Timing Issues

[m0l0]

Hi there!

Well i might like to share a little issue i have currently with the tweecer , i am not having any issue controling timing on the WOT, logs show timing as i want, but at idle the timing does not match the spark_base_table , f.e. if i put something like 20, the timing on the corresponding load vs rpm , the timing its jumping to 30-37, however if i limit the timing on the borderline f.e. 20 the timing will be reduced to 15-17 , i am a little bit confused why on open loop and wot timing is well controlled and on idle ( closed loop) ? is not in control de base table. any one with similar problems , also i would like to know what timing are u using on the idle.


Thanks in advance.


On another off topic stuff i am now doing the AFR wot programming ( safely done at 22 degrees spark thanks grady for the safety ) and i could not beleive the richness of the maf transfer 7.0:1 at wot!! i have succesfully lowered to 9.5-10:1 but the problem i am facing is that the wot part of the curve is getting low and its now a step transfer and not a curve as for the word. the idle cruising part of the maf curve is good and the karmfs are showing nice 1.02-.998 tops , but the wot is getting alittle bit hard to make it a real "curve" , i lowered a little the fuel pressure and i will be tuning again as soon as i get a little time.


Edit:


Grady i was looking at your low slope and high slope values , since u are using the same injectors as i do, you are using this as a leaning feature or what is the purpose of having 2lbs higher slopes ??

Other thing , now that i leaned the mixture using the maf transfer now my top CFM according the maf readings is top 560 cfm as oposed of 750 that i was having before ( obviously due the lowering changes ) , does this looks right for a H/C/I or i am wrong.



Re-edit:

Sorry grady not trying to question your tune , but more as a questions ive seen some scalars that brings my attention.


PIP Filter : 20 ( what use apart from a rev limiter is this scalar for real use , does it interacts someway in the injector timing table ) since i havent touched the pip filter i am curious about this.

Fuel shut off deceleration minimum ect : 254 ( i am sure you used this as a cure to the horrible leaning the tune suffers letting the gas pedal of under the 20 mph or less deceleration and meeting the other criteria on the scalars) i also used this same value so i know what the use is for.

Manifold_volume : 3 ( stock is 5 , i readed your page and you are sure this cures a sudden lean on letting the gas off , but i have tried this and i kinda feel a little less trottle response, but i havent seen the lean spike yet.)

stabilized_min_ect : 140 ( i kinda understand this is the min. ECT temp the eec wil go closed loop ?? ) why did you lowered to 140 instead the stock 160 ??

Fuel OL multiplier time delay : 0 ( by name i kinda understand what this does , but do you have any comment why you eliminated the delay?? , since i dont see any OL multiplier beeing used on this eec.)

max_spark_retard : 21 ( whats the real use of this??)

open loop time delay hyst : .5 ( i kinda also understand by name the use of this but what was your experience lowering the delay on the switch to OL , did you see any leaning??)

Spark retard for knock sensor : 21 ( any success with this on the spark table , because i dont think this is too usefull since we dont use knock sensor ?? )

Sincerely this looks like a little agressive ( kinda questioning ) why you did this changes re-edit , but contrary to what it looks like i am questioning this because i want to know the experience on this changes and learn more things that are hardly documented on this strategy

Thanks grady in advance and sorry if this looks aggresive but its more like a exchange of why and what where your experiences on this changes that i see on your tune

 

[tjh566]

Ok on your closed loop timing, there are other tables that modify the final timing, based on temp and certian things, ACT, ECT, EGR, various things, look through the other tables.

Not sure but its like 2-4 diff tables it goes thru to get final closed loop timing.

 

[blksn955.o]

Dont freak out about idle timing...it will jump around abit. The eec adds and removes timing to help get a stable idle. IIRC it jumps like 15* or something...not sure just know its all over the place if you leave the spout in and hook a timing light to up to look at it idling.

Really, most everything not WOT can prob. be left stock (if your not under boost) or close to it as it will prob. be the best mpg and drivability like that. As far as drivability goes anyway there are far more important things to nail down or look at first.

 

[final5-0]

Sounds like your wb might not calibrated correctly
cause
I've never seen other peeps report about ratios that fat

Most peeps have to work with their .dbf (IIRC the name) file
in CalCon to get things reading correctly so check the .org
site for complete details for your wb choice.

Look at that info just a bit more closely on my site as the
manifold scalar change had nothing to do with any decel
conditions

Speaking of decel conditions

IMHO, the j4j1 deals with them WAY better than t4m0
In a nutshell ... leaning at decell is normal kinda thing ...
as you see all kinds of fuel shut-offs in place

btw ... when you decell and hear popping or gurgling sounds ...
thats from excess fuel in the exhaust lighting off which I
noticed vanished when I moved from t4m0 to j4j1

I'd not advise you to go open loop at idle until you get a bit
more understanding of how the pcm uses various inputs
(there are several ... btw) to control idle.

As for the slope values ... those were what worked best
using the EEC Analyzer method of dialing in injectors

I have to be very honest with you here

Its been so long since I used or dealt with some of the stuff
you ask about in this thread ... I really can't recall all the
answers easily

But ... if the truth be told
Most of the stuff on my site was on here at least once and some
of it ... numerous times before I made it available in one place.

Its easier to access it over there and it has saved me a ton
of typing the same stuff over and over from the same Q's
every time a new crop of noobs arrive here

Here is just one example about that manifold scalar showing
my favorite peeps (94-95 SN folk) get my input if I think I
can be of any help

Search keywords used btw ... manifold volume scalar

94-95 tuning section:
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=635134&highlight=manifold_volume+scalar
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=612781&highlight=manifold_volume+scalar

94-95 tech section:
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=623812&highlight=manifold_volume+scalar
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=596516&highlight=manifold_volume+scalar

Just run your scalar, function, or table you have concerns about
through the search engine here or the .org site and you'll get
tons of helpful info

Also run the various Tweecer users screen name
(one of my most effective methods I used btw)
through the SE's as well for great info!

anyway .......

Hope this can help you to get started
and even though
I've not been able to give you a fish for each and every need here

I've tried to give you an idea or two about fishing that will
be far more useful to you in the long run

Grady

 

[final5-0]

On another off topic stuff i am now doing the AFR wot programming ( safely done at 22 degrees spark thanks grady for the safety ) and i could not beleive the richness of the maf transfer 7.0:1 at wot!! i have succesfully lowered to 9.5-10:1 but the problem i am facing is that the wot part of the curve is getting low and its now a step transfer and not a curve as for the word. the idle cruising part of the maf curve is good and the karmfs are showing nice 1.02-.998 tops , but the wot is getting alittle bit hard to make it a real "curve" , i lowered a little the fuel pressure and i will be tuning again as soon as i get a little time.

I went back and re-read your post again and wanted to point out one thing
as well as address another thing I missed the first time around.

First thing is .....

I told you something is not right about you seeing 7 to 1 fuel ratios.

Since you are holding K's fairly close to the line, it looks like you are
making progress on your CL portion of the tune

I say this because if your maf transfer was that far off .......
I mean ... so far off to cause those overly fat ratios .....
You would not be close with your K's like you now are IMHO.

Again ... I suspect your WB is outta whack

And Besides

If you really were at 7 to 1
You'd be foulin plugs ...... big time ...... right and left!!!

The second thing I wanted to address I missed the first time ......

That last sentence where you talked about lowering the
fuel pressure

You absolutely ... positively ... DO NOT wanna be changing the
pressure.

Its counter-productive to any CL tuning you've previously done
and
Changing it will cause you more tuning work

Here is why ........

EVERY time you change the pressure, the adaptive strategy is
gonna try its level best to compensate for that pressure change
with pulse width changes cause it has sensed things have
gotten leaner or fatter.

I do wanna point out here ... The pcm does not have a way to
determine fuel pressure or amounts of pressure. It makes the
assumption and bases all computations off the assumption of
the stock oem pressure setting value.

You can plainly see this at work by looking at how the K's respond
to the change in pressure.

Another way to look at this issue is

That is the sole purpose of the adaptive strategy .......
Pressure changes fool it into thinking something has gone wrong

I would advise the pressure be put back to whatever setting
is stock (39 lbs maybe ) and leave it there.

Grady

 

[m0l0]

I lowered the Fuel presure since it was on the 40 psi mark to 38 psi , that lonely stablished my karmfs to 1.003 , so i am happy now with it on CL , and for the wideband i really dont think is bad calibrated on CL its showing 14.6-14.8 ( my innovate.dbf is calibrated really fine what a time consuming was doing that) also the metering is done with the logworks ( WB innovate own software connected to the serial port direct ) so i really dont think the WB is bad calibrated, however i will give it another calibration today, i am really frustrated since you are telling me that my stock maf could not be so off, but my wideband is showing nice progres when i lean the maf transfer ( a calculate is off by 20% up top, on the low side is good) , but i have now the issue who should i trust Ford´s stock Maf Transfer , or my Wideband ( wich seems to be reading really fine)


On a side note, i havent pulled out the plugs ( ok i am lazy ) i will see what the plugs have to say. and also lowering the MAF transfer so far now by 15% havent showed any detonation nor pinging, remember it was on 7:1 or maybe less ( WB limits), and leaning 15% have showed a progres leaning up to 9.6-9.8:1.

Ohh just another thing the fuel table up top is 11.899 as stock , i am trying to first reach the commanded afr on the pcm to then try something like 12.5 on the fuel table stabilized ol.



RE-EDIT.:

Now i am suspecting my Injector timing table is making the wideband readings bad. E.A. recomended 362 on the table and i set them to 360, could this be the problem ? i remember that i readed some time ago that at WOT that table dosnt change much the AFR by some degrees plus or less , since the injectors are firing almost open at all time.

 

[m0l0]

Ok i will try posting a "dyno" type of run i made on a empty highway on the last wot setting, it has a lot of idle time about 2/3 of the time, but it goes all 1rst up to 3500 rpms, 2nd up to 3500 too, and then the 3rd WOT from 2500 rpms to 5400 an then the braking with the clutch disengaged. i hope it can help if anyone is interested on my logs.

View attachment 070223165441.txt

Sorry but forums dosnt take zips just rename it to .zip

Thanks in advance ,


p.s. dont mind the timing up to 47 , thats not real its that calcon bug on the non updated payloads when writing the calibration. the timing really was 22 on the wot. i verified this rewriting the payloads and the timing reading was fine then.

 

[m0l0]

I am terribly sorry for this thread at all.

Let me start with you Grady first of all , you were so right about the WB going nuts. a simple recalibration made the trick.

I did a run just about 10 minutes. ago and my WB readings now look sooo much stable and fine. that i really thank i first try recalibrating and doing a run and read the logs and the WB. if i would leaned the mixture more i would be right now crying a dead engine.

But more than being sad I am more happy than ever , finally my WOT AFR is 12.8-13.2 on all the curve from 1500 rpms up to 6000 rpms, i call it the perfect tune as to say right now.

And of course all the CL operation is so smooth at 14.7 that is unbelievable, and the karmfs sitting right where they belong 1.003-.9998

Thanks to all that read my post and i am sorry again.

Now i have a little more tweaks to do since i did some leaning the lambse shows 11.8 as stock but the AFR is at 13.2 so this should be solved with some MAF transfer fine tuning (enriching) and just set my fuel table to the right settings.

Thanks again to all , and Grady

Please allow me to show this two beautiful EA output screen shots.




I dont know if the E.A. HP/TQ calcs are really fine but they sound more or less realistic and if you are thinking that that HP is low for a h/c/i let me tell you it may sound low but i am at 7000 ft+ of altitude so i think they are fine.

 

[blksn955.o]

WOW- its been awhile since I downloaded an update for the EA program...it looks alot better (and it is a good program version I have).

 

[tjh566]

what things are needed when datalogging to do the horsepower thing?

 

[m0l0]

STFT1
STFT2
LTFT1
LTFT2
PW Optional
PW2 Optional
RPM
MAF Flow
Maf Volts ( if you are not loggin MAF Flow use MAFV as another option)
TPS Volts. ( As filter Option)
AFR ( As Filter Option)

For a more detailed explanation go to the Settings->Calculation Requeriments