Adaptive idle doesn't take over
10-03-2023, 12:35 PM
#41
TECH Addict
i swtiched over to pcmhammer and have done two cars in the last couple months and its been surprisingly smooth and full featured.
i have efilive and hpt also so im still pulling the bins with them to compare also since table definitions and units arent always super clear, but i did that between the two before prior to pcmhammer work.
i have efilive and hpt also so im still pulling the bins with them to compare also since table definitions and units arent always super clear, but i did that between the two before prior to pcmhammer work.
The following users liked this post:
NSFW (10-06-2023)
10-03-2023, 01:54 PM
#42
i swtiched over to pcmhammer and have done two cars in the last couple months and its been surprisingly smooth and full featured.
i have efilive and hpt also so im still pulling the bins with them to compare also since table definitions and units arent always super clear, but i did that between the two before prior to pcmhammer work.
i have efilive and hpt also so im still pulling the bins with them to compare also since table definitions and units arent always super clear, but i did that between the two before prior to pcmhammer work.
10-06-2023, 12:46 AM
#43
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
I drove it around the neighborhood today and it transitioned from drive to idle at every stop sign, so that's progress. It still oscillates just a little bit, but I'm optimistic about fixing that tomorrow.I don't know what makes the Katech such a pain. I came here in hopes of finding out. If you've got suggestions I'd love to hear them.
Right now my plan is to dial it in a little more, check the parameters that Kur4o mentioned, put the Katech back on, and see if tweaking the throttle area conversion scalar convinces the PCM to hold the blade open enough to idle. Because that's the only parameter I know of that determines the relationship between desired MAF (which looks correct in the logger) and throttle angle (which doesn't). If you have suggestions for other parameters that will help hold the throttle open far enough to achieve the desired MAF then I would love to know about them.
Last edited by NSFW; 10-06-2023 at 01:20 AM.
10-06-2023, 01:02 AM
#44
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
Max idle area was increased from 80 to 160 (logger showed it at 115), and max idle throttle position was increased from 18 to 22 (18 was enough to idle), so I think those are okay.
The area/position and area/rotation tables are an interesting idea. It looks like increasing the values in the position/rotation column might open the blade further for a given desired area. I have a theory that the issue with the Katech TB is that it needs to move further to achieve the same idle airflow, and was planning to use the scaler to try to fix that, but if the scaler doesn't solve the problem I'll try these next.
Thanks!
Edited to add: Looking at those area-to-position/rotation tables made me realize where I went wrong with editing the throttle scalar earlier. I was looking at a value of 3% thinking that it was throttle position/rotation, and it was actually throttle area. Apples and oranges.
Last edited by NSFW; 10-06-2023 at 01:23 AM.
10-06-2023, 01:19 AM
#45
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
PCM Hammer only reads and writes the PCM's flash chip.
To edit the file you need another app... TunerPro is the default choice.
TunerPro itself doesn't know where the tables are - but it does know how to read XDF files that spell out where the tables are.
So, the tables that are available to you in the TunerPro depend on the completeness of the XDF.
There are very complete XDFs for a few of the most common operating systems for P01 and P59 PCMs.
I'm pretty sure the one for 7603 (the OS that I'm using) has everything that HPTuners has. I'm not aware of anything that's missing.
It's complicated because its the work of a bunch of different volunteers who solved different parts of the puzzle. But it's free, and it works.
The following users liked this post:
ddnspider (10-06-2023)
10-06-2023, 11:47 PM
#46
TECH Apprentice
i swtiched over to pcmhammer and have done two cars in the last couple months and its been surprisingly smooth and full featured.
i have efilive and hpt also so im still pulling the bins with them to compare also since table definitions and units arent always super clear, but i did that between the two before prior to pcmhammer work.
i have efilive and hpt also so im still pulling the bins with them to compare also since table definitions and units arent always super clear, but i did that between the two before prior to pcmhammer work.
10-07-2023, 06:45 AM
#47
TECH Addict
The main reason I did it was to experiment with boost os ( https://pcmhacking.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8172 )
the other primary reason is not having to pay for credits a for every ecu
its not really any more difficult to use it’s just a different workflow.
PCM hammer does something that efilive and hpt don’t which is it reads the checksums of the tune in the ecm and automatically only writes the blocks that are different which often saves time over other solutions and also won’t ever mess you up when you’re supposed to ‘write all’ but don’t.
the other primary reason is not having to pay for credits a for every ecu
its not really any more difficult to use it’s just a different workflow.
PCM hammer does something that efilive and hpt don’t which is it reads the checksums of the tune in the ecm and automatically only writes the blocks that are different which often saves time over other solutions and also won’t ever mess you up when you’re supposed to ‘write all’ but don’t.
10-07-2023, 12:52 PM
#49
TECH Addict
I haven’t used the wideband closed loop but I think others have. I’ve been beta testing v5 and it has dual wideband closed loop.
’like motec’ isn’t really a safe statement. It’s a fairly basic implementation and motec is a top tier ecu. It’s probably closer to ‘like terminator x’ my understanding of the implementation is it still uses all the original long and short term learning and correction it just swaps the wideband reading and also adds a bigger afr target table.
the boost spark adder is an adder but it’s intended to be used with negative numbers.
the v5 I was beta testing has full map based ignition timing with all new tables that replace the original table and boost spark adder.
the biggest reason I wanted it was boost control. It drives the solenoid directly from the ecm so there’s no need for an external controller. It’s basic open loop duty cycle control but I like it and don’t really care for anything more fancy with my current setup.
’like motec’ isn’t really a safe statement. It’s a fairly basic implementation and motec is a top tier ecu. It’s probably closer to ‘like terminator x’ my understanding of the implementation is it still uses all the original long and short term learning and correction it just swaps the wideband reading and also adds a bigger afr target table.
the boost spark adder is an adder but it’s intended to be used with negative numbers.
the v5 I was beta testing has full map based ignition timing with all new tables that replace the original table and boost spark adder.
the biggest reason I wanted it was boost control. It drives the solenoid directly from the ecm so there’s no need for an external controller. It’s basic open loop duty cycle control but I like it and don’t really care for anything more fancy with my current setup.
10-08-2023, 07:39 AM
#52
TECH Addict
i think the hardest part is understanding the workflow. pcmhammer reads/writes to the ecu only. tunerpro is used to 'tune' or edit the files. boostos is the equivalent of a customos offered by efilive or hpt. i think theres a open source logging tool also but i use efilive for logging since it does standalone.
The following users liked this post:
G Atsma (10-08-2023)
10-08-2023, 09:34 PM
#53
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Now that the rest of the idle tables are a reasonably good shape, I took the LS2 throttle body off and put the Katech back on, and started messing with the area-to-rotation tables to get the blade to move further for a given desired area. I ran out of time before I got it to idle again, but it's getting close, and I know what my next couple of iterations will be.
Now that the rest of the idle tables are a reasonably good shape, I took the LS2 throttle body off and put the Katech back on, and started messing with the area-to-rotation tables to get the blade to move further for a given desired area. I ran out of time before I got it to idle again, but it's getting close, and I know what my next couple of iterations will be.
The following users liked this post:
Fast355 (10-09-2023)
10-09-2023, 09:13 PM
#54
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
It starts and idles now. Not perfect, but not bad either. The key thing was to add 8% to the throttle angle when the PCM calls for 3% throttle area or less, in the primary and redundant "throttle rotation vs throttle area" tables.
For now I just blended that into the next several rows of the table (up to 17% throttle area) but the right thing to do is probably to tweak the whole rest of the table. I need to drive it some to figure out whether that's worth the trouble.
So the issue wasn't that adaptive idle didn't take over - the issue was that adaptive idle thought that 10% throttle angle would let enough air through, but it really needed about 18%.
For now I just blended that into the next several rows of the table (up to 17% throttle area) but the right thing to do is probably to tweak the whole rest of the table. I need to drive it some to figure out whether that's worth the trouble.
So the issue wasn't that adaptive idle didn't take over - the issue was that adaptive idle thought that 10% throttle angle would let enough air through, but it really needed about 18%.
The following users liked this post:
ddnspider (10-10-2023)
10-10-2023, 09:22 PM
#56
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
For comparison, the PCM was calling for about 2.5% of the throttle opening area with the LS2 TB, and now it's calling for about 1.5%, so your intuition is correct. But that's not the whole picture.
The Katech's 'zero' position is pretty much sealed shut, whereas the LS2 TB is cracked open a little bit when it's at rest. So, the Katech has to move a few percent before it really lets any air through. If there was a mechanical way to adjust the zero position, that would do roughly the same thing that I did in the tune.
The Katech's 'zero' position is pretty much sealed shut, whereas the LS2 TB is cracked open a little bit when it's at rest. So, the Katech has to move a few percent before it really lets any air through. If there was a mechanical way to adjust the zero position, that would do roughly the same thing that I did in the tune.
10-11-2023, 06:15 AM
#57
For comparison, the PCM was calling for about 2.5% of the throttle opening area with the LS2 TB, and now it's calling for about 1.5%, so your intuition is correct. But that's not the whole picture.
The Katech's 'zero' position is pretty much sealed shut, whereas the LS2 TB is cracked open a little bit when it's at rest. So, the Katech has to move a few percent before it really lets any air through. If there was a mechanical way to adjust the zero position, that would do roughly the same thing that I did in the tune.
The Katech's 'zero' position is pretty much sealed shut, whereas the LS2 TB is cracked open a little bit when it's at rest. So, the Katech has to move a few percent before it really lets any air through. If there was a mechanical way to adjust the zero position, that would do roughly the same thing that I did in the tune.
The following users liked this post:
NSFW (10-11-2023)