What do you guys think of my maps? (Speeduino)
#1
What do you guys think of my maps? (Speeduino)
I've been running this map for a while now and have had some issues with "smoothness". I know it's a vague term
My current tune is attached if you kind folk don't mind looking at it and give any feedback you have.
Also, this car was remotely tuned (I drive and log, email log to dude, dude tweaks tune, repeat)
Some info on the car:
-1992 1.6 Miata
- Borla CatBack
- No-name headers
- Naturally Aspirated
- SpeedyEFI (Speduino) Plug-N-Play
- BMW vTPS
- GM IAT Sensor
- 202202 Firmware
My current tune is attached if you kind folk don't mind looking at it and give any feedback you have.
Also, this car was remotely tuned (I drive and log, email log to dude, dude tweaks tune, repeat)
Some info on the car:
-1992 1.6 Miata
- Borla CatBack
- No-name headers
- Naturally Aspirated
- SpeedyEFI (Speduino) Plug-N-Play
- BMW vTPS
- GM IAT Sensor
- 202202 Firmware
#2
Cpt. Slow
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 14,206
Total Cats: 1,139
Is this I-wanna-blow-my-engine.net?
pull 10* out everywhere above 3000rpm, and subtract 1.0 afr at 100kpa, interpolate vertically to your 190kpa row. That should keep you from exploding for a bit.
Don’t really care what your VE table is, as long as you’re hitting your Afr targets. (With the above modifications).
pull 10* out everywhere above 3000rpm, and subtract 1.0 afr at 100kpa, interpolate vertically to your 190kpa row. That should keep you from exploding for a bit.
Don’t really care what your VE table is, as long as you’re hitting your Afr targets. (With the above modifications).
#5
I think you're heading in the right direction, but you're going to need to smooth out that ignition map. If you had issues with "smoothness" before I can't imagine that it's going to be better with an 8* timing delta between 3-3.5k.
You might see what I'm saying a bit easier if you switch to 3d view.
I'm not going to comment on the cell above 100 kpa since you're naturally aspirated, but if you interpolate between 1300 and 3500 rpm it should start to look better.
I'd still be a bit wary of the timing at that point (although I don't have a ton of experience tuning ignition either).
You might see what I'm saying a bit easier if you switch to 3d view.
I'm not going to comment on the cell above 100 kpa since you're naturally aspirated, but if you interpolate between 1300 and 3500 rpm it should start to look better.
I'd still be a bit wary of the timing at that point (although I don't have a ton of experience tuning ignition either).
#6
I just got done messing around with everything. I did smooth everything out, but I haven't been able to drive the car much yet so I'm not sure how the car is gonna react just yet.
Here's the smoothed out maps. I didn't smooth the AFR table out nearly as much. It basically just goes rich about 100kpa. The car may get a turbocharger eventually, but that's a long ways away.
Also, what's the general consensus on these Multiply by options? I know I'd have to completely redo the VE table if I changed any, but is there a generally preferred setup?
Here's the smoothed out maps. I didn't smooth the AFR table out nearly as much. It basically just goes rich about 100kpa. The car may get a turbocharger eventually, but that's a long ways away.
Also, what's the general consensus on these Multiply by options? I know I'd have to completely redo the VE table if I changed any, but is there a generally preferred setup?
#8
Cpt. Slow
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 14,206
Total Cats: 1,139
I would concur. Don't go leaner than 15.
Out of those multiply options, the 2nd one is my only concern.
Typically if you have an untuned fuel cell, you can multiply it by the afr/target ratio, and if your injector settings are all correct, you'll end up at your target AFR.
e.g: Target afr is 14.7, VE cell is 30, actual AFR is 13. 13/14.7 is .88. Multiply 30 by .88 and you've got 26.4, and supposedly you'd idle at 14.7 when you make that change.
That 2nd multiply option sounds like it'll do this multiplication live, like some sort of closed loop/short term correction. I would NOT suggest that, because with the delay in AFR reading, you may be multiplying your fuel table by a large ratio for a cell you're no longer in.
Out of those multiply options, the 2nd one is my only concern.
Typically if you have an untuned fuel cell, you can multiply it by the afr/target ratio, and if your injector settings are all correct, you'll end up at your target AFR.
e.g: Target afr is 14.7, VE cell is 30, actual AFR is 13. 13/14.7 is .88. Multiply 30 by .88 and you've got 26.4, and supposedly you'd idle at 14.7 when you make that change.
That 2nd multiply option sounds like it'll do this multiplication live, like some sort of closed loop/short term correction. I would NOT suggest that, because with the delay in AFR reading, you may be multiplying your fuel table by a large ratio for a cell you're no longer in.
#9
Thanks for all the replies!
I'm gonna bring the AFRs down to make sure nothing is going leaner than 15. I have absolutely no knock monitoring! I just use 91 octane gas as a small safety precaution.
I'll also look into turning off that 2nd multiply setting. I think the guy who did the tune said it would help in the future with a turbo setup. Something about scaling the VE or AFR easier. I don't currently have any closed loop or ego correction enabled.
I'm gonna bring the AFRs down to make sure nothing is going leaner than 15. I have absolutely no knock monitoring! I just use 91 octane gas as a small safety precaution.
I'll also look into turning off that 2nd multiply setting. I think the guy who did the tune said it would help in the future with a turbo setup. Something about scaling the VE or AFR easier. I don't currently have any closed loop or ego correction enabled.
Last edited by Skooza; 06-22-2023 at 11:04 AM.
#11
I think that 15 is a pretty good "all around" cruise AFR. Lean enough to make good power and MPGs while not lean enough to break anything.
I did a little Googling and looking thru this forum. It looks like some guys even cruise around 16:1 which seems like it's towards leaner end of what these cars can run. Some of the posts also mention monitoring EGT (Exhaust Gas Temp...I think ) and some other things that make me think they are really trying to push their Miata as far as possible.
But, please take this all with a grain of salt. I'm still very much new to tuning so there is a solid chance of me being completely wrong.
I did a little Googling and looking thru this forum. It looks like some guys even cruise around 16:1 which seems like it's towards leaner end of what these cars can run. Some of the posts also mention monitoring EGT (Exhaust Gas Temp...I think ) and some other things that make me think they are really trying to push their Miata as far as possible.
But, please take this all with a grain of salt. I'm still very much new to tuning so there is a solid chance of me being completely wrong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post