Spin9k

Perhaps I can shed some light as I just started w/using Prologger? The vertical line is a moving one to replay the data using 'vcr controls' and that point of data is displayed in numbers that you see next to the line. I asked about getting horiz lines to make the data easier to gauge just looking, but efidude hasn't seen fit to do that enhancement yet.

As far as I can determine there is no .csv output, you would need to be able to read the .dat file and output from there. I haven't had the time to try, but it sounds like it should be easy enough. lolachampcar or efidudes should know more. It's all so new there is by default more to do.

lolachampcar

Ok - Lambda and LTFT shown ---- LTFTs not cleared so if the MAF cal was fouled, the LTFTs would be off in space (just ask me how I know that)

Questioning the fuel system seems a bit lame as the stock fuel system can put 300 hp to the ground. The chances of the fuel pump or fuel filter being just bad enough that the car produces stock hp just fine then somehow runs out of fuel when you produce another 10 seems VERY unlikely to me.

lolachampcar

Just for grins-
The Dude data files are a 512 byte header page followed by PiD, dataA, dataB,,,, dataX then next PiD etc. The PiDs, number of data bytes and appropriate formulas can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBD-II_PIDs.

Open systems rule! Thank you EFIDude for not encrypting the data files.

Spin9k

I have a theory and a desire on your observations to put in the mix about what constitutes 'improvement'.

Couple years ago I was running Canzoomer... and although nowadays people think it was a failure..... damn it did make the car seem faster by a respectable amount. What is faster? Well by faster I mean that there was noticeable better throttle response and pickup midrange, like leaving a corner on track and winding up. I would say 5000-7500 rpm perhaps. I can't remember about up high - it's been too long...but when I took out the Canzoomer...blah. It was REALLY that noticeable.

It was like all the air was let out of the car's power curve when it was gone. And this wasn't just in my car but others as well w/the Canzoomer. Best of my recollection, we tuned both the timing and fuel, not JUST fuel. I know that goes against RB testing and current thinking...but...well...maybe as you say REAL WORLD is were we should be focusing more and not just numbers.

Wioth all these great new tools, seems a shame to limit ourselves to ONE SINGLE paramter to vary. Whwere's all the adventuresome ones? Live a little, play with at least some timing. We might all be surprised if anyone actuall can datalog some results that show it does something!!

So to me, I want more power UNDER the response curve, I KNOW it's in there and ATTAINABLE, I'm not so hot on just being able to say I have xxx HP as bragging rights. I think there possible benefits still left on the table to be had.

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

The chart is only difficult to read as a JPG on a static forum page, as the tool is interactive. You position the cursor wherever you want, and it tells you the exact number. You can see them displayed on the pic posted. It just doesn't have a verticle graticule for you to eye-ball values elsewhere. I wouldn't call that a major deficiency with the product. That is a minor cosmetic issue that can be addressed by the writer, I'm sure. And the way he publishes it - next time you started her up you would autometically get an update via the web.

Cheers,
Hymee.

lolachampcar

I'm a dummy.

Stock tune .74ish lambda values in a given operating range.

Make a single pass reasonable fueling to get .84ish lambda values in the same area and pick up some horsepower.

Put in Stage 1 tune and get .95ish lambdas and no meaningful change in horsepower.

It can not possibly be a fuel pump weakness or a clogged fuel filter. We are REMOVING fuel demand not adding it!

Put the stock file back in and go back to .74ish lambda values. It is plainly obvious that the PCM has plenty of fuel at its disposal. I can not believe it missed this point earlier.

Lastly, same car with the same intake and on and on. The only change is the ReFlash. If you get results with a single variable change, the chances are reasonably good that changing that variable drove the change in results don’t you think?

zoom44

thanks guys on the Logger info. so we're looking at a screenshot of a replay. there is another nice logger/scanner that has this same "playback " feature by Palmer Performance called PCMScan http://www.palmerperformance.com/pro...scan/index.php it does the playback as well as .csv . of course its $99 by itself with no connection cable.

Of course you could always grab a Mongoose from DrewTech with the FEPS upgrade and be ready to flash as well

but this is all more much money than that Prologger is and quite a bit above Hymee's

Good onya fellas

lolachampcar

I am going to take a small break. Please PM with any questions or if I can help in any way.

Thanks,
Bill

Hymee

iTrader: (1)

The thing with this logger, and the one I will be using that is unique to all the others mentioned, is that it is stand alone. You don't need a laptop or carputer running, and the complicated cables. It is a small "brick" that just plugs into the ODBII connector, and does it's stuff, completely hands off. No wires.

Cheers,
Hymee.

CnnmnSchnpps

iTrader: (1)

Ok this is slightly off topic but the people with the brains are watching this thread so please forgive my indiscretions..

Do they make any OBDII/CAN "splitters"?? As in, I have a scangauge and I really love that functionality. If I want to use another datalogger / reflasher, could I have both devices operating simultaneously?

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

Its a serial bus, so I imagine that you could wire one up.
I'm not really sure how many interrupt requests the bus can handle, though.
Hymee probably has an easy answer for that.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

That is the problem with the old butt dyno - you never really know . I'm thinking i should take a mate with an 8 to the track and load and unload a few tunes to see if we can prove anything ...

CnnmnSchnpps

iTrader: (1)

That's the answer I was hoping for. The physical cables themselves are available.

Let's hope

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

The problem would be when you have a car like mine that runs .86 lamda STOCK before the OEM fuel trims set in over a week to bring in down to .74ish. In the case of my car and some others, you could put anyones tune in it and it would run hyper lean. Its a variance in some of our cars - not any reflection on a poor tuning effort by anyone.

In my case I saw immediately it was running lean on Jeffs tune and Cobb's tune, gave some logs to Jeff, and a day later its perfect... 'nuff said on the subject

Spin9k

That's great rOtor. Plausible and reasonable. The question I have for all concerned is that this potentially exposes those who tune to dangerous conditions when the tune is installed and anytime trims are erased.

Is it possible to adjust the lambda **rich offset** the trims are aming at? Eliminate that and it would make tuning an easier task (no need to compensate for trims in the 1st place, and be careful of them when they get erased).

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

With the alternative maps Jeff generated for me, its not building any appreciative fuel trims. So I should be able to switch back and forth through different stages with these adjusted maps without a problem. I'll say that on the stock map after Mazda reflashes my car - it never idled for **** for a few drive cycles.


Perhaps Jeff wants to chime in hear, but now that the problem is known it might be worth the time to check out how your car runs on the stock map after a reset. If its running mid to upper 12's like my car did, you may need some tweaked maps. It just takes a user base and some data to iron out a procedure. We are very early on in the implementation of these flashing devices.


On the bright side of my car, if it didn't detonate at WOT with afr's at 15, i don't think it ever will

lolachampcar

Rotor,
Sorry, not 'nuff said on the subject. I've looked at the target Lambda tables. They were leaner than I would set them in my own personal tuning. The car had trim when it arrived (see logs) and this trim was left in place (and is not affected by changing high load high rpm Lambda table targets). The cars ran lean because they were told to run lean. Any talk of fuel pumps not being up to the task or trims not building are, in my humble opinion, just a smoke screen used to burry a mistake.

Normally, I would not have made such a big deal of it as we are all learning as we go. I have made and continue to make mistakes in my life. It is just that, the more you tell everyone exactly how everything is, the more you become a target when you screw up.

Dyno run - more peak power to .85 Lambda with nothing more to be had going leaner. I've seen it twice now and Jim M of Racing Beat said as much from his engine dyno work many years back. We can argue all we want about this Lambda making a bit more power at lower RPMs or you can not do this stuff without a dyno as every car is different but the bottom line is that reflashers are being shipped to people without dynos far away from their tuners. Heck, the AP does not even log so how is a customer supposed to know he/she is running lean? I gave up trying to watch a gage while I’m ripping down the street years ago.

One of the primary reasons I pushed EFIDude to build their tools to sell was that the best way for Pettit to support their SC kits is to provide the ability for owners to evaluate mixture and email data back to Pettit/EFIDude for verification. It was just common sense. The reflasher closes the loop as Pettit/EFIDude can provide updates as new things are found and improvements are made.

If you are going to ship something, you either have a method to verify the installation or you go conservative. This is my opinion and is confirmed by my observations of professional tuners.

Again, these are my personal opinions and not stated fact. I do not begin to pretend to have all the answers.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

So, which is it?

If you are so deep into this subject that you can make assessment like this one, surely you have the experience of know that what comes out the tailpipe is entirely different than what the fuel table says.
Just because there is a .92 in a given load cell doesn't mean that is what the resultant lambda is going to be.
At least, I hope you realize this.
So, while you are busy decompiling my calibrations, why have we yet to see one of yours decompiled? They are "open-source", aren't they?
I guess it would be a pretty moot exercise since we know yours run too lean and are too aggressively advanced. We have the shrapnel to show for that.

You really do an awful lot of ****-talking.
The world was a safer place while you were on hiatus.

lolachampcar

I do not know, Jeff.

Which is it? Is the fuel pump bad or did my watching the AP program the car trigger it's SkyNet go lean protect the flash to the detriment of the engine scheme? Oh, but wait, that going lean flash protection thing only explains the car I saw. When do you run out of excuses and just admit that you took too much fuel out of your first tables and that you are busily putting it back in because you have now figured out that there is no power to be had doing it and it risks the cats (which you told me, by the way)?

I have the tools to see what you've done. You can hide your work from others but not from me and do not give me that your stealing my stuff crap. I did not look at "your" tune to steal it, I just got tired of your blaming the lean running on everything but the fuel table entries.

It is a small mistake from a big mouth. Admit it and get on with your life (what little you have being on the forum at this time of night HeHe).


My skin is getting thicker and this is getting fun. One of the two of us has been inside the PCM and its not you.

Bye

sosonic

The passion exhibited for giving the RX-8 the right tune, is quite exciting. I need popcorn.

Glad to see lolachampcar around. I'm also looking forward to EFIDude and Hymee's release.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

The fact is, the "Level I" calibrations for the '04 and '05 had no main fuel table adjustments at all in the first set. Its all MAF and closed-loop cuts/adds.
The rest are drivability things. I needed to find out how those cars were going to react as compared to the ones that I had access to here before I could impose any significant changes.
I never suggested anything about the fuel pump. That was the user's suggestion and, seeing how it was in your stable, I didn't see any reason to dispel the belief in that possibility.

So far, the only thing that "thickening your skin" has done is to make you less aware of what is going on around you.

You can continue to press on with this whole charade, but I do hope that you realize how ridiculous you look.

You have nothing to show for your "work" other than a series of admissions to your theft and attempted theft, your nuked Pettit vehicle calibrations and a whole slew of ad-hominem attacks on me.
Not terribly impressive.
But I am not your style counselor, so your ability to sell yourself is not really my concern.

If you have been "inside" the PCM, than I suggest you stay there for a while and find the little things that the AP does to make the installation unique. You might look at the serial number on the AP first since you are big on needing clues (read - having your hand held).

Ultimately, my goals and intentions are pretty clear and obvious: I want the best possible solution for my own personal car.
Everything I've EVER done on this forum was the result of something I tried on my own vehicle.
Being able to bring these sort of ideas and solutions to the rest of the forum family is just a bonus.
As you can probably figure out (it is just simple addition), I am not in this for the money. If I were, it would be an awfully long time before it would be profitable at this rate.

So, you can dream up all kinds of machinations to "bring me down" or "expose" me, but as I said to Hymee (as a paraphrase of his own admission) - I have nothing to lose.
I only do this because I like it. And, frankly, I enjoy watching people like you self-destruct almost equally.
So, carry on!

lolachampcar

Looking at the data again, maybe you meant "I did not touch fuel at 125% load" which would be accurate. It is a shame NA cars do not get to 125% load.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

this is getting really old. why dont your spend your time on work other than this useless dick off!!!!

beers

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

So you admit to violating Federal law?

lolachampcar

Ha!
If looking at map files were against Federal Law, Cobb would be in jail right now.

Speaking of violating Federal Law, I think it is time to start a thread on MILs and diagnostic tests.

Keep digging MM. The hole will only get deeper.