ECMlink Help with tuning SD. What next?

[justacanuck]

Yes, we toggled the diagnostic mode in ECU when checking the base timing. It looked like it was very slightly advanced when I started. We therefore moved the cam sensor, ever so slightly, to get base timing closer to 5 degrees BTDC. (unless I am misunderstood how base timing is supposed to be set)

Also, not sure if I mentioned this before, but our intake cam has a custom timing gear and it is set to ~6 degrees of advance (this may or may not be a true reflection of the actual cam position because I have not "degree'd" (?) the cam myself. I understand there may some variation in manufacturing tolerances, particularly between different manufacturers.

Based on the final numbers I am reaching, before onset of knock, I suspect we are still a few of degrees further advanced than what I could detect with our really old timing light (I suppose it may also be possible that the balancer/pulley is slightly out of alignment?)

Just as I explained this, it occurred to me, this could be why our timing is out from expected: Could the intake cam timing having been advanced by 6 degrees make the whole system 6 degrees more advanced than what we measure at the crank?
(*edit: No. the spark occurs precisely when it occurs, and the timing light flashing on the pulley shows the result.)

Either that or the advanced intake cam must retard the timing of the exhaust cam relative to the intake cam, because the intake cam is tied to the ignition timing?

**EDIT: I'm wishing now I had reset that cam timing back to proper ZERO, before we started this, but it would be tough to set it properly with the engine in the car.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Hmmm - adjustable cam timing with an adjustable CAS.

They are dependent on each other, but I believe the timing light is correct when it comes to crank position. Your intake cam timing relative to the valves may not be ideal, but as long as the crank matches the ECU, the most important calibration of spark to piston position will be per the tune.

 

[justacanuck]

Hmmm - adjustable cam timing with an adjustable CAS.

They are dependent on each other, but I believe the timing light is correct when it comes to crank position. Your intake cam timing relative to the valves may not be ideal, but as long as the crank matches the ECU, the most important calibration of spark to piston position will be per the tune.

Yeah, that's my understanding as well.

The spark/timing is what it is... the timing light will flash when the cam sensor fires the spark, and the flashing light on the bottom pully will show actual timing.

However, this is where it gets a little confusing: Since the crank sensor is on the intake cam itself, "advancing" the cam _would_ actually advance the spark, but the intake cam is NOT advanced relative to spark, because the crank angle sensor is located on the intake cam itself.

And so, it seems to me, that advancing the intake cam, at least on this specific engine configuration, actually RETARDS the exhaust cam relative to intake cam/crank & spark.

I guess this might also explain why the original timing was set at minus ~2-3 degrees BTDC instead of 5 degrees. (i.e. the original configuration would have resulted in 6 degrees of greater separation of the intake/exhaust cam timing relative to each other, and the spark timing was set at half that, effectively advancing Intake by 3 degrees, and retarding exhaust cam by 3 degrees... until I (re-)set base timing to 5 BTDC.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. This is a little confusing... and I have no idea what "retarding the exhaust cam" could do to the overall performance.

 

[justacanuck]

I have no idea what "retarding the exhaust cam" could do to the overall performance.

Found some "answers" to this question.

https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/anyone-runin-with-the-exhaust-cam-retarded-1-tooth.96264/

Retarding the exhaust cam 1 tooth equals 7.5 cam degrees. Doing this will basically shift your power curve up higher, so you might feel some loss of midrange power. It's supposed to make 7-10 more hp from ~6k to 7.5k than the stock cam timing. I did it on my car and picked up 1-2 mph consistently at the track.

The "consensus" on that thread, if there was any, seems to be that it works fairly well, and results in pushing the power a little higher in the RPM range:

After retard the exhaust cam gear the problem solve and i had a better pull at 5k-7.5k rpm, the full boost is early by 200-300rpm

and

It's gotta a meaner sound to it now though.

and

I done my tunning a few day ago after changing my tranny.
Boosting at 1.7 bar (+-24 psi) with pump gas, AFR 11.5.
The car pulling harder from 5000rpm - 8000rpm spinning all the way in 2nd and 3rd.
Full boost at 4200rpm, i'm very happy with the power.

and

I have done it too 3 2g dsms and the outcome is it takes a toll on torque below 3k, but yeilds alot more top end (with a bigger turbo) "14b" atleast. It will make the car sound like a cammed v8 at idle and it hurts gas mileage a bit but the powerband is alot more linear and doesnt plain out at 5k just keeps pulling harder and harder till you shift. I have not had any negitivie affects yet (other than gas mileage) and ive driven it like that for almost a year.

After I get the tune perfected a little more, perhaps I should move the intake cam 'advance' back to ~4 degrees, instead of the current 6 degrees, and find out if I loose, or gain, any power and where.

6 degrees is a fairly significant change IMO. This modification which effectively increases the Lobe Separation Angle (LSA), combined with a functional Coyote intake, is very interesting. We don't have the Coyote intake working correctly yet, so we are stuck with the longer runners active, which is supposed to be better for lower RPM power.

It does seem to have amazing low RPM power, and HP is dropping a little earlier than I would expect by ~6k rpm, for an engine that should be able to rev close to ~8k.


At the same time, I would have thought that having the exhaust cam retarded, relative to intake, could be part of the reason the engine doesn't seem to like much timing/advance?

However, this Comp cams article says that a higher LSA would result in "Reduce Maximum Cylinder Pressure and Decrease Chance of Engine Knock"

COMP Cams Effect of Changes In Cam Timing and Lobe Separation Angle - COMP Cams®

COMP Cams - The effect of changes In cam timing and lobe separation angle

www.compcams.com

 

[Justin DuBois]

Boost is holding to redline? With a 14b? 14b drops off pretty quick. If it is not the turbo, then the power drop is due to timing - cam timing, crank timing, some kind of timing.

 

[justacanuck]

Boost is holding to redline? With a 14b? 14b drops off pretty quick. If it is not the turbo, then the power drop is due to timing - cam timing, crank timing, some kind of timing.

So far, boost is holding +23lbs from 4000 to 6000. We haven't taken it further yet. It's a T05 setup. (TD05? I don't know anything about these turbo setups, except that I suspect this one is not entirely a "stock", or otherwise factory setup.

I deleted the aftermarket "manual boost controller" (MBC) by connecting the boost reference directly to the wastegate actuator as recommended in this thread. It does 'sound" like it opens the exhaust wastegate sooner, and boost does seem to take longer to build, but the log files show it didn't make that much difference. Boost is close to 22-24lbs, everywhere between 3500 and 6k with, or without, the MBC.

I was just comparing a log from Feb4th, where we hit AFR close to 11:2 @ 9 degrees between 4500rpm and 5.5k at 10.7AFR @ 12 degrees of timing. HPbyAir was very close to, or even over '10' in this operating range as well. But the same log also shows some knock at the those levels. So, yeah, it may well be possible for us to push the timing a little bit higher. I'm just not sure it is worth it. If I can accurately hit the target AFR, we should make a little more power relatively safely (i..e without pushing timing to hard).D

It is also nice to revisit those older logs and see that we were well over 10% from our AFR targets, and now we are narrowing in on 3-5% error correction remaining.

Thanks again for all your help and your encouragement!

 

[We're on Boost]

So far, boost is holding +23lbs from 4000 to 6000. We haven't taken it further yet. It's a T05 setup. (TD05? I don't know anything about these turbo setups, except that I suspect this one is not entirely a "stock", or otherwise factory setup.

Like Justin said, this is a lot better than what you would expect from a 14b. I took a close look at the pic you have of your turbo (maybe I haven't seen the latest pic) and I sure don't know what it is.
So it's some kind of "mystery" turbo but performance wise must be somewhere around 16g 18g 20g territory I would think.
I am going to post some dyno info I've saved from posts made by a guy in here, @Steve93Talon who went quite far with a 14g, using stock cams, stock head, and stock intake manifold, but it was on E85 so that makes a big difference. Anyway you can see how early in the rev range the power and torque drop off. This is the same thing I found with my 14b (which was always on gasoline). I've got this in a Word document and I'm going to post it that way because it has live links in it. I think you can open and use a Word docx in just about any computer or cell phone.
I think you must have a strong spring in your wastegate actuator (good).
Justin has a diagram of his boost control setup which is pretty much like the stock system only using the boost control tab in ECMlink (Boost WGS). Have you ever looked at his diagram? I'm not saying you should do it that way, but it's one way of doing it. It needs a few words to explain the concept of it. My car had all that stuff removed already by the previous owner so I never thought about it until Justin posted his diagram.
Anyway, the 14b stuff:

 

[Justin DuBois]

Like Justin said, this is a lot better than what you would expect from a 14b. I took a close look at the pic you have of your turbo (maybe I haven't seen the latest pic) and I sure don't know what it is.
So it's some kind of "mystery" turbo but performance wise must be somewhere around 16g 18g 20g territory I would think.
I am going to post some dyno info I've saved from posts made by a guy in here, @Steve93Talon who went quite far with a 14g, using stock cams, stock head, and stock intake manifold, but it was on E85 so that makes a big difference. Anyway you can see how early in the rev range the power and torque drop off. This is the same thing I found with my 14b (which was always on gasoline). I've got this in a Word document and I'm going to post it that way because it has live links in it. I think you can open and use a Word docx in just about any computer or cell phone.
I think you must have a strong spring in your wastegate actuator (good).
Justin has a diagram of his boost control setup which is pretty much like the stock system only using the boost control tab in ECMlink (Boost WGS). Have you ever looked at his diagram? I'm not saying you should do it that way, but it's one way of doing it. It needs a few words to explain the concept of it. My car had all that stuff removed already by the previous owner so I never thought about it until Justin posted his diagram.
Anyway, the 14b stuff:

I've been asked about the ECU controlled stock solenoid EVO boost pill boost control setup in a 2G a couple times - so I added a link in the 1st page of my build thread index:

https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/itflys-1gina2g.532766/post-153902118

 

[We're on Boost]

so I added a link

Good! And here are my "few words" about the basics of it, without mention of the Pills.

The solenoid is "normally open" meaning that when there is no electrical power to it, the air valve in it is wide open letting max air through. This bleeds air off from the full pressure line that goes from turbo to actuator, lowering the pressure in that line, resulting in maximum boost.
Or as Justin said in another thread, "turning boost control off in ECM Link leaves the solenoid open, (no volts). Open solenoid = Max Boost.

In his diagram, the spring in the actuator is not shown but it is on the right end of the actuator. Air pressure comes into the left end. The spring pushes the diaphragm to the left trying to hold the waste gate shut. The air pressure pushes the diaphragm in the opposite direction trying to open the wastegate.
Right Justin? If this is wrong let me know and I'll delete the whole post!

This was confusing to me when I first started looking at it because I had only ever thought about external wastegates. With external gates, you have an air port on both sides of the diaphragm, and you use a solenoid valve to control the air pressure on the spring side of the diaphragm to hold the gate shut with more force, which is normally how you go higher than spring pressure with an external gate. In an external gate, the spring side is the "top" of it. It's pushing the poppet valve "down" to close it.
Like this:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Right Justin? If this is wrong let me know and I'll delete the whole post!

Lol - Yeah! Not wrong.

 

[curt-s]

What's a Coyote intake?

Cyclone?

 

[justacanuck]

What's a Coyote intake?

Cyclone?

Whoops. Yes, Cyclone.

We do have coyotes around here though

 

[justacanuck]

Reduced Global Fuel as far as -34.4 but it seemed like it was a little too lean everywhere. (log attached)

So, we put global fuel back to -33.4 and it seems like this might be pretty close to where we should be. It still doesn't feel quite right to be going so far astray from the recommended settings for these injectors . The recommendation is ~ minus 20. Maybe they simply aren't the injectors I thought they were.

I pushed it a little further this time. Boost held strong at 24+ right up to 6600rpm, close to 90% injector duty cycle at the end.

I have reviewed some of the data collected today to refine the VE table. As soon as I can verify the VE table is more accurate, I'll probably manipulate the defined AFR targets, and verify it hits them. But we seem to be running pretty lean when I roll into the throttle. TPSDelta never seems to show any significant action so I am not sure if BaseTipinTPSAdju would be very helpful. Does anyone reading this have experience changing those settings and have advice?

Then we can start working on adding a little timing back, and/or try and see if this turbo might make any more boost. (I have the factory solenoids, an MBC, and an electronic boost controller I could install. Lots of options, but I'm not sure what I should pursue, or what I should even try if I had additional "control" over the boost. More boost? Faster boost? Slower boost buildup to try and eliminate that early knock? It wouild be nice to reduce the boost a bit, perhaps something closer to 8-16lbs so I can play with the timing at lower boost levels. +24lbs seems pretty high to be pushing more timing.

I did have one instance of pretty signfiicant knock in the second log, several seconds before I did the big pull....nothing sounded bad. Maybe this is the "Phantom knock", and my lifters are just suffering a bit, or some other noise is triggering the knock sensor? Sometimes it seems like it could be random, and not necessarily related to the tune, but it always seems to happen at close to 3k rpm with rapid throttle input, close to where the system transitions from vacuum to boost. And I seem to have eliminated most knock by reducing the timing a LOT.

I welcome any feedback on the AFR targets, the general strategy, what I should work on next, or anything else I should be thinking about that I haven't thought of yet.

 

[justacanuck]

I thought we had 93 Octane but the best readily available fuel around here is 91 octane. Maybe my AFR targets are just too lean to push the timing much higher?

 

[Justin DuBois]

I thought we had 93 Octane but the best readily available fuel around here is 91 octane. Maybe my AFR targets are just too lean to push the timing much higher?

Nay - Now you are dancing the line between boost and timing. The fuel can only support so much - and 91oct knocks pretty easy. This is why I started mixing 1 part E85 with 4 parts 91 pump gas - to get 94 Oct E25.

My suggestion is to keep the timing, and lower the boost, and target 10.5:1 AFR

 

[justacanuck]

Nay - Now you are dancing the line between boost and timing. The fuel can only support so much - and 91oct knocks pretty easy. This is why I started mixing 1 part E85 with 4 parts 91 pump gas - to get 94 Oct E25.

My suggestion is to keep the timing, and lower the boost, and target 10.5:1 AFR

by "keep the timing" I presume you mean, try to keep timing closer to factory numbers? or "keep the timing" where we are at?

I feel like I have pulled so much timing out that we could be leaving a lot on the table.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Keep as much timing as you can.

by "keep the timing" I presume you mean, try to keep timing closer to factory numbers? or "keep the timing" where we are at?

I feel like I have pulled so much timing out that we could be leaving a lot on the table.

Keep as much timing as you can. As soon as you have your Max Boost, 99-100 VE cell (5000-5500RPM) calibrated with Global Fuel so that the AFR target and AFR Linear WB are matching, You can leave the Global Fuel alone, and start to adjust the rest of the VE cell values at all the other boost and RPM levels.

Dropping the boost to minimum will tell you something about your timing tables. At minimum boost, when the VE tables align AFR to targets (closer to 100 is full rich, lower VE values make it go leaner), This covers most of the part throttle and spooling transitions. Make sure you can hit all the low boost AFR targets with no knock, and then start increasing the timing until you have a nice linear timing progression across the RPM ramp - Start around 5deg (3000RPM) and end around 16-17 deg (7500RPM). Increase the timing until you have a linear progression or knock.

This will tell you something about your fuel and setup in the process.

 

[justacanuck]

Keep as much timing as you can.

Keep as much timing as you can. As soon as you have your Max Boost, 99-100 VE cell (5000-5500RPM) calibrated with Global Fuel so that the AFR target and AFR Linear WB are matching, You can leave the Global Fuel alone, and start to adjust the rest of the VE cell values at all the other boost and RPM levels.

Dropping the boost to minimum will tell you something about your timing tables. At minimum boost, when the VE tables align AFR to targets (closer to 100 is full rich, lower VE values make it go leaner), This covers most of the part throttle and spooling transitions. Make sure you can hit all the low boost AFR targets with no knock, and then start increasing the timing until you have a nice linear timing progression across the RPM ramp - Start around 5deg (3000RPM) and end around 16-17 deg (7500RPM). Increase the timing until you have a linear progression or knock.

This will tell you something about your fuel and setup in the process.

Aside from dropping boost, that's pretty much what we just finished working on. I richened the mixture slightly while in boost, and we were able to add about 4 degrees to much of the chart... but that's about it. We seem to be stuck at ~5 degrees @3000 and 12 degrees @6500. Not sure we can push it much further with these injectors (hitting +85% injector duty at 6500)

Log attached.

I don't really know how I should go about trying to reduce max boost. As per advice earlier in this thread, we have the internal wastegate connected directly to boost reference, and the BOV connected to manifold. Should I be working on getting the factory boost controller connected properly?

 

[Justin DuBois]

Aside from dropping boost, that's pretty much what we just finished working on. I richened the mixture slightly while in boost, and we were able to add about 4 degrees to much of the chart... but that's about it. We seem to be stuck at ~5 degrees @3000 and 12 degrees @6500. Not sure we can push it much further with these injectors (hitting +85% injector duty at 6500)

Log attached.

I don't really know how I should go about trying to reduce max boost. As per advice earlier in this thread, we have the internal wastegate connected directly to boost reference, and the BOV connected to manifold. Should I be working on getting the factory boost controller connected properly?

If you have boost plumbed directly to the WG, that is your current minimum boost setup. I would wonder why it takes so much pressure to open the WG? You generally see 9-11 psi at initial spool, climbing a bit to at 5500 - with a max pressure at redline - and the closer to 11-13 psi you can get at red-line the better boost control you have in your setup.

Having said that - my redline minimum boost with in internal waste gate is turning out to be 17psi, and that is higher than I was expecting.

Hooking up boost control would only server to increase your boost above what you have now.

BTW - I looked at the knock:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

That tiny 0.4 deg of knock retard is great - that could be anything, I would not change anything with timing, but I would work on tweaking VE for better AFR alignment.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Look here how far off the edge of the Timing map you are at 24psi. You should be able to pull up the numbers here.
Vacuum to 1.0 bar on the left side of this table is one atmosphere, or "No Boost." Vacuum to 1.0 bar (14.7 PSI absolute) is the range where normally aspirated cars can play. Our turbo setups get all the rest of the range from 1.0 to Max Boost on top of that.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Looking at the Speed Density tab-VE table at 5K, you have 4.5 % of cushion at the peak. You could index everything and scale to 99%-100%, and make a global fuel adjust to address AFR alignment if you wanted - but it is pretty close to where you want it. Maybe throw a couple more percent in there to align to the target and call it done.

 

[justacanuck]

If you have boost plumbed directly to the WG, that is your current minimum boost setup. I would wonder why it takes so much pressure to open the WG? You generally see 9-11 psi at initial spool, climbing a bit to at 5500 - with a max pressure at redline - and the closer to 11-13 psi you can get at red-line the better boost control you have in your setup.

I suspect the lack of movement on the wastegate has something to do with the big spring holding it closed.

Having said that - my redline minimum boost with in internal waste gate is turning out to be 17psi, and that is higher than I was expecting.

Hooking up boost control would only server to increase your boost above what you have now.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I should remove, or at least loosen that spring, and then consider adding a proper boost control to add more boost as desired.

BTW - I looked at the knock:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

That tiny 0.4 deg of knock retard is great - that could be anything, I would not change anything with timing, but I would work on tweaking VE for better AFR alignment.

Yes, I noticed that. I had previously decided to never reduce timing again, unless the knock was an obvious problem, so I ignored it.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Look here how far off the edge of the Timing map you are at 24psi. You should be able to pull up the numbers here.

Yes, we just did that. I was able to get it back up to 8 degrees at that range.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Vacuum to 1.0 bar on the left side of this table is one atmosphere, or "No Boost." Vacuum to 1.0 bar (14.7 PSI absolute) is the range where normally aspirated cars can play. Our turbo setups get all the rest of the range from 1.0 to Max Boost on top of that.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Looking at the Speed Density tab-VE table at 5K, you have 4.5 % of cushion at the peak. You could index everything and scale to 99%-100%, and make a global fuel adjust to address AFR alignment if you wanted - but it is pretty close to where you want it. Maybe throw a couple more percent in there to align to the target and call it done.

Yes, we noticed the same thing and so we just pushed that area back up closer to 100.

 

[justacanuck]

We haven't grabbed another log yet, but I think this car's tuning is nearly complete..

As far as I can tell, the existing turbo is very likely a td05-16b. The turbo is only rated at ~40lbs/min or ~505cfm.

I think we are flowing very near max already:
~300gm/s indicated in our logs is close to 40lbs/min or ~520cfm.

As far as I can tell, this means we are very nearly at the limit of this turbo, and we are very close to the limit of our injectors as well. We could probably gain some small amount of efficency over 5k rpm, when/if we get the Cyclone intake working. We could hook up water/meth and/or better fuel to use a little more timing and/or push the AFR a little higher. But any of these possible options would not likely result in substantial gains IMO. I think we are better off keeping it running at safer levels we are at now.

This was fun. Thank you everyone for all your help.

In spring, I'll be doing this all again on the 1993 FWD, except with a 2.3l stroker, Wiseco pistons, Eagle rods and a Precision Turbo. Once the 1993 is on the running/ road worthy, we may revisit this 1991 again, to see if we can hit 400hp with a larger turbo/injectors.

 

[justacanuck]

We still get a little knock when starting out, i.e. just coming out of corners, at low speed.

This scenario, still in closed loop, does show quite lean for about 2 second until the STFT ramp starts to catch up. and the logs don't show any TPSDelta in this either. Similarly, the quick WOT punch shows very little TPSdelta, but I do see a value of 1, right when it switches to open loop.

Is this normal/expected? Can we adjust how TPSDelta is generated or otherwise improve the system's ability to respond quicker?

I've been searching for answers about how one might tweak the STFTandO2Feedback settings but I'm not finding much.

I would appreciate any pointers.

 

[We're on Boost]

This scenario, still in closed loop, does show quite lean for about 2 second until the STFT ramp starts to catch up. and the logs don't show any TPSDelta in this either. Similarly, the quick WOT punch shows very little TPSdelta, but I do see a value of 1, right when it switches to open loop.

I haven't fooled around with TPS Delta but it seems to me that the stock values we have for it are so low as to be almost silly. I would guess the stock values are low because of emissions and fuel economy. I mean, you remember carburetors with accelerator pumps, right? Those accel pumps really dump when you push the pedal.

On our BaseTipInTPSAdj scale everything is so vague. It's just these Raw numbers that don't seem to have any units. So it's hard to figure ahead of time any sensible amount. And like you noticed, you don't even get a "1" unless you pretty much slam the pedal to the floor in an instant. It's like their scale for it should be compressed about x10.

In your last log, at 2.3 seconds where you get a "1" for TPSDelta, you are getting into the pedal quite fast. TrottlePos goes from 43% to 77% in 0.111 seconds. That's 306 percent per second. There, that's a real unit. Anything slower than that gives you a 0. Pathetic. And if 0 is really 0 throttle delta then what does it mean to put a squirt number there next to the 0? I don't get it.

Anyway, the lean spike you get there at 2.378 seconds into the log gives an AFR of 16.7 on your Wideband. It switches from closed to open loop just before that at 2.321 as your ThrotPos goes past 48.9 (per the threshold setting for 2500 rpm).

If that switch to open loop happened sooner, this AFR spike might be better.
And if the Tip-in factor could be jacked up a lot, that should help. I think that if the Tip-in factor had more appropriate scaling it could fix this all by itself.

So anyway I'd fool around with those two things.
At 1 through 8 on the Tip-in scale I'd jack the numbers way up, like to 50 maybe, and just see what happens. It isn't going to hurt anything just testing.
And on the Open Loop Thresholds, the 3rd one, which goes by throttle position, those numbers that are around 48 and 45, I'd change them way down to maybe 25.
The 2nd one in that table that goes by Immediate Load Factor would be another way, but you'd have to reduce that by an awful lot, so I'd try just with the throttle position threshold first.

And now I think I need some more coffee, or maybe some food! Yeah food!
I just can't stop watching those accelerator pumps though.

 

[Justin DuBois]

We still get a little knock when starting out, i.e. just coming out of corners, at low speed.

This scenario, still in closed loop, does show quite lean for about 2 second until the STFT ramp starts to catch up. and the logs don't show any TPSDelta in this either. Similarly, the quick WOT punch shows very little TPSdelta, but I do see a value of 1, right when it switches to open loop.

Is this normal/expected? Can we adjust how TPSDelta is generated or otherwise improve the system's ability to respond quicker?

I've been searching for answers about how one might tweak the STFTandO2Feedback settings but I'm not finding much.

I would appreciate any pointers.

can you post a log with this example?

 

[justacanuck]

I haven't fooled around with TPS Delta but it seems to me that the stock values we have for it are so low as to be almost silly. I would guess the stock values are low because of emissions and fuel economy. I mean, you remember carburetors with accelerator pumps, right? Those accel pumps really dump when you push the pedal.

On our BaseTipInTPSAdj scale everything is so vague. It's just these Raw numbers that don't seem to have any units. So it's hard to figure ahead of time any sensible amount.

Yes. I have posted these questions directly to ECMLink on their private forum for feedback/advice. I will post back here if/when I get any

And like you noticed, you don't even get a "1" unless you pretty much slam the pedal to the floor in an instant. It's like their scale for it should be compressed about x10.

In your last log, at 2.3 seconds where you get a "1" for TPSDelta, you are getting into the pedal quite fast. TrottlePos goes from 43% to 77% in 0.111 seconds. That's 306 percent per second. There, that's a real unit. Anything slower than that gives you a 0. Pathetic. And if 0 is really 0 throttle delta then what does it mean to put a squirt number there next to the 0? I don't get it.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either

Anyway, the lean spike you get there at 2.378 seconds into the log gives an AFR of 16.7 on your Wideband. It switches from closed to open loop just before that at 2.321 as your ThrotPos goes past 48.9 (per the threshold setting for 2500 rpm).

If that switch to open loop happened sooner, this AFR spike might be better.
And if the Tip-in factor could be jacked up a lot, that should help. I think that if the Tip-in factor had more appropriate scaling it could fix this all by itself.

So anyway I'd fool around with those two things.
At 1 through 8 on the Tip-in scale I'd jack the numbers way up, like to 50 maybe, and just see what happens. It isn't going to hurt anything just testing.
And on the Open Loop Thresholds, the 3rd one, which goes by throttle position, those numbers that are around 48 and 45, I'd change them way down to maybe 25.
The 2nd one in that table that goes by Immediate Load Factor would be another way, but you'd have to reduce that by an awful lot, so I'd try just with the throttle position threshold first.

I think I'll wait a bit for some clarity/advice from EMCLink, before I touch anything. It seems like the software has all the features we need to make this behave better, just no documentation or samples to demonstrate how/when/why those settings should be adjusted.