Close

Page 28 of 33 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 676 to 700 of 801
  1. #676
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    236
    Rep Points
    757.9
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BuraQ Click here to enlarge
    Yes....but to clarify I know the window can be expanded which will make the graphical table bigger. However, a zooming feature to get more detailed.

    For example: The P-Factor table 3D graph, it doesnt matter how much the window is expanded you still cant make tits for tats out of it. Being able to zoom in on the area of interest would help
    I'm sure that could be possible. I'll add it to the general ATP/ATR tasks and see if we can get it added in the next batch of updates.
    Josh Dankel
    ECU Engineer
    866.922.3059
    Click here to enlarge
    web | forum | blog | facebook | twitter | youtube

  2. #677
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12


    Reputation: Yes | No
    @Josh@Cobb

    I'm still getting these timing issues with tip-in flatlining, even after eliminating boost overshoots. It appears that boost and load is dialed in, but MAF is still overshooting. Is this the root cause to my tip-in timing flatline? How can I reduce the Actual MAF to be closer to target? Timing corrections are 0 and Torque Limit was not exceeded (did not see live value of 4). Any help is appreciated.

    Original thread:
    http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...hrottle-on-WOT

    Log from today:
    http://datazap.me/u/tzu/cobb-backend...4&zoom=334-537

  3. #678
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,914
    Rep Points
    1,353.5
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Could the Cobb E30 map be used with a stock car and E50? I saw the logs, and there were no ignition corrections in those few logs that I saw. I believe the fuel scalar should be adjusted up though to be on the safe side not maxing the trims. I told him to pick the scalar from the Cobb scalar table. Anything else that would need to be taken into account and should be adjusted in the map? For example, anything related to keeping the stock cats alive? I guess the Cobb E30 map would be the best starting point for him running stock car w/ E50 and make minor adjustments to it if needed?

  4. #679
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    40
    Rep Points
    2.7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    from PTF dzenno ON E50 VTT STAGE 2 BATCH 2 E50 dyno.csv

  5. #680
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    25
    Rep Points
    31.4
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    @Josh@Cobb

    Josh, in any table in ATR, is it possible to change the value of the column or line header and will it do anything (for example, the last column in the ignition table is valued at an actual load of 180, could i change it to, say, 200 and the ECU will be able to work with that)?!

    thanks

    peter

  6. #681
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    903
    Rep Points
    785.5
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by syclone2032 Click here to enlarge
    @Josh@Cobb

    Josh, in any table in ATR, is it possible to change the value of the column or line header and will it do anything (for example, the last column in the ignition table is valued at an actual load of 180, could i change it to, say, 200 and the ECU will be able to work with that)?!

    thanks

    peter
    Im not Josh but yes you can change the X axis if that is what you are talking about. If you dont have turbo upgrades you should leave it as is for that specific table. The cells of course you can change to target the desired timing. Be very careful with that table

  7. #682
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    25
    Rep Points
    31.4
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BuraQ Click here to enlarge
    Im not Josh but yes you can change the X axis if that is what you are talking about. If you dont have turbo upgrades you should leave it as is for that specific table. The cells of course you can change to target the desired timing. Be very careful with that table
    BuraQ,
    many thanks. IŽll be careful, I just want to give something a try. I will post more if I succeed (but I am sceptical...).

  8. #683
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Rep Points
    22.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Can the maps be altered to full E85 and inhibit a lean cruise safe for full E85 to help some MPG's?

  9. #684
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    6
    Rep Points
    6.6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
    Could the Cobb E30 map be used with a stock car and E50? I saw the logs, and there were no ignition corrections in those few logs that I saw. I believe the fuel scalar should be adjusted up though to be on the safe side not maxing the trims. I told him to pick the scalar from the Cobb scalar table. Anything else that would need to be taken into account and should be adjusted in the map? For example, anything related to keeping the stock cats alive? I guess the Cobb E30 map would be the best starting point for him running stock car w/ E50 and make minor adjustments to it if needed?
    Im running E50 on the E30 OTS map and no issues whatsoever. I did tweak a few things, but my fuel trims are fine with a 1.0 scalar. I'm at high altitude though, closer to sea level you may have to up the scalar until your trims look good.

  10. #685
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    632
    Rep Points
    1,532.8
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16


    Reputation: Yes | No
    How high can I raise the boost ceiling and load target in the atr software? It seems like everytime I set a target load higher than 209 or boost ceiling higher than 1.27bar the driveability is crap and boost request is locked at atmosphere (14.x psia). Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

  11. #686
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    903
    Rep Points
    785.5
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by andy_divers Click here to enlarge
    How high can I raise the boost ceiling and load target in the atr software? It seems like everytime I set a target load higher than 209 or boost ceiling higher than 1.27bar the driveability is crap and boost request is locked at atmosphere (14.x psia). Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
    You problem is touching the Boost Ceiling which is capped at 1.28 bar. I dont know where your getting 1.27 from ?

    You cannot increase the Boost Ceiling, leave that alone

    The DME is capable off handling max 400 load, but its futile to even go pass 200 if the boost ceiling cannot be raised. On Stock turbos you should stay sub 200 load in ATR logic

    There are other ways to raise boost btw but requires some knowledge of knowing how to tune PID tables.

    Boost can be added using the WGDC Adder along with the WGDC Ceiling. Raising these require modifying the PID tables as you will be wayy above boost means abs. These are just the begining, there are more table to tweak but these tables are the key before moving on to other tables.

  12. #687
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,936
    Rep Points
    2,858.8
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    29


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by andy_divers Click here to enlarge
    How high can I raise the boost ceiling and load target in the atr software? It seems like everytime I set a target load higher than 209 or boost ceiling higher than 1.27bar the driveability is crap and boost request is locked at atmosphere (14.x psia). Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
    Contact Cobb to get the "race code" or "boosa" or whatever the hell they are calling it these days. Last i heard it only worked for I8AOS software on 6MT's, so hopefully that matches your setup.
    2011 E90 M3 \ Melbourne Rot Metallic

    Click here to enlarge

  13. #688
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,001
    Rep Points
    2,254.6
    Mentioned
    147 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Reputation: Yes | No
    @Josh@Cobb,

    Just curious what, if any, updates are being worked on for the N54 roms? Any chance of native 3bar or 3.5bar MAP support and higher boost ceiling, boost by gear, NLTS, IJE0S flatline fix for NLTS, etc?

  14. #689
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Roanoke VA
    Posts
    1,632
    Rep Points
    2,248.3
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by jyamona Click here to enlarge
    @Josh@Cobb,

    Just curious what, if any, updates are being worked on for the N54 roms? Any chance of native 3bar or 3.5bar MAP support and higher boost ceiling, boost by gear, NLTS, IJE0S flatline fix for NLTS, etc?
    There is already 3.5bar N20 TMAP sensor support. With the race code the boost limit can be pushed to 21psi.

    As far as the other features are concerned I can't comment.
    Click here to enlarge
    MOTIV750, MOTIV P-1000 PI, MOTIV/FUEL-IT! low pressure fuel system, AEM EMS/COBB AP, Aquamist HFS-3, ETS FMIC, SPEC stage 3+ clutch/SS flywheel, BC Racing coilovers and VMR wheels wrapped in Hankook RS3s.

  15. #690
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,001
    Rep Points
    2,254.6
    Mentioned
    147 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rader1 Click here to enlarge
    There is already 3.5bar N20 TMAP sensor support. With the race code the boost limit can be pushed to 21psi.

    As far as the other features are concerned I can't comment.
    I guess I meant true 3.5bar support, a la, removing the fake "21psi" limit from the ECU. 3.5bar is 50.7psi, take away baro pressure, you should be able to log 36psi technically with the sensor.

    It's been possible on just about every other platform, so I'd imagine it's possible here too, although the work required may be more steep. It's on thing I miss about tuning on the Evo X...support up to 4bar map, psi based boost control, and running a 3-port ebcs =/

  16. #691
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Roanoke VA
    Posts
    1,632
    Rep Points
    2,248.3
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by jyamona Click here to enlarge
    I guess I meant true 3.5bar support, a la, removing the fake "21psi" limit from the ECU. 3.5bar is 50.7psi, take away baro pressure, you should be able to log 36psi technically with the sensor.

    It's been possible on just about every other platform, so I'd imagine it's possible here too, although the work required may be more steep. It's on thing I miss about tuning on the Evo X...support up to 4bar map, psi based boost control, and running a 3-port ebcs =/
    Yeah... I could be wrong and Cobb roll that stuff out tomorrow but IMO none of that stuff is going to happen. The Bosch MSD80/81 DME is way more advanced and fickle than just about anything else out there and removing load based tuning isn't an option. The current 21psi limit is a PITA but will require an entire DME HEX rewrite to fix it(as I understand it) and the work required wouldn't benefit enough people to do it. Cobb has the talented people there to do it but from a financial stand point it has to make sense for them to spend the money on manpower to do it. It does make me jealous of what they can do with other platforms but it is what it is.
    Click here to enlarge
    MOTIV750, MOTIV P-1000 PI, MOTIV/FUEL-IT! low pressure fuel system, AEM EMS/COBB AP, Aquamist HFS-3, ETS FMIC, SPEC stage 3+ clutch/SS flywheel, BC Racing coilovers and VMR wheels wrapped in Hankook RS3s.

  17. #692
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    3 out of 3 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Hi guys, I'm new to this board but pretty active on another e90 related site. I'm pretty desperate for some help..

    I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong here, the car is a 2011 so it's an N55 but I'm sure you can point me in the right direction.

    Click here to enlarge

    I'm showing boost overshoot factor of 1.0 nearly across the entire pull, but I'm confused because requested boost abs doesn't go above boost mean abs. Actual loads remain under requested up until requested drops off a cliff.. I can't figure out whats causing this.. it's like Im hitting some safeguard but I'm not going into a limp mode or throwing any codes. Just tanks and it feels like I hit a brick wall. Any advice would be very appreciated.

    I can't post a link to the datalog yet without rep points but the screen capture should give you an idea.

  18. #693
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I did find something a little interesting, I logged again with everything scaled back considerably, basically worked off the Stg 1 aggressive map with fuel changes. I did get a small drop in requested load and when I went back to the map I found it was right around where the modeled torque limit dropped ~70 points. The requested load dropped as it should, I ended up with a throttle closure and my timing dropped over 4 points.

    Click here to enlarge

    This doesn't really explain my drop in the previous screen shot and it wasn't nearly as dramatic but I feel like I figured out what caused it in this particular case.

  19. #694
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by tke344 Click here to enlarge
    Hi guys, I'm new to this board but pretty active on another e90 related site. I'm pretty desperate for some help..

    I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong here, the car is a 2011 so it's an N55 but I'm sure you can point me in the right direction.

    Click here to enlarge

    I'm showing boost overshoot factor of 1.0 nearly across the entire pull, but I'm confused because requested boost abs doesn't go above boost mean abs. Actual loads remain under requested up until requested drops off a cliff.. I can't figure out whats causing this.. it's like Im hitting some safeguard but I'm not going into a limp mode or throwing any codes. Just tanks and it feels like I hit a brick wall. Any advice would be very appreciated.

    I can't post a link to the datalog yet without rep points but the screen capture should give you an idea.
    People here tend to be helpful when the request is genuine and someone tried to put in effort already to resolve it on their own.

    You can post links now.

  20. #695
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Thanks.. Here's the actual logs.

    http://www.datazap.me/u/tke344/e70-b...0&data=1-7-8-9

    This one is after I dropped everything down, I believe the solution in this case is to taper modeled torque limit more slowly (not sure why the OTS map drops so dramatically) but I'd really like to get a handle on the first log.

    http://www.datazap.me/u/tke344/load-...ta=1-7-8-11-12

  21. #696
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I think I may have been overworking my LPFP previously. In the first log where requested load dropped off right in the middle of the pull I was running nearly straight E85. Despite my AFR and STFT's looking good I believe the car was hitting some sort of failsafe that I was unable to log.

    This morning added some 93 octane bringing the mix down to ~E40, tweaked the map a little and logged again.

    http://www.datazap.me/u/tke344/e50-l...18-19-20-21-22

    Other than some small throttle closures the car felt much better, it looks like I even have some headroom to go more aggressive on the load targets and timing. Obviously I need to fix the fuel scalar, it's way too high for the now reduced ethanol content but that's easy to nail down. I'll log again after I make some adjustments and post it up.

    I figured I'd report on my findings, in short, just because STFT and AFR looks good there still could be fueling issues that aren't visible in a regular log.

  22. #697
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    On second thought, or maybe it was a combination of things.. but I'm pretty sure my spark plugs are totally shot. Misfiring at part throttle under load and that massive drop from my first log may have been my spark blowing out. I ordered the NGK 5992s and plan to put them in this weekend.

  23. #698
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    101
    Rep Points
    156.1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Bump. Tke what did you find? You might want to tag some folks using @ if you're still needing help.

  24. #699
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Well, I changed my plugs over the weekend to the NGK 5992s gapped at .025 - Idle is good and the car is running much better than it had been. I logged this morning on my way to work, while I am running a less aggressive tune I didn't see the massive dip in requested load. I unfortunately had a lot of throttle closures (very cool morning) and it screwed up my timing. Totally went to $#@! actually. I adjusted the map accordingly and went a little more aggressive, I plan to log again at lunch. I also got a low coolant light on cold starts that goes away once the car warms up. Going to top it off and see if it comes back.

  25. #700
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    44.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I didn't get a very complete log so I'm not going to post it but from what I did see (and feel) the car is running really well. I am working my way back up to the load targets I had in my original post and so far so good. Definitely appears that the plugs were the culprit

Page 28 of 33 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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