TD_D mod journey. From stock to the 'bastardmobile'

[Td_d]

Thanks for that - I think what I can do is change the resolution in the last 3 columns from 0.2 changes (leading up to 3.2) to .4 changes, which will get me up to 4, where I can drop the timing smoothly across the newly revised top end cells. I will also match the advance table with the revised resolution at the top.

I gather as a yardstick, I should drop timing in the advance table at the problematic areas by 2 degrees minimum (and smooth the surrounding cells) as the preferred approach.

 

[Td_d]

Ok, have revised the axis which now go up to 4.2 (in .4 steps), and smoothly dropped the timing 1 in the early RPMs, 1.5 in the early mid, 2 in the mid heavy and 2.4 in the upper end, per cell. In effect the timing has dropped about 4* from where it was before. I've left the advance the same so that it can be used to tweak specific areas. To give an idead, at the problematic areas 4400 RPMs (and surrounds) combined timing has dropped from 14.81 at 4.2 (which looking at it now I can see why I was getting knock) to 11.29. If I see that it's happy at this timing, I can slow start raising the base timing (say .5 at a time) in the newly changed cells until I spot knock in a particular areas, and then back off (and potentially use the advance to push upwards a little).

Now lets hope EGTs are not seriously climbing due to the lowered timing - but water/meth injection should be helping in this respect.

Oh - also edited the AVCS tables to reflect the same axis.

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

Yes that's the idea exactly. Don't forget to adjust your knock threshold load limits to coincide with your new load settings.

 

[Td_d]

Knock correction threshold limits would be the 'fine correction' load limits in Romraider, right? In other words, how far up the load scale FLKC will be applied?

Another thing - will my fueling tables need to reflect the new load scaling as well, or can I rely on the last value (in my case 3.2 load) being carried up all the way to the new loads at the top? I'd rather not start changing the fuel maps now, will through to MAF out completely.

As a matter of interest - I gather I should expect to have to rescale the MAF in OL again given the new timings, correct?

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

Yes... there is one for fine knock learned and one for feedback knock correction

 

[Td_d]

Well - for FBKC there's only a 'switch' i.e. off below X load, and on above X load (i.e. a minimum load), wherease for FLKC there is a 4 cell tables (off below, on above, on below, off above). Set these relatively high already, so covered.

Should the IAM 'rough correction' table also be adjusted up - surely I should rely on IAM rough correction right up to the really high loads, especially given that failsafe is reliant on it?

 

[Td_d]

Apologies for the flurry of questions I'm just rather nervous to make sure this is done properly given the extreme conditions that the engine is operating under at these levels. I think I edited the post after you responded, but see the two other questions on fueling and scaling two posts up.

Another question - I'm seeing loads up to 5.57 (I think that's in 4th, up a hill and close to 6000 Rpms) - that seems quite extreme! Is that normal on a build like this - granted, it's sleeved as well.

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

Knock correction threshold limits would be the 'fine correction' load limits in Romraider, right? In other words, how far up the load scale FLKC will be applied?

Another thing - will my fueling tables need to reflect the new load scaling as well, or can I rely on the last value (in my case 3.2 load) being carried up all the way to the new loads at the top? I'd rather not start changing the fuel maps now, will through to MAF out completely.

As a matter of interest - I gather I should expect to have to rescale the MAF in OL again given the new timings, correct?

Yes and no. It is what I would do but realistically the fuel you have defined in the last column of your fuel table is likely good for higher loads. Now if you are hitting 5.5 load then I would define loads up to that point and redefine your fuel and timing.

Well - for FBKC there's only a 'switch' i.e. off below X load, and on above X load (i.e. a minimum load), wherease for FLKC there is a 4 cell tables (off below, on above, on below, off above). Set these relatively high already, so covered.

Should the IAM 'rough correction' table also be adjusted up - surely I should rely on IAM rough correction right up to the really high loads, especially given that failsafe is reliant on it?

I'm sorry. Yes it is the rough correction table. The GD has one for feedback correction.

Apologies for the flurry of questions I'm just rather nervous to make sure this is done properly given the extreme conditions that the engine is operating under at these levels. I think I edited the post after you responded, but see the two other questions on fueling and scaling two posts up.

Another question - I'm seeing loads up to 5.57 (I think that's in 4th, up a hill and close to 6000 Rpms) - that seems quite extreme! Is that normal on a build like this - granted, it's sleeved as well.

Though I have never seen this I suppose it is possible. You must be putting down some serious power and I think you might be slowing down the speed of the earth when you go WOT in a easterly direction. Cut it out cuz your fucking with my biological clock :lol:

No wonder this day is dragging!

 

[Td_d]

Hehehe... touch?! It makes me wonder whether the load calculated (g/rev) readings are actually fully accurate...

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

I think they are. Your set up is very high end and very power prodcuing and it is perfectly feasible to expect that kind of load. I personally have not seen it in anything I have done but I have yet to get as extreme as you.

I saw loads last year on my car exceed 4 and that was only with a 20G at 21psi. Guess what... your much beyond that.

 

[Td_d]

Hmm... there's 'Engine Load (calculated) g/rev' and Engine Load (2 byte) g/rev - I'm wondering whether the calculated load is perhaps becoming increasingly inaccurate at the top end...

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

^^^ is thinking to much LOL

 

[Td_d]

Holy moly, ok... what really pisses me off, I have to vent, is the more I'm learning about the complexities and interconnectedness of the numerous variables in the ECU, and key, the importance of setting them correctly to obtain safe power, the more I'm realising how inadequate the original tune from the tuner is! To give you some examples

- rough correction was set to stock tables - i.e. off above 2.9 load. What's the point of setting failsafe maps that trigger through IAM, and then not setting the IAM range high enough to actually trigger - when you most need it?
- Knock correction thresholds (initially, I long ago upped them) also stock - off after 6300rpms. Wholly inadequate.
- Fueling and ignition maps still mapped to stock upper load ranges - 3.2. Even with a tame tune, it is guranteed that loads will be much higher than 3.2.

And on, and on... all of these are key parameters that are key to the safety and longevity of the motor. Ignorance is not bliss... [/rant]

 

[Td_d]

Well, I just discovered another damn variable (taking a quick drive) - the maximum load limit tables are also stock, sigh... max cap of 5 - but wait for it - RPM limited cap at low and top end of 4. So my intuition on the calculated load was right, Holy, chuckle... thinking too much is what I do! :tard: The calculated load versus the raw 1byte and 4byte variables are not tracking smoothly (calculated is higher), but I'm not 100% sure exactly how high load was going in terms of the correct variables, since the engine load was capped... It's definately higher than 4, that's for sure - I'm hitting 4 at around 4650 Rpms, full throttle, 4th gear (and if I'm not mistaken, up a hill!). So I'm probably going to top out at between 4.5 and 5 - which is still a damn sight higher than 3.2, dammit.

I will only be certain that I'm right about the calculated load being seriously off now that I've taken the cap off the max engine load, but I hit 6.51 (calculated) drive. No way, that's warp speed, chuckle...

 

[Td_d]

Scheizer... to use a nice German expression. For whatever reason, I cannot raise the engine load maximum (RPM) value beyond 4g/rev (Table A, an absolute maximum, no problem). I've raised a query on the openecu forums, but if I cannot resolve it, the only solution will be to reduce the injector scalar by a significant %, and the entire MAF scale down proportionately - given that calculated load = airflow / (RPM/60). Obviously, as the numerator increases relative to a specific RPM cell, the calculated load increases. It does point to the fact that the scalar is out slightly, will throw some number together to get an idea - as I figure I should be between 4.5 and 5 g/rev at the most (looking at some similar setups in the various power bragging posts).

FML. More closed loop scaling if I need to do this again...

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

What table are you looking at specifically?

 

[Td_d]

Engine load maximum B (rpms)

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

Oh I see... I don't have an answer for this. I don't even know when that table is envoked. It doesn't exist on the GD.

 

[Td_d]

Well - at least I know my reasoning is sound! The table is indeed limited to a maximum of 4 (on the 08 STI's) due to the formula, which means that I will indeed have to

a) Reduce the injector flow down by X%
b) Reduce the entire MAF scale by same percentage
c) Reduce the load scaling on all load axis (fueling, timing, etc.) by the same percentage.

In other words, artificially reducing the load the engine calculates to stay under 4. I can already confirm that this works - reduced the MAF scale by 15% and the injector flow by 15%, and load is not exceeding 4.06 now.

Yeesh, I wish I'd know this upfront...

Check out this thread on openecu:

http://www.romraider.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7254&p=68059#p68059

 

[Td_d]

This also explains the knock I experienced - the timing applied was for a lower perceived load that it actually was - so basically too high a timing was being applied.