ITT we discuss EAE on MS3
 

I want to do an in-depth look at EAE to show that, though it seems quite complicated, the concept and the code is actually quite simple. However, though I believe that to be true, my initial attempt to present the simplified version has proven a bit difficult.

So, I'm going to open with a presentation of what I have, and how I got there, and what I think it all means.

AtW means extra % of fuel that at adheres to the manifold wall
WF means the Fuel that is in a puddle on the Wall
SfW means the % of that puddle that is evaporating back into the airstream

If used, EAE is active all the time in its normal manner EXCEPT during cranking and fuel cut. During cranking, I don't really understand what it does. During fuel cut, only SfW is active, reducing the WF.

Otherwise, each pulse is reduced by the SfW * WF, while additionally it is increased by the AtW. Then the extra fuel (above the normal steady-state requirement) is added to the WF.

That's the general idea.

Next, what to do with that:

Keys to tuning EAE:

1) The visual concept is that with each pulse, some fuel is Added to the puddle (AtW), but at the same time, some of the puddle is evaporated back (SfW). Though the math may go beyond the reality, in fact the picture can help.

2) When in transition, the normal thing to happen is that the engine goes lean on rising MAP, and goes rich on falling MAP. To watch this occur:

3) Have a gauge or log that shows AFR Error. This is more important than AFR, because, as MAP changes the target AFR changes too. What EAE is trying to do is keep the actual AFR the same in transient conditions that you have determined you want at steady state. I also like to have a log that shows WF, and it gives a picture of what's going on.

One trick is to set all AFR's (assuming you are using AFR in the fueling equation) to the same value. For instance, I temporarily set AFR from idle to 6K RPM and from the bottom to 85kPa to 14.7. Now, any deviation from 14.7 is an imperfect EAE, and AFR is as easy to use as AFR Error for evaluation. Not recommended into higher kPa.

4) Have your kPa, Temp, and RPM X-Axis set for the full range your engine will ever see, because, remember, EAE is on all the time.

5) Start with AtW (Temp) and AtW (RPM) set to 100%. Also SfW (Temp) and SfW (RPM) at 100% across the board. The AtW should be at some value like 11 across the board, and the SfW at about 6.4. To be honest, I don't know that these are the BEST values, but have not seen anything that suggests better ones, and will admit that is above my understanding.

6) Now drive in Steady State at low MAP, and a nominal RPM, and then make a step change in throttle. As MAP increases, the tendency is to go lean. Watch this occur or log it.

7) This is where I think most tutorials are confusing and lead people astray. They say:
A) If it goes rich on accel, decrease added-to-walls.
B) If it goes lean on accel, increase added-to-walls.
C) If it goes rich on decel, increase sucked-from-walls.
D) If it goes lean on decel, decrease sucked-from-walls.

This is basically correct. When you made the step throttle increase, resulting in a temporary lean situation (B), you want to increase the ATW, but NOT at the Starting MAP value, but rather at the Finishing MAP value.

In other words, start at 25 kPa, and fairly quickly run to 35 kPa. If you go lean (or PLUS AFR error) then add increase the AtW at 35 kPa, (and all kPa above that). For example, if you started with all at 11, then leave the 25 at 11, and move 35 and above to, say 12.

Keep ratcheting up until the curve tends to look like my finished one shown below:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1427845487

You may wish to start with a curve similar to that, but with lower values, so you are closer to begin with.

8) Now step down kPa from the maximum, to lower values and watch things go rich as in (C) above. Now same as in step 7, increase the SfW and the Finishing MAP value. The final curve should look something like this:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1427845789

9) I have not seen any need to adjust the RPM curve from 100% across the board.

10) I have adjusted the AtW curve a little for temperature, but I'm not convinced yet it means a lot:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1427846026

11) I have more purpose in adjusting the SfW for temperature. On cold starts, the WF builds up during cranking. Then when cranking is over, the SfW * WF would drive the pulse right to zero. Here is my curve (it may be a little extreme, as I am still trying to perfect after-start when cold):
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1427846026

That's it for now. I'll see how this looks on the site, and see what kind of comments I get from others that have something to add.

This is one thing that has worked well for me. Again, the key is change the AtW and SfW at the Ending MAP, not the Starting, when making the step changes.

No comments so far.

Too long?
Not clear?
Not accurate?
Not helpful?
No one else cares?

I was hoping to get some conversation on this subject, as well as pass on the best helpful hint in tuning, which is #7 in the above post: Adjust AtW or SfW at the ending MAP, after a step change in throttle, rather than at the starting MAP.

Ok, I'll jump in:

1) MSextra had a GREAT write up on complete and thorough tuning of EAE. I even printed it out and used it when tuning my 01, and ended up with flawless values. Now that they changed format, I've looked for like a dozen times and can't find it. That really sucks. I'll see if I can find my hard copy
2) your writeup looks about right. your strategy looks about right. I think the topic is just not that popular cause many/most don't bother tuning this because car drives more or less fine without it, but I do agree that this is important.
3) My biggest breakthrough when tuning this last time was to rely FIRST on feel, and THEN on what the data outputs. What I mean by this is: you want the car to feel smooth and transition smooth, rather than feel rough but "look" good on a log. The two are NOT the same and don't necessarily have to match/jive. I know that sounds crazy but it really helped me. (same with AE, actually)
4) Keep in mind this is WAY more for steady state and almost completely useless for sharp throttle transitions, where AE is what the car relies on....Also keep in mind that if your VE table and AE isn't ALREADY TUNED to perfection, you're gonna have a really bad time with this.

Hope that helps, at least somewhat. I'll grab screen shots of my 01's values that I ended up with, but the car was very smooth and slow throttle tip in at cruise resulted in almost rock solid AFR's when I was done with it. (ps: they looked a lot like yours above, actually. In fact, I'd say that for most cars the overall curves will look exactly like that and only vary by a little bit in either direction)

i glanced. seems correct.

ultimately you should be able to manipulate the throttle without seeing any change in AFR.

accel-pump is still used for large/fast transistions.

Thanks for the responses.

Since this write-up, I have added a bit more AtW with lower temps, up to about 5%.

I actually have no ACCEL pump on now. (tell it to be full at less than 10 RPM, and zero above 20 RPM, something like that).

I can't see where it would add anything to the response of the engine. I think I mentioned that the AFR lag that remains in the logs is simply because the O2 sensor sees the actual result of the lower kPa burning that took place a few milliseconds before a very fast throttle transition, whereas the MS sees the new table value of AFR target and AtW target (and responds) immediately.

Even when first cranked cold, the car will pull off with no hesitation.

I may be slightly agressive on the SfW coefficients as a quick release of throttle goes a bit lean, but I figure it doesn't matter as the engine is in decelleration in that transition.

quick release is supposed to be handled by AE, not EAE.
iirc EAE is only for slow transitions, or at least MOSTLY so

Just wanted to follow up with this thread, as I finally started dialing in my EAE today.

1) This thread is really helpful, even for me who has tuned it before, as a refresher. Thank you David for making it. Props given.
2) the new firmware has a cool little SFW/ATW screen that is VERY similar if not the same as the one for AE, which has a live data stream/graph on the bottom where you can monitor how the AFR's follow KPA and Throttle inputs. This is very helpful.
3) My ATW values were very close, and graph was close too. My SFW values ended up being quite a bit higher, since running them as low as you or lower ended up with WAY too much sensitivity. I find it hilarious that some people DESIRE throttle response like this. It sucks. Car is so much easier, smoother, and more enjoyable to drive when its slightly dulled. When shifting slowly it doesn't buck or jerk thsi way.
4) I ended up tapering the CLT values for ATW from about 10% higher at low temps to level off after about 80* because I've noticed on cold starts when I immediately drive the car I get quite a bit of leanness for the 1st minute or two.
5) No idea what's happening with your SFW CLT correction but it doesn't make sense to me and I'm just keeping mine at 100 for now cause I have no problems with it.
6) RPM correction I left all at 100 too cause I really don't see much of a swing between required or desired EAE at different speeds. I'll test this more late when I've time.

Here is my present ATW Temp Comp:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1430782498

Response to 18:
1) Thanks, and glad to contribute.
2) I'll have to try that. I use that functionality on my logs, but real time could be helpful.
3) By "higher" do you mean the whole curve is shifted up? The advantage to low values is that the EAE lasts a little longer as the SFW takes more time to equalize the wall fuel (puddle).
4) See my latest curve, above.
5) If the theory matches reality, then mine makes sense. When cold, one should expect the fuel to not want to evaporate from the puddle. However, that is not why I have this CLT curve. It is because, on cold starts, the SFW, even when MAP was still in the 80-85 kPa range, would pull so much fuel as to actually go to zero pulse width. This was way too much and would kill engine or cause ugly stumble. With this curve, I don't get that.
6) Yep

I'm still running no throttle based AE. Don't need it. When I punch the throttle, the AFR never goes lean, only about a 100mS pause, and gauge follows the AFR targets. I'm still thinking this is lag between engine and O2 sensor.

DNM

I just tested out ATW and SFW CLT correction

increasing ATW with cooler CLT seemed to do nothing at all
decreasing SFW by a huge amount seemed to make the car finally richen up. in fact I zero'd it out and the car pegged so rich it died.

so I tapered SFW cLT correction down a lot with cooler temps, we shall see tomorrow morning if this works good.

once up to temp of course the car runs great

all this to say, I'm pretty sure your curve for SFW CLT is right on the money :party:

this thread should probably be stickied cause it's probably the best and only recent EAE discussion that is helpful.

Propped all your posts David :)

Vlad. Thanks again. It's in my nature to try to be a contributor.


Agree that ATW with CLT is a minor tweak.

Did you mean "lean" in that last sentence? That is what would make more sense to me, both by experience, and in context with your previous statement.

Nope. Rich. Lower SFT CLT correction = richer
look at your clt sfw correction, it's 30 at 0, lower, then tapers up with higher temps

Right. When I read, "zeroed it out" I pictured a flat line at 100% at all temperatures. You mean that you drove it to zero at some given temperature (yep, that's what you said), so you get no driving of the wall fuel to equilibrium, hence rich.

Thanks for this write up! I just tried it today and finally my car is driveable enough with eae on to actually make some adjustments. When I have tried in the past, I always ended up disabling it almost immediately, I am using both eae and time based. I hit my afr targets on accel almost instantly. Thanks also for the smooth feel advice over logs and numbers.

I dont think you should use both. AE pump + EAE>Time based

...but if it works, I guess it doesnt matter lol

I always disabled it before when I tried, but with no luck. I thought that you and Brain suggested keeping accel pump on for large transitions, by that I figured you meant time based. It is a bit rich on accel, but no lean step in. I will disable time based, try again and report back.
But still very happy with the results so far.

Ok disabled time based and I got it to idle ok but can't even drive off. I didn't have much time this morning so I will give it another shot next weekend.

Time based AE = Accel pump, at least on my MS2.

Mine is also ms2, it would really be nice to get this working right. Looks like you guys are disabling time based. I set full accel above 30 rpm and zero above 55 rpm to disable. I was at least able to make a little progress with off idle accel using this write up, but I ran out of time and had to revert back to time based.

Nonono, do not disable Time based AE, it is your only AE option on MS2. It works in addition to eae, as TPS or MAP trip points are set waaay outside gentle throttle transitions.

You won't need much time based AE with proper fueling/sequential, but you do still want it.

My bad guys, I guess when we talk about these things we should ALWAYS specify which platform we're using. David and I are using MS3, so MS2 users should be careful and double check.

Here's why I was saying what I said:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1431896910

Thanks deezums! Got it working relatively nicely again, still a bit rich on lower kpa transitions but I can drive, log and make adjustments again.

My bad too, I knew this was about ms3, just didn't realize how different it was from ms2. Thanks for the clarification.

OP, 18psi, etc. Thanks for all of this great information.

I have a NB2 VVT engine running on a Rev built MS3. With AE only (100% TPS or 80% TPS/20% MAP) it drives pretty well, doesn't buck, etc, but I haven't been able to balance out the settings for quick/large throttle changes with smaller transitions, especially with multiple throttle transistions back to back. For example, the first quick stab on the throttle (maybe 50% TPS) looks good, but if I goose it 2-3 times in a row without giving the engine time to stabilize, the AFR's drop way too low. It sounds like EAE would help with these smaller, but more frequent transitions/throttle changes.

Question: What values (TPSdot? MAPdot?) do you use for EA, when EAE is tuned as described? In other words, when should EA take over the bulk of the compensation for a throttle change? It would be great if someone who has a solid EAE tune could also post screenshots of their EA settings, so that we can see the entire picture of EA + EAE tuning.

Thank you!

The values for AE are completely useless across different cars. I can post when I'm near my laptop, but I guarrantee you they won't help you, since I've tried this on my very own NB's and none of them used the same actual values.

The curves on the other hand, do usually stay about the same.

AE only affects the 1st split second or so. Just open up the little AE wizard and look at the graps real time as you stab the throttle. The initial reaction is caused by AE, the rest is your fuel map and EAE. Also EAE is more for the smoother/slower transitions, not as much for stabbing the throttle. Think more driving steady state and increasing the throttle gradually and watching the afr follow the transition, and letting off and watching how it responds. Stabbing fast and letting off fast is what AE is for, that split second reaction.

I can try to explain it to you til we're blue in the face but just watching the graphs/wizard showing you how it happens real time will be better than 1 million words.

PS: a completely tuned and perfect VE map is absolutely cruicial before tuning AE and EAE.

I would want to leave AE on as aggressive as possible, with a TPS trip point high enough to never accidentally trip, but low enough that you don't need much EAE at all.

I currently have mine set somewhere around 200%, the way I understand that is I double the throttle position (or more) in one cpu cycle for AE to add fuel.

If you are stabbing the throttle repeatedly, enough to trip your AE entry point, and getting richer and richer I believe you need to tune decel fuel as well as leaning out the AE a bit. You are well past eae at that point.

200%? I guess that's a MS2 thing
my ms3 is I believe 9 for mapdot and 5 for tpsdot

I think all my dots are percentages in MS2, at least MAP and TPS?

I also have some noise on my TPS line, and I use 10% filtering under general settings to smooth it over a little bit. Were it a cleaner signal I could push it harder, still want to make a new engine harness, one where everything doesn't run in a giant bundle with all the fuel and spark signal wires...

But that's just one reason why these things can be so different on two identical cars!

18psi, I do "get it" and understand that the absolute values don't transfer from car to car. Too many variables in the base tune settings and engine hardware. However, the shapes of the curves, general patterns/ratios between settings, and values in terms of order of magnitude should be similar. It isn't perfect, but is helpful.

I actually found that trying to tweak a Rev supplied basemap to match my setup was very frustrating... Worked much better starting from a brand new tune, then applying the tuning techniques from this forum and other sources.

With my MS3, I am currently using values in the 30-50 range for the low end thresholds, but could go as low as 5-10, since my inputs are clean, with little noise. However, I am going to try using EAE to handle the low end, since it should be better at accounting for less drastic changes.

Thanks again for the great discussion.

I am not running any AE. I cannot see any improvement (at least not on a warmed up car) with the AE added to the EAE.

Here are two logs where I tried to duplicate a throttle punch in 4th or 5th gear, while traveling at about 3100RPM and 45kPa.

Without EA:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1432846092

With EA:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1432846092

In both cases, the EAE adds about 75% to the pulse. In the noAE case, the AFR drops (almost straight) to the target AFR and stays there. In the yesAE case, an additional 6% fuel is added for a very brief time. The AFR drops (straight) to a point richer than the target AFR and then rises back up to the target.

In additon, if you look at the rise of the EA vs the EAE, they go up together. Within the time slices of the the log at least, there is no indication that the EA is responding sooner or more quickly than the EAE.

Perhaps there is timing delay in the plots due to smoothing settings in the MS, but it appears to me that the TPS, MAP, EAE, Inj PW are all moving together over a 50mS or so interval.

To me, this means the EAE is handling the punch very well. Would 3% AE be more perfect?

I may be missing something in my evaluation, but that is how I have come to the conclusion that, on the MS3, EAE is sufficient by itself.

I love that you always post up log screen caps, I really need to stop forgetting to do that haha

It looks like you have the same really slight lean spike on throttle tip in just like I do.

You're just ok with it and I keep pointing it out :D

On another note, regarding you not using AE: I was really curious about this and decreased my AE by half yesterday , and didn't see much difference, so I think you're right, little if any of it is actually needed if you tune EAE fat enough

Right now I'm just nit-picking things because I'm bored (lol), but I'm trying to balance out "throttle lift transients"...fast vs slow. Pretty sure it's all about SFW correction, but during steady state (on the freeway mostly) in top gear I'll give it less throttle and it will "feel" more abrupt then when I'm letting off fast and abrupt during a quick run through the gears taking off from a light. Then it will ever so slightly "rev hang" and dip pretty rich sometimes between shifts. Other times it will hold the AFR so steady it's almost creepy :giggle:
I'm almost positive the rev hang is a result of the afr rich dip.

I think I need to flatten out my SFW EAE a little bit and increase my negative AE.

Thoughts?

On tip-in, if you are talking about the AFR Error curve, then I contend it is not real, but rather a time lag between MAP and the exhaust gas getting to the O2 sensor.

That is due to the fact that my AFR target is richer at higher MAP. So upon increase in MAP, the O2 sensor is reading the 15.2 AFR that the engine burned at 40kPa, but the MS is, at the same instance, reading a MAP of 100kPa, knows that the AFR should be 12.8, and so shows an error of 2.4. If you look at the actual AFR, it never rises, only falls.

The experiment I did to verify this hypothesis was set all AFR targets from 13 to 100 kPa to 14.7. Then the spike in AFR error did not occur during fast throttle stabs up to 100kPa. I think I posted a log of that in the first couple of posts.

On the variability on lift, I think it is those crap ID1000's you run. :giggle:
Which is to say, I haven't a clue.

dropped AE cut way down and no longer the variation :party:

Actually the thing I learned with that, is exactly what I already knew:
"perfect" on the gauge =/= "perfect" feeling on the butt dyno

If I get it to cut fuel perfectly as soon as I lift, the car is jerky and feels really stupid. If I get it to slightly dip rich after throttle lift, it feels great, OEM-like.


On another note:


I'm having a problem with EAE (I think) for the first 5 minutes after cold start if I drive the car immediately after starting. Basically it have severely lean tip-in.

As soon as car is over like 90-100CLT it's perfect.

I've tried lowering SFW CLT correction at cold, seems to help, but then I get serious throttle-lift richness until it warms up. I've tried raising SFW CLT correction, and it felt like crap today.

So is the only solution to just reduce SFW CLT correction when cold like crazy and just ignore that it's rich on throttle lift? Or am I missing something? Raising ATW CLT correction seems to not do anything at all to help this. And car runs perfect as soon as it warms up even a little bit.

18. I have experienced what you are talking about as well. As far as immediate driveoff, which I do, I can correct to good drivability by running ASE for a bit longer. But, I do still get some leaning of AFR when taking off until 160* or so CLT. It goes to about 16:1 AFR (from 14.7 target). There is no drivability issue, only sensor shows lean.

I did bump my VE cells just off idle to try to tame it, but that didn't make a big difference, and I don't like to compromise full warm tables for low temp perfection.

It does not seem to be an EAE issue, but I'm not sure what the issue is.

I think I will try adding some AtW RPM correction in the 1000-2000 range. Thing is, once warmed up, the phenomenon goes away.

Update tonight, after starting this afternoon when CLT will be about 90*.

Ok, feel free to call me crazy and tell me why I'm wrong, but:

I think we may be mistaken about how sfw works.

Today I inverted it, and the car not only feels just as good on throttle lift, but actually looks much better on the gauge too (not nearly as much of a dip on lift).

Here's what mine are at the moment:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1433291079

Now, I've yet to test this tomorrow morning when it's cold but with the hot car right now it feels great. Even better I think than previous curve.
Here you go, finally:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1433291079

I'm still working on these btw. They feel real good now, and I think I got em really close to perfect.

I recently bumped up my "dead zones" so that it triggers even less, and am using low values and dialing in the rest similar to David (who doesn't even use AE).

Hope that helps.

Now I'm trying to figure out if my SFW CLT enrichment might be off. Might set it to all 100's for now, since I'm not sure if more = it will pull more fuel on lift, or more = it will pull less fuel.

Sometimes I overthink this and have a brain fart lol

On the SfW, some people slope it up, some down. I can attest that I tend to go lean, not rich, on throttle lift, but NO CARE because no load on engine and no drivability issues. And, I'm moving to a part of the AFR target area that is set lean (as well as the VE).

So, to me, it is still doing what it should. I think the code is pretty simple. Wall Fuel X SfW is going to tell MS that less injection is needed, so open time should fall. And, it does make sense to me that at low kPa, the puddle should indeed go to zero.

Let me know how the new SfW slope works for you.

Yes absolutely. I guess the difference is how your main VE map is set up, because mine does exactly what yours does, except with this "inverted" setting. The car is very smooth on throttle lift, and doesn't dip insanely rich. Starts pulling fuel slowly, and then overrun takes over.

If it stays this way on cold starts too I think I'm set :party:

Next will be rpm correction, I am kinda thinking this stuff is not needed at all past about 3k rpm. But gotta test and see

Ok so to follow up, nothing I have tried so far made the weird lean tip in on cold start go away.

Until

I re-did the injector timing table. Now I can get it to peg stupid rich on cold start and stay rich during warm up throttle tip in. This of course also threw off my tune to the point that I would need to re-tune the car if I want to use this current table. But I won't derail this thread with that, new thread incoming soon.

My results were the same, to the point that I had concluded that the issue was not related to EAE or VE. Looking forward to your report on the effects of adjusting injector timing. Especially considering the comments in Ryephile's thread that inj timing changes affected mid-cruise torque by 10%.

ITT we discuss EAE on MS3
 

As I mentioned in ryephile's and other threads, set injection timing calculation to end of squirt (sequential). Begin with a global value in the entire map. I choose 300 btdc. Sweep in 20 degree increments, advancing first and retarding, about 120 degrees in both direction. Subjectively assess smoothness, look at tendency to misfire, change in afr, etc.

Then you can try narrowing down to specific speed load areas if you want to. There's more than one way to do it. A dyno helps.

With fixed end of injection the start of injection is calculated based on injection pulse width converted from time duration to crank angle duration. So the ecu figures out when it needs to start firing to deliver the specified injection duration and end at the specified value from the table.

I'm going to start doing just that (hopefully soon) and will post up the conflicting injector timing maps I see from Brain/Rev/DIYautotune in an attempt to figure out the reasoning behind the numbers. Just to understand it better.

ITT we discuss EAE on MS3
 

I've seen some of these maps floating around and I'm guessing a lot of them were set to start of injection rather than end of injection.

I have a BP with MSPNP, latest firmware, and ITBs. I've been struggling with EAE on and off for a couple of years now and no matter what approach I take to solving this problem, I end up at the same comclusion. The code/algorithm is just not structured for the fast map changes of ITBs. At best I have to "work around the problem" by using extermely low values that cause EAE to act erradically.

The main problem is that EAE (the value visualized at the EAE gauge that we're familiar with) does not return back to the 100% position (during throttle off conditions) unless map starts to go back the other way. This might be fine with a plennum-type manifold, but not with ITBs as the pressure pulses simply travel too quickly.

For example, if I let off the throttle to shift and EAE drops to say 70% (so 30% less fuel), when I step back on the throttle, EAE FIRST hast to get to 100% EAE before even going past 100% to count for the increase in throttle. Of course I get a huge lean spike and annoying hesitation before the gauge even reaches 100%. Then an annoying rich condition for a good 2 to 3 seconds after because EAE is finally going past 100% but just hovering there instead of quickly returning back to 100%. Add to that the fact that you've got x ft of vacuum lines that the pressure pulse has to travel through to get to the map sensor. vacuum lines that are already taking pressure downstream from the throttle plates.

So what I've had to do is just use really low SfW and AtW values to keep EAE relatively close to 100% during throttle movement. I've also tried everything from high wall values and low rpm correction values and vise versa. As well as making sure the wall values weren't too far apart. Nothing I tried would get rid of the fact that EAE hovers in either -100 or +100 conditions AFTER map has stopped changing instead of quickly returning to 100%

I've even tried running SfW to 0 at the very bottom of my map range so that it snaps back to 100% during throttle off (shifting) but then that creates an annoying -100% EAE "snap" when you're getting BACK ON the throttle. After dealing with this I've wondered allot about how expensive ECUs like Motec control transient throttle movement. It's not like ITBs are a new thing

SJ. Please post you msq and a log of the throttle changes. It will likely be next week, but I'll look at them, and see what I can see. I'm interested in what your total wall fuel looks like. Generally, if ATW and SFW are too far apart, return to 100% will take longer.

Meanwhile, did you approach EAE in the manner we suggested? And, are you using throttle based AE at all?

I'm not an expert, but something might become obvious if I have more than a description to go on.

I know this is an old thread but it's still the best one on EAE I've found (please drop links if you know of an even better resource apart from the diyautotune.com guide and manuals at msextra.com).

@DNMakinson and 18psi: Massive thank you for contributing the stuff above! Are you still running the same settings/maps? Any additional learning about EAE worth sharing?

Cheers,

Mostly minor tweaks.