This part of it looks like it is working out ok... - low to mid 12's are fine for a daily driver

 

OK... How do we scale the low end MAF values if we can't hit them in open loop? Logging in closed loop and try to get the STFT and LTFT close to zero?

 

You can do that, or turn closed loop off while you log down low.

 

Ya... I did. I also read a bunch of threads that all give different opinions and ideas... so I am getting a bit confused.

You mentioned: If you pull the O2 sensor it will stay in Open Loop the entire time, and then you zero out all fuel enrichment......ect.. I have not gone that route.

If I look at my logs, the car is running between the 14.7 to 13.2 range during closed loop operation. The LONG TERM fuel trim is at -0.16 which is what we want, correct? Should I even bother to mess with that?

According to the logs, under higher loads / RPM, when it goes Open Loop, it was geting way richer (Low 11's)

So if I understand you correctly, I am able to adjust just my MAF at the higher v levels that are giving me richer than desired MAF readings. Once I am close at those higher loads / RPM's, I can fine tune any spikes / rich spots using the fuel tables?

I will readjust the MAF tables in you program to match the changes I did last night, and log for a couple days and see where I land, then if need be, do it again.

I think this is the right path?

Thanks.

 

The LTFT takes time to build -0.16 usually means that none of the LTFT's have settled yet.

You can disconnect the O2 sensor, or make a new open loop only map, and take the closed loop exit RPM down (IE zero out the closed loop stuff) - just be sure to not run that map for anything other than logging for the maf.

When u change your MAF you don't have to do anything to baseline besides clear out the old file and reload your logs (as long as your target AFR map stays the same).

 

Hey Dark ... how the "F" did I miss this thread.

Subscribed.....
Oh and +1 post .... biotches

 

Wicked... Thanks buddy... I think I finally got it.

I will go through this process.... I will pull O2 sensor and then drive as you mentioned in the MAF thread... and will see what happens.

Thanks :-)

I will post in a few days.

 

I'd recommend zeroing it in the AP - much easier to do.

 

Ha ha ha...

I was just about to say that, I don't have to crawl under the car.... ;-)

So, in Access Race, drop the closed loop exit RPM to zero and the closed loop load to zero as well?

Thanks.

 

Yep

 

cool.... Thanks bud.

Going for a drive!!!:-)

 

Like this?
(see attachment)

 

I put mine to 0.00 not 0.10 like you did... but I would assume that your way would work as well.. as that is a very low load... car idle's at around 20 load.

See Attachment:

:-)

 

Don't know how the ECU would react to all zero.

 

I will let ya know... ;-)

Going for a drive soon....

 

If memory serves, I did all zero's it was fine.

 

Did some logging with closed loop tables like those I posted above. Trims are zero all the time so it works. The car idles AFR 15.6-15.9, expected 14.7. Average correction came to +1.12 in the logged MAF Voltage area of 1.04-4.28V which corresponds to the trims I was watching the last few days.
Correcting the MAF and will log again.

 

Did some driving today in Open Loop...

I had a bit richer results at first... on cruise I was sitting around 14.2 AFR... and at idle I was bang on at 14.7. But after driving around a few hours... I notciced that things leaned up a bit... Maybe just because the car got warmer?

Similar to SC-ed's... Idle was into the 15 range... and cruise was almost bang on at 14.7 to 15. These are numbers I saw during live logging.

I have not chucked the logs through Baseline yet... gonna do that later.. see where I land and adjust accordingly...

:-)

 

Here is what I ended up with in Baseline...

Kane... Not sure what I make of this...

Seems rich in some areas and lean at higher air flows....

Do I take each of these averages and scale the MAF, or do I take an average of all these values?

 

This is the result of just the cruise piece at 60 mph on a steady piece of flat highway....

Thanks.

 

You should do each of the values (however, you'll have to realize after you're done, sometimes you have to smooth the curve manually.

I haven't seen a MAF scale that far off on the top end before, are you stock intake?

 

Ya... Stock intake.

I rmoved the baffles and have a Highflow K@N filter. That's it.

So youthink the low end is correct, but the high end looks off?

I am running an 04 Automatic, with the Base Map from Access Race Tuner, could the map it generates be wrong for my car?

I took that "Base Map" and only modified the open loop stuff as you said, that's it.

Is it possible I mesed up sumth in my Engine setup in Baseline? I am pretty sure I built it right.

Thanks bud.

 

Double check that your target AFR map in baseline is the same as your Air FUel map in AP for the gears you are logging.

Otherwise, I would keep running it, make smaller changes (5%-7%) and see where it goes... it could also be the injector scaling of your second set of injectors or even a failing fuel pump, so be sure to save your previous maps in the event that things get all out of whack.

 

Hey bud...

I may not be doing this right.. ha ha..

I took this first step as:

"Step One: Cruising.
- On your Base Fueling MAP; set the Lamda Values in the cruising range to 1 (AFR 14.7)." I did this to "Make the math easier"

So my AFR Target is all 14.7 see attchement:

I did not scale it to the Air Fuel tabels as the other attachement shows?

For the WOT pulls I was going to chenge the MAF table to around 13.1 for those higher RPM and Load areas....

I also included a snpshot of my log at that cruise:

 

Well, there we go.... ok cool, at least now we know the issue.

Without baseline my MAF scaling thread using excel works - but with baseline you can be even lazier...

Once your baseline target AFR table matches the AFR table in the Cobb (you can change the cobb to AFR by the way).

THEN you log and you can scale the whole MAF without having to change anything in Baseline (other than log and scale)