Another Load Question

Discussion of tuning specific to MAZDASPEED3/MAZDASPEED Axela/Mazda 3 MPS vehicles
mituc
VersaTuner guru
Posts: 1323
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 2:47 pm
Location: Iasi/Romania

Re: Another Load Question

Post by mituc »

Dolfius wrote:Yes Bosch 3Bar MAP sensor. I didn't log MAP, but boost pressure and Baro pressure was logged- Boost+Baro=MAP as far as I understand it. So it can be a either or.
Boost is irrelevant... it's just the difference between the barometric pressure and the absolute manifold pressure. It does not appear anywhere in the ECU calibration, but the manifold absolute pressure (MAP) does appear everywhere.
Dolfius wrote: But it didn't get anywhere near the boost limit of 22psi set. I know VT uses load tune logic, so looking at the log the load is also off from the 2.16 target set in the map. And this is my issue. In the one log, the load is pegged at 1.925 from around 4500rpm all the way to 6000rpm. Even though the map has WGDC to work with, and a 20% WGDC correction to work with, it still only gave spring pressure (because 0% WGDC) and didn't get to 2.0 load at all. Which is incorrect. The load at that flow should be at the very least 2.1.

Why is the load getting pegged at 1.925? What table am I missing that's preventing the load targets from being reached?
Ok, but do you have any idea what BARO does your sensors read? You alter the MAP limits only in those areas which correspond accurately to the barometric pressure in your area as reported by accurate weather devices but unless you are sure the sensors on your car see the same you should either work with MAP and MAP only, not boost, or also log BARO along with boost to get an idea where on the MAP tables you actually land.

So why did load peg around 1.915 in that log? Hard to tell without a proper log... but with 0WGDC and all going at spring pressure it's clear that the ECU logic was pulling back WGDC, thus boost and power, to stay below some configured limits.
The load reported in that log though is correct. Load is proportional with the AIR flow, volumetric efficiency and 1/RPM, so in that case the air flow increased linearly with the RPM.
2008 Cosmic Blue Mazda 3MPS
Built engine + WMI + GTX3071 gen2, ~509BHP @34PSI
2008 Icy Blue Mazda CX7
Stock engine and exhaust (YES!!), JBR3" + GTX2867 gen2 + Autotech HPFP, self-tuned to 330-ish BHP
Dolfius
Posts: 64
Joined: May 31st, 2017, 2:54 am

Re: Another Load Question

Post by Dolfius »

mituc wrote: Ok, but do you have any idea what BARO does your sensors read? You alter the MAP limits only in those areas which correspond accurately to the barometric pressure in your area as reported by accurate weather devices but unless you are sure the sensors on your car see the same you should either work with MAP and MAP only, not boost, or also log BARO along with boost to get an idea where on the MAP tables you actually land..
Yep. As per the last logs sent : 12.2psi Baromatic pressure. I actually change the values in the areas where the Baro pressure falls in the 12.2psi range. Because that's what the MAP sensor reads it is. Are there more sensors that feedback this info?

I believe this reading to be correct, because with KOEO the boost reads almost 0, which is how one can tell if the MAP sensor values have been altered correctly. Unless VT has a different approach to this logic?
mituc wrote: So why did load peg around 1.915 in that log? Hard to tell without a proper log
What do you regard as a proper log?
mituc wrote: ... but with 0WGDC and all going at spring pressure it's clear that the ECU logic was pulling back WGDC, thus boost and power, to stay below some configured limits.
And that's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. W
mituc
VersaTuner guru
Posts: 1323
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 2:47 pm
Location: Iasi/Romania

Re: Another Load Question

Post by mituc »

Dolfius wrote:And that's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. W
In that tune I think you also had the WGDC increase set to 0, so the ECU logic will not pursue the load target by altering WGDC.

And you are right, you're also logging BARO. Yet logging only MAP instead of boost and baro may be easier :)
Adding the desired AFRs in one of the cells you free up may also give you an indication about where your MAF calibration is.
2008 Cosmic Blue Mazda 3MPS
Built engine + WMI + GTX3071 gen2, ~509BHP @34PSI
2008 Icy Blue Mazda CX7
Stock engine and exhaust (YES!!), JBR3" + GTX2867 gen2 + Autotech HPFP, self-tuned to 330-ish BHP
Dolfius
Posts: 64
Joined: May 31st, 2017, 2:54 am

Re: Another Load Question

Post by Dolfius »

I don't know anymore. At a point where I'm ready to give up with this.

The Baro pressure here is 12.2psi. I adjust the tables for excatly that. The WGDC values and error compensation tables have their workable values populated. Load targets have been set everywhere.

And still, not hitting load targets with this map. the moment I reaquest higher loads, the AFR goes all funny, theload actually does exceed 2, but nowhere near what has been set to. AFR then goes extremely lean. And I can feel certian tables fight against each other.

I sent Steve a couple of logs and a map, and still haven't had any reply since.

So I don't know where else to look. Whom else to ask that has more indepth knowledge.
Attachments
Rev5.4 Data log - 2019-03-21 22.07.00.csv
(10.83 KiB) Downloaded 329 times
Rev5.4 Data log - 2019-03-21 22.07.59.csv
(9.29 KiB) Downloaded 331 times
2019 Base Map Rev5.4 v1.00.vtune
(108.67 KiB) Downloaded 328 times
Dolfius
Posts: 64
Joined: May 31st, 2017, 2:54 am

Re: Another Load Question

Post by Dolfius »

Some more logs of the same map. Literally the only thing I adjusted between all of the revisions here was the WGDC. APP Load and related load table targets are set to 2.3. Absolute load limits set to 2.7.

The more WGDC, the higher the boost and flow, yet the lower the absolute load :lol: :D :lol:

One can also see the AFR go leaner as the boost and WGDC go up, as well as the throttle start closing. Yet the load and boost is within the allowable target limits.
There is absolutely no reason (that I can see) why the ECU should intervene. Yet it seems to be doing it anyway. :banghead
Attachments
Data log - 2019-03-24 23.31.41.csv
(10.45 KiB) Downloaded 346 times
Data log - 2019-03-24 23.16.59.csv
(11.33 KiB) Downloaded 329 times
Data log - 2019-03-24 23.01.58.csv
(10.02 KiB) Downloaded 300 times
Data log - 2019-03-24 22.44.03.csv
(10.98 KiB) Downloaded 330 times
Data log - 2019-03-24 22.26.39.csv
(10.5 KiB) Downloaded 334 times
mituc
VersaTuner guru
Posts: 1323
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 2:47 pm
Location: Iasi/Romania

Re: Another Load Question

Post by mituc »

Well, 13.2AFR at about 11 desired and 380+ g/s of air... I have to admit you have a strong engine.
At this point I really think you should purchase a e-tuning service... at least benefit from an experienced tuner knowledge and understand what's wrong.
2008 Cosmic Blue Mazda 3MPS
Built engine + WMI + GTX3071 gen2, ~509BHP @34PSI
2008 Icy Blue Mazda CX7
Stock engine and exhaust (YES!!), JBR3" + GTX2867 gen2 + Autotech HPFP, self-tuned to 330-ish BHP
Dolfius
Posts: 64
Joined: May 31st, 2017, 2:54 am

Re: Another Load Question

Post by Dolfius »

Yeah I don't know anymore, man. Like I said at some point - I am NOT new to tuning my own car. Tuned it on the other platform to over 450HP without issues.

I'll perhaps give one of the pro-tuners a try. But if they end up seeing the same results? What then? Do I request a refund from someone? Lol

Won't happen soon though - this rebuilt made me broke af lmao
mituc
VersaTuner guru
Posts: 1323
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 2:47 pm
Location: Iasi/Romania

Re: Another Load Question

Post by mituc »

Looking again at your logs I can see how the boost is consistent with the air flow, and how the AFRs are consistent with the Injector duty cycle at that air flow. So I don't think you have an issue with any of the sensors on your car now.

What I'd do is to rely more on the MAF calibration (eventually see how much off that is) by lowering the Closed Loop Load Limits (1/2/3) under the Absolute Limits section to about 1-1.2 across the board (or at least anywhere above 2500rpm).

Also, looking at your MAF calibration I understand you have a 4" HTP intake with the MAF cal taken from the MSF forum. You have two problems with that:
1. your MAF cal seems to be shifter one cell to the right. Apart from your car running a little richer I wouldn't see any other impact from that, but that last cell being 329g/s may throw off the overall interpolation.
2. you have the airflow values set to 0 up until pretty late, like 0.858V, and then they suddenly start at 2.1g/s which is not ok. What I usually do is to start with those Stratified MAF cals and in those areas where they're at 0 g/s I revert to the factory values and multiply them with the surface difference between the stock 2.65" diameter intake and whatever intake I'm calibrating (squared diameter for aftermarket intake / squared diameter of the stock intake).
2008 Cosmic Blue Mazda 3MPS
Built engine + WMI + GTX3071 gen2, ~509BHP @34PSI
2008 Icy Blue Mazda CX7
Stock engine and exhaust (YES!!), JBR3" + GTX2867 gen2 + Autotech HPFP, self-tuned to 330-ish BHP
Dolfius
Posts: 64
Joined: May 31st, 2017, 2:54 am

Re: Another Load Question

Post by Dolfius »

Thanks for still offering suggestions and thoughts, Mituc.

I'll give those changes a try, though I doubt they will influence the problem I'm experiencing in any way. My intake is a custom 4" BTW, with an air straightener of sorts.

I've changed those values on a previous suggestion of yours. However, I've done so again at someone else's suggestion, along with making the BCS DC Base 0 across the board.

So the interesting thing here is, the MAF seems more or less on point now (4" intakes are hard do dial in to remain stable). Four logs attached, of which 3 of those the throttle didn't open up more until much later in the log. I plotted these in VD (not to gauge power but to view the AFR visually on a graph) and only noticed then because of that.
Req load targets for this map was left at 2.7 though. Over boost protection tables were also left quite high.
Attachments
VD.PNG
VD.PNG (689.42 KiB) Viewed 10024 times
4 Inch Air Straightener.PNG
4 Inch Air Straightener.PNG (996.15 KiB) Viewed 10024 times
Data log - 2019-04-08 23.33.20.csv
(11.01 KiB) Downloaded 332 times
Data log - 2019-04-08 23.34.59.csv
(12.18 KiB) Downloaded 335 times
Data log - 2019-04-09 00.13.30.csv
(11.37 KiB) Downloaded 325 times
Data log - 2019-04-09 00.14.37.csv
(11.33 KiB) Downloaded 346 times
mituc
VersaTuner guru
Posts: 1323
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 2:47 pm
Location: Iasi/Romania

Re: Another Load Question

Post by mituc »

Dolfius wrote:My intake is a custom 4" BTW, with an air straightener of sorts.
I remember doing a 4" intake MAF cal for someone and I remember it was fine. I have to look up the tune though. they are harder to dial in at low air flows because the air likes to go around the MAF rather than hitting it, just because it has a lot of room to do so, but it can be done.

So in these last logs we can clearly see that the WGDC stay close to 0 (2% is nothing) because you zero-ed them out and left no adjustability in there. But the system is behaving as tuned, and the AFRs are also ok. It's possible that they become a lot off in the upper MAF voltage range where the offset starts being of a higher magnitude, like tens of g/s of air.

The timing is super weird as well, your tune triggers more timing in the 4000-5000rpm range than in the 6000-6500. You're probably seeing a lot of black smoke behind your car during a pull, but the main issue with that is the exhaust gas temperatures which can start affecting the exhaust valve seals.

Your issues kind of got me triggered, if you want me to help you with your tune just let me know. I'm not a professional tuner so I don't charge people for this kind of stuff, but I care about keeping alive any of these engines I can no matter where they are on the planet.
2008 Cosmic Blue Mazda 3MPS
Built engine + WMI + GTX3071 gen2, ~509BHP @34PSI
2008 Icy Blue Mazda CX7
Stock engine and exhaust (YES!!), JBR3" + GTX2867 gen2 + Autotech HPFP, self-tuned to 330-ish BHP
Post Reply