trying to figure out if the breakpoints that Deldran and I are using are meant solely for data gathering, and that we'd change them later for more precise AFRs, or if the breakpoints will basically be the new ones that Lex is suggesting we use from now on.

Honestly, I find a lot a variation on suggested breakpoints. I'm not quite sure which work best and why. Also, I realize that "best" is often highly relative and goal-specific. I'm running E40, so that factor may alter "most accurate AFR breakpoints" (probably a better term than "best") even more. I've already noticed positive LTFT values across the board (in the +3 to +8 range, except a -3 or so at idle) in the 40 or so miles I've driven. I primarily attribute this to my ethanol blend.

Care to chime in, @Lex?

I will chime in to the breakpoints. The MAF curve is exponential. The higher you go in the curve the fewer points for resolution you have.

Further, take a log when normally driving. You almost never find yourself at 70 or even 120 g/s. Since the car spends very little time in that area of the curve it will take a LONG time for the ECU to learn the LTFTs. LTFTs are important to learn quickly because this is the ECU's way of calibrating your MAF. So if you have a point between 70 and 125 the car will almost never be in that area and the ECU won't apply the calibrations it learns before this to that area meaning it has to wait for STFTs to respond.

So there is logic behind the placement of my LTFT breakpoints and it is related to the way the vehicle is driven, increasing the speed at which LTFTs are learned, and finally taking into account the exponential like rise in mass airflow with respect to sensor voltage. Even distribution of the separation points in this case is not the correct way to approach this.

Most of the time if you are in the 70+ range won't you also be in open loop where ltft doesn't matter?

At least that seems to be my experiance

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

As you explain this, it makes perfect sense. Looking at the plot of the MAF curve itself shows quite clearly that an exponential equation is used. Therefore, having breakpoints that are very close together at first and get progressively wider-spaced makes a lot of sense. I didn't know that having the ECU learn trims very quickly has benefits. I'll take your word for it, as I know you're very well-informed about our ECUs. That provides even more support to have lots of closely-spaced breakpoints down low, then moving to more widely-spaced up top.

Thanks, @Lex. So, just to be clear, you recommend these breakpoints for long-term use? Based on what you said, that would make sense. It's not about getting your HTP 3.5 dialed in at all. They're great points to use always, right?

Correct, these breakpoints is what I would use all the time unless there are specific reasons not to.

Okay, so here are my initial results and logs. I've included 4 MAF cal logs and 1 driving around log. These logs were taken with ~60 miles since flashing:

0.88–1.14 volts: -2.34 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 0.9766 to adjust)
1.16–1.51 volts: +3.91 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0391 to adjust)
1.54–1.73 volts: +7.03 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0703 to adjust)
1.74–1.94 volts: +1.56 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0156 to adjust)
1.96–2.15 volts: +7.81 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0781 to adjust)
2.16–3.15 volts: +8.59 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0859 to adjust)

Hope these data help, @Lex

:)

I'm calibrating, reflashing, and I'll repost the new results after another ~60 miles or so.

Thanks for the data. How are the WOT AFRs?

@Lex,
I haven't pulled any WOT logs yet. I was planning on doing so after the second calibration.

Would you like some pre-second calibration WOT logs? So far, my LTFTs have settled down pretty well. I'm now in the -3.7 to +5.5 range across the voltage/airflow spectrum. Several of the breakpoint ranges are actually within +/- 0.8 after my first revision, so they seem pretty much perfect.

Update: I just did the second recalibration:

1.06–1.11 volts: -3.12 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 0.9688 to adjust)
1.12–1.42 volts: +3.91 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0391 to adjust)
1.68–2.10 volts: +0.78 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 1.0078 to adjust)
2.12–3.16 volts: -0.78 LTFT (will multiply voltage range by 0.9922 to adjust)

The gaps in voltages represent regions that had an LTFT of 0.

These LTFTs were ~80 miles after flashing. I'll reflash the new map and do WOT logs for you. Do I need to wait a certain amount of time for the LTFTs to settle in for the purposes of gathering useful data on the WOT logs? I wasn't sure if the ECU needed some time to adjust to extrapolate the trims for WOT runs more accurately. If I don't hear back from you soon, I'll just wait ~50 miles before WOT logging.

LTFTs are not going to affect WOT so no you don't need to wait to take WOT logs.

So are you on the 2nd cal right now or the 3rd? You supplied 2 sets of adjustments. Did you apply both or did you let the trims settle more and then just applies the 2nd set quoted here to the MAF calibration in the OP?

I wasn't sure about LTFTs affecting WOT AFR--thanks for clarifying, @Lex

I applied each set of adjustments when I posted the data. I didn't wait for the trims to settle any more before doing so.

So, first I applied your 3.5 HTP MAF table and flashed the map. I ran about ~60 miles and adjusted the MAF sensor table with the values I first posted. Then, I reflashed.

After reflashing, I ran about ~80 miles and did another MAF sensor table calibration with the values I second posted. Then, I reflashed.

So, I'm on the 3rd map. The first was what you gave me. The second was after the first ~60 miles. The third (which I'm on right now) was after ~80 miles. The two sets of logs and data I posted were from between the 1st and 2nd flash, and the 2nd and 3rd flash.

So far, I have 0 miles on the newest (the 3rd) flash. I commuted with my wife to work today. Since today's my birthday, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to pull WOTs tonight, but I'll try to do so soon.

Let me know if this response clarified things for you, or if you have further questions.

Seems like you're on the right track! Happy Birthday and post up the results from the 3rd calibration. Also FIY there are WOT trims that can go +/- 12% on gen2 cars. We can't log these trims. So we won't know how far the MAF is off at WOT in the gen2 cars unless it's more than +/- 12%

Thanks!

Wow, +/- 12% is definitely significant--I had no idea!

FWIW, I started with the JBR 3.5 curve you originally had posted on this thread on the previous calibration I was running. After getting things dialed-in, I was virtually always within 11.8 to 12.2 when targeting 12.0 AFR on my E40 mix. That means I was withing +/- 1.67%. I did virtually no WOT calibration too--there was no need.

If I can be within that range with this new calibration, I'll be happy. I notice the max JBR voltage shows over 600 grams/sec. This new calibration I'm using maxes out at about ~586. In other words, a 2.3% difference in flow at max voltage. The results should be interesting.

At WOT your ECU was adjusting your AFRs so you may have been further off. The JBR calibration is pretty good though and yes, his 3.5" has more flow headroom.

Makes sense... I kinda wish the HTP flowed more than the JBR, but it would only be bragging rights. There's no way I'll be maxing out my setup. I'm thinking of a BNR S3 one day, and I know that won't be a flow issue.

Gosh, even with a GTX3076 or larger, it probably wouldn't be an issue. I don't think I've ever seen a single log with 500+ grams/second, let alone almost 600, LOL!

3rd flash results...
 

Alright, @Lex, here are the results from the 3rd flash. So, to recap: I did your initial Beta calibration table, drove ~60 miles, pulled logs, then recalibrated and flashed again. After running ~80 miles, I pulled more logs and then flashed again. I'm now on this 3rd calibration. I have driven ~60 miles before pulling these most recent (attached) logs. I have 2 WOT runs, 1 MAF cal run, and then a final run where I was sitting at a stop light, casually getting on an onramp, then coming to cruising speed on the highway.

The MAF cal shows I'm within +/- 1.56 for all ranges but one, which shows 3.12. One final calibration should lock my closed loop in nicely.

Regarding the WOT runs, you tell me. I'm targeting 12.0AFR. These logs look good to me; what say you? Since you're looking at them, can you offer me any insight or advice at all on how they look? My initial boost spike is brief and ~1.5 higher than my 21.0 target. I wonder if there's anyway to eliminate the initial WOT 10.x AFR I seem to always see.

Anyways, I hope these data help :)

I would not try and chase your tail with a 3.x LTFT. That is more than within spec - leave it as you will see more fluctuations from changes in weather.

As for the WOT regions, did you modify the WOT region at all from the original MAF cal you started from?

Yes, I did. The MAF calibration ranges I adjusted carried all the way up into the 3.x voltage range. Remember, the first logs I took showed 8.x LTFT in the 40–150 grams/sec range (and the correlated voltages). Because of this, my curve no longer had the exponential smoothness to it. I had to smooth the upper range one more time today too. My final table looks like this:

If you'd like, I'll reflash the original BETA calibration and send WOTs from that. It may take another day to do so.

Remember that your ECU compensates at WOT. So we are within +/- 12% at WOT but won't know for sure until we get this on a gen1 car or an MS6.

will that compensation show up in Logs? When i tune Gen1's i can see their STFT's still active at WOT, but on my Gen2 its 0'd out the whole time. Do i need to be in FTCL for it to make those adjustments? Thanks.

No, it won't show up in logs. FTCL is allowing regular STFTs to be active, this gen2 compensation is not a parameter we can log.

Alright, @Lex, here you go: 3 WOT logs from my E40-running car with your BETA calibration--no modifications to your 3.5 HTP BETA MAF table settings at all.

So, what's your analysis? Think I should stick with it, or smooth out the curve?

:)

Some good reading on pressure drop for different sized piping with charts.

How to measure airflow in PVC piping requires careful measuring of airflow with a pitot tube or calibrtated anenometer to determine CFM

I am looking at difference in piping material and having a hard time locating equations for different materials. I think an interesting question is - does material make a difference in terms of flow (resistance to flow).

EDIT: Found it - the roughness coefficient. So pressure drops is calculated as the following:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/e...c6ebe7b812.png

Where f is the friction coefficient and it is directly proportional to pressure drop just like diameter (d) is.
However with laminar flow roughness has no effect.

With turbulent flow it does have an effect and here are some examples (no they don't have the materials that we generally use) of the friction factor. Our intakes do have turbulent flow, at 300 g/s we have a Reynolds number around 200 000.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dy_diagram.jpg

@Lex;

Thank you for the great starting point! I tested out the HTP 3.5 beta curve with my new setup and it was spot on with no other tune changes. I only had time for idle and light throttle around the block but from what I saw it was within 2-3%.

100% E85, 17:1 part throttle AFR, JMF IM didn't seem to cause any driveability issues after the HTP intake swap.

Glad to hear it was close and helped out!

I'll be testing the htp 3.5" map here soon also. Hope to get the same results.

Interesting that with your 100% E85 you were within 2–3 LTFT. With my E40 blend, I had LTFTs in the +8 range. I thought it'd be the other way around since your fueling strategy requires much more fueling than mine (about 1.3 times over stock compare to my 1.15 or so). Perhaps it's the 17:1 that made the difference. I'm still running OTS AFRs in that range.

I was within 1-2% prior to the htp intake swap. My injector scalar and fuel gravity tweaks for e85 allow me to run pump gas MAF curves.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

Right. I also was within 1 or 2 LTFT having dialed-in my MAF cal after switching to ethanol. I, too, am running the appropriate scalar and fuel specific gravity for my E40 ratio.

Again, I don't understand why you wouldn't have more variance that me due to running a higher ethanol concentration. I was perfectly dialed-in too... I find that even when using the appropriate scalar and FSG, you still have to MAF cal because the ECU will be showing high positive value LTFTs before you calibrate after switching to ethanol.

Thats the beauty of using a known maf curve all you need to change are the injector settings. Your usually off the same % throughout the curve. I only let the car warm and drove around the block. Its a great starting point and I wont have to do much work to dial it in.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

I think you're not understanding me. I used the same BETA Maf curve as you. Your ethanol ratio should have put you at higher LTFTs compared to mine. We both had the correct FSG and Scalar in our tunes.

When I switched to ethanol, I did so after already perfectly dialing-in my MAF cal. When all I did was change the FSG and Scalar to run E40, immediately I was hitting + 6s or 8s. It was easy to fix through another revision or two, but in my experience, changing the FSG and Scalar isn't enough. A MAF cal is necessary too when running ethanol.

I observed the exact same phenomenon with Lex's BETA HTP 3.5 table. You know, it could just be that my car actually flows about 8% more, even with the same intake. Then, you were within +/- 2 right off the bat, but I was at +8 and needed to adjust my curve accordingly.

If you don't have a leak, flow will be accurately measured by the MAF.

LTFTs are very sensitive to things like fuel, weather, and even small details such as air filters and even if the A/C is on. These intakes have the honeycombs glued in so there is some variance there as well. LTFTs that are within +/- 10% are not something I would tune on a MAF curve that is posted as a starting point. I see a variance of 5% in LTFTs during the same day. LTFTs are not bad thing - they are simply your ECU adjusting to the environment. They only become an issue if they are consistently too far from the mark.

I knew exactly what you were saying. I was trying to give you hints that you might want to revisit your injector settings before jumping into a MAF cal. There is no way for you or I to know what mix content we run. If you were within 1-2% prior to swap then you probably built too much of the mix variance into your MAF curve. Now that you swapped intakes you need to dial in your injectors first before you touch the MAF.

I posted because with my setup I was really freakin' impressed I had no driveability issues with my first cold start.

3.5 BETA is a great starting point.

I hear ya. I disagree, however, about not knowing our ratios. I'll grant that we cannot know to the exact point, but we can definitely be within +/- 5 of our exact mix by using the resources available to use on this forum:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...sheets-102438/

I simply cross reference my location and time of the year, and I know that when I put in 8 gallons of ethanol and 8 gallons of regular fuel during this time of year in North Texas, I'm at E40. Now, the question of whether or not the regular fuel does contain 10% ethanol is valid. I always assume it does, because most of the time that's true in my area. So, to be fair, knowing *exactly* the ratio is not feasible. But knowing within +/- 5 is completely feasible. And if you look at the difference between the scalar and FSG betwee E35 and E40, or E40 and E45, for instance, it's miniscule.

Of course, for this to work I can never top off my tank. I always have to put equal parts of each fuel (for my E40 ratio, this time of year). Some people still top off. I don't...

I agree that the HTP 3.5 BETA curve is a fantastic starting point. It worked better than the JBR one I used when I first installed the intake which required numerous revisions to dial-in.

I use that sheet as well but as a guide. I know we are "close" to knowing what is in our tanks but it's not 100%. Look for a pattern. If you are off the same amount throughout the curve even if you are 2-3% in the lows and 3-4% in the mids and 5% in the upper then adjust your injector settings to close the gap then do a MAF cal. That way if you swap intakes or MAF housings you will not have to mess with your control tables unless you get a different mix.

You asked why our results are so much different and I'm just trying to explain how I do MAF cals. Having a known pump gas MAF curve at least takes one unknown out of the equation. Maybe I just have an old school mentality as I have applied my tuning knowledge on my mustangs to this car.

Yeah, could be. I appreciate you helping me to figure it out. In my tuning experience, every time I've got someone perfectly dialed-in (within +/- 2 LTFT) on their pump tune, when we switched to ethanol, they'd be up to about +8. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but it happened like clockwork. We would have already changed the FSG and Scalar. The MAF curve would be identical too. But all of a sudden, LTFTs that are much higher. I've always attributed it to the chemical properties of ethanol, which seem to cause higher LTFTs even with the proper FSG and scalar, everything else being equal.

@Lex; I didn't have a pair of calipers to measure the id properly on my SURE Full3 ID300 Aeros intake, but I've been using your SURE 3in maf cal and it's within 3+/-. It looks like they sent a 3.25in maf instead of a 3in. Should I try and scale it any?

Sorry for the crappy cell phone picture.

If you are using the 3" MAF I posted and it's within 3% then you have the 3" and the MAF calibration is correct.

@Tomas;

Yes, let's move this here.

What I believe you are running into with the 4" intake is turbulence around the MAF sensor when the BPV vents. This is because the air velocity is much lower in the large intake and the pressure wave from the BPV venting doesn't get pulled towards the turbo quickly enough. This causes the MAF sensor to misread and you're riding a bronco.

You have a GA with the VTA feature I believe (with the new internals I sent out). As a quick test, plug up the recirc hose and VTA with the GA in VTA mode. See if the shifting is improved.

Also please post a log of the shifting/bucking.

Alex, the bucking is only during very light load conditions. During WOT pulls everything is fine. Unless you disagree I'd say this is not BPV related. Besides, the BPV reciird tube into the intake is about 10" to 12" downstream from the MAF sensor.

Attached two logs. One with fairly horrible bucking and other less pronounced due to slower throttle modulation. Unfortunately I don't have LTFTs on it. Forgot to add that back on to the log list but will take another log with it today.

Attachment 98934

Attachment 98935

The logs show some wild oscillations as you can see below. I went through a similar exercise with @dantes5823; and his 4" intake. In the end he said he was going to leave it since "race car"

Perhaps the turbulence is not from the BPV but rather from that pressure wave coming back through the turbo itself or the turbo speed changing abruptly.

In any case, the MAF sensor is not reading correctly with a 4" intake and you're not the only one. Not sure if there's an effective way of "shielding" it from this turbulence and I don't recommend an intake larger than 3.5" for this reason.

It's almost like you need an air straightener on both side of the MAF sensor if you're going to run an intake that size.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...1&d=1363719212

I would also look at a couple of other things although you can't really change some of these on the already built intake:

- The honeycomb pressed in there and glued is not the best installation.
- The air filter will have an effect. Remove it and add a temporary rag/screen and see if it improves.
- The sensor may be mounted too close to a bend (for the diameter of the pipe).

This stuff should have come out of the woodwork when the intake was being tested. I think a lot of people will have similar issues to yours.

Tomas, does your compressor have surge ports? That could be as much a contributor as a recirculated bpv.... maybe even more since you only have issues at light load (where a bpv may not even open fully).

A local Shop and I are going to try to adapt some 3v mustang MAF's they have laying around to our application to try and improve our resolution with larger intakes. Cant put a time frame on it, but am throwing the idea out and am open to suggestions.

@Lex; even with the hks i get the same behavior.

So you never got this sorted? Also back to Dustin's point do you have anti-surge ports on your compressor housing?

I do.

I'll try removing the filter and see what happens.
Sensor is about 3" from a bend.

Are you absolutely sure the "Null Type Adjustment" on the load based fuel compensation clutch in and out tables are directly related to fueling increase or decrease? is it possible that the null type adjustment is a time value? How about the load and RPM table? I am not sure the ATR help file can be trusted on this yet since I haven't really found anyone who has modified these tables and can say with certainty that modifying a certain value will lead to this or that.

Yes. It does have anti surge ports. But the air that exits through these should not disrupt the air flow all the way up to the MAF sensor. The air that exits through the surge ports does not go in a wave as when the turbo surges. It exits gradually the closer you get the surge line on the compressor map I believe.

EDIT: Dj, you also run a 4" inake right? You don't have any post shift enrichment issues at all???

Aren't you also running a 4" intake?
I thought you had worked out all the bogging issues? Or no?

WRT to the ATR helpfile I don't know if they are correct or incorrect nor how these tables are applied and when and neither does COBB - hence the BETA tag. I have used them to reduce afterfire successfully so either a time or a fueling value is correct but I have not zeroed them out - only reduced the values.

That being said, not sure if these are the answer to this problem seeing as you've modified them extensively with no observed changes. I would personally look at methods for creating a more laminar flow around the MAF sensor.

Post shift is perfect on my car. Moment i hit the clutch, afr's peg to 29. if i just go off throttle in gear, then it dips into the 9's.

@Tomas; when i first installed it, my base map was too rich, and i was bogging hard every shift, did about 3 maf cals that night and it gotten much better. Did lex's clutch table adjustments which to be honest im not even sure what they did but it seemed to help... I can post a picture of my set up since its custom, but im not sure this is a mechanical problem.

Re: MAF calibrations for bigger intakes
 

Good information. You can clearly see the fluctuations in the maf voltage that are causing the issue so I doubt there is anything in the tune that can really fix it.

Antisurge housings don't just back flow when you are near the surge line. They are actually comparable to intentionally adding a small boost leak back to the intake, they are aways going to back flow if the pressure in the hotpipe is above the intake pressure. It's not inconceivable that in certain conditions this could cause the flow around the maf to become unstable.

Zigatapatalka

Neither my old 3071 nor 3576 have the surge porting, could help explain my lack of issue.

Is your 4" an HTP intake or custom made?

Custom, just some 4" pipe and coupler from Intercooler Pipe Fabrication - Silicone Intake Systems Auto Parts and a 4" spectre filter. As soon as i find a way to make some more room in there im hoping to replace that with a larger filter. Recirc "bung" is just a brass fitting from ACE that fit inside the factory tube, i imagine the ID is a bit shy of where most normal intakes are, but im on a 50/50 valve so i really dont care that much.

Please ignore my ratty engine bay haha i spend every weekend working on other peoples cars!

Indeed i do, and no substantial issues on the 6. My BW s300sx has surge ports too, but they are very very minimal. I'm currently installing a 35r on the 6 now, so we'll see if anything changes.

Sorry to just barge in, but how stable is the intake itself? i.e. Maybe it is my imagination,

but when I secured my intake to a mounting point to keep it from flopping around, it

seemed to stabilize my afr's quite a bit.

If we find someone with no surge ports and the HTP 4" intake then we will get an answer surrounding the surge ports vs the intake design itself.

:17:I'm installing one next weekend if no one gets around to it first, My old gt3071r, no surge porting and HTP 4". @rfinkle2; that actually seems to make some sense ...

No rich spikes at all?
You are not running a MAF screen right? Might have to try taking mine out see if it helps.
Oh and apropos nothing at all why change terboh? If you do a TS manifold for the 35 I hope you jig it. I wantz TS for long time meow.

Tomas, what are your closed loop exit delays set to?

Also, what size throttle body are you running in your car?

I surged the BW a couple times really good, and the bearings started to fail. I pulled it off a couple weeks ago to take measurements, and there is quite a bit of shaft play. I've had a 35r on the shelf for almost a year now, and want to play with something that spools a bit faster. I'll run it as a standard 35r and then get the HTA treatment to compare.

I'll replace the bearings on the BW and probably sell it with my manifold, a down pipe (new) and dump tubes at some point. Then build a new long tube mani after relocating the alternator. Probably months til all that shit is done though, so, i'll just enjoy the 35r for now.

Re: MAF calibrations for bigger intakes
 

Did somebody say TS T3 gtx3576?

I thought I smelled win.

Zigatapatalka

Rob,
Fuck now you gave me something else to wonder about. You instigator you.
They are set to A 15 and B and C to 30

Stock TB right now. That god damn bigger TB was another fail project I was never really able to get to work smoothly. I must have adjusted the throtle blade screws on both ends over 80 times and it never really ran like stock. I am not one to give up easily however so that fucker will go back in some day. Shit, I can only imagine how the car would run with the 4" intake and the bigger TB. It would probably literally ram my dentures into the steering wheel on every gear change.

LOL. You crack me up Tomas. Always make me have a good laugh.

I don't think it is your issue, but setting your A, B and C tables to 10 may help.

I'm interested to see how this finally gets worked out.

I am ready for teh buttseckz when you are.

Is there room for one more? :3some:

I doubt exit delays are going to help here. Anyone with the htp 4 run smoothly?

We can triangulate you in.

Geez Lex, it was just a thought. Sorry to interrupt your teaching session.

Yes to someone running the 4" intake smoothly and we were talking about it in his thread until you asked the discussion be moved here.

Smoogs' car is running well with the 4" intake.

So was mine. :P

@smoogs12; what's your car setup in terms of intake, turbo housing (surge ports, no surge ports) BPV, and how it runs when shifting and letting off the throttle? Any surging or bucking? Do you have a log of shifting at low loads?

I'm experiencing bucking at low loads/rpms with the 3.5" htp intake and stock turbo. I think it's cuz I have a exhaustl eak at the mani tho.

It's possible. The WBO2 can be fooled into thinking you are running lean and then cause the car to run richer. That being said it should not buck. Also when you have throttle transitions such as during shifting the ECU does not use the WBO2 and this points more to MAF sensor turbulence. Post up a log.

Re: MAF calibrations for bigger intakes
 

Just an FYI.

Due to all this new discussion I decided I would watch my afrs when I let off the throttle and when I push the clutch in. In both instances AFR goes to about 13.5 then drops down to the normal 29.

I am curious if this is part of the reason I feel a slight hesitation between shifts.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Intake-HTP 4"
Turbo housing- No surge ports
Still running stock bpv

No surging or bucking. I'm not sure if I have a log, but I could take one if you were interested.

Re: MAF calibrations for bigger intakes
 

Htp 4" here with surge ports and synapse dv. No bucking or surging whatsoever. I'll try to get some logs as well.

The guys that have no issues, get a log just normal everyday shifting. Doesn't have to be WOT but use the WOT parameters:

Accel. Pedal Pos.
Actual AFR
Boost
Boosted Air Temp
Calculated Load
Coolant Temp
Engine Speed (RPM)
HPFP Actual Pressure
Injector Duty Cycle
Intake Temp
Intake Valve Adv.
Knock Retard
Long Term FT (LTFT)
MAF Voltage
Mass Airflow
Spark Advance
Throttle Position
Vehicle Speed
Wastegate Duty Cycle

@Etipp98; @smoogs12; @Tomas; get a picture of your honey comb looking straight into the intake if possible. Also post an engine bay shot.

Re: MAF calibrations for bigger intakes
 

Might be helpful to post an engine bay shot too. Air movement within the bay could impact this as well.

Zigatapatalka

@Lex; here is my intake. I can get a different shot if needed. I just have this one in my phone.

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...320_183653.jpg

Here are some logs from the other day.

^^ The datalog 5 does show dips into 10.9 AFR at some points after throtle lift and leaning out to 16.5 aft when back in gear. Could be that's not enough variance to cause bucking.

The 4" HTP intakes come with honey comb correct?

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/...219-2043-1.jpg

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/...20226-1818.jpg

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/...11226-1859.jpg

Re: MAF calibrations for bigger intakes
 

Yes HTP has honeycomb

Am i the only 4" with no honey comb?

@Tomas; that's not an HTP intake - is that your engine bay?

No. DJ also not haz

Not it's not. It's DIY
And yes it is.

So did you just install the honeycomb or was it there during the bucking logs?

I've had the honeycomb from the start.
Once I am done doing the ongoing shift control table tests I'll take it off and see what happens. First I want to understand a bit more how the motor reacts to changes in the shift control tables. There are quite a few different variations and changes in the tables don't always have the effect I would think they should have so I am still in trial and error phase.

Where did you pick up that nifty little hose for your BPV?

Home depot. Lol. That was only temporary till I ordered and cut the correct silicone hose to size. That flex hose is plastic and not very good for engine bay temps.

So many variables here. Are you able to put a honeycomb behind the maf sensor as well?

Damn haha was kinda liking where that was goin

Yeah. I can do that.

I took some shifting logs, but apparently the logging rate on my old AP is too low with all the requested parameters to get a good look. Only one or two datapoints in a shift.

I also did a couple light throttle offs, and the AFRs do go slightly rich but the MAF V seems stable. Also did some extended engine braking and idling, looking for the MAF voltage to spike or behave oddly, but no dice, its all very clean and stable, at least at the low logging rate I saw.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...1&d=1364431648

Zoomed in on shifting
http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...1&d=1364431648

Ziggo you hais a 4"?

I only haz 3.5" but wanted to get some data up showing the curve of a car NOT having issues for comparison

Observations over the last 2 weeks playing around with the shift control tables:

Load based fuel compensation clutch in seems to be a sort of fueling decay rate by which the ECU gradually cuts fuel on throtle lift while the clutch is depressed. So if you decrease the null type adjustment you will notice the AFR dropping to zero, or 29.3 display, at a faster rate. In my case a decrease of 50% or more leads to a very notchy feel when you press in the clutch. I.e the car will rock more and RPMS will drop faster. On the other hand it somewhat decreases the rich spikes right after throtle lift.

Load based compensation clutch out is the same but it applies when you just lift off the throttle without touching the throttle. A lower number will make the engine drop fueling faster and also makes for a somewhat rougher feel. It feels like the throttle plate closes more with more violence.

The ignition timing limit throtle closed min all tables set to -3 does help a little compared to -13.50 but it's not a huge difference.

The best compromise I was able to get was 30% lower on both load based fuel comp clutch in and out and -3 deg min ignition timing limit.

I have to note however that my car is a probably a bit more modified than most. The head is massively ported as is the IM with VTCs removed. I did that mostly for the injector I am running pre TB from DJ so the fuel wouldn't pool too much before getting to the combustion chamber. Add to that the web cams and lighter eagle rods which make the engine a lot more rev happy, and things can quickly get too overwhelming for the ECU. On a fairly stock engine I don't believe the drawbacks of a 4" would be so noticeable if at all.

So what if we increase the clutch in/out tables? To slow down the rpm drop. My car only likes when I shift quickly. If I don't, the car will buck.