When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Ok. So logs taken and AE adjusted twice and two more logs taken. Using 100% TPS for reference. Pictures are below (log is under its AE counterpart). Car still hesitates despite going to both AE extremes (super lean and super rich) and even after hitting the sweet spot (second pic/setting combo). The second log/settings are definitely better as to be expected, but it still has a hesitation with them. Let me know what you guys think. I understand I may not have been clear in describing that I had already tried other AE settings and had then switched to my "anemic" super low table because I couldn't get it fixed anyway. Side note ignore the actual AFR values, they are off, but the actual magnitude of full lean is still a good reading. Thanks for the feedback
Mat correction was something I changed because of heat soak. It's not that because I had it the way it came from DIY for a while until I fixed it. It still hesitated back when it was the default table. And my VE table is what works. Nothing abnormal
Thanks gooflophaze for the video. I have already watched it and have used his technique. I watched it again and will have to check pulsewidth like he said
And if my quick changes don't work, start adjusting AE on it. Go up or down by 1%. I've had throttle response be crappy at 7%, great at 8%, and crappy again at 9%.
Edit: and by 1%, I mean 1% steps. You're throttle blips in in your logs are around 500 tpsdot, which is currently at 6%. So try 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9% before saying it doesn't work, which it might not.
And to double check for my sake too...when you guys are saying "add 1%" - you're not using 1% and 1ms interchangeably, right? Since my WOT can be ~11ms of pulsewidth, 1% would be +0.11ms, and 1ms would be 9%.
Thanks curly. Yeah I understand, maybe some fine tuning could be worthwhile. I don't fix my afr calibration because I can remember the AFRs. I can still tell when the AFRs change in an unusual way too, it's really just off by 1-2 points. And the full lean and full rich are generally good indicators. It hasn't been something that has affected me really
Remember when you punch the throttle, you're changing the map, which moves to a different section of the fuel table. Often cells above idle have a higher VE than the idle cells. So in some cases, I've found a car to respond well with AE as low as 2% where you have it. I could turn AE up and turn the fuel table down, but it's usually easier to turn AE down.
Also, start ignoring the lean spot, like, now. Tune according to how it responds to throttle input, not what the gauge is telling you. That's a delayed reading from a rush of air that entered the engine a few feet from where you're measuring. And with throttle response, every millisecond counts.
He should ignore AFR error, and the time delay, but not the value. If you god from an area where AFR target and actual under strady state is 14, to an area where target and actual Uber steady state is 12, then there should be a slight delay until AFR goes from 14 to 12; but it should never go above 14, if AE is doing its job.
Originally Posted by wherestheboost
You have an improperly calibrated wideband...and your "incorporate AFR" setting is on...
Irrelavent. Incorporate changes the fueling equation, but not the active adjustment. That is done with EGO. I’m not saying that correct WB reading by MS is not important, only that it is not important because of “Incorporate AFR”.
Listen to Six. Tune steady state, then tune AE.
And regardless of if you like the shape of your MAT Correction, 100% should be at the temp where you usually tune. Not saying it won’t work like you have it, but it doesn’t transfer well. Kind of like setting a REQ_ FUEL to a random value, then trying to make sense of your VE table, or Cranking Pulses, both of which have relationship to RF.
02-14-2019, 04:17 PM
0
