Help Debugging the High Load OTS tune

[Steve @ VersaTune]

Just looking at the tune, you could probably go back to 100% BCS at 1500 and 2000
Your req loads by gear are lower than your app req load@100%, so you will see load cuts (throttle closure)at full throttle as the ecu tries to keep the load below those gear caps.
You could in the ol afr target keep that .796 lambda right out untill 5k then start tapering, that might help with the fp issue as well.

The per gear load limits are limits on requested load. They do not limit actual load. The operating load limit is what limits actual load.

[Steve @ VersaTune]

Ok guys, so here's what I did:
- adjusted the Boost Control -> BCS DC Base table based on what I have in the logs (WOT logs, the WG Duty cycle values I used were for 16.5-19.2PSI of boost, depending on the RPM values - around 14-14.5 for 6000 and more). I don't have any OL logs below 3000rpm so the duty cycle changes I did for the 1500-2500 interval are based on what I had in the logs for that RPM interval at 30% or more APP (the TP was higher as well, so it wasn't just the pedal pressed a bit but also the throttle opened, so I think the WG DC values I have there are usable).

OL and CL load targeting are the same.

OL and CL only apply to fuel and spark.

[Steve @ VersaTune]

I was really wondering why are the load targets for the 5/6 gears set to significantly lower values while the stock map has the load targets set higher than gears 3/4 IIRC.

I have a VT log with a few pulls in 3rd, 4th and 5th that never caught any low FRP spot, but obviously it got a few lines with load around/above 2 (2.0something). So for now I'll just leave those values untouched and see how my car will perform with these new WG duty cycle values. I'll also try to see if there's any rpm range where I get constant KR at high part throttle and enrich the mixture a bit (or should I take a degree of timing back instead?).

Slowly we're getting there, I had the versatune MAP on my car for 30-35km and then I replaced it after I got scared pretty well of those FRP drops. But I never stopped to like it.
When I purchased the VT there was a form where the customer had to submit the list of mods, it would be really awesome if in time the customers will get some advice on what to change on the OTS tunes to avoid problems. But I guess that will come in time after will be enough tunes in the database.

Req load is lower in 5/6 because it tends to creep in those gears.

I am working on a Base tune for DP/high flow equipped cars. The trouble is, the farther you get from stock, the more unique the tunes become.

[mituc]

I am working on a Base tune for DP/high flow equipped cars. The trouble is, the farther you get from stock, the more unique the tunes become.

Steve, that's good news!
The versatuner is supposed to be used for custom tuning and that already makes every car kind of unique. Add each set of mods to that and it gets even more complex. However, having an OTS tune properly designed to work with a specific mod that wasn't addressed before can be used as a starting point by a lot of people having that mod among some others and will give people the opportunity to see how the parameters change when addressing such a mod. Definitely good news, thanks in advance!

Btw, if you have two spare minutes maybe you can take a look at my tune and let me know what you think. I'm re-doing the MAF cal now because I wanted to address those down to -9 LTFT's, looks like the MAF air flow was over estimated in some sections.

[manselainen]

P.S.: maselainen, sometimes the pids are not updating as fast as they are read but what you're seeing there I guess is just a constantly high flow of air entering the engine, maxed out for a few seconds during almost the entire pull.

Eh, I think logs should look something like

Time (s) Absolute load Mass airflow (g/s) Accelerator pedal position (%) Actual equivalence ratio (lambda)
75,84 1,738398693 166 99 0,780530858
76,08 1,941797386 185 100 0,765625
76,32 2,053202614 197 100 0,765625
76,56 2,116678973 211 100 0,771582031
76,8 2,155007729 224 100 0,767480469
77,04 2,184198868 236 100 0,765625
77,28 2,203839869 244 100 0,759675732
77,52 2,190735294 249 100 0,763769531

See how values change every cycle.

Your logs look something like

Time RPM Speed Boost WG DC ABSLoad MAF g/s
2011-12-23 17:01:35.378+02 3993,5 77 9,57264 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.379+02 3993,5 77 9,57264 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.388+02 3993,5 77 9,57264 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.426+02 3993,5 79 9,57264 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.428+02 4067,25 79 9,57264 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.437+02 4067,25 79 14,9391 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.438+02 4067,25 79 14,9391 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.439+02 4067,25 79 14,9391 0 0,439215698 31,87
2011-12-23 17:01:35.465+02 4067,25 79 14,9391 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.506+02 4067,25 82 14,9391 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.507+02 4159,75 82 14,9391 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.509+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.518+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.536+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.576+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.579+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.58+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.586+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.606+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.627+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.646+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.696+02 4159,75 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.697+02 4303 82 19,1453 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.699+02 4303 82 18,7102 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.707+02 4303 82 18,7102 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.728+02 4303 82 18,7102 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.776+02 4303 85 18,7102 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.779+02 4383,5 85 17,5498 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.787+02 4383,5 85 17,5498 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.788+02 4383,5 85 17,5498 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.807+02 4383,5 85 17,5498 0 0,439215698 240,13
2011-12-23 17:01:35.857+02 4383,5 88 17,5498 0 0,439215698 240,13

This can not be true even if logging frequency is much higher than with VT. Some variables are updating but some not (e.g. MAF g/s). Somehow the logging device is not acquiring data correctly.

Just trying to help...

[mituc]

When I was trying to put together my MAF cal using the dasdaq logs I figured that the MAF voltage never goes above 3.5 or something. Not sure why, I have changed this from Ford Specific maf V to the OBD generic mav V to see what happens when I'll use the logging next time.

Now I begin to doubt about the maf flow rate as well.

And yes, you are right, since my last reply about this issue I had some time to investigate and this proved you were right.

Anyway, for my current MAF cal I'm using the versatuner logs. I have also changed some parameters in my dashdaq so now I'm logging the OBD generic instance as much as possible instead of the Ford specific. I wasted like one hour trying to make all these changes after I've found you were right and also thinking about the logging rate for model specific parameters Steve told us about 1-2 days ago.

[mituc]

Here it is, if I'll have some spare time maybe I'll be able to try it out tomorrow.

[mituc]

Ok, with that BCD DC table the max boost was around 17PSI in 3rd and 16PSI in 4th (it was going up to 18.5 only in 5th), and under hard acceleration when shifting from 3rd to 4th, once in 4th the car was like thinking about it and doing nothing for a fraction of a second.
The load was still going up to 2 though, not sure why or how, maybe because of the more aggressive ignition tables and leaner fuelling?

Anyway, I made a few more adjustments including the MAF CAL which I totally screw up in the 1.06 MAP (applied the corrections to the reported maf g/s instead of the values I had in my original MAF cal - epic script FAIL resulting in up to +20% LTFT's , I had to download the first MAF cal form home to fix it and ran the same -8 - +2% LTFT's - decent but far from what I was shooting for).

These changes include:
- revised BCS DC table;
- lowered Load Targeting -> Req Load Limits (overall and per RPM) from 3 (!!) to 2.4. I did not change the Absolute Limits -> Overall Load Limits 1/2 though - not sure if I should (I noticed that they are 19-24% over stock, so I could lower them to like +17-22% over stock instead), maybe someone could enlighten me.
- increased the speed limit from 250Kmph to 263Kmph (throttle closure) and from 265 to 270 (fuel cut) - irrelevant for how the MAP would perform overall though.
- I left the Fuelling -> Fuel Pressure Targets as they were in the previous MAP, the only changes over to the High Load map was to lower the 1799 FRP target values for load >=1.8 rpm>=4000 from 1799 to 1779. The base map has them set to stock, for a moment I thought to lower them to like 1729 1739 max or so but since my pump (the stock pump with 64k miles on it) can spit fuel out with 1800+ with no problem I should be ok and also the engine should be safer. Any thoughts here?

Let's see how this one works. It's moist outside now so I'll most probably be spinning in 5th, I'll flash the new map, drive the car for a while and let it adjust (and take a few more logs for an even better MAF cal) and then try some WOT runs. I'm getting pretty KR around 4200-5000 rpm at WOT occasionally, I hope that once my MAF cal will be perfect I'll change either the lambda targets or pull a degree of timing off those values and see what happens - I'm basically asking your advice here too.

[Sassimac]

I wish I could read those files to see what was done. But I have a CX7, not a Speed3.

[mituc]

Well, indeed, the CX7's are tuned differently because of the AWD, different gear ratios and weight. I guess the automatic transmission versions are even more different as they have a different turbo and make only 244PS instead of 260 IIRC. But if you want to take a look I could share the OTS high-load map for you.