TD_D mod journey. From stock to the 'bastardmobile'
- Thread starter Td_d
- Start date
-
- Tags
- meth injection td_d tuning
Td_d
Commander In Chief
Hi George - here's the latest set of logs on the new ROM - I must say, massive improvement - it's actually wholly driveable now. With the idle trick as well, it's much more manageable. I've fed the logs to my poor machine which is chewing away - what's instantly noticeable is all the corrections are now positive trims, and that the low end is now within the 5% average error. The top end however still has large errors, up to 25% - so the graph is still sloping upwards significantly.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3099895/New log 750B.zip
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3099895/New log 750B.zip
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
I need to chew on the data for a while. The latencies are rpetty low now as it is. I am hesitant to lower them anymore but we will see. We might apply another change to Latency just to see what it does. If the results are good then I will continue on. If not then we will leave latency alone and scale the MAF
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
Just so we are clear these are RC engineering injectors and they are Top Feed? You wouldn't happen to have the part number? I'm having a hell of a time trying to find data on these
Td_d
Commander In Chief
I was wondering the same - we've dropped the latencies quite low already, and it certainly has had the desired effect in the low end of the g/s spectrum, but it's looking quite high at the top end - actuall higher now than the previous set of latencies used (although the cc/min scaling is significantly different). 'On paper' it looks better, but i can tell from driving that this current ROM is significantly better than the previous one - there's still bucking at some areas of the RPM range (around 2200RPM and still at 3000RPM) but it's much less marked, much smoother.
Td_d
Commander In Chief
Definately - I also struggled a bit, but I did find data on them (and proposed latencies)- let me scratch around and find them again. Don't have a part number, but I'm sure I can get one tomorrow from the mechanic.
EDIT - ok, these were the figures I got (still trying to find the website):
RC750 scaled to 696
4.69v ;3.312
7.03v ;2.184
9.38v ;1.416
11.72v ;1.032
14.06v ;0.792
16.41v ;0.480
18.68v ;0.360
Last edited:
Td_d
Commander In Chief
Ok - found the site:
http://injector-rehab.com/shop/lag.html
Scroll down and you'll see the published latencies.
http://injector-rehab.com/shop/lag.html
Scroll down and you'll see the published latencies.
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
I missed this post... I think we should try these latencies...
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
I have a question about your intake. Is this still the same diameter as the stock one?
I think allot of our woes are also partly because of your current maf scaling. What I want to do is revert to stock scaling for the purpose of properly scaling injectors. but if the CAI is not the same diameter as the stock intake I will leave it as is.
What would be Ideal is if we can temporarily re-install the stock intake :tup:
I think allot of our woes are also partly because of your current maf scaling. What I want to do is revert to stock scaling for the purpose of properly scaling injectors. but if the CAI is not the same diameter as the stock intake I will leave it as is.
What would be Ideal is if we can temporarily re-install the stock intake :tup:
Td_d
Commander In Chief
I doubt it's the same diameter - see my journal, I would have to verify with mechanic, but I think the whole point was to increase it given the high PSI's we intend to run the Dom3 at... What might be an option is for me to go back to the road tune scaling that the mechanic did when he first installed with the stock injectors - that tune was flawless actually (other than maxing out IDCs...). I spoke to him this morning, he suggested that if we were struggling perhaps to stick with the stock latencies, and scale the MAF to that. I think let's try the published figures first - I like the resolution of the figures as well - let's face it - how often does voltage drop below 10V with a decent battery (and it's a warm climate here)? That table gives a lot more resolution between 10v - 16v by the looks of it.
Last edited:
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
Your current MAF scaling is very close to stock right now which would lead me to believe that the diameter is the same.
Regardless I think I would like to stay the coarse and continue with this tune I don't want to keep going back and forth and risk stepping on our own tails.
Can you please verify the MAF diameter for me. Physically measure it if you could.
In any case I have attached the next version. What I did here was make more adjustments to Latency and Injector Scale and since the MAF scaling is so close to stock, I simply reverted to the stock scale.
I just want to see how this one goes and would like for you to try it. I promise we are making headway :tup:
http://www.drift-ready.com/Files/TD_D/750RC_TD_D_02-03-2011.zip
Regardless I think I would like to stay the coarse and continue with this tune I don't want to keep going back and forth and risk stepping on our own tails.
Can you please verify the MAF diameter for me. Physically measure it if you could.
In any case I have attached the next version. What I did here was make more adjustments to Latency and Injector Scale and since the MAF scaling is so close to stock, I simply reverted to the stock scale.
I just want to see how this one goes and would like for you to try it. I promise we are making headway :tup:
http://www.drift-ready.com/Files/TD_D/750RC_TD_D_02-03-2011.zip
Td_d
Commander In Chief
I know ;-) No worries will do - I will see if I can measure the intake diameter physically tonight - will revert!
EDIT - I just saw from the original quotes on the modification - it's a 3" (aluminum intake pipe) - so its bigger (stock is 2.4" correct?)
Last edited:
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
Just thinking out loud here...
As we adjust latency we are flattening out the slope and at the same time that drives the entire calibration upwards. This much I expect. What I don't expect to see is how far from zero the errors are which leads me to believe that the MAF housing is a lot larger than we are telling the ECU it really is. We might have to apply a global multiplier to the MAF scale on the next revision if it turns out the MAF housing is larger. I would like to see how things goe first.
I excpect the stock housing to be somewhere around 66mm to 70mm ID
As we adjust latency we are flattening out the slope and at the same time that drives the entire calibration upwards. This much I expect. What I don't expect to see is how far from zero the errors are which leads me to believe that the MAF housing is a lot larger than we are telling the ECU it really is. We might have to apply a global multiplier to the MAF scale on the next revision if it turns out the MAF housing is larger. I would like to see how things goe first.
I excpect the stock housing to be somewhere around 66mm to 70mm ID
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
I don't know for sure but it is looking more like 80-83mm.
We won't know for sure until you actually measure it.
We won't know for sure until you actually measure it.
Td_d
Commander In Chief
You definately know your stuff George! Since I don't have calipers - measured the circumference - according to the rough calculations, the aluminum intake is approx 80cm in diameter, and the MAF housing is slightly bigger - but thicker, so internal diameter is likely to match intake - so yes, 80mm.
It's going to be a challenge once we scale higher up the MAF scale without a wideband... maybe I can borrow one from the mechanic.
Just off the first log this morning (although it's a decent 15-20 minute drive) results are looking much the same as yesterday with these published latencies - good at the low end, very high at the higher g/s range:
Ok - managed some highway driving - here's the next round! http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3099895/TD_D_log_3_feb.zip
It's going to be a challenge once we scale higher up the MAF scale without a wideband... maybe I can borrow one from the mechanic.
Just off the first log this morning (although it's a decent 15-20 minute drive) results are looking much the same as yesterday with these published latencies - good at the low end, very high at the higher g/s range:
Ok - managed some highway driving - here's the next round! http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3099895/TD_D_log_3_feb.zip
Last edited:
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
Okay good! Now we won't be chasing our tails.:lol:
When it comes time to do open loop then yes we will definitely need a wide band. If you can't get one then I suggest you have your tuner do the open loop part of the tune (provided he not touch the fuel table and tune via maf scaling) :tard:
I will crunch it and get you a new version to flash :tup:
When it comes time to do open loop then yes we will definitely need a wide band. If you can't get one then I suggest you have your tuner do the open loop part of the tune (provided he not touch the fuel table and tune via maf scaling) :tard:
I will crunch it and get you a new version to flash :tup:
Td_d
Commander In Chief
Chuckle, yeah - that's exactly why I'd prefer we continue - before any more :tard:'ing goes on :-D
HolyCrapItsFast
Drinks beer!
Okey Dokey
Here is the next rendition. All I did here was apply a multiplier to the entire maf scale to tell the ecu that we changed the MAF housing.
The way I came up with the multiplier was to take the new MAF housing diameter squared and divide it by the old MAF housing diameter squared.
Multiplier = (New Maf * New Maf) / (Old Maf * Old Maf)
This should get us much closer. I didn't bother looking at the logs this time. Give this a try. Also you don't have to kill yourself trying to give me so much data. Just one or two logs with a total of about 10-15 min of driving will suffice. We are still only making rough corrections.
http://www.drift-ready.com/Files/TD_D/750rc_2-04-2011.zip
Here is the next rendition. All I did here was apply a multiplier to the entire maf scale to tell the ecu that we changed the MAF housing.
The way I came up with the multiplier was to take the new MAF housing diameter squared and divide it by the old MAF housing diameter squared.
Multiplier = (New Maf * New Maf) / (Old Maf * Old Maf)
This should get us much closer. I didn't bother looking at the logs this time. Give this a try. Also you don't have to kill yourself trying to give me so much data. Just one or two logs with a total of about 10-15 min of driving will suffice. We are still only making rough corrections.
http://www.drift-ready.com/Files/TD_D/750rc_2-04-2011.zip
Last edited:
