Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: chrisfer on October 17, 2020, 07:35:18 AM
-
Hello,
Here is a subject to discuss on the mapping of the V7 III. Sorry for the rapid translation... :embarrassed:
The objective of a (reprogramming, remapping) modification of the mapping is to obtain a more efficient engine operation in normal use: more flexible, a better response, improve revving, engine behavior. But, unless you change more within limits (ignition), it doesn't really change the power which increases just when you remove the catalyst.
With the standards to maintain the discharges, the regulation action of the probes must intervene from the first seconds, from a cold engine and for a complete cycle.
When reprogramming we no longer worry about rejects, we often even start by installing an uncatalyzed pot.
We no longer want regulation at 14.7, we remove this regulation, and, by measurements, we predetermine a map giving a mixture according to the "zones" of use around and below 13.5 for more optimal engine operation with less heater (especially for the exhaust valve).
A "mapping" only changes data, not the way in which corrections and calculations will be made, this would require more complete access to the software.
Here is a document which explains the simplified operation of IAWMIUG3 of V7 III: https://www.guzzitek.org/documents/injection/ECU_MIU-G3_Training.pdf
To access the mapping data you can use Guzzidiag, Reader and Writer in fact, with the appropriate cables, the Reader allows you to take the initial data, everything is then quite reversible and you can return to the origin.
https://www.von-der-salierburg.de/download/GuzziDiag/
Then with TunerPro you can view and modify these data
Here is a simple XDF which allows to separate under TunerPro the modified, modifiable tables: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-itpH8CFehmycZtA_DA?e=dWaB14
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3fLPjCfJ1bdt3qkwe9ICf4EnS2gzyl39ABRlx-F78MIB69pfTyPyAbsuM3p8WJB3zLBevfUfsGPvZNXJdTYeat5KXPA9E70zY4R2wl2XBK_diTyZSDChwu0Ze52LKXNu8nvAskof84iloAwdsfw9FoGag=w291-h351-no?authuser=0)
Here is the original mapping data of V7 III (2018): https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-hvg3tVpX8dBwkfS47A?e=roSIkQ
Here a modified mapping data of V7 III : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-itpGLDcfpkKpodmHPQ?e=D8yJYy Checksum: 5833
AFR is from 13 to 12 (full throttle)
I started, in order not to tune too much, stupidly enrich, I bought a reactive and fairly precise broadband probe (Bosch LSU 4.9) with its control module (PLX) which transmits the measurement in bluetooth to the smartphone, I rather prefer one more display: https://www.plxdevices.com/SM-AFR-Gen4-Wideband-AFR-with-MultiGauge-Link-p/897346002870.htm
The new probe is simply installed in place of one of the original probes (deactivated by TunerPro), on the two side.
I noticed that in many areas the original operation is really very poor, AFR around 15, at certain gas openings, I expected it, but not necessarily only at low openings and at low speed. This explains well the on / off side at the start of throttle opening and also the sporadic pinging I had at mid-throttle opening.
Intervening precisely on the mapping is not easy, I had to embark a small computer with Guzzidiag especially to precisely control the gas openings to be retouched.
With an AFR ratio around 13 at low speed, low aperture, the response to the opening, the revving, the behavior, the approval in general is really very good.
At higher aperture or high speed, I even noticed and / or set an AFR around 12.
With the corrections, consumption remains very reasonable, for an air-cooled 750cm3, less than 0.5l/100km additional, despite the consequent enhancements to certain openings and speeds used frequently.
Guzzi announces 5.5l/100 in the normalized cycle, they really have to adjust and then specifically apply the engine so that the engine passes the pollution control cycle ...
Thank you for sharing your knowledge, experiments and questions relating to engine management on this subject. :wink:
-
chrisfer -- thanks for the description of your work.
As I recall, chrisfer was having a severe pinging problem. His solution was to put the ECU in Alpha-N mode (ie ignore the HEGOs) and run a richer than 14.7 stoichiometric AFR to cool the exhaust valves specifically and the engine in general with an affordable increase in fuel use. He doesn't say but I expect he was using a "road" dynamometer. :smiley:
Like Beetle's map, this is an impressive effort. And I'm grateful for his sharing it.
s1120 -- chrisfer has described the tool and process needed for your "tune my 02 california stone, and other car projects," A critical part of chrisfer's process was a specific goal: eliminate pinging. What is your goal?
-
As I recall, chrisfer was having a severe pinging problem. His solution was to put the ECU in Alpha-N mode (ie ignore the HEGOs) and run a richer than 14.7 stoichiometric AFR to cool the exhaust valves specifically and the engine in general with an affordable increase in fuel use. He doesn't say but I expect he was using a "road" dynamometer. :smiley:
Yes, not really severe pinging, but some pingings at mid aperture, after cruising, persistent with "beetle map".
Yes I do my tests on the road.
With the sensor I could see that the pinging area was also poor, near 15 AFR, I have adjust this area to 13 AFR. :thumb:
-
Guzzidiag allows access to interesting parameters to adjust the mapping:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3ekYXcJck_pg78gl9rkZ7Bco-p7B3y4NmtNdq0bXZqcHx1Ck_8yvvYV2AKnFpLg2tTcmmGto6NrXPTnfekuozv00hm9sPBrni8z_4oA_OM9PabOETQFZCltav-9TW6BYyYtfpNJqo_v9384EsMNU82_SQ=w958-h391-no?authuser=0)
- The opening throttle, essential to know the measured area, to correct. You have to be careful because the engine is running or stopped the values are not the same, and at the start of the opening there is a lot of point and you need precision if you want smooth operation.
- The revolutions / minutes, essential to know the measured zone, to correct.
- Atmospheric pressure, it is measured and memorized before starting, ie if you change altitude without switching off the engine.
- The absolute pressure, it is necessary to estimate the air mass, no map access at this time.
- The air temperature, it is used to correct the mixture, normally finely. It is precise at the start of the ignition, but it quickly takes almost 10 ° C more, engine running or not, the probe is not well ventilated in its case, 10 ° C is not a few percent correction only but it is a source of little imprecision.
- The cylinder head temperature, it is intended to enrich when cold, and impoverish a little when hot.
- The advance to ignition planned is that of the mapping.
- The actual ignition advance is the corrected advance value taking into account corrections.
-
With Tunerpro you can quickly compare the visual or value difference between the origin and the modifications:
The V7 III "XDF" v1.05 and before are Wrong, a new one will arrive on the Guzzidiag site.
Here is an XDF for V7 III : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-iY0rVXXr4gQc_jYkGg?e=oXaeTY
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3fLPjCfJ1bdt3qkwe9ICf4EnS2gzyl39ABRlx-F78MIB69pfTyPyAbsuM3p8WJB3zLBevfUfsGPvZNXJdTYeat5KXPA9E70zY4R2wl2XBK_diTyZSDChwu0Ze52LKXNu8nvAskof84iloAwdsfw9FoGag=w291-h351-no?authuser=0)
Here is the original mapping data of V7 III (2018): https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-hvg3tVpX8dBwkfS47A?e=roSIkQ
Here a modified mapping data of V7 III : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-iY0fblWuY4P5wXvZRA?e=4B5cTM
I obtained this data from a large number of road tests with a measurement probe.
AFR is 13,2 for cruising and ~12 near full throttle.
We can perfectly go back to the original data.
There you go, if you have any comments, corrections or questions, don't hesitate.
-
This table is distorted by its two measurements, the altitude which is only measured at the time of starting, if you climb a pass no modification is taken into account.
How do you know the altitude isn't checked at certain time periods vs. just at time of starting?
This seems to totally go against one of the main benefits of a fuel injection system ... example: you start your ride at 2000 ft above sea level, and go up to 8000 ft and the bike still runs great (theoretically). If it still has fueling of 2000 ft then sounds like a dumb carb. :grin:
-
How do you know the altitude isn't checked at certain time periods vs. just at time of starting?
This seems to totally go against one of the main benefits of a fuel injection system ... example: you start your ride at 2000 ft above sea level, and go up to 8000 ft and the bike still runs great (theoretically). If it still has fueling of 2000 ft then sounds like a dumb carb. :grin:
There is only one absolute pressure sensor, for altitude and for the air mass...
See here, a document which explains the simplified operation of IAWMIUG3 of V7 III: https://www.guzzitek.org/documents/injection/ECU_MIU-G3_Training.pdf
-
The history of the MIU G3 leads me to believe it has limited processing power -- probably 16-bit. And sensors rarely provide the direct measurement needed -- you have to convert the physical sensor signal into a useful number for an equation in the presence of noise, hysteresis, and failure. So the processor may take an initial reading at Ignition On and then use table lookup for the deltas to calculate the real-time manifold air pressure (ie air mass).
My question is why does the right cylinder ignition coil have three primary wires and the left have the usual two?
BTW many V7 III riders have observed a hiss when opening the gas cap for refueling. Some riders think it leads to lean conditions. I removed the spring shown below. No more hiss. No gas smell. No changes to evaporation canister plumbing.
(https://i.ibb.co/DChzS8q/Gas-Cap-Valve.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DChzS8q)
-
My question is why does the right cylinder ignition coil have three primary wires and the left have the usual two?
I think for the cost, one electronic driver instead of two.
BTW many V7 III riders have observed a hiss when opening the gas cap for refueling.
I have change the evap system.
-
Re Burts question about the three lead ignition coil. I believe that the MIUG3 was developed by/for Piaggio for their line of single cylinder scooters.
To run twin cylinders off the same ECU, the second cylinder is catered for by a low current pin, Pin 8 on the ECU. The single cylinder coil connection is connected to a high current pin Pin 1 on the ECU which would normally used for a single cylinder scooter.
Cheers
Brian
-
Got it. The MIU G3 has only one high-current ignition coil driver so the second high current ignition coil driver is in the right hand coil. Thanks.
-
Interesting effort and discussion.
I'm not fully equipped to take it all in as I have not played with many maps as I tend to run stock or close to stock.
I even have the OEM maps on both our V7s right now, though I am getting closer each day to considering a Beetle one for the MK I.
However let me take a stab at this:
How do you know the altitude isn't checked at certain time periods vs. just at time of starting?
This seems to totally go against one of the main benefits of a fuel injection system ... example: you start your ride at 2000 ft above sea level, and go up to 8000 ft and the bike still runs great (theoretically). If it still has fueling of 2000 ft then sounds like a dumb carb. :grin:
It's not uncommon to find a system like this in the powersports world. It's a little basic arguably but it still has a number of compensating factors that make it less "dumb" than most carbs.
First off, no matter how lean a carb is set, it's probably never set as lean as the stock setup on an EFI bike, never mind an EFI bike with a closed-loop system.
Editing errors out
As such, even if we changed nothing, the leaner running EFI bike at 2k altitude would not run as pig-rich as a non-CV carb at 8k altitude. It might run a little on the rich side, definitely richer than it would at sea-level (assuming you didn't shut it off and get gas or something), but not as rich as an adjusted carb, so you're already at an advantage.
Now, add to that the fact that the fuel map uses actual manifold pressure and closed-loop feedback from the O2's and you have an ECM that is capable of compensating a great deal for altitude even if it hasn't reset the base ambient pressure input since last startup. And, well unless you're running a race at Pike's peak or something you're gonna shut it off at altitude, or come back down right?
Actually I'd be a little more worried about starting it at altitude and coming back down and running too lean, but again the O2 sensors should have something to say about that (if you haven't disabled them, and if you have well, you probably know it's a good idea to cycle the ignition after coming "down a mountain").
-
chrisfer's measurement of atmospheric pressure at Ignition On does not conflict with real-time manifold air pressure measurement.
The same pressure sensor, built into the ECU/throttle body assembly, is used.
I believe the reason is related to ECU calculating speed which might be 16-bit but I would not be surprised if 8-bit based.
The pressure sensor provides some physical signal, maybe a voltage or maybe a frequency (eg, capacitive MAPs). This signal must be converted into an absolute number that can be used in the Alpha-N algorithm. This conversion takes calculation time, plenty of which is available before the engine is running and in short supply at 8K rpm.
So a common technique is to calculate the initial absolute number from the initial sensor signal ONCE before the engine is running.
Then while the engine is running, the difference between the initial sensor signal and the real-time sensor signal is used (often in a lookup table) to modify the initial absolute number originally calculated before the engine was running. Calculating this delta number would take less time than re-calculating an absolute number every engine revolution (or whatever rate the ECU uses).
Corrections and additions welcome.
-
chrisfer's measurement of atmospheric pressure at Ignition On does not conflict with real-time manifold air pressure measurement.
The same pressure sensor, built into the ECU/throttle body assembly, is used.
I believe the reason is related to ECU calculating speed which might be 16-bit but I would not be surprised if 8-bit based.
The pressure sensor provides some physical signal, maybe a voltage or maybe a frequency (eg, capacitive MAPs). This signal must be converted into an absolute number that can be used in the Alpha-N algorithm. This conversion takes calculation time, plenty of which is available before the engine is running and in short supply at 8K rpm.
So a common technique is to calculate the initial absolute number from the initial sensor signal ONCE before the engine is running.
Then while the engine is running, the difference between the initial sensor signal and the real-time sensor signal is used (often in a lookup table) to modify the initial absolute number originally calculated before the engine was running. Calculating this delta number would take less time than re-calculating an absolute number every engine revolution (or whatever rate the ECU uses).
Corrections and additions welcome.
Thanks for that explanation.
I read that it checked and stored the ambient pressure and that it used the manifold pressure once underway.
I didn't connect the dots in how it was comparing the two to adjust for changes in the first reading.
I mean I get the basics of a speed-density system (or so I think) so pressure us obviously a huge part of it.
So that said it's fully compensating for altitude (density) regardless of ignition cycle.
-
Updating.
The V7 III "XDF" v1.05 and before use bad table names, a new one will arrive soon on the Guzzidiag site.
Here is an XDF for V7 III : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-iY0rVXXr4gQc_jYkGg?e=oXaeTY
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3fLPjCfJ1bdt3qkwe9ICf4EnS2gzyl39ABRlx-F78MIB69pfTyPyAbsuM3p8WJB3zLBevfUfsGPvZNXJdTYeat5KXPA9E70zY4R2wl2XBK_diTyZSDChwu0Ze52LKXNu8nvAskof84iloAwdsfw9FoGag=w291-h351-no?authuser=0)
Here is the original mapping data of V7 III (2018): https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-hvg3tVpX8dBwkfS47A?e=roSIkQ
Here a modified mapping data of V7 III : https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-idczv3_B_ANJ9V_pwA?e=uF1IUf Checksum Writer : 3271 AFR is from 13.2 to 12.2 (full throttle).
-
Yes, not really severe pinging, but some pingings at mid aperture, after cruising, persistent with "beetle map".
Yes I do my tests on the road.
With the sensor I could see that the pinging area was also poor, near 15 AFR, I have adjust this area to 13 AFR. :thumb:
I have the same problem on a 2018 V7 III "pingings at mid aperture, after cruising". More frequent as the ambient temperature rises.
Any simple way to solve this?
-
I have the same problem on a 2018 V7 III "pingings at mid aperture, after cruising". More frequent as the ambient temperature rises.
Any simple way to solve this?
You can try my "modified mapping", completly solve this issue and have a smoother operation.
And it's reversible.
-
Regarding the ignition advance, I was still not satisfied.
Indeed, the active advance table corresponds to the poor functioning, I knew that, but it was not enough to decrease by 10% as the theory intended for the behavior to be good in all respects.
There was too much advance in certain areas (around 35° opening, around 3200rpm) and not enough in others (around 2500rpm), and it's hard to quantify.
After searching for optimization, I realized that I was tending (awkwardly) towards settings that corresponded to the second table.
So I just used it and after testing and it's really satisfying, and finally it seems quite logical and obvious.
Here is the mapping with an AFR around 13, and the second advance table (open loop) used: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-ipIgk0rpjdFhYmAvlQ?e=51fR3s CheckSum: 5D90
Here is also the XDF I use for TunerPro: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-ipIjsLnY0fN5CZlrWg?e=M1LdUs
-
Good Lord.......somebody wake me when the streaming version is on Netflix :grin:
-
A very small improvement at the opening of the gases.
The idle table is active when there is a closed gas detection, it does not take into account the opening angle, this is normal.
When the cable is barely stretched, the butterfly opens a little bit (goes from 0.8° to 1.5°) but the detection remains on closed gas.
While effectively more air arrives, we remain on the same injection value, the mixture is then relatively lean then for this very small opening.
I was able to correct this small defect by compensating on the cylinder head temperature table which takes into account all the openings.
So now from slow motion to opening we keep a fairly rich mixture around 13, this can be felt by softening the opening a little bit.
Here is the map with this modification: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-itpGLDcfpkKpodmHPQ?e=D8yJYy Checksum: 5833
Here is also a simple XDF which allows to separate under TunerPro the modified, modifiable tables: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-itpH8CFehmycZtA_DA?e=dWaB14
-
Chrisfer
I loaded up your last tune, _62, and I am impressed. Idle at 1150, smoother low end throttle response.
This makes slow maneuvering very easy. Doing a 180 on the village street without wondering if a slight move of the throttle was going to deliver to much power or suddenly cut power. Good compression braking for slow hill decent, less than 10mph idling down my test hill in low gear.
Smooth performance at all speeds. I am not a fast rider, but 0 to 38 in low gear felt good. 55 mph in 6th gear was smooth for a v7 iii.
Why idle at 1150, why not lower.
Have you improved the tune since last april.
I am riding a 2017 with Agostini mufflers. Only other mod is removing the spring from the gas cap.
I have only about 20 miles on your tune, but will be putting more miles on it today.
Thank you
Don
Edit: Jack, I think you might consider this post the Reader's Digest version of what Chrisfer has accomplished. :)
-
Using your xdf I change the warm up rpm table. Idling down to 1150 sooner. I saw no adverse effect.
All other table looked way too complex. I saw you made changes to Fuel Engine Temp. I wasn't about to even think about making any changes there, or any where else.
Rode a bunch of miles yesterday on your tune and the v7 performed well
After cruising the interstate, The speedometer indicating 70 to 75 MPH, the valve covers felt to be ~150 degrees Fahrenheit according to my finger touch test.
Here is what I set the table to
°C Target Idle RPM
00
140 1150
120 1150
100 1150
90 1150
80 1150
70 1200
60 1250
50 1300
40 1350
30 1400
20 1450
10 1475
0 1500
-10 1550
-20 1575
-30 1600
Thank you for you great work and providing me a little more knowledge in the inner working of the V7 fuel injection.
Don
-
The 15M is based around the Motorola 68HC11. Earlier Weber ECUs were based on previous Motorola chips. All are 8 bit processors running at a few Mhz. However this is not a limitation of how quickly it could sample air pressure and compensate for it. Sampling every few seconds is entirely possible. I have no knowledge though of how the Motorola firmware operates.
-
Finally two version, same AFR, around 13 to 12 wide open.
Less Ignition advance at low and mid opening, my preference (optimum AFR burn faster) :
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-i58-N_OrDEQE7ao1kQ?e=NhDYVw Checksum : 1BF3
Ignition near origin :
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-i59Odjwh3uw9mNWeRQ?e=1i0aQR Checksum : 5817
XDF I use with TunerPro :
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuqxioVGI9b-it4LnVUrj7Wxk9cHSQ?e=M6X564
-
Chrisfer
I haven't tried _66 bin yet but will shortly.
I understand you use an AFR meter to verify your work on your V7 III
How does retarding the spark closer to TDC improve AFR?
What does "burn faster" mean.
Could you further explain what (optimum AFR burn faster) means to the rider.
What is the seat of the pants difference from your previous maps, or comparison to the OEM map.
Thank you for sharing your work, making my V7 even more perfect.
Don
-
How does retarding the spark closer to TDC improve AFR?
What does "burn faster" mean.
Could you further explain what (optimum AFR burn faster) means to the rider.
A mixture with a 13:1 air ratio ignites, burns a little faster than a mixture with a 14.7:1 ratio
So less ignition advance makes it possible to correct this gain in combustion rate.
Also less advance changes the engine behavior and allows to climb and stay in the turns a little more pleasantly.
No loss of performance, at wide throttle the advance and AFR are almost unchanged.
What is the seat of the pants difference from your previous maps, or comparison to the OEM map.
Few differences compared to previous maps.
Compared to the original mapping at low and medium apertures, the AFR is at 13 instead of 14.7, the AFR is practically identical at full throttle.
The correction coefficients according to the temperature are more precisely adjusted for more stability, because there is no more regulation by the probes.
To clearly see the differences, you can use XDF and TunerPro to make a graphic comparison between the original map and a modified one.
-
Chrisfer, thanks so much for sharing your experiences with us. One thing I've always wondered in the Guzzi world is what is meant with these two words. Fuel Phase. Often the words give a perfect description in the language first written, but these words do not translate to me. Oh, I understand Fuel Phase but not how it applies here. And to make it worse, I've never seen this choice of words in the various other things I've messed with. I don't need to mess with every single line I see in the ECU and have not changed Fuel Phase, but this makes me so very curious.
OK, I'm adding to my question of fuel phase. I was told that this is a injection event based relative to crankshaft angle? Please explain if you know. I'm so confused.
(https://i.ibb.co/XxSbQvc/Fuel-Phase.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XxSbQvc)
Even though I have a dyno to use I, like you, use the plx device to record afr as I ride around. I look forward to reading more of your tuning if you continue to do so. Thank you for taking the time to share this with us all.
-
OK, I'm adding to my question of fuel phase. I was told that this is a injection event based relative to crankshaft angle? Please explain if you know. I'm so confused.
Hello,
I also don't understand the values of "Fuel Phase"
Meinholf may be can explain, here : https://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=110952.60
or here : https://www.guzzi-forum.de/Forum/index.php?topic=54051.105
-
While asking questions
There are 2 tables
Legend TPS20 A, which has the same numbers used in fuel and ignition arrays.
Legend TPS20 B, I didn't see it used.
B has a smaller increment in the numbers than A, and increase quicker than A after row 10.
Do the values in these categories actually effect throttle twist response, or are they just informational.
Would simply changing the values in TPS20 A to those like TPS20 B actually make low end throttle response smoother, make low end throttle more aggressive, or would it just make a mess of the ignition and fuel values, or do nothing at all?
Don
-
Chrisfer,
TY and I will look at your links. If I find out anything I will let you know.
Xackley,
Wouldn't that be fantastic if we could change the throttle curve? Not saying it isn't OK now but back in the old mechanical days I loved to setup the throttle in a (this is an example but close to what I sought) the first 1/2 throttle travel only produces 1/3 of the butterfly opening with the last 1/2 throttle travel consumes the remaining 2/3 of the butterfly opening all of which makes for a much finer control at low requirements like rain etc. Now it would be interesting to see / discover if your A and B are chosen by the ECU when you pick a different "map"? As in street vs. rain? I've no clue but just curious.
Stay well everyone, PC
-
To answer my own question.
If you make changes to Legend TPS20 A, the changes do effect the fueling and ignition.
I changed below 14.10 to higher degrees than oem. Like 2.5 became 3, 4.07 became 6.
Well, what that accomplished was the engine bogged down with a light throttle twist.
The engine recovered when the throttle was twisted into the ranges of TPS degrees I didn't mess with.
So the TPS tables can change throttle response, but would require a lot more finesse than my simple hack.
Modified TPS20 A table that made things worse.
1.00
3.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
13.50
14.10
15.37
16.98
21.10
24.37
30.10
38.08
47.30
58.50
72.30
83.00
Don
-
To answer my own question.
If you make changes to Legend TPS20 A, the changes do effect the fueling and ignition.
I changed below 14.10 to higher degrees than oem. Like 2.5 became 3, 4.07 became 6.
Well, what that accomplished was the engine bogged down with a light throttle twist.
The engine recovered when the throttle was twisted into the ranges of TPS degrees I didn't mess with.
So the TPS tables can change throttle response, but would require a lot more finesse than my simple hack.
Modified TPS20 A table that made things worse.
1.00
3.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
13.50
14.10
15.37
16.98
21.10
24.37
30.10
38.08
47.30
58.50
72.30
83.00
Don
Leave the tables where you have no clue about how it works alone. You are messing up things.
-
Leave the tables where you have no clue about how it works alone. You are messing up things.
No kidding. I could find no answer to how the Legend tables related to the ignition and fueling tables.
The experiment was to find if changing Legend tables messed things up, or if the Legends were informational only. The experiment was a success.
I stated it was a hack, which I knew would mess things up or do nothing.
If everyone thought as you, nothing would ever get done.
Don
-
If you make changes to Legend TPS20 A, the changes do effect the fueling and ignition.
I hesitated to recalibrate these values of legend, because the first are not so relevant and there is a lack of around 10°.
But I didn't do it because all the tables that use it are not necessarily visible under TunerPro and it would have taken a long time to try.