Transient Throttle - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-18-2010, 01:05 PM   #41
Newb
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7
Total Cats: 0
Default

This was on the adaptronic forum, might be of some help:

YouTube Link

The only difference to most settings seem to be the enrichment percentage which is set to 150%. The car is a stock miata btw. Have to wonder if its only good for n/a models as atmospheric "boost" is instant, whereas real boost will take a a certain length of time to build. I would imagine you would hit 100kpa very quickly and then from there to your positive boost is going to take a while longer which could account for the rich-lean-normal AFRs people are seeing with this.
Jabbah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:44 AM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central, NJ
Posts: 201
Total Cats: 0
Default

Thanks for the link. I fixed much of my lean tip in this week by lowering my spark plug gap to .035. It was left at the stock gap since I installed them a month before the turbo install. noob mistake... Now I have to lower the predicted map to where it should be and hopefully it won't lean back out.
PhantomRoadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:47 AM   #43
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,185
Total Cats: 2,582
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomRoadster View Post
It's leaning to about 17 afr with these settings. It's way conservative. 600cc injectors and afr are fine at steady rpms.

I'll try those this weekend and report back
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 09:15 AM   #44
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 1,479
Total Cats: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomRoadster View Post
Thanks for the link. I fixed much of my lean tip in this week by lowering my spark plug gap to .035. It was left at the stock gap since I installed them a month before the turbo install. noob mistake... Now I have to lower the predicted map to where it should be and hopefully it won't lean back out.

Isn't the standard spec 0.030" ? How does spark plug gap affect afr conditions - bigger gap = lower afr?
dgmorr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 11:15 AM   #45
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

saw the thread on the adaptronic forums suggesting that now instead of suggesting the async gain should be set to 150% as a default. prior to that it was 100%. and prior to that there were posts suggesting like 30-50%!
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 06:49 PM   #46
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,185
Total Cats: 2,582
Default

sounds like there is no real answer yet. people just guessing
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 07:16 PM   #47
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 387
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
saw the thread on the adaptronic forums suggesting that now instead of suggesting the async gain should be set to 150% as a default. prior to that it was 100%. and prior to that there were posts suggesting like 30-50%!
here is a dumb question. how do you set async gain to 150% ? every time I done that, it defaults back to 100%.
bellwilliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 08:13 PM   #48
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central, NJ
Posts: 201
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgmorr View Post
Isn't the standard spec 0.030" ? How does spark plug gap affect afr conditions - bigger gap = lower afr?
I thought it was .040. I might still have to bring it down to .030. The AFR completely changed after changing the gap. At lower map it slightly leaned out some sections and at higher map it became too rich (partly due to the conservative predicted map). I still haven't changed to ve tuning though. I'm not sure how much of an affect that would have.
PhantomRoadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 08:24 PM   #49
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bellwilliam View Post
here is a dumb question. how do you set async gain to 150% ? every time I done that, it defaults back to 100%.
i can set it to 150%, save the file, reopen, and it's still 150.

dont know if that holds true for loading the map. too much snow.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 09:50 PM   #50
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 387
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
i can set it to 150%, save the file, reopen, and it's still 150.

dont know if that holds true for loading the map. too much snow.
found the reason
https://www.miataturbo.net/forum/t44108/
bellwilliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 01:06 AM   #51
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

win-F "wariv1.exe" ctrl-A del

download 2.000 and use. heh.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2010, 07:56 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,272
Total Cats: 32
Default

I reduced my transition time to 150ms and set the asynch gain to 200%, seems to work quite well on my JRSC setup.
timk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 10:56 AM   #53
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,889
Total Cats: 28
Default

I have a question/point based on watching the youtube video and a little lightbulb gong off in my head...

The whole point of all this is to compensate for delays in the MAP sensor response. Makes sense to me. The MAP value lags the actual condition in the manifold and thus this feature compensates by momentarily applying a table based 'predicted' MAP value, increasing fuel flow and improving throttle response. Great idea. It is significant to 'accelerator pump' style enrichment, except more sophisticated.

Question: So, where is that MAP response delay coming from in the first place? It should not be the electronics in the MAP, or anything in the Adaptronic. Both should respond instantaneously, relatively speaking. Therefore the delay, I suspect, is mostly due to the mechanics of the transient gas flows. That is, system characteristics like the air volume between the manifold and the MAP, the volume in the MAP, and the flow resistance in the vacuum line, are creating the delay. It is the same reason why the BOV line should be short and unrestricted; the BOV responds faster. These delays would seem to be trivial, but they are most certainly there (basic fluid dynamics) and we are only talking about milliseconds of lag here.

So here is my point. Perhaps one of the reasons everyone here (and on the Adaptronic board) is coming up with different settings is because everyone has slight differences in their MAP installations that change the volume and the flow resistance. Different line diameters, different lengths, where it is teed into the manifold, what else it teed into the same connection point, etc. would all change the behavior. They create variations in the transient response profile, and thus require different settings to compensate properly.

One thing to try might be to have a dedicated and very short vacuum line to the intake manifold. Minimize the line volume/length so that it becomes insignificant (using a very small diameter line could be problematic though since it would create flow resistance. A really short line would be better IMO). This would minimize the magnitude of the MAP delay, and thus minimize the amount of correction required. In turn, since the correction is minimized, then the criticality of having it exactly right would also be reduced, and thus it should be easier to tune.

Now I know there is also the transient response of the intake manifold volume to consider as well. But, loosely speaking here, the pressure at the end of the runner should be very closely tied to this response, and in that sense it really is the same actual condition.

Makes sense?

Last edited by ZX-Tex; 04-03-2010 at 11:06 AM.
ZX-Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 02:14 PM   #54
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,583
Total Cats: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZX-Tex View Post
I have a question/point based on watching the youtube video and a little lightbulb gong off in my head...

The whole point of all this is to compensate for delays in the MAP sensor response. Makes sense to me. The MAP value lags the actual condition in the manifold and thus this feature compensates by momentarily applying a table based 'predicted' MAP value, increasing fuel flow and improving throttle response. Great idea. It is significant to 'accelerator pump' style enrichment, except more sophisticated.

Question: So, where is that MAP response delay coming from in the first place? It should not be the electronics in the MAP, or anything in the Adaptronic. Both should respond instantaneously, relatively speaking. Therefore the delay, I suspect, is mostly due to the mechanics of the transient gas flows. That is, system characteristics like the air volume between the manifold and the MAP, the volume in the MAP, and the flow resistance in the vacuum line, are creating the delay. It is the same reason why the BOV line should be short and unrestricted; the BOV responds faster. These delays would seem to be trivial, but they are most certainly there (basic fluid dynamics) and we are only talking about milliseconds of lag here.

So here is my point. Perhaps one of the reasons everyone here (and on the Adaptronic board) is coming up with different settings is because everyone has slight differences in their MAP installations that change the volume and the flow resistance. Different line diameters, different lengths, where it is teed into the manifold, what else it teed into the same connection point, etc. would all change the behavior. They create variations in the transient response profile, and thus require different settings to compensate properly.

One thing to try might be to have a dedicated and very short vacuum line to the intake manifold. Minimize the line volume/length so that it becomes insignificant (using a very small diameter line could be problematic though since it would create flow resistance. A really short line would be better IMO). This would minimize the magnitude of the MAP delay, and thus minimize the amount of correction required. In turn, since the correction is minimized, then the criticality of having it exactly right would also be reduced, and thus it should be easier to tune.

Now I know there is also the transient response of the intake manifold volume to consider as well. But, loosely speaking here, the pressure at the end of the runner should be very closely tied to this response, and in that sense it really is the same actual condition.

Makes sense?

Yea makes sense. Although I believe the majority of the delay is electronically induced. The speed of sound would be 1125 ft/s in semi normal conditions of the manifold, and so at 200ms delay that some people use would be 225 feet worth of travel. The actual time it takes the plenum and the runners to pressurize should be around 1ms (2ft).

What they are trying to do with an electronic delay is to mitigate the pulses caused by the cylinders and get an average plenum reading that correlates more with throttle position and cylinder filling.

The rubber hoses might have more significant effects though because it does dampen pulses due to its elastic cross section, and its fairly small area to volume ratio. From a speed of sound point of view we're talking 1 ms per 2 feet of hose. Even if it takes twice that long or 4 times that long to fill the tube the change is pretty nugatory compared to the delay and setting differences we're seeing.

What I attribute to the differences comes from all the other variables that change the dynamic reaction of the motor. Camshafts, turbochargers, headwork, intake manifolds, throttle bodies, intake tubing, helmoholtz resonators, even headers to some extent(reversion, scavaging... etc).

So as you change all these things the instantaneous fuel demands will change, and the calculations to figure out what it should be based on a difference of any of the variables above would probably earn you a Nobel prize in fluid dynamics.

Regardless of all this crap, I have thought about standardizing the install process more. Providing tubing for the map, and an exact place for everyone to mount it. Elimination of variables is the first step to making this transient tip in tuning a more standardized process and I am right there with you on knocking a few more of the variables out so we can concentrate on just the differences in engines and not have to worry about these secondary variables that can be all over the map.
TravisR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 11:52 PM   #55
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,889
Total Cats: 28
Default

Yes I thought about it some more today and agree that the delay in the MAP pressure drop is probably just one of many dynamics leading to the measured delay.

One thing though, and no offense Travis, but I do not agree with the part about how the pressure signal travels at the speed of sound. For pressure to drop in a volume (constant volume, constant temp) the air has to be evacuated from the volume via flow. So I do not think one can conclude that the MAP signal response happens as fast as you described.

Think of it this way. Allow me to illustrate by extremes. Say I have a large volume (manifold) connected to a small volume (MAP sensor) with a hose. The pressure in both volumes and the connecting hose are all equal (steady-state pressure).

Now, think of two different experiments that use two different size interconnecting hoses. One is large, say 3/8" i.d. and one is small, say 1/8" i.d.. Everything else stays the same (volume sizes, and hose length). For this illustration assume the volume of the hoses is relatively negligible.
- Test #1, Connect the two volumes with the large hose. Suddenly raise the pressure in the larger volume (open the throttle), and measure (versus time) the relative pressure difference between the large volume and small volume. The pressure rise in the small volume will slightly lag the pressure rise in the large volume.
- Test #2, do everything the same as Test #1 but replace the large hose with the small one. The pressure rise in the small volume will lag farther behind the large volume than it did with Test #1. There is significantly more flow restriction with the smaller diameter hose and therefore the small volume does not pressurize as quickly, and the pressure lags farther behind.

This is illustrated by the fact that a small restrictor in the MAP vacuum line can be used to make a MAP sensor (or a vacuum gauge) have a quieter (less noisy) response. The restriction slows down the flow between the manifold and the MAP sensor (increasing the lag time) and thus dampens out the small transients from the intake pulses. Same deal.

Last edited by ZX-Tex; 04-04-2010 at 04:40 PM.
ZX-Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 11:32 PM   #56
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,583
Total Cats: 8
Default

I agree, my idea about pressure moving at the speed of sound is pretty dramatic, but all I was getting at is if pressure movement was limited by cross section versus volume problems then even if it takes it 5 or 10X the time that it would take the speed of sound, the difference still would not compensate for the delay times we have to use in the transient throttle system.

I have also heard of this system you were talking about with long vacuum tubes being used to dampen pulses. For instance in ITB systems I've heard that its pretty advantageous to equip the car with 30-40 inches of vacuum hose that is coiled up because generally you only connect to one cylinder and using such a long length of hose deadens in the pulses from the cylinder that are more evident in an ITB system. So I know for a fact you're spot on, but I've never done the experimental to know the exact time delay per foot of hose(if its even linear like that).




Quote:
Originally Posted by ZX-Tex View Post
Yes I thought about it some more today and agree that the delay in the MAP pressure drop is probably just one of many dynamics leading to the measured delay.

One thing though, and no offense Travis, but I do not agree with the part about how the pressure signal travels at the speed of sound. For pressure to drop in a volume (constant volume, constant temp) the air has to be evacuated from the volume via flow. So I do not think one can conclude that the MAP signal response happens as fast as you described.

Think of it this way. Allow me to illustrate by extremes. Say I have a large volume (manifold) connected to a small volume (MAP sensor) with a hose. The pressure in both volumes and the connecting hose are all equal (steady-state pressure).

Now, think of two different experiments that use two different size interconnecting hoses. One is large, say 3/8" i.d. and one is small, say 1/8" i.d.. Everything else stays the same (volume sizes, and hose length). For this illustration assume the volume of the hoses is relatively negligible.
- Test #1, Connect the two volumes with the large hose. Suddenly raise the pressure in the larger volume (open the throttle), and measure (versus time) the relative pressure difference between the large volume and small volume. The pressure rise in the small volume will slightly lag the pressure rise in the large volume.
- Test #2, do everything the same as Test #1 but replace the large hose with the small one. The pressure rise in the small volume will lag farther behind the large volume than it did with Test #1. There is significantly more flow restriction with the smaller diameter hose and therefore the small volume does not pressurize as quickly, and the pressure lags farther behind.

This is illustrated by the fact that a small restrictor in the MAP vacuum line can be used to make a MAP sensor (or a vacuum gauge) have a quieter (less noisy) response. The restriction slows down the flow between the manifold and the MAP sensor (increasing the lag time) and thus dampens out the small transients from the intake pulses. Same deal.
TravisR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 11:13 AM   #57
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,889
Total Cats: 28
Default

OK so I finally started playing around with Predicted MAP and it is working for me. I logged some drives, did some spreadsheet analysis (Openoffice calc), and plugged best-guess values into the table. I am really pleased so far. 100% gain, 300 ms.

This is a freshly rebuilt motor so my wastegate is wired open right now until I get everything dialed in. There is no boost except at very high RPMs. Point being that there is no point in posting my table because it will be wrong for most others, and I will be retuning it when the wastegate actuator is reconnected.
ZX-Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2010, 10:44 PM   #58
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seven Valleys, PA
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 11
Default

has anyone had any luck with this? i am having a hard time with getting transient throttle response in the low rpm 5% range and pretty much all transient throttle above 5000 rpm
swimming108 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 01:01 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,272
Total Cats: 32
Default

I'm not 100% happy with mine either, I'm trying the old method to see if I can get things to be any better.
timk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 11:09 AM   #60
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

I switched back to the non-predicted MAP method and I think I like it better. For one, you can set separate enrichments for MAP and TPS... because sometimes MAP increases without TPS increasing.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expected intake temps on the track? tazswing Race Prep 20 10-03-2015 12:04 PM
Back to Stock Part Out!! Turbo Parts, MS2 Enhanced 01-05, Suspension, and MOAR! StratoBlue1109 Miata parts for sale/trade 16 10-02-2015 10:39 AM
Time to start learning and play with tuning The Gleas MEGAsquirt 3 10-01-2015 10:30 AM
Another Alternator thread ihiryu General Miata Chat 9 09-28-2015 11:22 AM
ME221 Now has Autotune and Long Term Fuel Trim Tables Motorsport-Electronics ECUs and Tuning 0 09-05-2015 09:02 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 AM.