Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
yeah it's definitely pretty good! remember that 132 is only a 3% fueling error, which is really nothing, it's just running at nearly 15:1 instead of 14.7:1, and that's just until your trims take effect. totally safe unless under really heavy load.

loose should be ideal even for fine tuning. by 'loose' it just means that samples close to the border are averaged into both cells. it's not spreading the data around very much. you can tighten the boundaries on map and rpm hysteresis (go a bit lower). i think there's no reason to use 'strict', rather just see you tune 'loose' until it behaves for you...

i wonder if at this point not using the integrator might help it get closer too. some configurations have a stable integrator and some don't.

edit: since obviously the shape of the table is pretty good, maybe just *0.98 the whole table in tunerpro and see where that gets you.
Steveo: Would it be better to have a configurable target value so you can calc the results to target 125 say rather than 128 ?

Thanks
Mitch