how to command richer part throttle AFR

[chizzle1]

that went fairly well. the part throttle VE is dialed in for the most part. the STFT is still adding and subtracting fuel, not sure why.
the afr while driving is good, only slight knock during low rpm, high load situations (6th gear @ 65 mph). after reviewing log 21 it's lean at the area where the knock occurred, i'll add some to the table.
I had a idle surge but I think it was due to improper fueling, I added some to the VE table at the idle areas (800 rpms @ 55-60 kpa).
My values in the VE table are really high, I kept adding until the STFT didn't show red anymore (red=adding fuel).
I did a short WOT from 2600 - 4800 but it started getting lean so I let off. once I get the VE finalized I'll start adding fuel to the PE tables.
I have attached a few logs and two tunes (start tune and end tune), I ended up with the tune "add15add15"

edit: one thing I thought strange is how little the pedal voltage follows the tps, the voltage sits at 0 until more than 1/2 throttle is applied. I did a pedal relearn but it didn't have any effect.
add15add15.hpt
22marfuelmassmutl1_6.hpt
21idle.hpl
21.hpl
20.hpl

[lafrad]

*make sure you update the displacement*

That is important for *all* of the calculations....

[chizzle1]

*make sure you update the displacement*

That is important for *all* of the calculations....

that's probably why I had to turn the values on the VE table up so high.
If I change the displacement or the engine size I lose ESP / traction control and get ABS/BAS/ESP lights on the dash (I would like to keep that for when my wife drives the car).

[B00STJUNKY]

that's probably why I had to turn the values on the VE table up so high.
If I change the displacement or the engine size I lose ESP / traction control and get ABS/BAS/ESP lights on the dash (I would like to keep that for when my wife drives the car).

Have you tried changing ONLY the "Engine Size" value, while leaving the "Displacement" value alone? That should leave ESP/Traction Control in tact.

[lafrad]

Have you tried changing ONLY the "Engine Size" value, while leaving the "Displacement" value alone? That should leave ESP/Traction Control in tact.

don't change the one that the HPTuners hint says "disables" things... only change the "Engine Size"

[chizzle1]

Have you tried changing ONLY the "Engine Size" value, while leaving the "Displacement" value alone? That should leave ESP/Traction Control in tact.

don't change the one that the HPTuners hint says "disables" things... only change the "Engine Size"

thanks, I'll try that.

something's not right, I am having to turn the VE tables waaay up, to over 150% in some cells, and the STFTs are still adding and removing fuel at what seems like random intervals. I tried logging LTFT + STFT vs Fuel mass cylinder 1 but got no values when scanning. Not sure how else to verify I have the correct Inj PW & Fuel Mass.
The fuel injector pw is only ~12 ms at WOT, and 1-4 during PT.
I got the CEL while highway driving yesterday and it's for bank 1 & 2 too rich again.

I have an idea for a work around and want to get feedback on it:
I am only having knock in 1 area of the rpm range and only when cruising in 6th on the highway.
I want to input a value into the engine > fuel > general > knock enrich table so it will add fuel when the part throttle knock occurs. Since it will only add fuel when needed it shouldn't throw the bank too rich code (correct?)
I don't know what value it's looking for though, it says "adder...amount added per degree". I plugged in .0020 thinking maybe it's adding to stoich?? I haven't uploaded it yet as I don't know what the correct value needs to be.

Attached is the tune and log from yesterday, you can see at 3:19 the knock that occurs at 70mph up in 6th.
I pulled 1.5 degrees of timing from the WOT tables as the fuel was perfect but I was still getting slight KR. I want longevity.
25wtf.hpl
26.hpl
tbairflowaddvepulltime.hpt

[06300CSRT8]

LFT+SFT is a math function that doesnt need to be logged on its own, just make sure you are logging your LTFT and STFT and you can add the math parameter to your graphs afterwards. You want to log average pulsewidth vs fuel trims, not just the one cylinder, as your fuel trims are also average of all cylinders in the grand scheme of things.

What is your cam like in this thing? With a big cam, you can pretty much throw out your fuel trims and you should be logging a wideband and calculating your own AFR error to do this VE tuning, and have your car in open loop the entire time. There is so much fuel wash and airflow going down your shorties those narrowbands are going to have a fit with false lean readings and dumping fuel.

[chizzle1]

LFT+SFT is a math function that doesnt need to be logged on its own, just make sure you are logging your LTFT and STFT and you can add the math parameter to your graphs afterwards. You want to log average pulsewidth vs fuel trims, not just the one cylinder, as your fuel trims are also average of all cylinders in the grand scheme of things.

What is your cam like in this thing? With a big cam, you can pretty much throw out your fuel trims and you should be logging a wideband and calculating your own AFR error to do this VE tuning, and have your car in open loop the entire time. There is so much fuel wash and airflow going down your shorties those narrowbands are going to have a fit with false lean readings and dumping fuel.

would you mind dumbing down the logging you were referring to please?
how do I set the car into open loop? set WOT voltage to .1?
what you said makes sense, and also explains when they lower end (where more overlap is) is getting leaned up by the factory O2s.
the cam is not too aggressive, gives it a little thump at 850 rpms.
the lift in my application is 588 / 563 (1.6 ratio)
here are the specs: cam card.JPG

[06300CSRT8]

Ha yea no problem.

When you are figuring out your error % between your commanded AFR (14.3) and actual output of the wideband, you can setup a math parameter in the VCM scanner that will produce a % error for you, very very similar to how your fuel trims give you an error percent.

The math would be something like (14.3 - [wideband output])/14.3

You would then add that new math parameter you created to the same graph you are trying to log your fuel trims, just replace with that math. Now you can adjust your VE table using a better reading wideband.

As noted, go into your Engine>Fuel>oxygen sensors>Feedback>Coolant temp to 376*, which will basically make it run in open loop, i.e. turn off your fuel trims the PCM was doing prior. This will give you a nice clean error percent in that math you created earlier.

[chizzle1]

Ha yea no problem.

When you are figuring out your error % between your commanded AFR (14.3) and actual output of the wideband, you can setup a math parameter in the VCM scanner that will produce a % error for you, very very similar to how your fuel trims give you an error percent.

The math would be something like (14.3 - [wideband output])/14.3

You would then add that new math parameter you created to the same graph you are trying to log your fuel trims, just replace with that math. Now you can adjust your VE table using a better reading wideband.

As noted, go into your Engine>Fuel>oxygen sensors>Feedback>Coolant temp to 376*, which will basically make it run in open loop, i.e. turn off your fuel trims the PCM was doing prior. This will give you a nice clean error percent in that math you created earlier.

thanks. I'll try getting the log setup. couldn't I monitor the wideband and adjust trims that way? I wouldn't get a percentage but it should show in realtime what the AFR is for a given cell.
I'm not able to get the VCM to let me add a custom math, and when I try and add a predefined math it doesn't show one that would perform the function you stated.
I may just use the wideband and manually plug in the figures.

[06300CSRT8]

You create the custom math AFTER you log with the wideband.

[chizzle1]

ok, got the math plugged in and working. the last log I did was in closed loop and it's mostly zeros except for a few -1s. I'm guessing that means the wideband is pretty accurate already. going to do open loop after lunch and see what happens. will be a lot adjusting of the VE tables I'm sure....logs to follow.

[chizzle1]

it's nice having total control. open loop is the shit.

[* _ *]

I wonder if the engine size parameter is increased above of the actual size to the next value as incrementally possible while using your initial tune, how will it react?

[chizzle1]

I wonder if the engine size parameter is increased above of the actual size to the next value as incrementally possible while using your initial tune, how will it react?

I'll reload the old tune and change the size parameter to 7.0 to see if there are any changes.

It also seems too much fuel can also cause knock, some of the places in my VE table where it's still too rich show KR when logging.

[* _ *]

Scaling the tables might be more forgiving with an increased engine size value rather then a lesser eng size value.

[WILYUMZ1]

I have found that by rescaling injPw to fuel mass table you can achieve a much more stable fuel supply, i have to thanks to I was able to rescale my tables to give much better resolution for fueling, once i had the fuel adjusted as shown below i am getting zero LTFT's once warmed up, less than 1.5 degrees of knock retard Under heavy load at low rpm and a very short duration 1 degree knock retard at 4400 rpm when under WOT conditions ( i have throttle spark and throttle torque spark at all 0)

2015 scat pack 6.4l with 6 spd

learning tuning via this forum and a lot of research then experiments, VE tables affect everything all the time!!! ive smoothed mine a lot but still getting them dialed in , as i adjust the VE tables i do find i have to readjust the injPw to fuel mass tables

Inj Pw.png

[chizzle1]

I have found that by rescaling injPw to fuel mass table you can achieve a much more stable fuel supply, i have to thanks to I was able to rescale my tables to give much better resolution for fueling, once i had the fuel adjusted as shown below i am getting zero LTFT's once warmed up, less than 1.5 degrees of knock retard Under heavy load at low rpm and a very short duration 1 degree knock retard at 4400 rpm when under WOT conditions ( i have throttle spark and throttle torque spark at all 0)

2015 scat pack 6.4l with 6 spd

learning tuning via this forum and a lot of research then experiments, VE tables affect everything all the time!!! ive smoothed mine a lot but still getting them dialed in , as i adjust the VE tables i do find i have to readjust the injPw to fuel mass tables

Inj Pw.png

I plugged in 7.0 to the engine size, no change that is noticeable.
I'll try rescaling the injector pulse/fuel mass to reflect more of the values that are actually used, maybe the PCM interpolation of the larger scales is not accurate and that could be causing the issue.
Edit: anyone have a scaling spreadsheet handy?

[WILYUMZ1]

try this one from matchedperf,, this is the one i used https://forum.hptuners.com/attachmen...1&d=1505490692

[chizzle1]

I have found that by rescaling injPw to fuel mass table you can achieve a much more stable fuel supply, i have to thanks to I was able to rescale my tables to give much better resolution for fueling, once i had the fuel adjusted as shown below i am getting zero LTFT's once warmed up, less than 1.5 degrees of knock retard Under heavy load at low rpm and a very short duration 1 degree knock retard at 4400 rpm when under WOT conditions ( i have throttle spark and throttle torque spark at all 0)

2015 scat pack 6.4l with 6 spd

learning tuning via this forum and a lot of research then experiments, VE tables affect everything all the time!!! ive smoothed mine a lot but still getting them dialed in , as i adjust the VE tables i do find i have to readjust the injPw to fuel mass tables

Inj Pw.png

thanks for the spreadsheet.
why is you inj pw min .800 ?? that seems very high, the spec sheet on my injectors is .182 min
are you running stock injectors?
attached is my current inj pw scaling, i remembered it being higher (spaced further apart) but it's actually not too bad
INJPWtables.JPG