Stelvio Fuel Map - Rich or lean?

[Xlratr]

I use a dual channel LM2 to log data and help me map my Stelvio.  The map I use has been built around the Zard exhaust I have, and  it works well for me. But I thought it might be interesting to do some data logging with the original exhaust and a completely standard map with the Lambdas turned off. Partly because I'd like a reference to compare my own map to, but also because I read some posts where people ask if the standard map is lean or rich. So this evening I put the original silencer back on (much heavier!!) and reinstalled the standard map. These are the results I get with zero CO trim. (Valves set, throttle bodies synched, TPS reset). Individual bikes may vary, but I think this is close to what you will get if you just switch off the Lambdas and make no other changes.

Pic1: This shows the number of readings logged over a 30 minute ride. It's a mix of country roads and Autobahn. Higher numbers indicate the throttle / RPM combinations I spend more time at. (I use an excel tool to calculate new fuel requirements, and I can key in the limit of points to be ignored in the calculation. A low number of readings can be unreliable, so I currently have my excel set up to ignore AFR where less than 20 readings were recorded).


Pic 2: This shows the AFR recorded on the left cylinder. You can see the lean areas around 3250 rpm (an rpm range where I spend a lot of time!), and also the very rich readings under heavy load.


Pic 3: Here the AFRs for the right cylinder.


Pic 4: Here a comparison of AFR, right vs left. Blue (more than 100%) means right cylinder runs leaner than left, Red (less than 100%) means it's running richer.



Hope that might be of interest to those experimenting with their own maps.


John

[lazlokovacs]

thanks, that is certainly of interest, good work

[pauldaytona]

and above 5000 lambda  does nothing so with or without lambda, it is rich there and consumes a lot of fuel.

[Xlratr]

and above 5000 lambda  does nothing so with or without lambda, it is rich there and consumes a lot of fuel.

There is a lean spot in the standard map around 3250/3500 (especially on the right cylinder) which anyone wanting to adjust their map by themself should look at first. But as Paul says, at higher revs and heavy load, the original map is really too rich, regardless of whether lambdas are on or off.

John



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lazlokovacs]

these guzzi maps  ::)

although I am no longer data logging on my Calvin, I'm pretty certain the stock map is way LEAN above 5000k as I have retarded the advance 8 degrees, richened it up a bit and it still pinks...

(and this has been tested on 2 different calivintages)

go figure!

maybe they don't expect people to want to ride a 'cruiser' in the higher revs??

[pauldaytona]

these guzzi maps  ::)

although I am no longer data logging on my Calvin, I'm pretty certain the stock map is way LEAN above 5000k as I have retarded the advance 8 degrees, richened it up a bit and it still pinks...

(and this has been tested on 2 different calivintages)

go figure!

maybe they don't expect people to want to ride a 'cruiser' in the higher revs??

But I suppose you don't use that stock map anymore and made your own with logging data? Then you can at least make running it not lean there

[lazlokovacs]

paul, yes thats right...

but I'm always tweaking!

just wanted to point out that not all maps are rich up there after 5k

[molly]

The 5000 rpm/40% tps range which is the majority of the map is controlled by the lambda so that in theory should all correct to 14.7 afr the rest Guzzi have gone for safety and possibly richened up a bit too much, but who rides in that area much anyway?
If I was changing it then a blanket 13.2/13.5 AFR for starters then for fine tuning the cruising area could be 14.0/14.5 afr and even leave the high revs area  alone and give Guzzi the benefit of the doubt.