V7 Map Comparison - GT vs Beetle Map (GuzziDiag)

[Meinolf]

HI Kev,

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 must have misexpressed myself. To the best of my knowledge the OEM ECU of the Jackal always was a 15M (open loop). I added the narrow band part to my ECU test bench because I'm trying to apply the knowledge gained about the 15M to the 15RC due to popular demand 

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.)?

Yes. The ECU is the least part of the problem - only its analog (electrical) components could contribute to the series deviation, the digital part (program code and tables/scalars) not. All other components are the same as used on any engine.

Cheers
Meinolf

[Meinolf]

Hi Kev,

I guess the problem comes defining "too lean". What problem or damage is it causing?

An excellent question. In an engine designed to run lean (which Guzzis aren't) too lean would simply be a mixture which doesn't ignite.

In an real life engine there are more possible effects.

While there's no significant difference between burn speed of rich or lean mixture, the lean mixture needs more time to ignite. Which, if the ignition timing is not set up (= spark occurs earlier) for a lean mixture, will lead to a max. pressure inside the combustion chamber being later than optimal. The rule of thumb is that you want to have max. pressure ~10-15� after TDC.

Even more problematic is pinging, which is a pressure maximum before or to shortly after TDC. Pinging is a typical symptom of a mixture to lean.

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

I applaud and support your view that we must protect our environment and should not pollute it. If you have the time and take a look at the diagram 


 
(the source is: http://www.fixkick.com/ECU/Authority/command-authority.html) you will see two vertical lines. The red one is at ~13  (AFR) and is the mixture at which the highest power is generated, the blue one is at ~17 (AFR) and provides the best economy.

If you place horizontal lines in the diagram and compare the respective values of CO, CO2, HC and NOx it becomes clear that less CO2 and NOx is produced at the max. power point, HC is roughly the same and only CO is lower at the best economy spot. Catalytic converters work most efficiently at stoichic mixure, which is why a narrrow band sensor is used. The narrow band sensor is just a toggle switch with an rich and lean output. It can not provide detailed enough information about the AFR - just rich or lean.

If you furthermore take into account that power = torque x revolutions, and torque diminishes if the mixture generates less power (very unprecise wording, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say), then you need to increase the number of revolutions to get the same power. More revolutions amount to more air mass moved through the engine, which amounts to more fuel injected, even if the mixture is leaner. Plus more friction, higher pumping losses, etc. The result is that an engine (and the entire context) not specifically designed for lean operation will use the same or higher amount of fuel and generate more harmful substances than the same engine running a richer mixture.

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

The ECU doesn't use closed loop after (any) start (for number of revolutions defined in one of the scalars used by the program code) and below a specified engine temperature (also defined in a scalar in the code). The cause rather is a mixture either to lean or to rich for the ambient factors (engine/air temperature) at cold start. Rather easily fixed if the AFR is known during occurence.

Cheers
Meinolf

PS Above is summary. Many more factors are contributing, I just tried to keep it short and simple.

[Kev m]

Meinolf,

Great info and contributions. Thank you for all that.

Does this chart show the effect with or without the use of a Cat-Con? And if without, how does that change the picture?

Now if we accept that chart what conclusion would you draw from remapping so it runs closer to 13.0:1 much of the time (when it would have otherwise been in closed-loop and averaging closer to Stoich/14.7:1 or so)?

It looks to me like you would actually reduce CO2 and NOx, increase HC slightly and CO significantly, while also reducing MPG.

But I see where you go and conclude that less power means the motor is going to have turn more rpm for the same amount of work, and since this is a snapshot of combustion not accounting for the factor of time, that you are suggesting at 13.0:1 a motor may actually pollute less because of the time factor yes?

Is that a universal equivalency, or does it change with any given motor, with different ambient conditions, with different rpm/load?

I mean if it's that simple, why wouldn't the regulating bodies of the EU and US (EPA) allow a richer target mixture at the current test points?

[beetle]

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?

I believe both myself and Meinolf have answered that question. However, no one is telling you to 'fix' the 'problem', but you argue there's no need to 'fix' a 'problem' that you don't have. Good for you that you're happy with your V7. Not every one is, and we're trying to 'fix' the 'problem' for them.


At this time, I'm trying to fix the cold start stumble. Everything else is secondary. I know what issue is, but getting around it is proving problematic. Before you ask, the cause can't be fixed, but I'm hoping to affect a workaround.

[beetle]

I mean if it's that simple, why wouldn't the regulating bodies of the EU and US (EPA) allow a richer target mixture at the current test points?

Egads!


Some light reading for you:

US regs: LINKY

Euro regs: LINKY

[Andy1]

Hi Kev,
The Euro 3 and 4 requirements are for emissions, not A/F ratios.  The manufacturer can have whatever A/F ratios they want - it is what comes out of the exhaust (and fuel tank breather) that is measured.

Hi Beetle,
I had a quick look at the link you put for Europe but it looks like it is out of date?  It seemed to be dated 2002, or have I misread it?
Why is the cold start stumble the priority?  To me it was definately the slow speed abilities of the engine (when warm) which was the issue - although these problems may well be linked.

Andy1

[Kev m]

I believe both myself and Meinolf have answered that question. However, no one is telling you to 'fix' the 'problem', but you argue there's no need to 'fix' a 'problem' that you don't have. Good for you that you're happy with your V7. Not every one is, and we're trying to 'fix' the 'problem' for them.


At this time, I'm trying to fix the cold start stumble. Everything else is secondary. I know what issue is, but getting around it is proving problematic. Before you ask, the cause can't be fixed, but I'm hoping to affect a workaround.

I think you might be misunderstanding my attempt to understand the nuances of your work and how it relates to both emissions standards OEM maps with a criticism of your work. That's not the case.

[Kev m]

Hi Kev,
The Euro 3 and 4 requirements are for emissions, not A/F ratios.  The manufacturer can have whatever A/F ratios they want - it is what comes out of the exhaust (and fuel tank breather) that is measured.

I fully understand that but they are linked.

If as Meinlof is suggesting actual emissions will be lower over time with a richer A/F ratio why wouldn't someone have explained and proved that to regulating bodies by now to allow "better' A/F ratios. Not MG, but certainly someone with the money of Honda, Harley, Polaris etc. could accomplish that.

[pete roper]

My guess would be because the people they are trying to convince are politicians and populists so the explanations and solutions tend to need to be dumbed down and simplified to make them appealing.

Rather than looking for a best sollution it will tend to be led towards a simple one that makes them look good.

[beetle]

Hi Beetle,
I had a quick look at the link you put for Europe but it looks like it is out of date?  It seemed to be dated 2002, or have I misread it?
Why is the cold start stumble the priority?  To me it was definately the slow speed abilities of the engine (when warm) which was the issue - although these problems may well be linked.

Andy1

That ruling (Euro 3) expired at the end of 2015. Euro 4 is currently in effect, and it has even tighter emissions.

The low speed abilities can be easily fixed by switching lambda off. The cold start issue is driving a lot of people crazy (at least the majority that contact me).

[Andy1]

The emission test will be a snapshot of what comes out of the exhaust at a certain RPM / load rather than projecting the overall emissions which the engine will produce in moving the vehicle a certain distance.......howe ver for (say) a 100hp engine which will hardly ever run at full power on a public road the test is probably relevant.
It is up to the manufacturers to decide how to pass those tests....VW's method seems to have backfired on them!
Andy1

[Andy1]

Hi Beetle,
So is disabling / removing the lambdas now your method of improving the slow speed and start up stumble (sounds like a dance routine!)
Andy1

[pete roper]

Can't see how that would work as there is no lambda input during warm up. You can see it activate with PADS and probably Guzzidiag.

Anyway I've sent my PADS to Mark to play with while I'm away in the UK. Hopefully he can glean something useful with it.

Pete

[Andy1]

What is PADS?
Andy1

[pete roper]

The shitty, godawful factory diagnostic tool.

[oldbike54]

 Particularly awful diagnostic system .

 Dusty

[pete roper]

Just about sums it up.

[beetle]

I think you might be misunderstanding my attempt to understand the nuances of your work and how it relates to both emissions standards OEM maps with a criticism of your work. That's not the case.

I probably am misunderstanding.

You said:

What problem or damage is it causing?

I said:

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

Meinolf said:

An excellent question. In an engine designed to run lean (which Guzzis aren't) too lean would simply be a mixture which doesn't ignite.

In an real life engine there are more possible effects.

Which is the crux of the matter. Meinolf explained it better than I.

It is my opinion that current Guzzi engines in are being made to run on the lean side of optimal simply to meet emissions requirements.

[beetle]

It is up to the manufacturers to decide how to pass those tests....VW's method seems to have backfired on them!

VW cheated with their Diesel engines. Guzzi fiddle with the FI, ignition timing and stuff like air injection. It doesn't seem to matter how it affects the ride, as long as it passes the test.

[beetle]

Hi Beetle,
So is disabling / removing the lambdas now your method of improving the slow speed and start up stumble (sounds like a dance routine!)
Andy1

No. I disable the lambda and modify the maps and correction tables for overall performance. The cold start issue is independent of the lambda. At start, the ECU operates in open loop.

[Kev m]

I probably am misunderstanding.

You said:

I said:

Meinolf said:


Which is the crux of the matter. Meinolf explained it better than I.

It is my opinion that current Guzzi engines in are being made to run on the lean side of optimal simply to meet emissions requirements.

Well I don't mean to nit pick, but: "on the lean side of optimal" doesn't actually answer the question of what the actual harm is.

Let's define it, is the leanness:

1. Causing engine damage from excessive temperatures? (And if so, what is being damaged/how?)

2. Causing inefficiency in the form of lower fuel mileage?

3. Causing excessive pollution? (One argument to this effect has been put forth, but questions remain unanswered)?

4. Causing poor performance? This is where I think we'll find some meat with regards to some of the complaints of cold stumble, low rpm surging, or other rideability complaints.


My anecdotal evidence is just the seeming trouble-free operation of bikes with which I'm familiar. And perhaps reports of how much more reliable modern vehicles are than their predecessors.

I'll throw in the non-scientific observation of how much you can smell the difference of a carbureted motor vs a modern EFI motor these days.

But I'm open to learning what these lean AF mixtures are doing to us and our machines.

[beetle]

Well I don't mean to nit pick, but: "on the lean side of optimal" doesn't actually answer the question of what the actual harm is.

I never once said it was causing harm.

Let's define it, is the leanness:

1. Causing engine damage from excessive temperatures? (And if so, what is being damaged/how?)


2. Causing inefficiency in the form of lower fuel mileage?

3. Causing excessive pollution? (One argument to this effect has been put forth, but questions remain unanswered)?

No to all the above.

4. Causing poor performance? This is where I think we'll find some meat with regards to some of the complaints of cold stumble, low rpm surging, or other rideability complaints.

Yes. That's what I said .

My anecdotal evidence is just the seeming trouble-free operation of bikes with which I'm familiar. And perhaps reports of how much more reliable modern vehicles are than their predecessors.

There it is. Your anecdotal evidence of bikes you're familiar with. Not every other V7 owner has had your good fortune.

I'll throw in the non-scientific observation of how much you can smell the difference of a carbureted motor vs a modern EFI motor these days.

But I'm open to learning what these lean AF mixtures are doing to us and our machines.

Carburettors are outside the scope of this discussion. Lean AFR is not hurting us. Forget this 'harm' business. No one, nor any bike, will be 'harmed' by a stock configuration. How did that even get into this discussion? I'm talking performance. Not more power or going faster performance, but a good running engine.

[Kev m]

Beetle, I sincerely apologise if I'm frustrating you, that's NOT my intention. I'm thick sometimes when I'm trying to reason through something.

I never once said it was causing harm.


No to all the above.


Yes. That's what I said .


There it is. Your anecdotal evidence of bikes you're familiar with. Not every other V7 owner has had your good fortune.

Carburettors are outside the scope of this discussion. Lean AFR is not hurting us. Forget this 'harm' business. No one, nor any bike, will be 'harmed' by a stock configuration. How did that even get into this discussion? I'm talking performance. Not more power or going faster performance, but a good running engine.

Perfect, thanks for that response because it suggests we're really about on the same page here.

Except maybe my "good fortune" shouldn't really be good fortune. I mean, if one buys a new vehicle can't we about expect it to run well (without significant fault, as "well" as I and so many here seem to think they do stock)?

I guess my original point was that if something is not right (Andy's bike) then isn't something WRONG other than the common map? Unless it's the deviation of components like our new friend Meinholf was talking about (which I'm open too). But isn't it reasonable to expect a new vehicle to run without significant issue and not REQUIRE a remap to do that?

Maybe not (see my Breva). I'm open to the possibility.

Anyway, I think the talk of harm) came from posts 80, 103, and finally the one of yours (sorry had a couple of beers and can't remember the #) I quoted where you talk about the AF ratio being too lean.

It's partly thread drift because of a conversation the takes place over multiple days in a difficult format.

But it comes back to the concept of whether or not the stock map is "too" lean or not (define the parameters that make up "too").

I guess my position has been that if so many bikes run so well with the stock map that by definition it's not "too" lean.

But again I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong based on what Meinholf is saying could explain the away.

I.E. the map is not too lean UNLESS you happen to have the unfortunate luck to get a unit whereby the sum of the EFI parts are not equal to the usual whole, then the map isn't sufficient.

Is that the common explanation for my old Breva and Andy's (and some other's) V7's?.

If so great, thanks for your patience.

[SmithSwede]

I can't tell if people are getting irritated with each other or with this thread.   But I'm certainly enjoying it and trying to learn.   

My personal experience with a 13 Stone is not the cold start stumble.   Probably because I've long been in the habit of letting the bike warm up thoroughly while I gear up. 

My fueling issue is that the bike does seem to run lean, or hesitate, or surge at low throttle settings at lowish speeds.   Like 25 to 45 mph in town.   

And if I'm understanding Beetle correctly, his map could fix exactly that problem.   

[oldbike54]

 The correct answer is

 Dusty

[Kev m]

I . 

My fueling issue is that the bike does seem to run lean, or hesitate, or surge at low throttle settings at lowish speeds.   Like 25 to 45 mph in town.   

If I understand it you've got more miles on one of these than any one we know.

You mind if I ask the rpm range you're talking about for those speeds?

[beetle]

Except maybe my "good fortune" shouldn't really be good fortune. I mean, if one buys a new vehicle can't we about expect it to run well (without significant fault, as "well" as I and so many here seem to think they do stock)?

It's a perception/expectation thing. Yes, one does (and should) expect their vehicle to run correctly. I'll use the example of the Griso. Straight off the showroom floor and even after it's first service (by Roper), my Griso hunted and stumbled at low speed and city riding, and drank fuel like there's was no tomorrow when things got busy. The fuel guzzling didn't bother me too much, but the hunting was driving me crazy. To this day, however, there are folks who tell me their Griso runs and rides perfectly. I've even got hate mail telling me I'm a snake oil salesman and that I've duped everybody. That's outweighed by the folks telling me their Griso runs perfectly now.

So are those who are happy with their bike mistaken, or were those that were unhappy mistaken? Should I have just accepted that's the way a Griso ran? Or was I being too sensitive? Was there something wrong with the bike, or me?

Was it the fuel? The altitude? The temperature? Loose exhaust seal? Because it was my first Guzzi? Friday build? Normal or abnormal?

I don't know, and I've stopped asking. It just is.

I guess my original point was that if something is not right (Andy's bike) then isn't something WRONG other than the common map? Unless it's the deviation of components like our new friend Meinholf was talking about (which I'm open too). But isn't it reasonable to expect a new vehicle to run without significant issue and not REQUIRE a remap to do that?

See above.

Anyway, I think the talk of harm) came from posts 80, 103, and finally the one of yours (sorry had a couple of beers and can't remember the #) I quoted where you talk about the AF ratio being too lean.

Being too lean doesn't equate too harm. Again, I'm talking about performance.

But it comes back to the concept of whether or not the stock map is "too" lean or not (define the parameters that make up "too").

This is my opinion. Anything over 13.6 AFR is too lean for a Guzzi to run optimally. Your definition of optimal may differ. It's not 'harming' the bike or the environment.

I guess my position has been that if so many bikes run so well with the stock map that by definition it's not "too" lean.

But again I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong based on what Meinholf is saying could explain the away.

I.E. the map is not too lean UNLESS you happen to have the unfortunate luck to get a unit whereby the sum of the EFI parts are not equal to the usual whole, then the map isn't sufficient.

Is that the common explanation for my old Breva and Andy's (and some other's) V7's?.

If so great, thanks for your patience.

I agree with Meinolf, but would add to sum of the EFI the following as well: assembly, fuel, tune, environment, rider et al.

[bad Chad]

If anyone has ever wondered as too the horrors brought on by winter in the Northern hemisphere , the 5 plus pages of this thread should make it abundantly clear.

As for those in the Southern Hemisphere, one can only ponder what form of demented madness has taken hold.   God speed to all men, may you make it back...

[SmithSwede]

Kev:

I expect to hit 50K on my little small block next week.  What a bike!

The hunting, surging, lean feeling I'm referring to is between 3,500 and 4,200 rpm on a low throttle opening.  It happens when I'm just trying to creep along in town at 30, 40, 45 mph, riding like Dudley Dooright and trying to get max fuel economy.

It sometimes irritates me enough that I just ride more aggressively, with harder acceleration, more revs, higher speed just to avoid that feeling of "something's not quite right."

I think this is more noticeable on a colder engine.  If I've ridden 50 miles and the engine is stinking hot, it's better, but still seems a bit off.

It's not just in my head or in the way I hold a throttle. All my other bikes are perfectly civilized in this low speed/lowish rev/low throttle environment. 

I once had an '07 BMW 1200 GS that was like the small block in just not feeling quite right at low throttle openings.   Maybe that's a clue.

[beetle]

If anyone has ever wondered as too the horrors brought on by winter in the Northern hemisphere , the 5 plus pages of this thread should make it abundantly clear.

As for those in the Southern Hemisphere, one can only ponder what form of demented madness has taken hold.   God speed to all men, may you make it back...

It's the heat. It was 104 F in the shade hear yesterday.