Close

Page 17 of 33 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 802
  1. #401
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,214
    Rep Points
    9,337.9
    Mentioned
    654 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    94


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by hkninja Click here to enlarge
    OK. I have JB4 ISO so if I run a log, where do I see WGDC reading?
    With ISO PWM is the duty cycle to the solenoids, while duty cycle is what the DME would run as duty cycle given it's spoofed inputs.
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  2. #402
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    298
    Rep Points
    272.3
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Ok, so regarding my previous posts about increasing low-end torque when on RB turbos (which have more lag than stock turbos):

    - I increased the timing in the Timing (Spool) map, but surprise, the timing does not reach the targets in this map. It's close, but not quite. It's off by 2-3 degrees, and it's not the IATs or other compensation. For example, it doesn't go above about 14.5 degrees al low RPMs despite my target of 17 degrees.

    So...this brings us to the table "Load to Torque Limit". When I logged the "Actual Torque" I noticed that the actual torque kind of obeys this table...so my theory is that this is why the timing doesn't rise like I in the Timing (Spool) table: the torque for the actual load is at the limit, so the timing is not raised in order to keep the torque under the limit. This table is also the reason why the engine always feels so smooth despite not-so-smooth value variations in the timing tables. The ECU adjusts timing in order to obey this table. (I suppose that's why there's that flag available, "Disable Torque Intervention by Ign" - which I prefer to leave it unchecked for now).

    I increased the values in the "Load to Torque Limit" table by 20% in the low-RPM area, and I think I noticed an improvement in timing (not much, but 1-1.5-2 degrees). However tomorrow I will test a 50% increase.

    I wonder if I am on the right path with this.

    However, I would like to state that since I significantly raised the timing in the Timing (Spool) table the low-end torque is not an issue anymore. Car has plenty of low-end (on 93 octane). I just want more of it Click here to enlarge

  3. #403
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,707.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by cstavaru Click here to enlarge
    Ok, so regarding my previous posts about increasing low-end torque when on RB turbos (which have more lag than stock turbos):

    - I increased the timing in the Timing (Spool) map, but surprise, the timing does not reach the targets in this map. It's close, but not quite. It's off by 2-3 degrees, and it's not the IATs or other compensation. For example, it doesn't go above about 14.5 degrees al low RPMs despite my target of 17 degrees.

    So...this brings us to the table "Load to Torque Limit". When I logged the "Actual Torque" I noticed that the actual torque kind of obeys this table...so my theory is that this is why the timing doesn't rise like I in the Timing (Spool) table: the torque for the actual load is at the limit, so the timing is not raised in order to keep the torque under the limit. This table is also the reason why the engine always feels so smooth despite not-so-smooth value variations in the timing tables. The ECU adjusts timing in order to obey this table. (I suppose that's why there's that flag available, "Disable Torque Intervention by Ign" - which I prefer to leave it unchecked for now).

    I increased the values in the "Load to Torque Limit" table by 20% in the low-RPM area, and I think I noticed an improvement in timing (not much, but 1-1.5-2 degrees). However tomorrow I will test a 50% increase.

    I wonder if I am on the right path with this.

    However, I would like to state that since I significantly raised the timing in the Timing (Spool) table the low-end torque is not an issue anymore. Car has plenty of low-end (on 93 octane). I just want more of it Click here to enlarge
    How much more low end and won't you run into fueling issues fi you continue to increase it?
    Chrome Space Bar Issue: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...338#post738338


    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  4. #404
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    298
    Rep Points
    272.3
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    How much more low end and won't you run into fueling issues fi you continue to increase it?
    As long as it's done by advancing timing while keeping the same boost and AFR, the fueling stuff remains the same.

  5. #405
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,707.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by cstavaru Click here to enlarge
    As long as it's done by advancing timing while keeping the same boost and AFR, the fueling stuff remains the same.
    That's a really good answer.
    Chrome Space Bar Issue: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...338#post738338


    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  6. #406
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Roanoke VA
    Posts
    1,632
    Rep Points
    2,248.3
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by cstavaru Click here to enlarge
    Ok, so regarding my previous posts about increasing low-end torque when on RB turbos (which have more lag than stock turbos):

    - I increased the timing in the Timing (Spool) map, but surprise, the timing does not reach the targets in this map. It's close, but not quite. It's off by 2-3 degrees, and it's not the IATs or other compensation. For example, it doesn't go above about 14.5 degrees al low RPMs despite my target of 17 degrees.

    So...this brings us to the table "Load to Torque Limit". When I logged the "Actual Torque" I noticed that the actual torque kind of obeys this table...so my theory is that this is why the timing doesn't rise like I in the Timing (Spool) table: the torque for the actual load is at the limit, so the timing is not raised in order to keep the torque under the limit. This table is also the reason why the engine always feels so smooth despite not-so-smooth value variations in the timing tables. The ECU adjusts timing in order to obey this table. (I suppose that's why there's that flag available, "Disable Torque Intervention by Ign" - which I prefer to leave it unchecked for now).

    I increased the values in the "Load to Torque Limit" table by 20% in the low-RPM area, and I think I noticed an improvement in timing (not much, but 1-1.5-2 degrees). However tomorrow I will test a 50% increase.

    I wonder if I am on the right path with this.

    However, I would like to state that since I significantly raised the timing in the Timing (Spool) table the low-end torque is not an issue anymore. Car has plenty of low-end (on 93 octane). I just want more of it Click here to enlarge
    Good stuff man. I was encountering the same "issue" while tuning my stage 2s and I tracked it down to the same culprit. I just disabled the "torque intervention by ign" and haven't any issues.
    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.

  7. #407
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    298
    Rep Points
    272.3
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Yes Reputation No
    Bad news. If I increase the values in the "Load to Torque Limit" table to 50% over originals at low RPMS (1250-3000) and moderate loads (60-130), the ECU does not request more than 5psi when accelerating...car is sluggish. But the "Actual Torque" now reads higher even at low psi / low timing values. Which leads me to believe that this table is just for the ECU to estimate torque based on load, it's not a limits table. And since the Actual Torque is now higher due to this table, other torque limitations tables come into play and cut boost and timing. I don't know what to believe anymore. I would love to know what the "Requested Torque Limit (Driver)" and "Torque Limit Offset" tables do, but I leave these to when I get some more ideas.

    I will probably revert to the stock value for this map, leave the timing raised and enjoy the good low-end torque so far.
    Last edited by cstavaru; 06-18-2013 at 04:55 AM.

  8. #408
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Thanks for the update. I'm working in this area too and am a bit frustrated with how the labels for the tables are frequently misleading. So far I've gotten most of my improvements just controlling boost better to prevent going over the requested boost and load by very much. But I am also experimenting with these same things to try to figure out if I can move the limits up instead of forcing boost to stay below the existing limits.

  9. #409
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    95
    Rep Points
    81.5
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Carl Morris Click here to enlarge
    Thanks for the update. I'm working in this area too and am a bit frustrated with how the labels for the tables are frequently misleading. So far I've gotten most of my improvements just controlling boost better to prevent going over the requested boost and load by very much. But I am also experimenting with these same things to try to figure out if I can move the limits up instead of forcing boost to stay below the existing limits.
    I just wanted to chime in and say that I'm in the same boat with these extremely annoying timing drops. Carl was very helpful in another thread with sharing his PID tweaks. See: http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...-base-Attached

    I followed his lead and got very aggressive with the P factor to prevent even the tiniest of overboosts. But I feel the same way that this is just a bandaid. Not everyone's DME pulls crazy timing at the slightest hint of overboost. A small margin of error should be tolerated. So preventing the overboosts and more than likely getting side effects of slower spool and less power is less than ideal.

    It would be nice if we could once and for all find out which tables are controlling whatever limit the DME is exceeding. Obviously we're exceeding something and the result is timing drops. If only we knew where these limits are we could get to the root of the problem and raise these limits and have a proper fix with no unwanted side effects.
    2009 335i AT xdrive E90 Sedan
    7601494 Trans Flash
    MHD Custom Tune
    FBO + Rb Inlets

  10. #410
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Gents, looking for a little help curing a mild throttle closure followed by massive timing drop in the midrange. Usually happens when I roll into boost from ~3000.

    CSV file attached, rename from .pdf to .csv please. Also adding a pic of the problem area... Thanks!!

    Click here to enlarge
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #411
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,267
    Rep Points
    32,707.2
    Mentioned
    2130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dfv2 Click here to enlarge
    Gents, looking for a little help curing a mild throttle closure followed by massive timing drop in the midrange. Usually happens when I roll into boost from ~3000.
    @dzenno@PTF

    repped
    Chrome Space Bar Issue: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...338#post738338


    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  12. #412
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    The throttle closure corresponds to actual boost being a little above requested boost. But I don't see the evidence for what happened with the timing and for some reason my Adobe doesn't want to open your file. I would have liked to have seen requested load.

  13. #413
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,970
    Rep Points
    2,916.3
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    30


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Carl Morris Click here to enlarge
    The throttle closure corresponds to actual boost being a little above requested boost. But I don't see the evidence for what happened with the timing and for some reason my Adobe doesn't want to open your file. I would have liked to have seen requested load.
    Rename to csv Click here to enlarge
    2011 E90 M3 \ Melbourne Rot Metallic

    Click here to enlarge

  14. #414
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by lulz_m3 Click here to enlarge
    Rename to csv Click here to enlarge
    OK, but you didn't log requested load.

  15. #415
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Carl Morris Click here to enlarge
    OK, but you didn't log requested load.
    Sorry about that in ATR it's 190 across the table. I'll try to reproduce this today.

  16. #416
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    OK. The loggable load requested is different from the map entries you are talking about. The map sets the max, but the value that gets logged is scaled to how much you're asking for at the throttle pedal and such. So in the log you'll see values all over the place, and when the logged actual load exceeds the requested load we get additional wacky behavior.

  17. #417
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    www.bootmod3.com
    Posts
    6,693
    Rep Points
    3,352.2
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Yes Reputation No
    Here's a free tip for you guys...try reducing your Boost Limit Multiplier from the default of 2.6 across the board, leaving a higher load...DME observes the values in the Boost Limit Multipler table very closely. It will never cross (i.e. target higher) than what you've set in there...you can use those values to even scale your boost up/down fairly easily for any given MAF range
    Click here to enlarge

  18. #418
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Thanks, I haven't touched that at all, I don't think the Cobb documentation implied that there was anything useful going on there. This is another one of those cases where it's hard to tell from the name and the table exactly what is being set here. If you know, would you care to share what is being done with this table? When it comes to boost I understand the targeted/requested boost and the hard limit on boost, but I don't really see what's being done in this table. Exactly what is being multiplied by 2.6 to compare to what? It sounds like maybe you're saying this controls the boost target after multiplying by something else? Or is boost limit separate from boost target?

  19. #419
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    www.bootmod3.com
    Posts
    6,693
    Rep Points
    3,352.2
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    3 out of 3 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Set it to 2.4, leave your load at 190, see what happens to boost target and how it relates to Boost Setpoint Factor. There really is no easy way to explain these things to be honest. I'd have to write a couple pages to explain how it all relates. You just have to hit the road and tinker with it. The more you time you spend using ATR the clearer things will get.

    Also, I can tell you that none of this info has come from any Cobb document/tutorial. 99% of it is make the changes, hit the road/dyno, see what happens, really how it should be at the end of the day. No one hands documentation over to Cobb either. Its a learning exercise just at different levels. ECU engineers discover new tables, their tuners take it on the road and discover how it all relates (i.e. reverse engineering)
    Last edited by dzenno@PTF; 06-20-2013 at 11:55 AM.
    Click here to enlarge

  20. #420
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    OK, thanks. So far I've tried to do things based on Cobb's labels and documentation rather than trial and error, but I suppose we're at a point where that makes the most sense.

  21. #421
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno@PTF Click here to enlarge
    Set it to 2.4, leave your load at 190, see what happens to boost target and how it relates to Boost Setpoint Factor.
    Reporting back, changed it to 2.4 and I seem to have lost about 1 psi globally, with boost setpoint capped at 2.38 rather than 2.5 (does that mean anything?). Is there a follow up table edit to go after the lost boost? Shall we increase beyond 2.6 for more? Does this represent a direct cause/effect or is something else up?

    Blue = 2.6, Red = 2.4 with no other edits
    Click here to enlarge
    Last edited by Dfv2; 06-20-2013 at 07:16 PM. Reason: added chart

  22. #422
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    www.bootmod3.com
    Posts
    6,693
    Rep Points
    3,352.2
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Yes Reputation No
    All great questions..now try going to 2.7 see what happens
    Click here to enlarge

  23. #423
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    218
    Rep Points
    305.3
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Side note, I've got things working reasonably well, but will still see things like this, especially when I'm not fully up to temp. Perhaps there's something I'm not logging that I should? But I see no reason for this...Click here to enlarge

  24. #424
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,228
    Rep Points
    2,205.8
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dfv2 Click here to enlarge
    Reporting back, changed it to 2.4 and I seem to have lost about 1 psi globally, with boost setpoint capped at 2.38 rather than 2.5 (does that mean anything?). Is there a follow up table edit to go after the lost boost? Shall we increase beyond 2.6 for more? Does this represent a direct cause/effect or is something else up?

    Blue = 2.6, Red = 2.4 with no other edits
    Click here to enlarge
    Edit - is that HP and TQ (from VD?) shown above boost.
    Change is constant

  25. #425
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by The Ghost Click here to enlarge
    Edit - is that HP and TQ (from VD?) shown above boost.
    I wrote my own xlsm, does all the neat log hacking like highlighting timing drops in gradients based on max values of all six. It also does whp/wtp and I overlay boost, afr, timing, whatever seems appropriate.

Page 17 of 33 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •