ECT vs. MAP question tuning experts inside
07-01-2004, 11:37 PM
#1
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pierre part louisiana
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECT vs. MAP question tuning experts inside If i wanted to make my car run on this table could i just put all the values to 0 in the PE table or am i missing somethin. to my understanding the pcm will use whichever table is richer/fatter for the given condition so would this work or is there a easier way or am i headed down the wrong road? 
OR would just moving the map enable value lower (15 stock) to maybe 14 since at WOT it is always past 14.4ish oh and this is all for WOT
Any help is greatly appreciated.
OR would just moving the map enable value lower (15 stock) to maybe 14 since at WOT it is always past 14.4ish oh and this is all for WOT
Any help is greatly appreciated.
07-02-2004, 04:24 AM
#2
TECH Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAP to enable is for PE mode. The stock value of 15 is in kPa, which means PE mode is allowed almost any time (MAP rarely if ever drops below 15kPa). The PE vs RPM table decides when PE mode is entered.
The ECT vs MAP table is for open loop fueling in non-PE mode. I guess if you wanted to run off this table you could:
1) set the closed loop enable temperature very high (140*C) to stay in open loop
2) turn off PE mode by setting MAP to enable to 105
Seems like that would keep you in open loop non-PE mode.
The ECT vs MAP table is for open loop fueling in non-PE mode. I guess if you wanted to run off this table you could:
1) set the closed loop enable temperature very high (140*C) to stay in open loop
2) turn off PE mode by setting MAP to enable to 105
Seems like that would keep you in open loop non-PE mode.
07-02-2004, 08:41 AM
#3
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 12,605
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Yeah, watch the units basis for MAP enable - 15 kPa,
not PSI like the logger reports in Imperial units.
I think this table gives you the second degree of freedom
you want to set power enrichment. This table is, in fact,
what I would consider the carb-style "power valve" -
manifold bressure based. Seems to me like you could use
this one to set a more sensible enrichment profile to the
whole engine envelope, and then use the (more limited)
PE vs RPM table to just take care of any peculiar top-
end need-more-fuel issues etc.
I think you need to be using these tables together. One
thing on my nebulous to-do list is to make an Excel 'sheet
that takes these two tables and makes a third that
embodies the "pick the richer" decision, and displays a
response surface / family of mixture curves showing
what the Fuel/Air Multiplier selected will be - a "sandbox"
where you can play with the two and see what / whether
it changes.
not PSI like the logger reports in Imperial units.
I think this table gives you the second degree of freedom
you want to set power enrichment. This table is, in fact,
what I would consider the carb-style "power valve" -
manifold bressure based. Seems to me like you could use
this one to set a more sensible enrichment profile to the
whole engine envelope, and then use the (more limited)
PE vs RPM table to just take care of any peculiar top-
end need-more-fuel issues etc.
I think you need to be using these tables together. One
thing on my nebulous to-do list is to make an Excel 'sheet
that takes these two tables and makes a third that
embodies the "pick the richer" decision, and displays a
response surface / family of mixture curves showing
what the Fuel/Air Multiplier selected will be - a "sandbox"
where you can play with the two and see what / whether
it changes.
07-02-2004, 12:08 PM
#4
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pierre part louisiana
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok well with that being said what should i change so that at WOT it is a distinct table.How can i disable one of them or do i need both for other than WOT? Maybe im just confused just trying to make it a little simpler and exact i guess but thanks for your expertise
07-06-2004, 07:52 AM
#7
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 12,605
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
1.00 is no change to commanded fuel/air; if you
did that then PE (when PE is active) would win.
I don't think I'd put 0.00 in there. And there may
be some open loop, but not-PE, conditions which
want that table for enrichment. Though I don't
know offhand what, exactly. Would be interested
in that distinction (where is open loop used, but
PE not, and where do they overlap?).
did that then PE (when PE is active) would win.
I don't think I'd put 0.00 in there. And there may
be some open loop, but not-PE, conditions which
want that table for enrichment. Though I don't
know offhand what, exactly. Would be interested
in that distinction (where is open loop used, but
PE not, and where do they overlap?).
Trending Topics
07-06-2004, 12:39 PM
#8
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pierre part louisiana
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimmyblue
1.00 is no change to commanded fuel/air; if you
did that then PE (when PE is active) would win.
I don't think I'd put 0.00 in there. And there may
be some open loop, but not-PE, conditions which
want that table for enrichment. Though I don't
know offhand what, exactly. Would be interested
in that distinction (where is open loop used, but
PE not, and where do they overlap?).
did that then PE (when PE is active) would win.
I don't think I'd put 0.00 in there. And there may
be some open loop, but not-PE, conditions which
want that table for enrichment. Though I don't
know offhand what, exactly. Would be interested
in that distinction (where is open loop used, but
PE not, and where do they overlap?).
i guess that is what id want to know