i dont get why bitrusty does not have any additional RPM for A/C in teh closed loop idle section.

also, so you guys know... the settings in open loop idle are "baseline" values for those conditions. If you put 20 in the extra effort for A/C, it will instantly jump +30 over your base idle for those conditions to get closer to operating values for the PID.

for example: if your base idle is usually around 50 with nothing on and 60 with the A/C on, you could set A/C effort to 10.

On mine, I use that value to "catch" the hit from the a/c coming on. I think it's set to 24 or so. When a/c kicks on and load jumps to 40 or more kPa, the idle valve is wide open and revving the engine. Then the PID system corrects it as soon as it catches up.

Neither do I, but I tried it that way and it works. But then again, correct me if I am wrong here, that setting in the closed loop idle section is for deadband, not additional effort, right? That is the way I read it in the Adaptronic manual. But then again, if you open up the deadband, and you are biased (with the base idle settings) for higher RPM (than the closed loop target) then it would ACT like extra effort anyway. In other words, the idle would drift up to RPM = target idle + deadband (assuming RPM is less than what the baseline idle would be without PID).

My head hurts...

Yes I know. But good clarification for those who do not.

You know I think I tried that too (among 100 other things). If I understand you, the idea is to put in a huge base idle correction for A/C to avoid the stall (just like opening up the throttle, but a lot) and let the PID loop keep the RPM from grossly overshooting. I might not have tried nearly as much as 24 however. Good to hear it works after all. Maybe I should try it again. I can stop the engine from stalling if I stab the throttle when I turn on the A/C. This is effectively the same thing, but with the PID controlling overshoot.

Now my head really hurts... I need a beer.

glad to hear it give you at least some improvement :)

i have spent so much time fiddling with this in my garage my neighbours think i'm trying to gas myself lol

its certainly no solution to the problem but it helped a LOT with my ride

from a cold start, and any time up to 55c WT (open loop fuel), my idle is rock solid and the AC hit is bearly even noticable but my guess this is just the extra trim propping it up

I dont have any AC rpm in CL idle because it seems to have no effect on "the hit". it just raises the idle after recovering from the hit so i dont see the point.

same with my low extra effort idle numbers. nothing seems to work fast enough to catch the hit. delaying the onset of AC or the fans separately seems to be the only real way to fix

I thought 70ish was the recommended minimum. Something about anything under 70 odd was not enough for our idle air?

I used to try idle at 69 but its just crept up from much fiddling. I'll raise the min to 70 and see if its any different.

I'm screwed 3/4 - 1 turn back from closed.

Is it just this extra effort thats giving you the lean shot?

Ill post a log of my AC idle dip soon. Heres my whole tune if it helps.

running DW 600cc

this got me fiddling some more...

I get an even bigger improvement "capping" the max idle control

my settings were 69min 100max. now, they are 60 and 80

along with the settings i posted earlier, cap the max idle valve to say 80 and set the min to 60 to begin with and give it a go

your log shows the idle flatlining at 100% from all the extra effort


also, check this out! http://adaptronic.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=1232.0

I added in the extra effort for the fans and now the idle doesn't dip like it did before. I didn't do any of the other settings though because I didn't feel like messing with it. I get an occasional low idle and once in a blue moon it will stall on me.

So I was still having some stalling problems just with the fans coming on. I richened up all of the cells around the 1000 RPM 40 kPa cell and that seems to help with stability. It helps with hunting, and when the idle settles the aforementioned cell still keeps the idle lean when closed loop works back in, about 14:1. Also, I have tried a LOT of extra effort on electrical load 1 (fans) on the oder of 15, and very little, on the order of two. It did not seem to make much difference on the RPM dip. I might have had a tad more stability with the lower setting but I cannot be sure since behavior can be inconsistent from one fan cycle to the next.

PID is 4,4,2 right now. I have tried 2,7,2 and some other I-heavy settings. It does not seem to work so well for me.

I think the 800 ms delay on the A/C clutch will be a big help. I wonder if they will add that to the electrical loads as well?

BTW thanks for chiming in all. This thread is quite useful IMO.

I hope not. We'll be back to square one i would think.

I just hope the 800ms is enough and is only delaying the AC clutch

Why? I'm interested.

I am thinking it would help. The fans are almost as big a hit as the a/c clutch, right? At least mine are, in terms of initial surge, not so much steady-state load.

I think the idea with the delay, and correct me if I am wrong here, is to allow a split second (literally) for the RPM to build with the additional IAC help. Thus, when the delayed load hits, there is more energy available (RPM) to offset the load. Plus if PID is being used, it is trying to lower the idle quickly instead of raising it, which would seem to be inherently more stable. Seems like the delay could be balanced just right by tweaking the extra effort amounts, and would work equally well for most any load type, especially since the extra efforts for the loads can be independently adjusted.

I am assuming the delay would be a total of 800 ms for fans alone or fans with a/c.

I have just been assuming its just an AC request delay, but if they have expanded on that, even better.

They have been talking about it for a while
http://adaptronic.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=226.0

FWIW, The hit I get when the fans kick in alone (from WT) is not even worth writing home about. Smooth as...

This could be how saboteur set up my loads for me at install :winner:
http://ozmx5.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=91

Are your electrical loads setup like this?

My fans kick in together as load 2 and the small amount of extra effort seems fine for this here.

Currently if my fans are on due to WT, I can turn the AC on and off and hardly feel a thing. My issue has only always been the stumble from the onset of both fans and AC at the same time.

shit, maybe i'm just lucky?

The way I am hoping it will behave is, fans kick in...800ms... then AC kicks in (after the AC effort has been added)

One difference in our setups may be that I have the fans wired in parallel. Coolant temp or a/c turns them both on.

I tried the extra effort for fans and I do not like it. It will still randomly low idle but now it will hold like 1400 rpm for a minute when the fans are one and before the pid kicks in

How about using AC MIN RPM? Located in the special funtions tab.

The AC won't engage until the rpm target is reached.

Good idea but I tried that one too. I could not get it to improve the problem.

I also did the max idle value cap at 80 and it's heaps better, nice find!

Yeah that would make a difference. You could stage them within a few degrees of each other if you revert the wiring back to stock. Just replace Aux Out 7 with a logic OR of A/C and the water temp you want. Here's an example:

http://sites.google.com/site/timkent...ic-aux-out.png

Good idea on staging the fans. I may have to try that.

I staged the fans originally. It helped a lot.

Well I figured out why the idle up for fans didn't work well for me. I decided to use a logic channel that was already in use for the ac fan..:facepalm:

V6.000 has the A/C delay for better idle control. You guys might want to check that out. Should reduce the double hit of fan and A/C coming on at the same time.