Gut check - current tune
01-16-2019, 03:33 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
Gut check - current tune
Car runs pretty decently at the moment. Would anyone care to look over my tune to see if there are any glaring oddities and/or mistakes etc? This car is a 1999 miata, naturally aspirated, MSPNP2. Thanks!
Reply
0
0
01-17-2019, 02:34 AM
#2
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
Crap. Went to sequential fueling...idles like bleh. Stumbles when I blip the throttle during idle. Will retune some high load low rpm regions tomorrow. Worst case I go back to batch.
Reply
0
0
01-17-2019, 03:03 PM
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
Went back to batch for now and I think I realized something I may have fubar'd.
I was wondering why the cranking pulsewidth was "so" high - such that I lowered the number (along with ASE and WUE) down so much. Such that at ~65F, my cranking pulsewidth% was... 140. After reading the manuals more - it seems that this number is solely based on the REQ. I have NB2 injectors that flow tested at 282 cc/min at 43.5psi... BUT, at 60psi (I'm in an NB1) it would allegedly be 330 cc/min. I put into the calculator a value of 300 cc/min idiotically to change the VE tables more "conservatively."
Would it then follow...that the crankpulsewidth calculator (at baseline) was calculating based on a 300cc/min injector, but instead was cranking with a 330cc/min injector therefor causing me to lower the PW drastically?
I crank the car at 140% at 65F with an REQ of 10.1 - when it should technically be at 9.1... which means that IF I had it changed to the correct value of 9.1 - the cranking pulse would instead be 155% (140+ ~10%)?
In addition I would need to multiply the entire VE table by that same increase?
Edit: Brought down REQ to 9.1 (from 10.1). Added 11% to VE table. Added 11% to Crank Pulse. Switched to sequential. Turned off accel enrich (under 100 TPSdot). Car is doing well so far. Switched PID settings on closed-loop to "basic" - will dial that in later but it seems I have an oscillating idle and it's widening as time progresses (it narrows for a bit, but then expands). I guess I have a vacuum leak since I'm idling between 36-46 map. But usually right around 42.
I was wondering why the cranking pulsewidth was "so" high - such that I lowered the number (along with ASE and WUE) down so much. Such that at ~65F, my cranking pulsewidth% was... 140. After reading the manuals more - it seems that this number is solely based on the REQ. I have NB2 injectors that flow tested at 282 cc/min at 43.5psi... BUT, at 60psi (I'm in an NB1) it would allegedly be 330 cc/min. I put into the calculator a value of 300 cc/min idiotically to change the VE tables more "conservatively."
Would it then follow...that the crankpulsewidth calculator (at baseline) was calculating based on a 300cc/min injector, but instead was cranking with a 330cc/min injector therefor causing me to lower the PW drastically?
I crank the car at 140% at 65F with an REQ of 10.1 - when it should technically be at 9.1... which means that IF I had it changed to the correct value of 9.1 - the cranking pulse would instead be 155% (140+ ~10%)?
In addition I would need to multiply the entire VE table by that same increase?
Edit: Brought down REQ to 9.1 (from 10.1). Added 11% to VE table. Added 11% to Crank Pulse. Switched to sequential. Turned off accel enrich (under 100 TPSdot). Car is doing well so far. Switched PID settings on closed-loop to "basic" - will dial that in later but it seems I have an oscillating idle and it's widening as time progresses (it narrows for a bit, but then expands). I guess I have a vacuum leak since I'm idling between 36-46 map. But usually right around 42.
Last edited by wherestheboost; 01-17-2019 at 04:05 PM.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
