VE analyze and Autotune seems funny (noob)
#21
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,729
Total Cats: 4,126
80% of us probably still don't use incorporate AFRTargets yet, but we aren't real.
that's the the cause of his issue.
this is like saying: 3 + 4 = 7 but that's not real world **** -- you need to start solving for 7 by adding 5 and 2 instead.
#23
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,815
Total Cats: 370
Real World Values - values that are actually representative of the term they represent in the fundamental fueling equation. In other words ... Volumetric efficiency. The ratio of the volume of air drawn into the cyl vs the ideal volume as calculated by the chamber dimensions.
#25
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,815
Total Cats: 370
Triple baby!
So to help clarify a bit...
Any fuel related compensation that uses the arbitrary adder % is in the control loop and will have additional error if not using AFRTarget.
Any fuel relayed value that uses an adder with units (msec for instance) is outside the loop and not impacted.
Now to be honest, I have not looked under the hood and reviewed the MS firmware, but that is mainly due to the fact that it acts like it is coded the way I would design it thus far and I haven't seen the need.
So to help clarify a bit...
Any fuel related compensation that uses the arbitrary adder % is in the control loop and will have additional error if not using AFRTarget.
Any fuel relayed value that uses an adder with units (msec for instance) is outside the loop and not impacted.
Now to be honest, I have not looked under the hood and reviewed the MS firmware, but that is mainly due to the fact that it acts like it is coded the way I would design it thus far and I haven't seen the need.
#26
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,729
Total Cats: 4,126
yeah we use it as fuel map, not a ve table.
you wanna know the difference between it on and off?
PW = REQ_FUEL * VE * MAP * E + accel + Injector_open_time
vs.
PW = ([REQ_FUEL * VE * MAP] / [14.7 / AFR Target]) * E + accel + Injector_open_time
you wanna know the difference between it on and off?
PW = REQ_FUEL * VE * MAP * E + accel + Injector_open_time
vs.
PW = ([REQ_FUEL * VE * MAP] / [14.7 / AFR Target]) * E + accel + Injector_open_time
#29
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,729
Total Cats: 4,126
I will say that incorporate AFR is probably the better way to go. But both can/will achieve the same end result: In one way you're tuning your VE table directly to the AFR targets you want to hit, the other way you're tuning your VE table to stoich and applying the ARF targets into the fueling algorithm.
#31
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,729
Total Cats: 4,126
all this aside: if something else is afoot preventing him from getting a good tune without AFR targets as part of the fueling algorithm, including them isn't going to solve the problem.
#32
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,815
Total Cats: 370
While it is obvious based on the 80% stat that this discussion belongs elsewhere, I encourage you to consider the error term associated with each dependent term in the previously posted equations... Keep in mind we are talking about a product operation
#33
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,815
Total Cats: 370
We all know how well the heads (even the BP4W) flow on these cars, and how the efficiency of the internal combustion engine varies with manifold pressure ...
He most likely has an error someplace that is corrupting the req-fuel number.
There are obviously HW things that could cause this as well.
The edge scalloping on his fuel map (uhg) ... Also tells us stuff.
One problem at a time though I think
#35
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,815
Total Cats: 370
Looks to me like you are delivering less fuel than the MS thinks. I am not as familiar with the VVT typical efficiencies, but I would be very surprised to hear that you get anywhere near the VE your map displays. Remeber to use the actual stoich of the fuel you use for the req fuel calculation. We only have E10 at the pumps here, so I used a stoich of 14.1. This is NOT the same number for the AFR table, which is based off of lambda and scaled for gasoline (14.7). You want to leave that with the typical AFR targets for E0, your wideband takes care of the scaling there automatically.
Have you performed any head work? Did you accurately calculate the actual injector flow at your measured fuel pressure?
Have you performed any head work? Did you accurately calculate the actual injector flow at your measured fuel pressure?
#37
The engine doesn't care what control strategy you use. If the amount of fuel being injected gives a certain AFR, that's all that matters.
The ONLY difference is the number you put in a box.
I'm a calibration engineer for an oem engine manufacture and I work with complex control systems.
The benefit of including the AFR table in the calibration is you can alter the afr as simply as changing the afr table.
But why would you calibrate to an afr you don't plan to run with?
#38
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,729
Total Cats: 4,126
I had to register just to make this point.
The engine doesn't care what control strategy you use. If the amount of fuel being injected gives a certain AFR, that's all that matters.
The ONLY difference is the number you put in a box.
I'm a calibration engineer for an oem engine manufacture and I work with complex control systems.
The benefit of including the AFR table in the calibration is you can alter the afr as simply as changing the afr table.
But why would you calibrate to an afr you don't plan to run with?
The engine doesn't care what control strategy you use. If the amount of fuel being injected gives a certain AFR, that's all that matters.
The ONLY difference is the number you put in a box.
I'm a calibration engineer for an oem engine manufacture and I work with complex control systems.
The benefit of including the AFR table in the calibration is you can alter the afr as simply as changing the afr table.
But why would you calibrate to an afr you don't plan to run with?
:like cat:
#39
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,815
Total Cats: 370
I had to register just to make this point.
The engine doesn't care what control strategy you use. If the amount of fuel being injected gives a certain AFR, that's all that matters.
The ONLY difference is the number you put in a box.
I'm a calibration engineer for an oem engine manufacture and I work with complex control systems.
The benefit of including the AFR table in the calibration is you can alter the afr as simply as changing the afr table.
But why would you calibrate to an afr you don't plan to run with?
The engine doesn't care what control strategy you use. If the amount of fuel being injected gives a certain AFR, that's all that matters.
The ONLY difference is the number you put in a box.
I'm a calibration engineer for an oem engine manufacture and I work with complex control systems.
The benefit of including the AFR table in the calibration is you can alter the afr as simply as changing the afr table.
But why would you calibrate to an afr you don't plan to run with?
When you draw a simplified block diagram of the control system, the error in VE propagates through to all of the corrections. Additionally, since it is nearly impossible to hold the other inputs in a static state, the autotuner will compound the errors associated with thise terms.