V7 Map Comparison - GT vs Beetle Map (GuzziDiag)

[Kev m]

Hi Kev,
In UK there seems to an issue of V7 bikes faltering at start up and hesitating at low revs.  The problem appears to be less in the US (eg your bike).  Why??  Maybe due to UK being colder in the riding season and perhaps lower and the map not adequately enrichening the mixture to compensate for this?  Without access to the maps and knowing how the MG compensation compares with the tables I can not say if the compensation is CORRECT - but in UK conditions the standard V7 engine seems to run lean.  Is my use of CORRECT clear now?

Colder or lower than where?

We're basically at sea level here and I ride all year.

I think we're not going to see eye to eye on correct.

I'm sure the EU tested that motor just like the EPA here and required similar lean standards in closed-loop operation.

Maybe humidity plays a part, but even then I can't say I've noticed any changes in operation once warm under those conditions that I'd call "incorrect".

[RANDM]

Though many TPS's are similar and some from one system may be adapted or adjusted to work on others, no they are not all compatible for various reasons:

1. Calibration
2. Physical mounting

Not to mention they are not replaceable separately from the throttle body on more and more modern EFI systems.

Thanks Kev.

[beetle]

That is if the answer is enrichening all over the map and shutting off lambdas.

Which, in the case of the V7, I can assure you it is not.

[Kev m]

Which, in the case of the V7, I can assure you it is not.

I'm sure it's not, in YOUR case.

[Rough Edge racing]

In theory, except if you're looking to solve "performance" like cold start, stumbling or surging that some complain about. That is if the answer is enrichening all over the map and shutting off lambdas.

I mean you just can't safely approach the leanness of closed loop operation with an open loop setup which is why we have closed loop injection.

 Do other bikes have the problem? Do cars and trucks have that problem? If your answer is no or not many, then for the bike in question it's a lack of attention to details because of money constraints or poor development of the electronic engine management...You know how fix it...

[beetle]

Please refer to my post in reply #29 of this thread.

[beetle]

I'm sure it's not, in YOUR case.

I meant in general for any V7. Simply disabling the lambda and adding fuel across the board is NOT the answer.

[Kev m]

I meant in general for any V7. Simply disabling the lambda and adding fuel across the board is NOT the answer.

You continue to misunderstand me. I was already certain that would be a bad idea and I was already certain it wouldn't be YOUR solution (but WOULD be someone else's).

Do other bikes have the problem? Do cars and trucks have that problem? If your answer is no or not many, then for the bike in question it's a lack of attention to details because of money constraints or poor development of the electronic engine management...You know how fix it...

I'm really not sure what you're getting at.

MY POINT is that most/all vehicles don't have a "problem" per se.

Including, from extensive personal experience, the V7 at least not systematicly.

[beetle]

You continue to misunderstand me. I was already certain that would be a bad idea and I was already certain it wouldn't be YOUR solution (but WOULD be someone else's).

I understood that. I'll shut up now.

[Kev m]

I understood that. [emoji23] I'll shut up now.

OK, then maybe I continue to misunderstand you and it's my turn to shut up. [emoji56]

[pete roper]

Peter, unfortunately it is easier to dumb down the bike than train the rider.....I am not a fan of new riders having ABS / traction control.  They should learn how to ride correctly...and this again follows through to there logically being just one optimum ECU map with others being dumbed down versions.

Rode a Mana in Jersey where the slow speed restrictions and country roads made it the ideal bike.  Little engine breaking though, but the cubby hole in the tank was useful.

AndyB

Even in the full auto modes you can change 'Down' using the paddles or foot lever. Snap it down two ratios and there's plenty of engine braking! If you want more slowing down? Do what I and a few others have done and graft a Tuono front end with 100mm radial Brembos with HH pads in on. Stops like hitting a bus!

Pete

[pauldaytona]

In theory, except if you're looking to solve "performance" like cold start, stumbling or surging that some complain about. That is if the answer is enrichening all over the map and shutting off lambdas.

I mean you just can't safely approach the leanness of closed loop operation with an open loop setup which is why we have closed loop injection.

Kev, you are wrong, lambda is there only to get inside regulations. Not for running the engine better. It would be nice but that needs a wide band sensor, that no Guzzi has.  I know of no motorcycle that has wideband lambda. But i'm not to knowledgeable about other makes. 

[Kev m]

Kev, you are wrong, lambda is there only to get inside regulations. Not for running the engine better. It would be nice but that needs a wide band sensor, that no Guzzi has.  I know of no motorcycle that has wideband lambda. But i'm not to knowledgeable about other makes.

What am I wrong about? I didn't say the lambda increases power/performance. I said it allows the engine to be run leaner than it otherwise safely could.

How are you contradicting that?

I think I should give up on this thread cause no one seems to be understanding my point.

I said you can't safely run an engine that lean without one (narrow-band or not).

Here are my points:

* Hundreds of millions of cars and EFI bikes run cleaner than their formerly carbureted counterparts.

* Hundreds of millions of cars and EFI bikes run without problems, despite the fact that they pollute less.

* You can't safely run as lean as you do with closed loop EFI systems using open loop EFI or carburetors. If you could the industry wouldn't have had to go to closed loop systems to make emissions standards.

Are some of the standards pushing parts of EFI maps towards the limits of lean operation? Sure.

Could more "performance" be found from richening up parts of maps? Sure.

Can you even find some additional fuel economy in other parts of maps? Possibly, depends on a lot of factors, like did you dump the stock cat-con exhaust.

Is there a "need" to remap a stock car or bike? Arguable, but my position based on the previous statements is generally no. That's not to say some improvements can't be made, but unless something else is wrong (and sometimes people have trouble finding what that is) a stock machine should run well.

And I'm not saying you can't increase the performance of many machines. But you generally do so at the cost of emissions and often the cost of less efficiency.

In all my life I can only think of one stock machine I encountered that showed any real problem with the stock fuel management system that wasn't resolved from simple maintenance or factory recalibration, it was my Breva 1100, and Pete's suspicion was that it was simply a bad/partially corrupt ECU. Certainly everyone else around here with a stock 4V CARC seems to think they ran without problem.

The only "problem" I've seen on my V7 is a cold start stumble that goes away in minutes as the combustion chamber comes up to temp and usually stays away the whole day afterward. Meaning that it runs fine 99.99% of operation.

I would hate to lose a few mpg of efficiency chasing more "performance".

Yeah I've heard reports of a supposedly "smoother" running V7 or "better throttle response" but often those are tied to reports of at least sight decreases in fuel economy. That's something I don't want to give up for the easily fooled butt dyno/butt reviewed claimed "benefits", especially if I don't have a perceived problem in the first place.

That clarify it?

[Andy1]

Hi Kev,
If my V7 had run from new like how you describe yours, then like you I would not have changed anything. Why the difference between our bikes?   I thought it might be the environments we rode in - but you don'tthink this is the reason.

But my bike (like quite a few others) did not run right......and the low speed hesitancy in particular I found quite dangerous when pulling out of a junction or making a tight turn as the engine felt it might stop.
So (after the dealer pointed out the fault to me on a road test after fitting a new ECU / TB, but was unable to do anything about it) my options were:
A) sell the bike / return it to MG
B) do something about it myself....and all I could do was remove the lambdas.
Luckily Option B worked - and I wanted to share that solution with others whose bikes may have the same hesistancy below 4000rpm.
Now Beetle is working on it there may well be another solution available soon - but six months ago my only other option was a GT remap.

I would disagree with one thing you have said, however, about the removal of the lambdas making the a/f ratio richer 'all over the map'.   They only effect the bike when it is in closed loop operation below about 4000rpm.  At faster speeds the engine runs in open circuit so they are redundant.  Or am I wrong on this?

Andy1

[Kev m]

For the record, I'm appreciating the discussion.

I don't purport to have all the answers and I'm wiling to learn too.

Hi Kev,
If my V7 had run from new like how you describe yours, then like you I would not have changed anything. Why the difference between our bikes?   I thought it might be the environments we rode in - but you don'tthink this is the reason.

But my bike (like quite a few others) did not run right......and the low speed hesitancy in particular I found quite dangerous when pulling out of a junction or making a tight turn as the engine felt it might stop.
So (after the dealer pointed out the fault to me on a road test after fitting a new ECU / TB, but was unable to do anything about it) my options were:
A) sell the bike / return it to MG
B) do something about it myself....and all I could do was remove the lambdas.
Luckily Option B worked - and I wanted to share that solution with others whose bikes may have the same hesistancy below 4000rpm.
Now Beetle is working on it there may well be another solution available soon - but six months ago my only other option was a GT remap.

I would disagree with one thing you have said, however, about the removal of the lambdas making the a/f ratio richer 'all over the map'.   They only effect the bike when it is in closed loop operation below about 4000rpm.  At faster speeds the engine runs in open circuit so they are redundant.  Or am I wrong on this?

Andy1

If your bike was indeed surging and showing those symptoms that mine and the others around here have not then I do not blame you at all for pursuing a fix (unplugging lamdbas or otherwise). As a matter of fact, when I think about it, when my Breva 1100 was pinging uncharacteristicall y when new (and during the 2 years of warranty) I pursued it every way I could through MG before I finally GAVE UP and had the ECU remapped. And that DID INDEED FIX IT. Which frustrates me because I never found out WHY it was doing it in the first place and WHY SO MANY OTHERS WERE NOT. It simply could be that whatever part of the ECU or original map (which was reloaded by multiple dealers) was corrupt or not working was indeed either fixed or ignored by the remap.

Back to you. I don't believe anyone has confirmed whether ALL operation above 4k is open loop. I personally don't believe that's accurate. As I've said, if it's 4k or 4.5k but steady throttle, it may indeed enter closed loop, but I don't know for sure one way or the other.

As to that, yes, I obviously do not mean that unplugging the lambdas will richen operation under circumstances which would have been open loop in the first place. I meant, all over the map where it WOULD have leaned it out for closed loop (idle, steady throttle etc.).

Maybe Beetle can educate us more on this now or after he's finished on any new map revisions for the 1TB V7.

[beetle]

The closed loop area is generally defined by the Euro emissions test requirements. I don't have the documents at hand at present, but IIRC, they test at both idle and cruise. Cruise for a Guzzi is around 3600 RPM in top gear. OEM's usually set the CL area at below 50-60% max RPM and 15% throttle. There's no hard cutoff at 4000 RPM. Engine temperature also comes into play, and CL is active above 55-60 degrees C. Outside of this range, the ECU runs open loop.

[SmithSwede]

Maybe I missed this Beetle, but what then is the point of the O2 sensors in a bike running your map? Does your map effectively turn them off or not use their inputs?

I get the impression that the O2 sensors come into play only in a certain range of rev/throttle openings.  And that this happens largely or exclusively to satisfy emissions requirements, as opposed to just making the engine run sweet and happy. 

Am I missing some nuance here? In a perfect world with this particular ECU, do you want or need the Lambda sensor input??

And if you go from the Guzzi OEM exhaust pipes to aftermarket pipes like the Mistrals, do they even have a bung that accepts the O2 sensors? 

Sorry.  I be stupid about this stuff.  Edumacate me, please.

[pete roper]

AFAIK am aftermarket maps are open loop.

The lambda sensors are turned off and can if wanted be removed but if they are left in place they should be plugged in so the heating elements can prevent them from clogging.

On the twin lambda bikes the sensors are in the headers so swapping pipes doesn't require removal or relocation unless the headers are being replaced as well.

Pete

[SmithSwede]

Thanks Pete

[beetle]

Maybe I missed this Beetle, but what then is the point of the O2 sensors in a bike running your map? Does your map effectively turn them off or not use their inputs?

With one exception (my Griso), all my maps are open loop. The sensors will still function, as Pete says, but their output is ignored.

I get the impression that the O2 sensors come into play only in a certain range of rev/throttle openings.  And that this happens largely or exclusively to satisfy emissions requirements, as opposed to just making the engine run sweet and happy. 

Correct. Exclusively for emissions requirements. They serve no other purpose.

Am I missing some nuance here? In a perfect world with this particular ECU, do you want or need the Lambda sensor input??

No, but the those who claim to protect us from ourselves, demand they be used.

And if you go from the Guzzi OEM exhaust pipes to aftermarket pipes like the Mistrals, do they even have a bung that accepts the O2 sensors?

They must if they are classified as street legal.

[ponti_33609]

Maybe I missed this Beetle, but what then is the point of the O2 sensors in a bike running your map? Does your map effectively turn them off or not use their inputs?

I get the impression that the O2 sensors come into play only in a certain range of rev/throttle openings.  And that this happens largely or exclusively to satisfy emissions requirements, as opposed to just making the engine run sweet and happy. 

Am I missing some nuance here? In a perfect world with this particular ECU, do you want or need the Lambda sensor input??

And if you go from the Guzzi OEM exhaust pipes to aftermarket pipes like the Mistrals, do they even have a bung that accepts the O2 sensors? 

Sorry.  I be stupid about this stuff.  Edumacate me, please.

The Mistrals in particular are after the sensor so unless I replaced the entire pipe they are still in the same location. 

[Kev m]

Now returning to the statements that the Lambdas are ONLY for emissions purposes.

We've been told that they do allow for a small range of self-adjustment/fuel trim. And Pete has said before that manipulation of the signal can result in change (sometimes dangerous ones) to air/fuel ratio.

So even if we accept that the primary purpose is emissions (and I do), should we not also recognize that they DO effect performance (proper running) of the machine to some small extent?

Or Beetle/Paul, are you saying the small extent is negligible? But if so, why reset trim after ECU updates etc.?

[Meinolf]

Hi Kev,

As a matter of fact, when I think about it, when my Breva 1100 was pinging uncharacteristicall y when new (and during the 2 years of warranty) I pursued it every way I could through MG before I finally GAVE UP and had the ECU remapped. And that DID INDEED FIX IT. Which frustrates me because I never found out WHY it was doing it in the first place and WHY SO MANY OTHERS WERE NOT.

I've just stumbled across this thread and thought I might share some of my findings, based on more than 3 years of data logging Lambda left/right, voltage, TPS, RPM, engine, oil and air temperature and manifold pressure on my V11 and Jackal.

I built an ECU bench to measure the influence of changing single parameters while keeping all others steady. The latest incarnation, Mk VI, includes a narrow band lambda sensor simulator and can be used with the 15M or 15RC.

And have also deep dived into the dissassembled program code of the 15M and RC.




upload image


The resulting BINs are used by quite a few Guzzisti around the world, several of them are members of this board and shared their feedback here.

The underlying assumption when optimizing BINs is that the engine and its relevant components are subject to deviations of the original blueprint. And recognizing that Guzzi wasn't big enough to spend much time in optimizing its BINs to a degree available to larger manufacturers.

This begins with very basic parameters such as barometric pressure and air temperature trim. The trim tables used in the 15M/RC and previous ECUs are basically flat, that is they don't correct fuel injected to correspond to the changes in air mass (Mark will know better than me if this is still and issue with later ECUs). And continues with significant differences in lambda between the left and right cylinder.

Now, the most likely explanation why you had pinging on your Breva while others didn't is that the series deviation of one or more components aggregated to such a degree that the BIN just didn't fit anymore. This might have been ignition or mixture-related, who knows.

Cheers
Meinolf

[Kev m]

Hi Kev,

I've just stumbled across this thread and thought I might share some of my findings, based on more almost 3 years of data logging Lambda left/right, voltage, TPS, RPM, engine, oil and air temperature and manifold pressure on my V11 and Jackal.

I built an ECU bench to measure the influence of changing single parameters while keeping all others steady. The latest incarnation, Mk VI, includes a narrow band lambda sensor simulator and can be used with the 15M or 15RC.

And have also deep dived into the dissassembled program code of the 15M and RC.




upload image


The resulting BINs are used by quite a few Guzzisti around the world, several of them are members of this board and shared their feedback here.

The underlying assumption when optimizing BINs is that the engine and its relevant components are subject to deviations of the original. And recognizing that Guzzi wasn't big enough to spend much time in optimizing its BINs to a degree available to larger manufacturers.

This begins with very basic parameters such as barometric pressure and air temperature trim. The trim tables used in the 15M/RC and previous ECUs are basically flat, that is they don't correct fuel injected to correspond to the changes in air mass (Mark will know better than me if this is still and issue with later ECUs). And continues with significant differences in lambda between the left and right cylinder.

Now, the most likely explanation why you had pinging on your Breva while others didn't is that the series deviation of one or more components aggregated to such a degree that the BIN just didn't fit anymore. This might have been ignition or mixture-related, who knows.

Cheers
Meinolf

Wow, thanks so much for that.

Interesting too that the Jackal in the EU was equipped with feedback injection as my US model (2000) was only open-loop (no lambda).

I wonder if the same sort of series deviation can be blamed for the problems on some 1TB V7 models, or if that shouldn't be the case when so many of the components are all contained within the single TB unit (ECM, TPS, IAT, etc.)?

[SmithSwede]

Meinolf.

Wow. 

I love this forum. 

[beetle]

So even if we accept that the primary purpose is emissions (and I do), should we not also recognize that they DO effect performance (proper running) of the machine to some small extent?

No.

For the V7, being a relatively low power, mid capacity engine, it could be made to work. The problem is that Guzzi have approached it by modifying the FI to pass the relevant emissions test, without modifying the engine. The same engine/exhaust design that's been around for decades. It's a kludge. They haven't modified the engine/exhaust to suit the requirements, they fudged the fueling.

For the big blocks? Hells no.

Or Beetle/Paul, are you saying the small extent is negligible? But if so, why reset trim after ECU updates etc.?

Simples. If you update the ECU, and there's a significant change in the mapping that might affect the fuel delivery, we want to start from a zero baseline so that any autolearned trims will not adversely affect running.

[Kev m]

So what effect is the auto learned trim having then?

[Xlratr]

So what effect is the auto learned trim having then?

A manufacturer with less money to throw around might be inclined to make a map that's just "good enough". Throw in a narrow band sensor and it will average out the fueling to make it as close as possible to the emissions target AFR in closed loop and the job's done. That doesn't mean it's  controlling the fueling in real time at every throttle / rpm position though. For that you need a wideband sensor. That's why some people like to remap, to get it "right".
If you are going you remap, you want to get rid of the auto learn correction factor to have a proper starting point, otherwise your carefully set up new map would be worthless after a simple battery disconnect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beetle]

So what effect is the auto learned trim having then?

Trims to the AFR to somewhere around 14.5 - 15.5. Too lean for the the engine/exhaust configuration we get from Guzzi.

A manufacturer with less money to throw around might be inclined to make a map that's just "good enough".

Describes Guzzi perfectly.

[Kev m]

Trims to the AFR to somewhere around 14.5 - 15.5. Too lean for the the engine/exhaust configuration we get from Guzzi.

I guess the problem comes defining "too lean".

What problem or damage is it causing?

Look, I want my bike to run as well as the next guy. But I don't feel the need to waste fuel or pollute to do it.

Currently the ONLY symptom I'm showing of any "problem" is the cold idle stumble on initial start.

And, ok, there's a little more discoloration of the headers than I'd like, but if it's limited to that it's hardly a problem.

So what problems would I want to fix?