RomRaider

What version of MLV liscence should I buy to enable this scatter plot aswell as table generator? is it the MLV-HD as stated by busterhax? 40$ is quiet spicy if this is the right one.

HD 40 $. Works fine.

This was a great thread, thanks for sharing the info.

I tried your method pazi, which is pretty straightforward, with the following differences:

- I used Excel to make the scatter plot (notice how I'm getting "strange" hits at the right )
- I have used a log I had already made without disabling WOT enrichment, since I just wanted to practice the method anyway.

Which brings me to a few questions I have, if you guys don't mind:

- About disabling WOT, is that really necessary since we're logging IPW values anyway (which do take into account FL enrichment and are expressed in absolute terms)?
- I don't mean to be a d*ck, but I'm thinking if OM calibrators have gotten different values for almost each cell of the table it's for a reason. Having the same IPW value throughout each column seems questionable IMO. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I don't really understand why it'd be better? although fewer registered LTV's seem to confirm that it is...

Attached are the "stock" (upscaled M54B30's to adapt to M52TUB28's smaller injectors) table and the one I ended up with after using your method. As you guys can see the values are much higher. Any comment on that?

Disabling wot enrichment is done to get as wide as possible closed loop load range. Otherwise you might only get closed loop ipw values up to something like 300mg/st and you don't know what happens if load is 600mg/st. It should of course be linear response, but still if you don't check that, you have no way of knowing.

And yes the RPM range in the fuel map is not for nothing and factory has used it to get the fueling as perfect as they can get. But our possibilities for fine tuning are quite limited and the stock narrowbands aren't that accurate to even do accurate fine tuning. And widebands too have some noise in there which is more that you need to fine tune the cells. You would need to have big amount of data for each cell to narrow down the measurement error and do any fine tuning. That would be ridicculous amount of work to get 1-2% fine adjustments for fueling, which you won't be even able to feel at all.

And if you for example check alpina ms41/ms42/ms43 bins, they too have ignored RPM range totally and done only linear IPW/load response.

I get your points pazi, thanks! Thinking about it you're right about the Alpina tunes and we sure can't really do better than them, can we?

About WOT, I personally think CL/OL don't really matter as long as you hit the higher loads and are able to log IPW's, but at the end of the day that's just a matter of preference I guess...

The point of my method is to let ecu use the narrowband lambda sensors to find what ipw is required for 14.7 AFR. So it needs to run on closed loop to acheive that. In open loop it only runs according to curremt fuel maps + adaptations, so those datapoints are useless.

I see what you mean, but in mid/high loads (>200 or so), you're kind of forced to give up on lambda=1 anyway because when I take a look at my WB's gauge while driving I can see that anytime I push the throttle even just enough to accelerate slightly, the AFR goes down (about 13.1). The only way to stay in CL and be able to watch the gauge display 14.7:1 is to be in steady state and "light" acceleration, for lack of better words. So closed loop is kind of incompatible with logging mid/high loads IMO (which are requested by your method). I still think it's ok and what matters above anything else is getting IPW's and their corresponding loads, no matter what "loop" we're in, but I might be wrong, or missing something.

I'm correcting myself on that last sentence: adaptations are necessary otherwise the ipw/load couples alone don't mean much. But that still leaves the question about how to get them in mid/high loads which in theory are not compatible with CL.

That's why you disable wot enrichment so that you can run it in closed loop both wot and cruising and get valid datapoints for high and low loads. You need to filter out non-closed loop datapoints out by eye or by using software to do that. You only can use datapoints when engine is at steady state.

I've edited my previous post, but to put things simply: CL only works in steady state acceleration, which is theoretically incompatible with mid/high loads. IMO the right way to tune fuel at WOT would be on the contrary to disable CL, log AFR's and correct table according to target AFR's, but then again that requires being able to log AFR, which I still can't because of that viewtopic.php?f=59&t=15754

You can just put the car on fifth at 2500-3000ish rpm, floor the thorttle/keep thorttle so that you get mid range loads and the car accelrates so slowly that you get lot of steady state data in closed loop. You can also keep the car from accelrating by using brake gently and get lot of stayde state data. But even normal driving is usually enough.

I have used the method in post #1 in tens of cars. Turbo and NA with excelent results in very litle time. It works really well if you follow the steps.

Alright, will give it a try, thanks!

So after running the stock Base fuel map for a while now i decided to Use PAzi Method and see how i got on as my multiplicative adaptions show normaly a pull of around -1.5% so im guessing it was rich.
The odd thing is that using the formula i gathered it basically made the whole table richer, if anything i thought the table would come out slightly leaner , i haven't run it yet but before i flash the ecu i thought i would ask if this all looks right, I am displaying the new table and also the existing below the new along with the formula i came to .

Thanks

Correct... Setting IPW based on Load is adequate as a first step. You can then further fine tune the table just like BMW does. However, that may not be necessary depending on your preference.

A lot of other cars condense the entire 12x16 Fuel table to a single value known as "Injector Scalar" which is proportional to Load. And it works just fine. Some of them have an additional Load vs RPM table that modifies this to fine tune based on various mechanical variance caused by harmonics due to fuel pressure, intake manifold resonance, etc.

I confirm, the pazi88 method works as a startup map - it often doesn't even deviate from the map after tuning after short-term corrections. To set your map correctly, use Mega log viever - there you can set a filter for O2 integrators. Using this filter you will only sift the engine moments you are interested in - it works perfectly. Remember that any engine modified in any way may require a correction of the fuel map, with this set you will set the fuel start map well. There is one condition - working lambda probes.