I also did a thing today :likecat:

Here is my current tune. Vlad and I had got the car mostly finished. We tuned Idle, fuel, timing, ebc, etc.

From my understanding we were basically done besides the idle/ac/fan issues I would have and the occasional stall immediately after the first cold start.

Just looking over everything now with a clear mind a few things that conflict with other things I have read are:

Idle valve frequency- Set at 306 but I believe the OEM value is 500 hz. Not sure what difference this makes in the real world or if it is worth changing?

Idle ve table- values are ~10 points leaner than the same area on the normal ve table not sure if this is intentional to smooth the transition when coming to idle?

Idle RPM Timing correction curve- does not seem very aggressive.

Idle Advance- Is turned on and uses values from 16-18* with load. I have heard idling at 10* is better and OEM.

I can start getting logs tomorrow or Saturday to highlight the issues.

What was the thing you did? Was there supposed to be an image in that post?

I think if your idle is generally OK, then leaving the IAC frequency at 306 rather than 511 Hz would be OK, though I have no real knowledge. Seems changing It now would mess up your PID settings and possibly Max / Min.
However, your PID slider is pretty low.
For Initial value, you need to be using MAT, not CLT
Idling at 1000 at 180F CLT is excessive, unless this is trying to accommodate the fan turn-on. Try to get it down to 800RPM (this is the main target curve RPM vs CLT)
Yes, the Idle RPM Timing Correction is quite tame. Mine is 13 @ -300, 12 @ -200, 10 @ -100, 8 @ -50, 0 @ 0, -1 @ 50, -2 @ 100, -3 @ 200
I think you fan delay is much too long. Logs will show. I think that 700mS is long enough for the idle RPM to rise and then PID already start to tame it, then the fan comes on. Logs might give insight. I would first try the Timing Correction change, but I would seriously look at the delay in the range of 100 mS. Play with that. You can force the fan on and off by changing the setting... for lots of data fast. I don't have experience with the battery voltage control of the MSPRO, only the MSBASIC, so those response times could be a factor. It is, after all, the change in electrical load that we are dealing with.

I would not have the A/C fan come on at all for basic cooling purposes. This is likely Inj I Out under Adv Engine / Programmable I/O #1. If you are idling, it is not needed, and if you are under high load, it will likely be at a speed where again, it is not needed. Meanwhile it is not set up with any idle up or delay, so it's coming on would be mean on the idle. If this scares you, set the RPM or Temp higher on that fan. Try it this summer and see if, when not using A/C, you ever need that fan to idle in traffic, or if indeed, the single fan keeps CLT beneath it's turn-on temperature.

I also suggest lowing all of your Idle Advance curve values by at least 3 degrees. Having it rise with MAP is fine, and should help some with the Fan.

Preliminarily, I would increase A/C idle increase to 250 - 300 RPM. This assumes you move base idle to 800. Then, idle with A/C will be 800 + 50 for the main fan (you have it set to come on with A/C) + 250 for A/C = 1100 RPM, which is high enough to give you some cooling. If you leave base RPM at 1000, then you don't need the extra A/C RPM to get you to 1100, but you are wasting gas when not using A/C. Also, my A/C idle up delay is only 425 mS.

My thoughts for now.

For Honesty: I still have one idle issue: When I am coming into an idle and A/C cycles off. Then I get a droop. Not sure why yet. If I have a program error, or the MS gets confused with both actions occurring simultaneously.

EDIT: Hmmm very little Acceleration Enrichment?

DNM

I became a supporting member, nothing too crazy.

Wow, thanks for all the info its a lot to process I will try to work over it step by step and get logs along the way. I have idle set to 1000 becuase of awr motor mounts mainly. Around 950 is as low as I can idle before vibrations become excessive. 950 idle +50 when fan on +100 with AC sound like a happy medium? That way I still idle at 1100 with ac on.

I always swore it would make more sense to have initial values use MAT but everyone always said to use CLT. I constantly notice when my car would heatsoak that it needed more idle valve.

You are corect I have the main cooling fan setup through the adjustable table and then the ac fan is just an on/off on Injector I. I set the ac fan to come on with a higher temp than the cooling fan so it only comes on if the cooling fan cant keep the car cooled. I have only noticed it kick on when im heatsoked sitting in traffic with the ac going. Is there any better way I should set this up? Really wish ms3 had 2 fully controllable tables for fans.

Heres the plan: try more agressive idle timing rpm correction and lower idle advance across the board, set new idle target of 950, see how that is and get some logs. If ac/fans remain an issue try adjusting the idle up delay/duties then get logs. Also will start finding some values for initial value table using MAT.

Well I have a lot to try, lets see how it goes tommorow.

Even if you don’t have A/C fan on a temp setting (Inj I) it will come on with compressor. Minor point. Leave it as-is, or raise the temp a little.

Yes to idle RPM changes.

Ahhhh okay, that makes a lot of sense. I never knew there was some sort of hardware switch for it to come on like that. I'll up the temperature a little to be sure the car really needs some cooling help for it to come on.

Wish I had met you while I was still in Chicago. I have since moved East of Atlanta. It would have been nice to share notes.

I have a 2001 NB, lotus seats, soon to be squaretop with skunk2... Lots of the same choices.

Damn, that is too bad! Seems like you have good taste :giggle:. How do you like Atlanta? Seems like everyone's starting to try and get out of Chicago, I know I am.

or you can just hop across to WI and save a lot of money!

Check my cars plates! My family has a place way north in Wisconsin and we go up there a few times a year, my parents plan to live there in the summers when they retire.

So on the car Idle settings. Summary of changes:

1. Set more aggressive idle timing correction. This was a great change, the car reacted better in all idle situations with only this changed. I especially noticed it when using power steering at a stand still.
2. Decreased Idle advance by 4 degrees across the board. This helped smooth things out.
3. Bumped up Idle ve values to idle at 14.5-14.7 the main areas that needed increase were highload idle (AC)
4. Set idle valve to 511HZ and retested for new min and max values. I just didn't want to keep making changes knowing this was set at 300 and not 500.
5. Decrease idle to 900 rpm, this is a happy medium of low idle without bad vibrations. Fan increases 50, AC increases 150.
6. Changed fan delay to 750 I tried lots of different values and have logs of them but 750 worked the best. Also changed the on temperature to 205. Changed AC fan on temperature to 225 so it only activated when truly needed for cooling.
7. Changed AC delay to 450. This is the best my AC has ever engaged.
8. Lowered initial values table a lot because before it overshot so much now it falls happily to right above idle. Still want to change this to MAT once other things get figured out

Also made some other small changes to engine states, VSS, and overrun. After I figure out idle, Accel Enrich is next.

Here's the tune and some current logs. The Fan and AC need more work still but is way better than is has ever been. I cant really tell whats wrong, maybe a bit more fuel? I see what you mean that CL idle starts to close the valve with such a long fan delay but anything lower made it significantly worse.

1. Good observation.
2. That is what makes item 1 work. You have to be below MBT so that adding advance gives more torque immediately.
4. Good.
6. I consider a dip from 900 to 860 to be pretty much cured. Not sure how bad the dip was before.
7. Super.
8. MAT is admittedly a fine tune. Don't tweak things down too close, as it is better to settle a bit high, than to miss. Also, set it when running loads, like heater fan on high and lights on. Then when they are off, you will settle a bit high is the worst effect.

Car is still amazingly beautiful.

DNMAKINSON

Forgit to ask, I think. Do you have a catalytic converter?

Once I get home I'll post logs of the dip before these adjustments but it was in the hundreds of rpms, really im pretty happy with how the car is after just those adjustments but I'm gonna try to continue to fine tune them and see if I can get it even better. With this exact hardware setup on the OEM ecu you couldn't even tell when the fans turned on. Thanks for the kind words and the help! I'll be getting some good pictures with the new wheels soon.

No catalytic converter. Why do you ask?

I wonder if OEM allows voltage to dip so that the extra current draw does not shock the engine. Just conjecture. Also, there is a switch for power steering to give some extra power.

I asked because you are using spark cut on the Rev Limiter, which would not be the means of choice if you had a cat.

Hmm, that could be it. I was very impressed that it could control the spal fans just as well as the factory one's.

Yeah I had a cat that came on the FM exhaust but the actual metal casing of the cat broke so I had it removed and a Stainless pipe put in it's place.

Here are some pics of the finished product. I like the change a lot and the new mounting is about as clean as it can be. I'm actually almost too low in the car now. For a comparison of how big of a difference removal of the rear seat humps and these custom mounts make look at other cars with Elise seats and a BBFW roll bar and see where the headrest falls in relation to the bars. I haven't seen any this low.

The top of the steering wheel is in my line of sight when looking straight out of the car now. Not sure what to do as I like being this low and far back but the wheel needs to move.

Time to start looking at aftermarket steering wheels I guess...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7841/...2e0bbb9_c.jpg?
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7859/...fe667cc_c.jpg?
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7816/...9d169d2_c.jpg?

I think I will hang on to the Tesla seats, they will only become more rare. The Tesla seats are definitely wider and more comfortable but for my uses for the car the lotus seats are a better match and I'm interested to see how they are once I add some padding.

Have you looked at the mounts for the Elise seats that use sliders? They are pretty pricy, but they are my next driver mod. If not for me, for my 5'4" fiancé so she can drive the car in a pinch.
Lotus Elise seat bracket ? Flipside Customs

Unfortunately for me, I traded my stock seats towards the elise seats so I don't have anything available to cannibalize sliders from.

I actually have those and use them to bolt the seats to the rails/straps that I made but I remove my cars oem rear mounts so I cant use the oem sliders. I've thought of adding an aftermarket slider to my current setup and could easily add one but its kind of not needed because its only ever me driving the car and aftermarket sliders never seem that nice IMO.

I removed the rear seat mounts in my NA and just made two small brackets that bolt through the floor to use the stock sliders when the stock seat is in. I droped about 1/2-3/4" from stock doing that, even with the stock seat. Those rear mounts are worth a surprising amount of space.

Looks good. Just a little tip, You need a flat washer under the nut(s) where your seat bracket bolts to the floor bracket. It will help spread the load on the bracket and reduce the likely hood of pull thru if you ever do get in an accident.

Midtenn, thanks for looking out. I already have some 2" fender washers under there.

I thought of adapting the stock sliders with no rear mount but it just wasn't looking as clean as I was hoping so I went from scratch. It gets a little gross with the OEM nb2 sliders because the rails have the seatbelt receiver mount built in and that adds some complexity.

Hey BB, thanks for your posts, I have enjoyed them. You’ve been through your share of different seats.
Question: What did you not like about the Marrad lx1 seats?
As I read your post #7 the lx1 seats could not be used with the stock shoulder belts?

Roll on Tide...

Thanks again!

Pat

Thanks, and haha I have been through quite a few.

The Marrad lx1: overall they're a good seat but the quality of materials and craftsmanship was a little lacking mine was showing wear with only light use, crooked stitching, poorly fitting fabric, sliders felt flimsier than stock. They're not a bad seat but I have high standards. They did their job great: sitting you low and far back in the car. They work with stock belts if you do not have a roll-bar, or at-least a BBFW roll-bar. If you have a roll-bar and sit all the way back the seat will pinch the seat-belt against where it retracts from and it wont be able to move in or out. If you sit a few inches forward this is not a problem. Also with the seat all the way back if you have a roll-bar and were to get rear-ended your head will definitely be hitting the roll-bar.

In other news today I started the task of installing the square-top, oil cooler, skunk2 TB, and EGR delete.

So far I have the stock intake removed, the EGR pipe removed, and I drained all the oil. So basically everything is off now things just need to go on.

Overall this wasn't all that bad but was not a fun job and one of my least favorite. Mazda engineered the intake manifold well to allow a standard ratchet to be able to fit on all the bolts but getting the right angle and reaching in can be hard. Also there are 3 brackets that bolt to the lower half of the manifold to hold clips that add to the annoyance. I was dreading the EGR pipe removal after it has been heat cycled to the turbo manifold so many times but it actually came off super easy.

Anyways this post sucks without pics so here is the current state of my engine bay:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7897/...49000c7_c.jpg?

Tomorrow or the next day I will have all the new stuff on depending how motivated I am. Definitely not as easy to do installs after working all day, I feel for you who have been doing it this way for years!

Well I said it was time to start looking at aftermarket wheels.... But really I always knew if I got an aftermarket wheel it would be this one. Nardi Deep corn 330mm with black perforated leather and red stitching. Also have an nrg quick release and still waiting on the works bell hub.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7842/...b4fe354_b.jpg?
IMG_20190328_161825
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7915/...ed65907_b.jpg?
IMG_20190328_161840

In other news I will finish up the square-top and oil cooler install tomorrow. I'm just hoping to get it started and there be no boost/vaccum leaks or any issues. Something I wasn't expecting is you actually cant separate the two half's of the squaretop on a us nb2 if you have the front most stud in the manifold because the top half of the manifold will hit the fuel rail when you try to slip it onto or off of the stud. I remedied this by pulling the stud and using a bolt instead so you can still split the manifold into the two half's with it on the engine. Picture showing how close the fuel rail is to the manifold when both half's are together. You can also see the stainless allen head I was using to mock this up, that location is where you cant have the stud.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7880/...97cf703_c.jpg?
IMG_20190327_184153

Everything's all buttoned up with the intake and oil cooler besides trimming my aluminum under tray to duct the oil cooler. I started the car and it ran fine with no leaks of any kind so well see tomorrow how everything is on the last test. I did not enjoy this install very much at all. It was such a nightmare to access all the bolts and brackets on the intake, I'm glad to be done.

Filled the car up with some of the new T6 in 15w-40 had to go to a couple wallyworlds to find one that stocked it.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7825/...3759cb6_h.jpg?
IMG_20190329_181729

Work Bell short hub arrived from japan super quick so I got the new steering wheel setup installed.

Pic of the OEM wheel removed that shows the 2" spacer I had for it. This will be for sale if anyone is interested.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7903/...d86a07a_b.jpg?
IMG_20190401_162003

Works Bell hub on.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7883/...c28db07_b.jpg?
MVIMG_20190401_165145

NRG quick release on.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7897/...cd589cc_b.jpg?
IMG_20190401_172323

The whole setup.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7876/...5219ba8_b.jpg?
IMG_20190401_174103

This combo is about perfect it seems to be just as spaced out as my oem wheel was with the 2" spacer. The 330mm diameter is just right. I have no problems with the wheel blocking out any of the gauges because of how low I sit.

Another weird issue I have been fighting with my tune for a long time.

Problem: When the car is cold and not FULLY warmed up it idles extremely rich.

Things I've done to no effect: WUE is all set to 100%, EGO control turned off, Ensured same PW/Duty Cycle for fuel in both situations and yet the car is rich when its cold and once its up to temp its fine, this seems to effect the full low load areas of the VE table and not just idle too.

Logs and current tune are attached.

Rich idle: This log is after I cold start and let it idle down to show how rich it is.
Not Rich Hot: log showing idle once the car is warmed up I took it to get gas between this log and the Rich idle log. Almost 2 full points leaner but basically the same PW.



I'm at a loss here. Thanks for reading!

You have 57-60 kpa~ in idle cells in your ve map. Yet your idle ve advance has it at 48-50~. You are having your ecu chasing around its tail. I would first turn off all idle advance modes and start manually adjusting idle in your ve map.
You can't have a perfect dead on number but you need to have your ego correction something in the ballpark to work with.
fwiw mine is set at 50kpa~ , and idle advance has very small increments.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...01f8edd2e5.jpg

I disagree. The demonstration logs show that all data was taken with state solidly in CLI and Idle VE only in play.

Is is true that idle VE are much different from normal VE in same region, but that is not the issue here.

The other really confusing thing is that BBro says this is showing up at high loads as well. BBro, do you mean at 100kPa type loads?

My first thoughts were:
1) MAT correction causing the issue but the logs and tune do not support this.
2) Injector winding temps were causing dead time changes (opposite of hot restart). But that would only occur at low loads.

I’m stumped. I cannot conceive of the need to have WUE dip below 100% at mid-range CLT.

Yeah that something I want to work on, 18psi had it setup that way so I wasn't sure if there was a reason. But the thing is, Idle ve table was active in both situations and the injectors were firing the same PW so it doesn't really explain why when cold it was super rich and when warm it wasn't.

You beat me to it haha. It's not high load but higher rpm low load so the cruise zones where I'm usually targeting 15ish afr ex 40-50kpa.

Then look closely at your injector dead time. Is it set to manufacture’s recommendation?

Dead times are about spot on. I guess technically I'm using the dead time for 4 BAR and the voltage corrections for 3 BAR but this info is different from what was available when we set them.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ng?format=500w

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...0aa72732d2.png

If you cannot find the direct cause, then you have to use EGO to fix. That is what EGO is supposed to do. Trim AFR when everything is not accounted for. On your logs, EGO is turned off (as you stated). In the Tune, it is on.

However:

1) I would run "Incorporate AFR Target". If you switch, then all the VE cells where you are calling for 14.7 will not need to be adjusted, but the rest would have to be reduced accordingly. I would have mentioned this earlier, but thought you had already tuned VE table.

2) Your Dead Time seems high to me. I think that you are running non-return, so I suppose that is why you are using the 4 Bar setting. Are you using non-return with stock regulator? Still, with my return (3-Bar) and FF, I am running only 1.070 @ 13.2. The thing is, EGO has to work harder if you have long dead times set. EGO can only adjust the portion of the electrical signal that is other than dead time. IOW, if you have a 2mS pulse, that means the fueling equation has calculated 0.739 and the 1.261 is added to it (neglecting V compensation). So adding 20% EGO will mean 1.2 * .739 + 1.261 = 2.148. If you change dead time to 1.1, then adjust VE until you have that same 2.0 mS pulse, then for EGO to get you to a 2.148, it only has to add 16%. (The 2.0 mS would be made up of .900 calculated fuel + 1.1 dead time, Thus, to add enough fuel to get to 2.148, we have: 1.16 * 0.900 + 1.1 = 2.148.) This may not be the technically correct way to determine dead time, but it is an argument to error on the low side, not the high side.

3) How are you justifying injector trim? How did you determine that it is needed? (Basic Load / Engine and Sequential / Injector Trim = On), Then (Fuel / Cylinder 1-4 trim values).

I bet you will find that all of the load areas that you are concerned with have about the same injector mS, which is pretty low, and is therefore governed a lot by dead time (both what is set and what is real.)

Interested to hear other ideas / observations.

Okay, my first thought was EGO control but then my car is going to be targeting 14.7 when fully cold, which isn't ideal either, I would rather it taper up from 13.5 at cold to 14.7 when warm. I should have mentioned I turned EGO back on after those two logs, that is why it is on in the tune.

1. This is something I have been wanting to do but the VE table is pretty solid already. After my Dyno time next weekend I think I will set this on along with the deadtime/ voltage correction changes and go through readjusting the VE table.

2. I never really put much thought into dead time, I know what it is but I always thought it was just a set and forget if your injector supplier gives you a tested number. Fuel system is OEM nb2 so returnless with the OEM FPR so fuel pressure decreases with boost. Only mod to fuel system is injectors. Your math makes sense but then what is the downside? Why wouldn't everyone set the dead time artificially low then?

3. Injector trim was set by 18PSI I don't know or understand why this is changed. Looking back through the revisions it was set to this value in the first tune he sent me so I assume he has his reasons with these injectors in the past or maybe an accident? Maybe when I make the other changes I should try setting this to off?

2) There are some methods for determining in-situ dead times. Like running (2) squirts per rev and then 1 squirt (or is it the opposite) and seeing if the AFR remains constant. Of course, the other means is to use values from suppliers. The objective is to allow the corrections to affect the fueling correctly. In other words, if the dead times are 100% know and corrected for Voltage and Temperature of coils (latter not possible), such that mS @ voltage really meant a specific current for a specific time [note that electromagnet fields are really current induced] then small corrections such as EGO and MAT and WUE would create the exactly correct adjustments. That is why it is important to have accurate dead times. I am admitting that I am hedging a bit. I know that my corrections are acting as they should with my less-than-published value. I cannot say why. Again, I am open to input from other, more experienced folks. I also know that some other methods so DT calibration were proposed in the past, and they really got mixed results.

I understand that you wold use the 4 bar value with the return-less system. In fact, at idle, there is even greater differential across the injectors than 4 bar. So perhaps I'm off base on this one.

I suppose a good test would be to see if, under the same rich condition, you show that 82% EGO should correct it, and 82% EGO does correct it, then dead time is probably correct (12 / 14.7 = 0.82). People also just change the target AFR and see if the EGO % change matches the % AFR change [similar to the above case... If when fully warm, you are hitting your prescribed 14.7 with 100% EGO (turned on) change the target to 12 and see if the EGO goes to 120% to bring the AFR down to 12. If it does, then your dead time is correct.] Note that the full PW will not change 120% as only the non-dead-time will change.

Re: running rich when engine is cold. I understand that point. I know my Ford runs really rich until fully warmed up. However, I have my EGO to come on at 70* CLT (which happens quickly even on 30* mornings). I have had no drivability problems with running targeted AFR's during warm-up. I am not using any CLT adjustment on Advance, as I am totally ignorant on such. Again, the car spends little time warming up, so I did not try to find out if adding Advance when cold would help with either drivability or warm-up time. There may be some rule of thumb, but I don't know it. I think that if you run rich than targets during ASE period, you're good. Again, others have tuned many many Miatas, and I'm basing my input on one. I also don't know how all this affects CAT warm-up, and I don't care, even though I do have a CAT.

3) He may have some previous experience. I cannot see how one would know what trims to use unless: A) you have O2 sensors on each exhaust port; B) you somehow calculate using the published data from the supplier and match the individual injector data to the installed position; C) you know exactly how a fuel rail responds to pressure waves, etc over the operating range.

As a side note, Small Pulsewidths... This is a really really fine point as it only pertains to < 2mS pulses (in your case < 1mS) which, as you have noticed only occur during trailing throttle. So, I turned mine off. My Yellow Tops were so bad, that there seemed to be a benefit to the small pulse width corrections, but not so much with the FF.

Okay, that makes sense. I like the idea of finding the % ego wants to change things to match a % change in afr and want to try that test when the car is hot and cold.

One of the big upsides to using incorporate afr is that you could just change the afr target and not have to mess with the ve table, but if deadtimes were wrong this wouldnt work properly. Correct?

So with having ego active above 70* what did you do for wue? Just have the whole wue curve set to reach 14.7? Or do you target something richer below 70* then taper to 14.7 at 70*?

They make T6 in 15w40 now???!!! Well I just changed my oil but Im going to drain it and put this in instead, lol. I run T6 5w40 but with hotter weather coming a little thicker would be nice. I think youll like the squaretop for sure, at least I hope you do sounds like the install was a PITA

If you use the built-in tool for setting WUE, TS does exactly what you suggest, it tunes WUE to your target. Since idle is so fickle, when I ran the wizard (long time ago), I put IAC to manual and ran the car at about 2000 RPM for setting WUE. Anyway, point is that most people run the wizard, and it does set WUE at target. So, in the end WUE gives extra fuel at low CLT, but only to overcome poor atomization / evaporation, not to target an actual rich mixture with respect to AFR. Again, this is not like OEM, but seems to work well in practice.

Thing is, if indeed you are running EGO, unless you have the authority turned way down, it will over-ride WUE and push toward the AFR set-point. As you mentioned.

Correct on Incorporate AFR.

Yep! I think it should be perfect for hotter summer days. Make sure you can find it, seems like it's just rolling out to most Walmarts. Check over on BITOG there should be a voa on it coming up soon by one of the members in the threads about it. Squaretop was a PITA but it did make the car way more fun, it was worth the struggle. The car pulls to redline so hard now it's hard not to hit limiter.

That makes sense, thanks for explaning. I'll do the dead time tests and see if I find them to be too high. Then my plan of attack is to set the voltage compensation to the correct 4bar settings, set incorporate AFR to on and go through returning the ve table and see where I'm at with the rich when cold issue.

I haven't set incorporate afr to on but I have set ego correction to kick in at 70F and honestly the rich when cold issue hasn't bugged me much since. Messing with dead-time and doing incorporate afr is gonna be put on the back burner till I have a solid weekend where I can get it all done at once.

Got the car on the dyno see the details here: https://www.miataturbo.net/build-thr...gt2560r-99851/

My biggest issue at this point is boost control. I read through the latest itt thread on it but still run into some odd issues.

First screenshot: On the way to the dyno I would hit overboost when flatshifting and generally overshooting target of 180kpa. see the log: Overboost
The only change I made after this was I reduced the bias table quite a bit to the numbers this log provided me with. Those can be seen in the current tune attached.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...23bd914_b.jpg?
Overboost

Second screenshot: One of the 3 dyno pulls from my log at the dyno. Boost slowly creeps to target and wants much higher bias numbers than the street pull did. I'm sure the extra bias needed could be due to less load on the dyno.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c348c68_b.jpg?
Dyno

Third screenshot: EBC settings from the dyno pull and everything was the same as the first log besides the bias table.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1ecce14_b.jpg?
Boost

I'm assuming my biggest issue is the PID settings.

The manual states the proper way to tune the PID is:

The next step after setting up the target table and supporting settings is to adjust the slider for best performance. If the slider on its own does not give the results you hope for, you can go to advanced mode and tune the PID gains:

1. Set Integral and Differential Gains to 0% - This will let you focus on tuning the proportional gain.
2. Set Proportional gain to 100% and slowly lower - While tuning Proportional gain, higher numbers mean slower boost climb and lower final boost. For safety, start with a very high gain (100% should be sufficient). Find the RPM that typically spools quickly, and fully and quickly depress the accelerator. Note how much boost is reached. If boost overshoots the target dramatically, increase the Proportional gain. Otherwise, reduce the Proportional gain and try again. Do this until boost reaches the target with a small amount of overshoot.
3. Tune the Integral Gain - The next step after the target is reached consistently is to tune the Integral gain. Starting from the RPM used to tune the Proportional gain, fully depress the accelerator and watch the boost as the engine climbs through the RPM range. As the engine accelerates through the rev range, the boost will probably creep away from the target. Keep increasing the Integral gain until the controller adequately maintains the target with minimal oscillation. It may be necessary to increase the Proportional gain a bit after tuning the Integral gain since the two gains tend to counteract each other.
4. Tune the Derivative Gain - Increase the Derivative gain until the overshoot is minimized. Care must be taken when increasing the Derivative gain as too much Derivative gain can over-dampen the effects of the Proportional and Integral gains.

Has anyone used this method and had good results or is there other strategies?

I know I saw DNM was a fan of aggressive PID and basically no lower limit. Is this still the case and you're having good luck?

Current tune and logs attached. Thanks for reading!

Funny you should ask. I upgraded to 1.5.1, with no adverse issues. I was sad to find that Limp Mode still does not enforce the lower boost limit, as 1.4.X had not.

CLIdle engagement is great and I have not been able to fool it.

But, to your question. I had stopped using EBC when I had some clutch slippage. However, I accidentally turned it on when I was verifying all of my settings (as FW Update). Extra boost was great, and the slippage seems gone????? Anyway, to shorten the story; tomorrow I will take some logs. Maybe I'll look into the PID parameters with SD logging (or does that need 1.5.X beta?)

I think I found the reverse Proportional to not be backwards as that instructions states. Rather this PID is like all other in MS3, Higher P is more P.

Realize I have a tiny turbo, so my PID needs to be fast. Also, people kept talking about not getting control, hence my willingness to go aggressive.

Yes, no Lower Limit Delta, which means I have keyed in "200". So PID control begins when I first hit throttle, and target is way higher than actual.

The result of that is lots of P. This is then tamed with lots of D. Thus, my settings:

Slider = 470
P = 190
I = 60
D = 140

Note: scale is 0 - 200 for some strange reason.

I will run some stuff tomorrow and see if my settings still get good results. Likely they will, because I think I did most of my EBC tuning at about these air temps. So, a biased test (no pun intended).

Of course, if the clutch starts slipping again, I won't get good msi.

Yeah, CL idle has been pretty good for me too in 1.5.1 haven't had the car stall on me once since I updated from 1.5,0.

1.5.1 does include the SD card data logging for PID but I haven't tried it myself.

Not getting control: with my non aggressive settings it barely pushed duty cycle to hit target at all as can be seen in my dyno log so I definitely need to be more agressive.

I will give settings like yours a try and mess with my current PID a bit and grab logs this week too.

It is too bad you're having clutch slip issues, seems like a lot of members have been having issues recently :vash: When my FM1 clutch slipped I was shocked and I was super annoyed with it and no amount of adjustment helped for me. Hopefully your issue just stays vanished.

Quick note: Had massive overshoot this morning (no clutch slip). Hate it when overboost kicks in, but would hate it worse if it did not.

Had to turn slider down to 380. I don't know if sensitivity scale was changed by FW guys. I know they were discussing it. anyway. I only got 1 quick try after I made that change, so I won't know anything until this afternoon. I will also set up the logging (offline) at lunch, so the run home should have it going.

Yeah, hitting over boost is always a crappy feeling, but its just doing its job. I remember reading about changes to sensitivity but I'm not sure when/if they ever made them. In to see logs if you got any.

Well, I ran some more, and logged the PID variables. There is definitely something very different in either the FW or the car. Max DC is called for in most conditions until MAP reaches Target. So, overshoot is inevitable. I tried changing the Lower Limit Delta from 200 to 99 and then 50, with no change.

Don't even try my parameters.

For science, I'm going back to 1.4.0 and see what happens.

I reverted to 1.4.0. EBC works wonderful, just like it did before.

It would appear that the sensitivity of EBC was increased substantially from 1.4.X to 1.5.1. I have no idea where to target parameters.

From a conceptual standpoint, I can say:
Don't utilize the Lower Limit Delta feature
Lots of P (fast action and follows bias table well)
Little I (Adjusts when ambient air makes bias table imperfect)
Good bit of D (prevents overshoot)

I set the bias table higher than actually needed when tuning if ambient air is cool. Vice versa if ambient is hot. That way the range of Integral can bring it in, as needed.

If you use the SD card PID parameter logging, you will get a feel for how quickly, and the total range of the Integral parameter.

I will not go back to 1.5.1 because they have not fixed any of the issues that I have with 1.4.X...

• No lower boost limit during Limp Mode. They say it is in 1.4, but the code does not exist to implement it. They did not fix it, either.
• Funky Idle valve "taper" after start, that is really a sudden change at the CLI wait time. I did not work with 1.5 enough to find out if setting both to 3 seconds works, but I did notice that the taper was not a taper.

Thank you for that insight. I will be going out tonight and it is about as cold as I will drive the car in so this should be a good time to tune ebc.

If it interests you the new 1.5.2 beta is apparently making EGO much better so it might be worth it to adjust to 1.5.1 now if you want those features when the next official release comes. If not I totally understand not fixing something if its not broken.

I wonder if this taper you talk about is what I notice sometimes after start right when my taper would be ending there is an abrupt shake in the car its so hard to explain it feels like for a split second the car hiccups really hard.

My plan for tonight:

Log pulls in open loop at 5,10,15,20,25 duty on the EBC

Make graphs for each duty cycyle of RPM vs MAP in excel since I am a peasant and dont have megalogviewer HD with the histogram/table generator.

Populate the bias tables with values I learn from those graphs and can trust are right so I'm not chasing my tail.

Then I'm gonna go back into closed loop, and see if I get adequate results in simple mode just using the slider. I'm going to try it first with lower limit delta to 100kpa if I cant get that to work I will experiment with lower.

As promised I have data from last night. I'm getting pretty fed up with living in the city. I have to drive over an hour just to get anywhere remotely possibly to do clean 3000rpm-redline 3rd gear pulls and even then its so hit or miss. Spent like 3hrs last night getting all these logs and here is the result.

Boost Duty 5:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...7e475e9_o.png?
Boost Duty 5

Boost Duty 10:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e21e160_o.png?
Boost Duty 10

Boost Duty 15:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...039c64d_o.png?
Boost Duty 15

Boost Duty 20:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e4011c4_o.png?
Boost Duty 20

Boost Duty 25: Hits overboost
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e4011c4_o.png?
Boost Duty 25

Boost Duty 22 and 20: This is 22 below 5000rpm and 20 above
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b0b79a1_o.png?
Boost Duty 22 and 20

All this to find my car creeps to 190ish kpa at redline when its this cold :vash: This is a new problem for me and the only thing it could be is the squaretop. I'm surprised by how much it creeps and thought it would make lest boost because it flows better. Is there something I am missing? I could hold like 8psi to redline with the VTCS. There are some washers on my waste gate to add pre-load so I could make a little more boost back in my voodoo2 days. I'm going to remove those today and see where it gets me.

Attached all the data-logs and later I will throw up the closed loop attempts. Breakfast now.

Okay so here is what I ended up with when I transitioned to closed loop later that night.

Boost control bias table:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...81cf93f_o.png?
Boost Bias

100 sensitivity 100 delta: This was the first settings I tried and I went straight into over-boost, I would probably need way more sensitivity to use a big lower limit so I decided to just use a smaller limit like I had luck with in the past.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...307661a_o.png?
100 sensitivity 100 delta

50 sensitivity 35 delta:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4db07ec_o.png?
50 sensitivity 35 delta

100 sensitivity 35 delta:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d70da90_o.png?
100 sensitivity 35 delta

150 sensitivity 35 delta:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b4fa872_o.png?
150 sensitivity 35 delta

After all that I ended up with 75 sensitivity 30 delta:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9b4caf0_o.png?
75 sensitivity 30 delta

I think moving forward I'm going to set my target boost to 180kpa below 5000 rpm and 195kpa above 5000rpm this should keep torque low enough to save my rods but give me enough control to deal with the creep.

Also I think based off my results I will need to utilize advanced mode to improve the initial onset of boost so I don't get oscillations

Gonna be hitting the drag strip tomorrow night for test and tune to finally get my EBC dialed. I cant believe I never thought of going to a drag strip for tuning yet.

This is my dyno graph and the log from that run shows these MAP numbers.
https://live.staticflickr.com/7813/4...73abb4f_o.jpg?Dyno
3000rpm 150kpa
3500rpm 165kpa
4000rpm 168kpa
4500rpm 172kpa
5000rpm 176kpa
5500rpm 179kpa
6000rpm 182kpa
6500rpm 186kpa
7000rpm 186kpa

When I'm on the street boost creeps to 190-195ish kpa above 5000rpm. I have 2 ideas.

A. Target 180kpa until 5000rpm then target 190kpa from 5000 to redline.
B. Target 190kpa the whole time.

I just dont want to make my rods bananas. Looking at similar setup dyno graphs it looks like anything under 14psi keeps torque in the safe range but maybe someone else can chime in on what they think the best plan is. For tuning simplicity I think 190kpa target the whole time would be the easiest, but is that asking too much from my stock rods?

Target boosts that flattens torque from 3500RPM up to 6500RPM.

My max boost is at 3500, drops down a little 4500 - 5500, IIRC then peaks back up. Yields a flat torque at the level you feel comfortable with.

Flat torque curve will definitely be the end goal.

I've been reviewing some pulls in virtual dyno and have an idea how to shape the boost curve but first I think I should focus on getting accurate and precise electronic boost control at a simple target and then move to that.

Right, I’m following now.

I’m going down this same road now with cl boost so I’m watching your updates. Might have missed it, but did you port your path to the wastegate and the opening itself?

I did not port the waste gate at all turbo is completely untouched from Garrett. I never had issues with boost creep until now, it must be a combination of the squaretop, and colder weather. Pre squaretop I have logs of me holding 180kpa to redline no problem.

Hopefully I get some good results tommorow. I went out tonight to do a shakedown and its starting to breakup in boost so I have to change plugs tomorrow. No surprise, these ones are old and have taken a beating from some tuning.

I think it will be hard to get enough passes to really dial in the PID but I will do my best.

Buckle up because this is gonna be a long one.

Went to test and tune at the drags and was doing 3rd gear pulls to dial in ebc. Completed around 12 runs or something like that. Here is the progression and what I learned.

Run 1: Bias table from last post, 75 sensitivity, 25 delta.

As you can see the bias table wasn't enough to hit target so It kept dipping in and out of the lower limit when the bias table kicked in. Simple fix, the bias table needs to have higher numbers so it doesn't fall in and out of the lower limit.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...0e1e9e9_o.png?
Run 1

Run 2: Increased Bias table to what was required to hit targets, 75 sensitivity, 25 delta.

Overall not bad but bias table could use some work and as you can see at the end when I flat shifted into 4th I hit over boost.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b7805bf_o.png?
Run 2

Run 3: Same eveything as run 2 but increased sensitivity to 150.

Was hoping increasing sensitivity would help avoid hitting boost cut when shifting into 4th but as you see it still happened.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5862838_o.png?
Run 3

Run 4: I give the DNM method a try. Same bias table as 2&3, 100kpa delta, 300 sensitivity.

Was hoping this method with more overall control would fix the issue of hitting over-boost when I shift into 4th but as you see it just made me hit over-boost at the threshold. It targets max boost the whole time and doesn't drop the DC fast enough to not over-boost.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...176ecae_o.png?
Run 4

Run 5: DNM method again. 100kpa delta, 300 sensitivity, 150P 20I 50D

Same issue. Targets max boost and wont drop DC until it is too late. I was hoping increasing "P" would help it follow the bias table more closely.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9363b80_o.png?
Run 5

Run 6: Gave up on having a larger lower limit and high sensitivity. This was 300 sensitivity, 30 delta, same bias table.

Was seeing if giving more control to closed loop with a little larger delta would help aid in the issue of over-boost when shifting. This ended in me hitting over-boost at the threshold. It seems the lower limit kicks in but boost is still not at target so closed loop control starts ramping up DC in the "integral windup" and it makes itself hit over-boost.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...54fc5cb_o.png?
Run 6

Run 7: Same bias table, 25kpa lower limit, 150 sensitivity.

Still experimenting to fix the issue of over-boost on shift. This didn't fix it as you can see, but it is better than before.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8c60bd0_o.png?
Run 7

Run 8: same bias table, 35 delta, 75 sensitivity.

This helped avoid hitting over-boost on the shift but its still too close for comfort. I hit 208 kpa when I shifted and over-boost is 210. The lower sensitivity seems to help avoid integral windup when using a larger delta. The larger delta helps avoid peaking when shifting gears.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e96bdc6_o.png?
Run 8

Run 9: same bias table, 35 delta, 140 sensitivity, 10P 15I 5D

This is what I ended the night on, this log shows a full run shifting from 3-4. Still hitting about 206kpa when shifting so no over-boost but too close for comfort. I was running out of time so I left it here and was honestly pretty happy with it.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...7ec9fcd_o.png?
Run 9

Summary of findings:
Lower-limit- as low as you can get it without boost spiking when hitting threshold or shifting gears.
Sensitivity- high sensitivity results in windup, at-least in basic mode. I had better luck with low sensitivity.
PID- Didn't get enough time messing with it.

I left pretty happy with my settings and finally feeling happy. Then my first pull on the highway was straight into over boost. Bias need to be MUCH lower for some reason. Nothing even changed, same weather, same elevation, I was literally 5 miles away from where these setting worked great. I think the airflow from the highway and cruising cooled the car off so it needed less DC to hit the same target.

Overall, I do not know what to do. I cant seem to figure out EBC. I will get it pretty good one night then conditions change and over-boost kicks in on every pull. I think an issue with my method is I need to give the closed loop more control and leave my bias table lower so its safe for all conditions. The problem with this is it always end in a windup situation where the DC then will inflate a ton to hit target and wont drop before over-boost kicks in. I'm very close to saying forget it and buying a MBC or just getting this: https://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchan...ory_Code=INWGA

In theory EBC has tons of pros: Faster spoolup, boost variable by throttle position, and the ability to compensate for elevation/weather. In reality, I cant get it to work and just want reliable and consistent boost at this point.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...de027f6610.png
Coming from a purely controls perspective (e.g. I don't have first hand experience with EBC) and with a pretty simplistic view of the system (everything's a mass-spring-damper right?) I'll take a swing on spit-balling something...

• Without PID gains "scheduled" by engine speed, everything is going to be a huge compromise.

• First and foremost I'd recommend tuning feed-forward/bias table without the CL controller enabled (Ideal), or with just a very conservative P value set (do-able if MS won't let you do the other). Any CL controller will exhibit better reference (or set-point, pick your nomenclature) tracking with a good FF added, but the general concept is to make the "I" gain not have to work as hard to track the reference, therefore eliminating overshoot from the integral action growing super quickly when error is large and saturating the actuator, while also allowing for lower P values to achieve the same response time (adds stability). It's hard to tell if that reference tracking is from the PID or FF if both are enabled.
  • End of the day outside disturbances (amb. air temp, humidity, altitude) and god knows how many other engine-state related variables (turbo oil feed temp, clt feed temp, WG flapper spring temp, what mood your car is in) make a more scientific modeling and controller design very very non-trivial. Use the FF to get in the general ballpark, but I wouldn't waste time trying to getting it Pa-perfect, as a simple bias table obviously cannot account for the variety of parameters at play.
  • It also seems that where it matters most (higher RPM) the penalty for error in the FF setup is amplified. Another reason to use a lighter hand on the FF tune.

• Once FF can follow step input to within something like +/- (but hopefully minus) 20% of reference, the FF should make response action fast enough to not require a large P value (which will add to instability from disturbances). Set P to something conservative and then lower it a bit more. You can then add in I gain until you get the balance of reference tracking without error vs. overshoot to the same step input you want (again sounds like you want to err on the side of a bit of steady-state error and less overshoot). Once the I is tuned to the ballpark, you can add back a bit of P to get your response time closer to where you want it (same warning, going overzealous can lead to instabilities when disturbances come into play). I don't have the first hand experience with the sensor noise levels with this setup or the filtering implemented on the MS, but I'd definitely be weary adding heaps and gobs of D gain to start off with. PI is adequate for a huge number of applications, I'd start with the low hanging fruit.

• I'm not sure if there's any filtering set for the RPM value, but I'd make sure that's as stable as can be, erring towards low-pass, as "hand-tuned" PID controllers (or Z-N method, pick your poison) tend to err on the side of instability in the name of response and input disturbances (like the FF table jumping quickly between bins) can be killer.

• I think a Step-Input testing (roughly what you're doing when you flat shift) is the most sensible approach, but from my reading its better if you can reduce the number of variables changing. If you're most interested in EBC response at higher RPMs, I'd maybe try some tests (hopefully somewhere empty and straight) where you left foot break to try and keep vehicle speed more or less constant at partial throttle at a specific RPM (say 5k), then give it the beans to test EBC while minimizing the impact deltaRPM has on the controller+wastegate+turbine+engine system. If I'm not mistaken this is done in industry with either an engine dyno or a special braking trailer that will hold a constant speed. Or don't, hard to tell a hair-brained idea when you don't have first hand experience with the system.

• All said and done taking a simple view of the system (e.g. lets slap a PID on there) is a bit tough because from what I could find most literature reports wastegate actuators exhibiting significant non-linear dynamics in their behavior with respect to turbine power. PID control for this is never going to be perfect perfect, best to fall on the side of stability rather than chasing wicked-fast boost control response.

Anyway, just my uninformed informed 2cents. Attached a bit of light reading if you want to go into some slightly more technical methods of pulling a simple 2nd order model from the input/output data and using those model parameters to set base values for PID parameters. MS isn't quite as complex a controller, but happy to help with the sys ID portion (or a spare matlab license) if you decide you want to try and test some PID/FF values with a model and want to go down that big'ole rabbit hole.

Sounds like you figured out a lot at the track then all went to shit, frustrating. Keeping the lower limit in your bias table sounds like the way to go for starters. As far as the DC building up and overshooting, it sounds like the wastegate cannot exactly expel enough gas to keep you on track. Dialing in PID will hopefully help you avoid overboosting.