If you believe you have a better way of doing it, why not contribute and share?Originally Posted by RUTHLESS
If you believe you have a better way of doing it, why not contribute and share?
Stock HP Tuners 2010 RXT.hpt
Seems i have figured it out. This is the stock file that seems to have different fields to what your video shows.
Dave
because he want's to sell you HIS tune. that's why he's not saying.
your file is different because you have a 2010 260 motor, it looks like the video is using a much newer file from a 300 motor.
the injector PW might be different for a 260 as opposed to a 300.
as long as you're logging, you can start with what the video suggests, and adjust from there.
I haven't tuned a 260 with HP Tuners, so I cannot be sure if the numbers are accurate.
but the spreadsheet that HP Tuners posted should help you narrow it down for your motor.
you should also be using the latest Beta software.
Last edited by Tbranella; 08-16-2024 at 07:56 AM.
I just opened your file and it shows all the required fields; Inj Slope, PW Min and Voltage Offset.
injcontrol.png
Your formula here is off by a decimal place it seems.
Dave,
You cannot use the values posted by this video, as the correct method of calculating value take into account for engine size.
You are 260hp? So it is 1503cc vs 1630cc engine. I actually never verified cc of motor, i though though 1630 ace meant 1630cclol
At end of day, you will land with a slightly less value than posted. I disagree with posted value as its not calculated by the proper method. BUT, this will work leaving other maps intact, also voltage correction can skew this in various ways as thats more of an additive adjustment, whereas the slope of more of a multiplicative adjustment. You also have a map that will adjust multiplicative due to non-linearities of a returnless fuel system. But you can work around this with other maps too, theres far more than 1 way to do everything. Do what works for you!
I can tell you one thing. The factory calibration of my 300, I do not agree with completely with close to sea level where I live. The variances in fueling are greater than ive seen in other bosch projects. This can be caused by a handful of factors, but something was missed or not realized during calibration.
You cannot use the values posted by this video, as the correct method of calculating value take into account for engine size.
You are 260hp? So it is 1503cc vs 1630cc engine. I actually never verified cc of motor, i though though 1630 ace meant 1630cc
At end of day, you will land with a slightly less value than posted. I disagree with posted value as its not calculated by the proper method. BUT, this will work leaving other maps intact, also voltage correction can skew this in various ways as thats more of an additive adjustment, whereas the slope of more of a multiplicative adjustment. You also have a map that will adjust multiplicative due to non-linearities of a returnless fuel system. But you can work around this with other maps too, theres far more than 1 way to do everything. Do what works for you!
I can tell you one thing. The factory calibration of my 300, I do not agree with completely with close to sea level where I live. The variances in fueling are greater than ive seen in other bosch projects. This can be caused by a handful of factors, but something was missed or not realized during calibration.
You are way off here. Injector control data tells the ECU how the injector will behave, it is not affected by engine size. It has zero to do with the engine.
The data in the video has been tested and is correct.
I assure you I am not with 100% confidence. In fact, you can read it from bosch if you have access to their calibration documents(FDEF), RKTI subsection.
You can adjust it as you please based on request vs actual lambda to get a target value that "works" which is whats in the video I assume. Once again, this strategy works fine! There are more than one way you can accomplish an end goal in these ecu's. I am not saying you are wrong and it wont work, i am simply stating for someone with a different motor, this value may not be ideal, and need some fine tweaking via a wideband, etc. In that case of 1630 => 1503, maybe a few percent less value will be fine!, Keep it the same and slightly rich, no big deal.
HP Tuners gives a generic translation that is more geared towards people who know standalone ecu's, which is perfectly fine. However the valve constant/slope for the injector is literally calculated per cylinder displacement and fuel mass required. It is even named as such within the bosch documentation
Another tidbit i found while looking in my rxpx 300 file today, was that the base calibration is set around E10 fuel, and target AFR of 14.1, which is E10's "Stoich" value. Just useful knowledge i guess. Did not realize this until today, but makes sense.
These values have been used on 260 models with stand alone ECU and 300 with HPT.
They work, I won't be arguing about this anymore. The tunes we do track desired lambda perfectly.
Nobody is arguing but you.
I've said more than 1 time your values likely will work fine, and also added additional context for other users to read regarding fueling calculations. I'm not attacking you in any way. I simply stated, that injector constant is not necessarily correct when engine displacement is different with the way its internally calculated via the Bosch ecu.
This forum really sucks, everyone's so defensive over everything.
The funny part is even the video says that some will say that this number is wrong or that number is wrong
Yes, these numbers are not written in stone, if yours are slightly different it it does not mean it will not work just that your other fuel related tuning will be slightly different. The video is meant for people with no data at all, if they use the values from the video they can tune their ski perfectly.
Thanks guys. It appears as though the answer to my original question about why I see different fields is because the engines are different.
Makes sense, and TBH I?m a little disappointment I didn?t pick that up myself.
Thanks for all the other advice in the thread as well. Would appreciate if we could keep it a little more friendly and collaborative, but still lots of good info.
I guess now I?m off to learn more about the basics of tuning before I get too deep in the weeds!
I think I?ll start with small things and go from there.
Thankyou!
Did you see post #25 ? I opened the file you posted and everything looks normal, the correct injector control fields are available.
You need to use the BETA version not the stable version. There are parameters that are not in the stable version.
Thanks - Installed the BETA and can now see the extra fields.
Cheers
Thanks! - Yeah i was running the latest stable version. Changed to the BETA and can now see those fields.
Thanks!
Now that ive got the fields showing, Ive come across a little discrepancy between the voltage offset numbers you have, and the voltage offset numbers I have.
Should i just try to smooth these?.
Appreciate your guidance.
Dave
VoltageOffset_1.PNG
VoltageOffset.PNG
Cheers
Dave
Yes, simply interpolate the numbers to make them work with your voltage values.
little discrepancy ? lol
Reply With Quote