RomRaider

The 16bit also seems to have an immediate batch fire. It appears to be the same batch fire routine used for cranking. But I'm still unsure because it looks as if it loads latency and then just disregards it? How does the 32bit handle this function?

Here's the routine I've been following:

You can see in the fourth last line a fadd (floating point add register fr2 + latency, where latency was pre-loaded into register fr12, which I renamed in this sub).

The 16bit looks similar but when it jumps into the fire injectors sub, it uses the tip-in data from before the latency was added; the ram that holds tip-in+latency is never used. I must be missing something in the code.

EDIT:
I ran through the Tipin code one more time and it appears that latency is added in one of the injector firing subroutines. The code that fires the injectors pulls in the raw Latency table look-up value and adds it to the compensated TIE value before writing the duration into the one-shot timer for each injector.

I also did some logging (32 bit ECU) and I believe the TIE routine is processed once every 8 - 10milli-seconds.
So, some interesting points come from this. For my stock ROM:
Disable Applied is set to 5, assuming 10msec for each count that means TIE is applied 5 times over 50msecs.
Applied Reset is 25, assuming 10msec for each count that means TIE is disabled for 250msecs after it's started unless reset by other means.

One thing that I was wondering about, with better engine air flow maybe higher TIE values is not the complete answer, maybe also adjusting the TIE duration could help.

I did this flowchart if anyone cares.
Here's a log with some of those un-revealed Tip-in parameters mentioned in the flow chart.

My opinion is that throttle derivative based enrichment is not an answer at all.
The life is more complicated.

From the other hand I saw and did ride Bosch mechanical injection setup that did not rely upon TPS for transient enrichment.

It ran great and required fuel compensations were provided by mechanical response of the AirFlowMeter plate\arm\spring.

It proved me that applicable processing of the air flow measurements/calculations fills the bill. I did this for AlphaN setup.

Fantastic chart dschultz! So much easier to understand the algorithm.

Do have one question. In the 4th block, you say 'is tipin throttle < 0 (or negative)'. Can you verify if you meant just less than zero or less than or equal to zero. The 'or negative' comment makes it seem like the block says 'less than zero or negative'. Which are the same thing... But I may be just reading that wrong.

Also, the latency not being added to the tip-in calcs correlates with Carbibbles' findings for the 16bit code.
EDIT - So latency IS added!

Yes, less than 0 is the same as negative dTPS (I can remove the "or negative" comment). The test result is "No" if dTPS = 0. But later you will Exit because dTPS does not meet the min threshold for dTPS.

incidentally, i tried reducing my TPS threshold for TIE down to 0.

the nearest value ended up being a negative number (-0.1)

the car ran like absolute ass. afrs all over the place. hesitations, stumbling.. really quite bad.

what i think happened is the sensor scatter ended up creating a bunch of tiny enrichments, which then caused havoc with the closed loop fueling.

changed it back to around 2% tps and everything fell back into place.

fwiw
ken

Yes I can see how that would be bad. On the DBW there's always some dTPS noise in the +/-0.1 range which would be triggering TIE the whole time the engine was on.

Was your 'minimum TIE threshold' less than or equal to the left most column of your TIE table? If so, it makes perfect sense. The ECU would run through the tip-in algorithm and see that dTPS is greater than the minimum dTPS (0 is greater than -.1). Then it would check to see if the last calc tip-in value is greater than the 'minimum TIE threshold'. If so, batch fire.

Try the setting minimum dTPS to 1.0% instead.

I'm struggling with tip in enrichment issues after recently installing FiveO 1000's and tuning them for E85.

Most information says to scale tip in down by (old injector size / new injector size). What I haven't been able to get a clear answer on is weather to take running E85 into account here. I decided that since it is dealing with PW that I should so I scaled my tip in tables by (old injector / E85 injector scaling) but I still seam to lean out and stutter a bit going WOT and between medium load shifting. I am catless with an AEM intake and it would make sense that I might need to raise my tip in to take that into account.

What I'm not able to find any information on is if there is anything else I need to consider in regards to tip in with running E85. Does E85 like more, less or the same tip in enrichment or does not matter at all and tip in is independent of the type of fuel used?

Follow this thread for the correct approach to tuning tip-in enrichment. Tune E85's tip-in enrichment to the same lambda as Gasoline.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8114

If I understand you correctly, you mean that I should not account for the E85 injector scaling, right? I should calculate my initial tip in reduction by old scaling (560) / new gasoline scaling (1000) rather than what I did which was 560 / E85 scaling (730). I would still need to raise tip in to account for increased air flow but it sounds like I didn't pick the correct starting point.

My thought was that I should use the E85 scaling since the PW is increased to get the extra fuel needed for running E85. I figured you would need more tip in enrichment for E85 based on the extra PW needed.

Right now I'm sitting at 73% of stock tip values and I'm going lean on tip in. If I had done the gasoline based scaling, I would be just as bad or worse I would think. Maybe I'm not considering everything or understanding what you are saying. I guess I'll do some more logging and try to determine where I need to increase my tip in. I looked a 2010 WRX E85 tune someone posted on here which had the same intake, exhaust and injector size as I'm running. The tip in enrichment tables had only been reduced by around 8% despite the bigger injectors. I thought it seemed weird then but now it seems like I reduced mine too much.

Sorry for the newbie questions; I'm just starting to tune with E85 and I've gotten a pretty good handle on most things but I'm still fuzzy in this area.

Your original approach is correct. Just tune from there. Adjust down for bigger onjector then up for E85.

Perfect. Thank you.