Scaling the VE table for crusing resolution - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


MEGAsquirt A place to collectively sort out this megasquirt gizmo

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2009, 08:57 PM   #1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
akaryrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,526
Total Cats: 0
Default Scaling the VE table for crusing resolution

I have made a ve table that ive scaled for off boost resolution and only am using the top 3 KPA bins for boost. They are in roughly 30 - 40kpa increments. Note that I am not actually boosted so dont bug me about the VE in boost, I already know. Also I have not tuned it at all yet, just scaled it the best I could based on my MSPNP scaled map that I had roughly tuned. I also attatched my AFR target table.

So any thoughts about this? Am I going to have any problems running it like this? My goal is to have better fuel economy and drivability, at the cost of possibly having to run slightly richer in boost if I have problems with lean spots.
Attached Thumbnails
Scaling the VE table for crusing resolution-ve-table.jpg   Scaling the VE table for crusing resolution-afr-target-table.jpg  
akaryrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 09:21 PM   #2
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
patsmx5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,793
Total Cats: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akaryrye View Post
I have made a ve table that ive scaled for off boost resolution and only am using the top 3 KPA bins for boost. They are in roughly 30 - 40kpa increments. Note that I am not actually boosted so dont bug me about the VE in boost, I already know. Also I have not tuned it at all yet, just scaled it the best I could based on my MSPNP scaled map that I had roughly tuned. I also attatched my AFR target table.

So any thoughts about this? Am I going to have any problems running it like this? My goal is to have better fuel economy and drivability, at the cost of possibly having to run slightly richer in boost if I have problems with lean spots.
Meh, I don't like that. IMO, you'll need more resolution in boost. The engines VE changes constantly with boost. So when you're at 100kPa, zero backpressure (more or less, but not really), but as boost builds, back pressure does too, affecting VE. Scaling from

I would want something like this if I were esentric about cruise VE.


190
170
150
130
110
90
70
60
50
40
30
20

That gives you 10kPa resolution from 10-70kPa. If I'm cruising at 70mph, I vary from 40-70 all the time. You can also get more resolution by adjusting the RPM columns in these rows.

Still, I like my 16x16 fuel table. I do kPa in 10 kPa increments from 20-100, then 110, 130,... 210, 230. RPM scaled from 500, 1000,....7500, 8000.
patsmx5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 10:10 PM   #3
Elite Member
iTrader: (24)
 
kotomile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 7,578
Total Cats: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patsmx5 View Post
esentric
Not a word.

So many of us run such simple boosted AFR targets I wonder myself how many boosted rows we really need. Mine is modeled after a table Joe posted awhile back, and IIRC the boosted rows started at 12.5 for one or two rows around 100kpa and then ran to 11.8ish for the remainder, starting just after crossover.
kotomile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 10:18 PM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
patsmx5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,793
Total Cats: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kotomile View Post
Not a word.

So many of us run such simple boosted AFR targets I wonder myself how many boosted rows we really need. Mine is modeled after a table Joe posted awhile back, and IIRC the boosted rows started at 12.5 for one or two rows around 100kpa and then ran to 11.8ish for the remainder, starting just after crossover.

Yeah, I suck at sphelleng.

AFR target table VE table. Agreed that a huge AFR table isn't really needed. But I think more resolution on the VE table is needed. It will be hard to dial in that table, and then it will still suck IMO.

I like my 16x16 table. MS2E FTW.
patsmx5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 12:56 AM   #5
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
akaryrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,526
Total Cats: 0
Default

Well, I am going to run this table for now since I am NA at the moment, and once I get some boost, I'll see how it works out. The megasquirt's interpolation between cells will help a lot, meaning that if I have 110VE at 170kpa and 115VE at 210kpa, then 190Kpa will have a VE of 115, which is likely close enough to keep my AFRs within .2. I can just run slightly richer AFRs if needed.

By the way, Braineack posted up a VE table that was very similar. I'd like to know what he thinks about all this.
akaryrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 02:52 AM   #6
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
akaryrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,526
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patsmx5 View Post
I like my 16x16 table. MS2E FTW.
16x16 would be great, and 20x20 would be perfect. These 12x12 tables are like the bare minimum resolution needed. With 12 rpm bins, there is only one every 600rpm if they are spaced evenly. A lot can change over 600rpm.
akaryrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 06:16 AM   #7
Newb
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akaryrye View Post
16x16 would be great, and 20x20 would be perfect. These 12x12 tables are like the bare minimum resolution needed. With 12 rpm bins, there is only one every 600rpm if they are spaced evenly. A lot can change over 600rpm.
I really don't get comments like this. A 20x20 table would be pointless. Frankly, a 12x12 table is probably overkill.

The MS interpolates the values in ALL the cells surrounding the MAPdot. It's not like your fuelling jumps between the VE numbers, it doesn't round-up or round-down to the nearest cell. With this in mind you basically already have a 1000x1000 table (maybe more, who knows, you get the point though!!!)

I bet an 8x8 table would work just as well in our application. They managed with a LOT les resolution in the good-old carb days!
smifta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 12:01 PM   #8
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
akaryrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 2,526
Total Cats: 0
Default

12x12 is not enough resolution for me. As the RPM's rise, there are changes in the VE that are not linear and do not necessarially follow the interpolation of the fuel map. I have seen that between two points which are each tuned, the AFR will be off in between, and that was over a change of about 600 rpm.
akaryrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 12:11 PM   #9
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
patsmx5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,793
Total Cats: 247
Default

16x16 is pretty good. I wouldn't mind a 20x20 actually. I'd like to be able to have more resolution in low boost actually. And a few extra RPM bins would be nice as well to better dial in off idle RPM and a couple extra columns in the cruise area.
patsmx5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 07:17 PM   #10
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 860
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akaryrye View Post
1there are changes in the VE that are not linear and do not necessarially follow the interpolation of the fuel map.
I am not a 100% on this, but I remember reading somewhere in the MS documentation that spline interpolation is used for VE, not linear. Hence a 20x20 or a 100x100 wouldn't really help that much.
The_Pipefather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 07:22 PM   #11
N3v
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nashville/Knoxville, TN
Posts: 318
Total Cats: 1
Default

pff, after finally tuning a non-itb'd car, you guys have nothing to complain about. regular intake manifold cars are so much more forgiving. while in high revs cruising on the highway, my 20% cruising throttle puts me at 88kpa or so, while 70% throttle puts me at around 93. My VE table looks pretty silly to compensate. I'm probably just gonna give up and retune it for TPS instead of MAP. Right now my table is like
100
97
95
93
91
89
87
85
80
65
45
20
N3v is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 07:26 PM   #12
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

does this work:
use whatever scaling you want for the VE table in boost
give lots of authority and step value to EGO correction below 100kpa

this way you get the resolution you want in boost, and get the EGO correction "power" for target AFR in cruise...then you can make money, smoke trees, and get bitches.


I've owned another car with Haltech, and an "e-prom" tuned car and the 12x12 tables drive just fine. Actually, even with just MAP based enrichments my car has phenomenal drive-ability in comparison to my previous vehicles including a TT-coupe and STI.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2009, 01:21 PM   #13
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,809
Total Cats: 1,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akaryrye View Post
By the way, Braineack posted up a VE table that was very similar. I'd like to know what he thinks about all this.

yep, my fuel map has been scaled similarly for well over a year...

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2009, 01:51 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N3v View Post
while in high revs cruising on the highway, my 20% cruising throttle puts me at 88kpa or so, while 70% throttle puts me at around 93. My VE table looks pretty silly to compensate. I'm probably just gonna give up and retune it for TPS instead of MAP. Right now my table is like
100
97
95
93
91
89
87
85
80
65
45
20

you need to switch to hybrid alpha n. I have mine use ve table 1, which is tuned to run speed density, when its below 85kpa and switches over to ve table 2, which is setup to run alpha n, over that.
RdSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MS PNP requires reading and following directions??? satisfied MEGAsquirt 141 10-06-2015 11:44 AM
VE analyze and Autotune seems funny (noob) TorqueZombie MEGAsquirt 64 09-18-2015 06:03 PM
mm0105 TABLE SWITCHING WIRING? slomiata MEGAsquirt 2 09-15-2015 01:54 PM
VE values too low? compuw22c MEGAsquirt 4 09-12-2015 08:42 PM
ME221 Now has Autotune and Long Term Fuel Trim Tables Motorsport-Electronics ECUs and Tuning 0 09-05-2015 09:02 AM


Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 AM.