Cobb Datalogs
09-16-2010, 02:04 AM
#62
maf ically inept .. maf ically challenged .. maf matically lacking .. maf us withoutus .. And i suppose as we dedate these maf results we eventually become expert mafdebators ....
Just thinking aloud here ....
Just thinking aloud here ....
Last edited by Brettus; 09-16-2010 at 03:12 AM.
09-17-2010, 10:35 AM
#63
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Bump. Do you guys think my BHR pump comes into play? Can you see where I shifted to 4th 
Oh, and ambient temp gauge measured 99F.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4998956030/http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4998956030/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/9krpmrx8/, on Flickr
Oh, and ambient temp gauge measured 99F.http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4998956030/http://www.flickr.com/photos/9krpmrx8/4998956030/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/9krpmrx8/, on Flickr
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 09-17-2010 at 01:06 PM.
09-17-2010, 12:43 PM
#64
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baseline tweaked Map and logfile
Hey guys...
Here are a couple of snapshots of a WOT run in 1st gear in my 2004 AT RX8.
I used Kane's Baseline program to modify the fuel trims in the Open Loop areas.
The snapshots below are after the first "fine" tuning I did.
I first adjusted the entire Open Loop, higher load and RPM area of the stock Map fuel trims by an M value of 1.15.
I applied this map to my ECU, and called that my "JK Base Map V1".
I did this because my COBB logs, when using the Stock Base map in this area, were showing a steady AFR of 11.17.
I belive the COBB AFR scale bottom's out at this value, as I have not seen it go any lower...ever.
I logged about 4 days worth of normal / hard driving and applied those logs into Kanes Baseline program and it showed me the rich areas that I still had.
I adjusted the fuel trims again using the M values provided by the program.
The average changes I still had to make, in the same area as before, was still another 1.05M to 1.25M decrease in fuel.
I have since applied those new M values to the areas specified by the program into my fuel trims and have applied that to my ECU.
The snap shots below are after a day or so of normal driving.
Questions:
(1) Are the Open Loop areas of the stock ECU map really that rich???? I have moved the values up now twice, and as you can see in the logs, still get quite rich in some areas. Am I missing something?
(2) Does that map look ok with that growing peak in the fuel trims in my Open Loop, higher load and RPM areas?
( 3) I have another log of a good pull in second gear up a steady hill. AFR's in this log are not quite a rich at WOT... I belive they are pretty good for the load and RPM???
Any input would be appriciated....
Thanks.
Here are a couple of snapshots of a WOT run in 1st gear in my 2004 AT RX8.
I used Kane's Baseline program to modify the fuel trims in the Open Loop areas.
The snapshots below are after the first "fine" tuning I did.
I first adjusted the entire Open Loop, higher load and RPM area of the stock Map fuel trims by an M value of 1.15.
I applied this map to my ECU, and called that my "JK Base Map V1".
I did this because my COBB logs, when using the Stock Base map in this area, were showing a steady AFR of 11.17.
I belive the COBB AFR scale bottom's out at this value, as I have not seen it go any lower...ever.
I logged about 4 days worth of normal / hard driving and applied those logs into Kanes Baseline program and it showed me the rich areas that I still had.
I adjusted the fuel trims again using the M values provided by the program.
The average changes I still had to make, in the same area as before, was still another 1.05M to 1.25M decrease in fuel.
I have since applied those new M values to the areas specified by the program into my fuel trims and have applied that to my ECU.
The snap shots below are after a day or so of normal driving.
Questions:
(1) Are the Open Loop areas of the stock ECU map really that rich???? I have moved the values up now twice, and as you can see in the logs, still get quite rich in some areas. Am I missing something?
(2) Does that map look ok with that growing peak in the fuel trims in my Open Loop, higher load and RPM areas?
( 3) I have another log of a good pull in second gear up a steady hill. AFR's in this log are not quite a rich at WOT... I belive they are pretty good for the load and RPM???
Any input would be appriciated....
Thanks.
Last edited by chonniedotcom; 04-27-2013 at 12:10 AM.
09-17-2010, 01:28 PM
#66
Hey guys...
Here are a couple of snapshots of a WOT run in 1st gear in my 2004 AT RX8.
I used Kane's Baseline program to modify the fuel trims in the Open Loop areas.
The snapshots below are after the first "fine" tuning I did.
I first adjusted the entire Open Loop, higher load and RPM area of the stock Map fuel trims by an M value of 1.15.
I applied this map to my ECU, and called that my "JK Base Map V1".
I did this because my COBB logs, when using the Stock Base map in this area, were showing a steady AFR of 11.17.
I belive the COBB AFR scale bottom's out at this value, as I have not seen it go any lower...ever.
I logged about 4 days worth of normal / hard driving and applied those logs into Kanes Baseline program and it showed me the rich areas that I still had.
I adjusted the fuel trims again using the M values provided by the program.
The average changes I still had to make, in the same area as before, was still another 1.05M to 1.25M decrease in fuel.
I have since applied those new M values to the areas specified by the program into my fuel trims and have applied that to my ECU.
The snap shots below are after a day or so of normal driving.
Questions:
(1) Are the Open Loop areas of the stock ECU map really that rich???? I have moved the values up now twice, and as you can see in the logs, still get quite rich in some areas. Am I missing something?
(2) Does that map look ok with that growing peak in the fuel trims in my Open Loop, higher load and RPM areas?
( 3) I have another log of a good pull in second gear up a steady hill. AFR's in this log are not quite a rich at WOT... I belive they are pretty good for the load and RPM???
Any input would be appriciated....
Thanks.
Here are a couple of snapshots of a WOT run in 1st gear in my 2004 AT RX8.
I used Kane's Baseline program to modify the fuel trims in the Open Loop areas.
The snapshots below are after the first "fine" tuning I did.
I first adjusted the entire Open Loop, higher load and RPM area of the stock Map fuel trims by an M value of 1.15.
I applied this map to my ECU, and called that my "JK Base Map V1".
I did this because my COBB logs, when using the Stock Base map in this area, were showing a steady AFR of 11.17.
I belive the COBB AFR scale bottom's out at this value, as I have not seen it go any lower...ever.
I logged about 4 days worth of normal / hard driving and applied those logs into Kanes Baseline program and it showed me the rich areas that I still had.
I adjusted the fuel trims again using the M values provided by the program.
The average changes I still had to make, in the same area as before, was still another 1.05M to 1.25M decrease in fuel.
I have since applied those new M values to the areas specified by the program into my fuel trims and have applied that to my ECU.
The snap shots below are after a day or so of normal driving.
Questions:
(1) Are the Open Loop areas of the stock ECU map really that rich???? I have moved the values up now twice, and as you can see in the logs, still get quite rich in some areas. Am I missing something?
(2) Does that map look ok with that growing peak in the fuel trims in my Open Loop, higher load and RPM areas?
( 3) I have another log of a good pull in second gear up a steady hill. AFR's in this log are not quite a rich at WOT... I belive they are pretty good for the load and RPM???
Any input would be appriciated....
Thanks.
You are applying the M values to the MAF scales yes?
Also, your MAF pulls must be long and slow. Though based on your logs, I don't see anything radically wrong, your STFT jumped high, but that could be throttle tip in, have to let it run some and see if your LTFT change to a high positive value.... but for sure be doing those cruising pulls before you mess with the WOT ones.
09-17-2010, 01:39 PM
#67
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Kane, what do you think are ideal logging scenarios? Highway trips? Normal in city highway driving? 3rg gear WOT runs? Also do you agree with the items on the first page in terms of what data should be logged?
09-17-2010, 01:49 PM
#68
For MAF Scaling, long 3-4th gear pulls on flat ground are best (cruise control)...
As for what to log:
Time
Coolant Temp. (° F) - optional for most things
Equiv. Ratio (AFR)
RPM (RPM)
Calculated Load (%)
Long Term FT (%) - get STFT too, helps to see open loop
Mass Airflow (g/s)
MAF Volts
Throttle Position (%)
Ign. Tim. Lead. Coil (°)
Ign. Separation (°)
The rest of this list looks fine.
As for what to log:
Time
Coolant Temp. (° F) - optional for most things
Equiv. Ratio (AFR)
RPM (RPM)
Calculated Load (%)
Long Term FT (%) - get STFT too, helps to see open loop
Mass Airflow (g/s)
MAF Volts
Throttle Position (%)
Ign. Tim. Lead. Coil (°)
Ign. Separation (°)
The rest of this list looks fine.
09-17-2010, 02:17 PM
#69
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Kane.....
I was taking the attached log info from your program and doing the following:
For Exsample:
At 7000 RPM at 100 percent load, the percent of change was
-13.7968355408958. So I applied the value of 1.13M into the "air/fuel Gear 1-2" area of AccessTuner Race at this area in the cell.
I did this for all rich values to try and reach my goal of 13.8 AFR in the open loop areas.
I have the stock airbox, so I did not think i need to calibrate my MAF sensor.
Is this not the way I should be tackeling this?
Thanks.
I was taking the attached log info from your program and doing the following:
For Exsample:
At 7000 RPM at 100 percent load, the percent of change was
-13.7968355408958. So I applied the value of 1.13M into the "air/fuel Gear 1-2" area of AccessTuner Race at this area in the cell.
I did this for all rich values to try and reach my goal of 13.8 AFR in the open loop areas.
I have the stock airbox, so I did not think i need to calibrate my MAF sensor.
Is this not the way I should be tackeling this?
Thanks.
You are applying the M values to the MAF scales yes?
Also, your MAF pulls must be long and slow. Though based on your logs, I don't see anything radically wrong, your STFT jumped high, but that could be throttle tip in, have to let it run some and see if your LTFT change to a high positive value.... but for sure be doing those cruising pulls before you mess with the WOT ones.
Also, your MAF pulls must be long and slow. Though based on your logs, I don't see anything radically wrong, your STFT jumped high, but that could be throttle tip in, have to let it run some and see if your LTFT change to a high positive value.... but for sure be doing those cruising pulls before you mess with the WOT ones.
Last edited by chonniedotcom; 04-27-2013 at 12:10 AM.
09-17-2010, 03:04 PM
#71
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhh... ok.. That may explain why stuff seems sooo far off... lemme play.
09-17-2010, 05:09 PM
#72
Isn't 13.8 a bit too lean? I know that if your are racing in Star Mazda they say the most power is .92 - .93 lambda, but we are not racing. I would like to shoot for more like 13.0 in open loop.
Here is a dyno graph from a Cobb dyno tuned NA for example. Notice the trend line of the AFR? It looks like 13.0 - 13.2 to me.
Here is a dyno graph from a Cobb dyno tuned NA for example. Notice the trend line of the AFR? It looks like 13.0 - 13.2 to me.
09-17-2010, 08:39 PM
#73
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks.
That's great info... Great graph.. That is what I am trying to shoot for.
I will back it off a bit... I read in other areas that 13.6 to 13.8 was max power... but it looks like at a cost???? Engine maybe?
Thanks again.
I will back it off a bit... I read in other areas that 13.6 to 13.8 was max power... but it looks like at a cost???? Engine maybe?
Thanks again.
Isn't 13.8 a bit too lean? I know that if your are racing in Star Mazda they say the most power is .92 - .93 lambda, but we are not racing. I would like to shoot for more like 13.0 in open loop.
Here is a dyno graph from a Cobb dyno tuned NA for example. Notice the trend line of the AFR? It looks like 13.0 - 13.2 to me.
Here is a dyno graph from a Cobb dyno tuned NA for example. Notice the trend line of the AFR? It looks like 13.0 - 13.2 to me.
09-17-2010, 11:31 PM
#74
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the looks of the numbers the lower voltage areas should have got richer, and the higher voltages should have gotten leaner... Based on more and less air scaling.
I must have done sumth wrong... as the car ran like total crap... Backfired when it started... and during warming up...
Then when I drove a bit.. it had bad hesitation at lower RPM's and from standstill.
I dunno... me confused, Ha ha ha...
What I tried now was just changing the MAF values between 2.77v and 3.71v.... The car runs fine now and is a bit leaner up at WOT... Low 12's as a min.
Last edited by chonniedotcom; 04-27-2013 at 12:10 AM.