Page 56 of 72 FirstFirst ... 646515253545556575859606166 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 840 of 1070

Thread: new $EE tuning thing!

  1. #826

  2. #827
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    if you really want to get outside of stoich, just give up on closed loop altogether. there's nothing wrong with open loop.
    I'm out there man, thanks to $EEx I'm in OLSD 95% of the time, usually just use CLMAF for startup/warmup and when the motor gets heat soaked and my IAT's skyrocket due to my warm-air induction setup, my SD tune, or lack thereof, doesn't run well with IAT's above ~150f.

    My ultimate goal is to be able to get the PCM to do my Lean Cruise stuff without necessarily having to run my laptop and $EEx all the time to do the manual AFR command. I'm thinking that really devoting a lot of time to developing an SD tune to give me what I want, is probably the only way to get to that point, but I'm wondering if it could be done just as well in closed loop, which is arguably easier to tune and has the benefit of the feedback from the O2's

  3. #828
    Fuel Injected! 91ss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Age
    61
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Thatdudeorion View Post
    Oh and also, SteveO and I have discussed EGR a little bit in the past, and I basically coerced him into adding the EGR control to the latest release of $EEx. Thus far, I've tested it, and it appears he is still correct, in the sense that I've had the best fuel consumption results from overriding it to 0% all the time. This doesn't make sense based on the theory of EGR and results that I've seen from other engines on the EcoModder forum, but apparently the LT1 seems to not like EGR. I'm sure it cuts down on NOx or HC or whatever for emissions reasons, but it appears to come at the cost of slightly increased fuel consumption. Though it does seem to reduce knock sensor counts under acceleration...I think...
    I haven't played much in the 95 caprice's code to date other than shift parameters so can't comment on fuel economy improvements. Nor my 91 caprice. However, I do search for economy in my mustang. In it's case, (EGR can be shut off easily) lack of egr costs me at least 1-2 mpg. Now, the thing I have yet to verify is if it is do to the lack of the egr or... additional spark advance lost. The mustang has a table that adds in additional spark based on egr flow (interpreted by egr position sensor) and LOAD. Not sure the equivalant in EE$ Load is approximately same as VE. The cam being more than stock at 216/224 degrees starts getting into that 'built in egr' effect cause of the increased overlap. So maybe it really is the lack of additional timing. So egr gains/losses in economy may be dependent on things like the camshaft too.

    On the O2 switching, that is another nice feature of the fords is that you can alter the switch voltage. The guys do use this like you're thinking. Another nice feature is the hego bias table that effectively controls the dwell time above or below stoich. Which helps bias the AFR to either above or below. You just can't too crazy with it. If the eec doesn't see enough switches, it may fail the sensor.

  4. #829
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,007
    that is another nice feature of the fords is that you can alter the switch voltage.
    the same variables exist in $ee as well as most gm ecms? definitely not some special ford thing. the limitation is the sensor not the code

  5. #830
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by 91ss View Post
    I haven't played much in the 95 caprice's code to date other than shift parameters so can't comment on fuel economy improvements. Nor my 91 caprice. However, I do search for economy in my mustang. In it's case, (EGR can be shut off easily) lack of egr costs me at least 1-2 mpg. Now, the thing I have yet to verify is if it is do to the lack of the egr or... additional spark advance lost. The mustang has a table that adds in additional spark based on egr flow (interpreted by egr position sensor) and LOAD. Not sure the equivalant in EE$ Load is approximately same as VE. The cam being more than stock at 216/224 degrees starts getting into that 'built in egr' effect cause of the increased overlap. So maybe it really is the lack of additional timing. So egr gains/losses in economy may be dependent on things like the camshaft too.

    On the O2 switching, that is another nice feature of the fords is that you can alter the switch voltage. The guys do use this like you're thinking. Another nice feature is the hego bias table that effectively controls the dwell time above or below stoich. Which helps bias the AFR to either above or below. You just can't too crazy with it. If the eec doesn't see enough switches, it may fail the sensor.
    Yep, as SteveO pointed out, we've got the switch voltage adjustment as well, but IDK about the dwell time. I don't think there's a table for that in the PCM natively, but he may be effectively altering dwell time with his CORRCL patches.

    And on the EGR stuff, I think the EE PCM does have a table for spark advance adjustment relative to EGR, so I'm glad you reminded me of that, I can check that while driving and manually overriding EGR position and see what effect it has on my total timing. I can say that I've got it advanced to the ragged edge using the AutoSpark table in $EEx, and my gut says that the EGR spark advance isn't adding much to mine. However, on a conservative stock advance curve, I could see the EGR having a big impact on overall timing, so you may really be onto something there. But the aftermarket cam may be obfuscating the issue somewhat, so who knows?

    Oh, also, another thing that I'm somewhat surprised by is that I have a water/methanol injection setup on my car, with the intention of using it to reduce knock, allow extra timing advance, etc. and it appears that I'm using more fuel while injecting water. But I think this is because the nozzle is too big and I think it's actually overcooling the combustion and I'm having to use a fraction of additional TPS to get the same HP as when I'm not injecting, but with a little fine tuning, I think I can do much better.

  6. #831
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    34
    Did some additional testing thanks to the benefit of the EGR override and I can now see that the factory EGR tuning does tack on an additional measure of timing advance when the EGR is active. Let's say something like 7* when EGR DC is 100%, may not be an exact number but whatever.

    So lets talk for a second about EGR...
    I think I've been thinking about it wrong the whole time, and I'm now convinced like 91ss eluded to that any gains in MPG that people are seeing with increased EGR duty cycle is due primarily to the added timing advance that can be run due to the cooler combustion temperatures. So I have overridden the EGR to 0% and added back the additional timing I was missing via the AutoSpark in $EEx, and thus far initial testing looks good! Can't wait for the new efficiency measure in the next Beta!

  7. #832
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Thatdudeorion View Post
    Can't wait for the new efficiency measure in the next Beta!
    might be a bit to finish that project, but every few days i throw a bit more code at it. i've been a bit distracted.

    lately my time has been tied up tuning sportbikes, which it turns out is way harder than tuning cars; and that's where my energy is going right now. i've tuned a ton of old carb bikes, but didnt' prepare me for this...

    you know how you can add or subtract 10-15% of fuel from a car and you don't really notice "too much of a difference" beyond the subtle stuff like throttle response?

    try tuning an engine that runs a 5% fueling threshold between studdering horrible barfing raw fuel out the pipe, and losing all of your torque so it feels like a 50cc scooter, and wants anywhere between 12:1 and 18:1 afr for max power depending on what kind of mood it's in...

    also imagine a world where header primary length, a few mm of velocity stack height, or even a few mm of exhaust baffle diameter is more extreme of a torque band shift than changing cams and porting heads, and requires up to 30% of fueling change in narrow bands?

    it's crazy stuff to say the least, and the japanese engineering nutjobs that build these crates run some kind of alien math to design them.

    my current bike has VE that looks like a broken roller coaster but makes damn near 4hp per cubic inch and revs to 18000rpm.

    great practice, though... i think im going to come back to the car world and be an excellent tuner.

    20160723_204121 by Steve, on Flickr

  8. #833
    Fuel Injected! 91ss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Age
    61
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Thatdudeorion View Post
    So I have overridden the EGR to 0% and added back the additional timing I was missing via the AutoSpark in $EEx, and thus far initial testing looks good! Can't wait for the new efficiency measure in the next Beta!
    Cool, you beat me to it! Looking forward to the results. But I'd like to stress again that it's this going to be combo dependent. YMMV, literally lol. Results with a stock cam may want the egr flow with the timing. The goal is to find the right advance to achieve MBT. Going beyond starts to become counter productive. Energy starts fighting the rising piston if ignited too soon. It's possible that the egr flow lets you get to that MBT advance that you would not be capable on the octane of the fuel alone.

    Not sure we'd have a one size fits all solution, but with enough data points, might end up with some good starting points for general approaches or recommendations.

    Steveo - fun on tuning those bikes. He, did you ever run them through Engine Analyzer sim software? Be curious if it shows that finickyness.

  9. #834
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    34
    Yep, I agree the goal is to get to MBT, and I do have concerns about too much advance, or at least more advance than what's really necessary...without a dyno it's really tough to tell what's perfect, and then even if you do, it's only for a certain point on the timing map.

    And I agree about it being completely application dependent. According to the wiki on EGR functionality, one should be able to achieve at least equal performance/economy if not increased economy with it versus without it, primarily due to the reduced pumping losses which come with having to open the throttle wider to account for the inert EGR charge displacing some combustible charge and thus reducing power at a given throttle opening, but that just doesn't seem to be the case for at least my LT1 with stock f-body cam.

    Other engines (I'm thinking smaller, lower output engines) may be affected more strongly by pumping losses may indeed show greater increases in mileage with the EGR flow allowing greater throttle blade openings/pumping loss reductions.

    It is also possible that my EGR valve is gunked up and not really passing 100% flow even when the solenoid is commanded to 100%, which may be skewing my results, but at this time, I'm just leaving it commanded to 0% all the time and adding my own advance adder to compensate.

    And it seems like my opti may be going out or needing a cap and rotor at the very least, so my quest for 40MPG will surely not be completed til I work up the cojones to tackle that job. Need to get to work on aero mods in the meantime.

  10. #835
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,007
    Yep, I agree the goal is to get to MBT, and I do have concerns about too much advance, or at least more advance than what's really necessary...without a dyno it's really tough to tell what's perfect, and then even if you do, it's only for a certain point on the timing map.
    as far as efficient timing advance goes, due to its combustion chamber design and unique cooling system, you'll find that under light loads, the lt1 has a particularly wide flat area between the two timing advance points of 'just enough timing to burn everything' and 'too much timing, and power loss starts'.

    really big. in terms of power and feel, on my car i could -barely- tell the difference between 35 and 65 degrees in cruise range. but you could see it on a vacuum gauge for sure, if you held steady throttle and varied timing.

    don't be afraid to experiment with a crapload of timing in cruise range. the combustion temperature and stress on internal components is very low when the engine is unloaded. a bit of detonation will not blow stuff up or melt pistons if you aren't running like that for hours. in my experience your car will protest with surging and bucking and feeling 'strained' way before it hits the point of knock anyway.

    your experience may vary.

  11. #836
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    as far as efficient timing advance goes, due to its combustion chamber design and unique cooling system, you'll find that under light loads, the lt1 has a particularly wide flat area between the two timing advance points of 'just enough timing to burn everything' and 'too much timing, and power loss starts'.

    really big. in terms of power and feel, on my car i could -barely- tell the difference between 35 and 65 degrees in cruise range. but you could see it on a vacuum gauge for sure, if you held steady throttle and varied timing.

    don't be afraid to experiment with a crapload of timing in cruise range. the combustion temperature and stress on internal components is very low when the engine is unloaded. a bit of detonation will not blow stuff up or melt pistons if you aren't running like that for hours. in my experience your car will protest with surging and bucking and feeling 'strained' way before it hits the point of knock anyway.

    your experience may vary.
    Yeah, this has been pretty much my experience exactly, and I have tried to use the MAP readings to get it dialed in, and I think without a steady state dyno we're probably just going to have to accept 'close enough' particularly in my case as I don't think there's more than 500' of contiguous level roadway, and heck, even if there were, I still don't know how close I could get it, as even at closed-throttle idle, the MAP readings jump around quite a bit whether you're tweaking timing or not.

  12. #837
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    55
    I've got a Caprice with the LT1 and try as I might, I can't get this program to work. It errors out every second or so, and then logs an issue with the data stream. I'm going to start pulling the same fuses I pull to flash using TunerCat (which works), but does anyone have any other ideas?

  13. #838
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,007
    if you can find out specifically what fuse you have to pull to get it working, that might be a start to us figuring out why it just doesn't work on some b-bodies.

    some experimentation is definitely required to help get this working, as nobody with programming ability that uses eehack seems to own a b-body.

  14. #839
    Fuel Injected! 91ss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Age
    61
    Posts
    36
    Steveo, are you familiar with the downshift pressure modifiers? Trying to figure out if what the units are in, PSI? And if positive values increase pressure or the opposite. The few bins i've looked through tend to have values go negative as the MPH go up. Wonder if it's like Ford's EPC where the more you reduce the current, the higher the pressure goes. It's also interesting that the most of the bins only populate only the 3-2 shift table and not the other two.

  15. #840
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,007
    Steveo, are you familiar with the downshift pressure modifiers?
    not a question for me, i don't really work with the auto trans end of stuff..

Similar Threads

  1. 1badcell and thats not the only thing
    By 1badcell in forum Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 02:25 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 09:03 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-07-2012, 05:26 PM
  4. Minor thing.
    By historystamp in forum GearHead EFI Forum Support
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2012, 12:00 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •