So, I recently added FIC 1050's, and will be converting the car to E85 soon. First though, I wanted to do a full retune for 93, seeing as thought I slapped on a heavily ported IX turbo and a ported stock exhaust manifold, and springed wastegate as well.

I rescaled my maps up to 325, and was hitting 320's with my 93 tune. So, I have a feeling I will need to go even higher with E85.

So, with my new scalings though, the car on the low end sucked big time. My scaling didn't give me enough resolution in the low end to get as much out of spoolup as I could. So, I will be rescaling my maps again, using my last map without the IX turbo, wastegate spring and ported manifold as a guide because the tune I made had a killer spoolup tune.

So, a few questions:

In the timing maps, the scaling starts with a zero, but the fuel maps do not. Why is this, and can I use a number there instead of zero? I can't think of a time where the maps would need this there, other than possibly at startup or something.

You guys that are hitting 325+ loads, how are you scaling your timing/fuel maps? I am expecting to hit in the 340's with an E85 tune. The IX turbo I am running it up to 30psi because I made power up untill then. After 30psi, the power wasn't going up at all, so I stopped it there.

My old timing map load looked like this:
0
10
20
40
50
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300

My newest map is setup like this:

0
25
50
70
90
110
130
150
160
170
190
210
230
260
270
280
290
310
325

As you can see, the resolution of the low end suffered when I created the new scaling, as evident by my data logs in respect to spoolup and timing numbers throughout the rpm rise. It was really a noteable difference, the car just doesn't seem to have the real low end pull it used to. Looking at old data logs vs. the new tuned ones, it's evident because of what timing the car is running sub-3,000 rpm's. Also, day to day driving is really touchy now, and I believe it's because there is no resolution in the low end loads. Does my logic of thinking make sense with this?

You guys that have scaled maps 325 and above, how are you doing it?

I looked all through the "post your fully tuned maps thread" and there wasn't much with loads over 325.

In looking at my actual timing map and data logs, there is little timing changes from say a load of 200 to 280, and 280 to 320's. My original train of thought was to increase the resolution at the high end so that I could control the high boost areas better. Now it seems as though it is the opposite; I need to keep the resolution down load where it changes the most, and take out my "detail" in the higher loads.

What do you guys think?

 

There are different load and RPM tables for timing and fuel, timing has much higher resolution. I think we COULD build our own fuel map tables with higher resolution but I don't think every rom has enough free space to fit them, since we'd have to leave the tables where they are....wasting space. I'm just getting into the disasm so I'm not the best guy to be talkiing about this really.

I see no reason why we can't build our own fuel,load and RPM tables. It seems to all be 16bit coding so there should be plenty of room to expand I think.

 

here my scaling

Fuel:
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
360

Timing
0
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
360

i wouldnt be suprised before long you start maxing out the ecu load @ 379 LOL, but jamie as usually has a great idea MY MAN

 

How much boost are you running on 93 to hit 320 load?

 

Here is a quick cut/paste from a data log (4th gear)

4410.15625 334.0625 32.50315 11.4513 1707.047031
4457.03125 334.6875 32.50315 11.3778 1737.710781
4476.5625 336.25 32.69662 11.3043 1747.244063
4324.21875 345.9375 32.69662 11.2749 1688.275313

RPM2Byte, Load, JDMMAP, AFR and Airflow2Byte

Here is a quick cut/paste from a data log (3th gear)

4613.28125 313.75 29.98804 11.3043 1679.626563
4691.40625 315.9375 30.18151 11.2749 1721.199531
4808.59375 314.0625 29.79457 11.3043 1755.794531
4898.4375 314.375 30.18151 11.4513 1761.98625
4980.46875 314.6875 29.98804 11.3631 1803.755781

RPM2Byte, Load, JDMMAP, AFR and Airflow2Byte

 

Its all about what ones you take out. The car idles at 30 generally so you can take out 10 and 20. The car will run 30-50 around town and on the highway at low speed so you can leave those more less alone if you want. The next ones to start takuing out are 60 and 90 usually as the car doesnt spend alot of time at 60 per se, and 90 is transitory toward boost. I chose better top end resolution but my car doesnt seem to be any worse driving. My map looks like this right now:



versus a kinds gimpy screenshot of a stock map:

 

Your timing map looks earily similar to mine, aside from the scaling.

What I am finding is that in my 70/90/110 area I am getting a ton of part throttle knock, pulling away normally from a stoplight. It is knocking over 6 counts almost every single time I pull away from a stoplight.

It seems as though I need to bring more resolution back into that area, and take out some in the heavy load areas because as I am looking at my data logs, the timing only changes 1 degree, and the values i have in my fuel map under very high loads are the same. It seems as though I could have high jumps in load on the right side of the scale, but need low jumps on the left side.

There is a very noticable difference in how the car drives, with my before and after maps. I just need to get the sorting out of the scaling down, the timing numbers themselves are easy.

 

Drop the timing in the map and crank up the dynamic advance map to make up for it. An idea anyway.

 

can someone link me to how to rescale the map?

ive just entered teh RPM i wanted into the axis, but im not 100% sure if that did anything. I wanted more resolution at 6K, so i inputed 6K, 6250, 6500. Is that the correct way to do it? or is there something im missing

just cause i dont want to drag this OT. Ive logged my car in normal driving quite often. JB is right, the car idles around 30, cruises around 50. You can get rid of all the lower idle loads because the values are exactly the same... then use discression at removing the inbetween cruise/WOT loads.

maybe try 0-30-50-70-90...

 

Dynamic advance map?

One more thing, why not just take the zero, select to 8000, and just interpolate all the RPM values, in essence giving a perfect spread of RPM numbers? I think it would come out to be 380.952 rpm increments...

 

Dynamic Advance= The mislabeled boost enhancement map that everyone thought was for antilag actually adds timing in.

I only needed precise control in that map where its at 250rpm increments. You could in fact do that (subaru are 400rpm) like you suggested though.

 

How does This work? I have seen this on my logs increass to timing values i do not even have on my maps?

 

So how does it work? How much and in what circumstances does it add timing?

 

Interpolating the RPM and Load Axis' is definitely the easiest way to keep the transistions linear through the map. Do we NEED a "0" load column?

 

I guess there can be more 2 step and between shift timing control