Progress Thread finally tuning (and more)
- Thread starter JD1964
- Start date
Send a screenshot of the entire Binary Editor window with your tune open, [including the bottom status bar]. That should help us identify the loaded definition without more folder hunting.
Ok... The file I'm looking for is called, "GUFB.xlsx".
You can do a search for it from [My PC] in File Explorer.
You can do a search for it from [My PC] in File Explorer.
Got it.
What fuel are you running and just confirming that you have no sort of boost-retard box or anything of that sort?
What fuel are you running and just confirming that you have no sort of boost-retard box or anything of that sort?
Below is the modified .bin file and a .zip file containing old values, new values etc.
The revision extends spark coverage to 160% raw load, reduces timing through the higher-load regions, and resamples the tables sharing that load axis. Measured NA scaling points remain unchanged; It corrected the anomalous upper endpoint to hold the 6,000-rpm value.
Retained the existing fuel targets, MAF transfer, and injector settings, and removed the two-second high-load open-loop delay.
Offline byte, interpolation, and checksum checks passed. This has not been validated in Binary Editor or on the engine. Open it with your GUFB definition and compare the tables against the included report before writing it. Initial testing should establish timing agreement, wideband accuracy, fuel-pressure tracking, and charge temperature before progressing into boost.
The very last file (.pdf) is a guide that will walk you through manually inputting each of the suggested changes.
It should be pretty conservative. Your data-logs after you've had a chance to test it, will tell us more.
I probably don't have to say this but I will: Make sure all of current files are saved someplace where you [know] you can get to them.
Let us know how it does!
The revision extends spark coverage to 160% raw load, reduces timing through the higher-load regions, and resamples the tables sharing that load axis. Measured NA scaling points remain unchanged; It corrected the anomalous upper endpoint to hold the 6,000-rpm value.
Retained the existing fuel targets, MAF transfer, and injector settings, and removed the two-second high-load open-loop delay.
Offline byte, interpolation, and checksum checks passed. This has not been validated in Binary Editor or on the engine. Open it with your GUFB definition and compare the tables against the included report before writing it. Initial testing should establish timing agreement, wideband accuracy, fuel-pressure tracking, and charge temperature before progressing into boost.
The very last file (.pdf) is a guide that will walk you through manually inputting each of the suggested changes.
It should be pretty conservative. Your data-logs after you've had a chance to test it, will tell us more.
I probably don't have to say this but I will: Make sure all of current files are saved someplace where you [know] you can get to them.
Let us know how it does!
Man this is awesome, thanks! What a treasure it is to have access to people so willing to share their knowledge and spend their time helping. I hope I can help others in meaningful ways. I'll get busy with this tomorrow and follow up! Thank you thank you and thank you again....
Where is your ACT sensor mounted? That could change my timing recommendation. Also, is yours intercooled?
Noobz, what total timing did you give him ay 140-160 load?
Noobz, what total timing did you give him ay 140-160 load?
The bottom row, R7 / 160.00061%, shows the 160% values. There’s no separate 140% row—the ECU interpolates between R6 / 100% and R7 / 160% to get those numbers.
So, in the main operating range, about 16–17° at 140% load, tapering to 14–15° at 160%
ACT is in factory location intake runner 5 and will be staying there. The combo is not intercooled and won’t ever be.
I promise I will run and share logs. I will do some NA logs, then finish the boosted tune and put the blower stuff back on the car and do some more. Tell me what parameters I should run. I want to exclude anything not needed to keep it as tidy as possible.
I will get the logs posted but it might take a few days. The Mrs. is pretty pissed at me now for having my head buried in this project for the last week so I need to turn my attention away from the car for a bit. Dont worry because it wont be long before she gets tired of me fawning over her. Please bear with me.
I really like the looks of the timing table you made Noobz.
To everyone who is helping drag me across the finish line, thank you very much!
Sounds like you got it sorted. If it helps this is my spark table. I'm running around 10-11 psi. My table is total timing as I'm using a crank sensor / trigger wheel and distro is locked out at 0°. My PCM commands all advance.
Last edited:
I’ll take a look and compare numbers. ThanksSounds like you got it sorted. If it helps this is my spark table. I'm running around 10-11 psi. My table is total timing as I'm using a crank sensor / trigger wheel and distro ia locked out at 0°. PCM commands all advance. Are you sure you want total timing in there? Isn't your distro set at 10°? Maybe you computer automatically deducts the base from your table for all i know. Just a friendly double check.
Noobz,
I understand the interpolation that the ECU does between the lines. However, I have previously verified that my combo idles at roughly 27% air load. Given that fact, on the table you did, can the data in rows 0 and 1 be omitted and thereby opening up entries at other places in the curve to improve the table with actual useable data? Or, is the ECU’s interpolation function good enough that it wouldnt make a difference?
I was thinking maybe an entry at 120% and 140%. Or, other places if you recommend a better strategy. I can pay you for your time if needed.
I understand the interpolation that the ECU does between the lines. However, I have previously verified that my combo idles at roughly 27% air load. Given that fact, on the table you did, can the data in rows 0 and 1 be omitted and thereby opening up entries at other places in the curve to improve the table with actual useable data? Or, is the ECU’s interpolation function good enough that it wouldnt make a difference?
I was thinking maybe an entry at 120% and 140%. Or, other places if you recommend a better strategy. I can pay you for your time if needed.
Similar threads
