Advanced fuel control options
Oct 26, 2009, 08:11 AM
#47
Evolved Member
iTrader: (38)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mrfred - do we still need to scale the numbers for "Initial Cranking IPW vs Coolant Temp" for bigger injectors like we did for "Cranking Enrichment IPW Adder (Main)" in the 96940011 ROM? In other words, are these tables equivalent?
Oct 26, 2009, 08:41 AM
#48
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advanced fuel control options
C) Sync Load Decel Subtractor - Subtracts fuel during rapid load reduction. I believe that its purpose is to transition to a fuel cut mode. The equation for this contribution is:
SyncLoadDecel = constant*DeltaMasterLoadNeg/2048)*LCOMP*TCOMP*(RPMCOMP/128)*Baro*IFPHz
DeltaLoadMasterNeg = decrease in master load, zero when load is steady
LCOMP = 2D table vs load
TCOMP = 2D table vs coolant temp
RPMCOMP = 2D table vs RPM,
Baro = barometric pressure
IFPHz = see description above
The tables for the SyncLoadDecel subtractor for the 88590015 ROM are:
C) Sync Load Decel Subtractor - Subtracts fuel during rapid load reduction. I believe that its purpose is to transition to a fuel cut mode. The equation for this contribution is:
SyncLoadDecel = constant*DeltaMasterLoadNeg/2048)*LCOMP*TCOMP*(RPMCOMP/128)*Baro*IFPHz
DeltaLoadMasterNeg = decrease in master load, zero when load is steady
LCOMP = 2D table vs load
TCOMP = 2D table vs coolant temp
RPMCOMP = 2D table vs RPM,
Baro = barometric pressure
IFPHz = see description above
The tables for the SyncLoadDecel subtractor for the 88590015 ROM are:
Code:
<table name="Decel IPW Subtraction Comp vs RPM" category="Fuel" address="3350" type="2D" level="2" scaling="Mult128"> <table name="RPM" address="6b7a" type="Y Axis" elements="10" scaling="RPM"/> </table> <table name="Decel IPW Subtraction Comp vs Load" category="Fuel" address="3360" type="2D" level="2" scaling="Mult128"> <table name="Load" address="6cba" type="Y Axis" elements="14" scaling="Load"/> </table>
Oct 26, 2009, 09:22 AM
#51
So... silly question, but in "2) Cranking fuel pulse width" we would actually want to do the standard (old_inj_size/new_inj_size)*1.3 on the TCOMP values for proper e85 starting?
I think luckily my injector sizing for E85 winds up being similar to stock for getting cold starts to work properly on E85, but it might be nice to have the correct values for gasoline also. Too bad this didn't come out until after v7!
I think luckily my injector sizing for E85 winds up being similar to stock for getting cold starts to work properly on E85, but it might be nice to have the correct values for gasoline also. Too bad this didn't come out until after v7!
Oct 26, 2009, 09:39 AM
#52
hehe. I inadvertently put it in on my FTP server. Its on my webserver now.
Oct 26, 2009, 09:41 AM
#53
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so no matter what number i attempt replace in either of those fields it goes to 0.00. I even tried to re input the same value and still inputs as 0.00. i have the definitions as exactly above in my xml. any ideas?
Oct 26, 2009, 11:01 AM
#55
Code:
<table name="MAF Comp vs Coolant Temp #1" category="Fuel" address="3136" type="2D" level="1" scaling="uint8"> <table name="Coolant Temp" address="6ff8" type="Y Axis" elements="9" scaling="Temp"/> </table> <table name="MAF Comp vs Coolant Temp #2" category="Fuel" address="3126" type="2D" level="1" scaling="uint8"> <table name="Coolant Temp" address="6ff8" type="Y Axis" elements="9" scaling="Temp"/> </table>
Oct 26, 2009, 11:12 AM
#56
For 96530006, the addresses to add to the MUT table (from mrfred's second post) appear to be; note that these are two-byte values, so each value is two MUT table entries:
For "Sync Base FPW", we'll need to get the patch portion of mrfred's post ported over first, but I thought it might be helpful to get this into people's hands sooner rather than later.
(It looks like FFFF8A68 or 8A64 should be workable for Sync Base FPW, in case Eric or someone else gets a chance to look at the patch before I do. And on that note, time for lunch.
)
Code:
60-61 Sync Base FPW (to be determined) 62-63 Sync Load Accel FPW ffff8a72 & ffff8a73 64-65 Sync Load Decel FPW Subtraction ffff8a74 & ffff8a75 66-67 Sync Load Change Idle FPW (doesn't exist) 68-69 Total Sync FPW ffff8a6a & ffff8a6b 6A-6B Async Accel FPW ffff8b38 & ffff8b39 6C-6D Cranking FPW ffff8afa & ffff8afb 6E-6F Primer Pulse ffff8ba8 & ffff8ba9
(It looks like FFFF8A68 or 8A64 should be workable for Sync Base FPW, in case Eric or someone else gets a chance to look at the patch before I do. And on that note, time for lunch.
)
Last edited by logic; Oct 26, 2009 at 02:16 PM. Reason: Add second bytes.
Oct 26, 2009, 01:25 PM
#57
Excellent News. With it not being marked as an update, I assume it's these two tables?
What does each of them represent? Open loop vs. Closed loop?
Code:
<table name="MAF Comp vs Coolant Temp #1" category="Fuel" address="3136" type="2D" level="1" scaling="uint8"> <table name="Coolant Temp" address="6ff8" type="Y Axis" elements="9" scaling="Temp"/> </table> <table name="MAF Comp vs Coolant Temp #2" category="Fuel" address="3126" type="2D" level="1" scaling="uint8"> <table name="Coolant Temp" address="6ff8" type="Y Axis" elements="9" scaling="Temp"/> </table>
For 96530006, the addresses to add to the MUT table (from mrfred's second post) appear to be:
For "Sync Base FPW", we'll need to get the patch portion of mrfred's post ported over first, but I thought it might be helpful to get this into people's hands sooner rather than later.
(It looks like FFFF8A68 or 8A64 should be workable for Sync Base FPW, in case Eric or someone else gets a chance to look at the patch before I do. And on that note, time for lunch.)
Code:
60-61 Sync Base FPW (to be determined) 62-63 Sync Load Accel FPW ffff8a72 64-65 Sync Load Decel FPW Subtraction ffff8a74 66-67 Sync Load Change Idle FPW (doesn't exist) 68-69 Total Sync FPW ffff8a6a 6A-6B Async Accel FPW ffff8b38 6C-6D Cranking FPW ffff8afa 6E-6F Primer Pulse ffff8ba8
(It looks like FFFF8A68 or 8A64 should be workable for Sync Base FPW, in case Eric or someone else gets a chance to look at the patch before I do. And on that note, time for lunch.
)
Oct 26, 2009, 01:35 PM
#58
My car (94170015) has always ran very lean on warmup and I would really like to correct the issue. Ran 14.7:1 open loop at cruise when its warm, but mid 16s when it's cold.
I guess I should wait until I swap over to 96530006 to say that though, as right now, I'm just assuming it will do the same on 9653 ROMs.
I guess I should wait until I swap over to 96530006 to say that though, as right now, I'm just assuming it will do the same on 9653 ROMs.
Oct 26, 2009, 02:12 PM
#59
These are all 2-byte values. I was thinking that maybe I should redo the patch to convert them all to one-byte values. We'd lose some resolution but would have the number of MUT channels that need to be logged. I suppose it would be good to first see whether the high resolution is needed.
With DMA logging, the bandwidth issue with two-byte values really isn't that big of a deal.
But yeah, if we expect people to log this stuff regularly, multi-byte values may end up being a pain. I'm guessing from the scalings that we won't be able to get away with just logging the low byte? 
Oct 26, 2009, 05:00 PM
#60
I believe the warm-up tables correspond to a couple tables possibly mentioned in another thread on 96530006 by mattjin?
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...ml#post6457282
Start Up MAF Comp 1 Address = 3712
Engine temperature =69d8
Start Up MAF Comp 2 address = 3722
Engine temperature =69d8
He hypothesized they were decay timers though and only acted during the short post start period?
I definitely like what you are proposing though, just wanted to toss that out there and maybe get a unanimous understanding of these tables.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...ml#post6457282
Start Up MAF Comp 1 Address = 3712
Engine temperature =69d8
Start Up MAF Comp 2 address = 3722
Engine temperature =69d8
He hypothesized they were decay timers though and only acted during the short post start period?
I definitely like what you are proposing though, just wanted to toss that out there and maybe get a unanimous understanding of these tables.