Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: E38 catalyst heating spark vs. startup fuel gain

  1. #1
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38

    E38 catalyst heating spark vs. startup fuel gain

    Hi all,

    Im dealing with the catalyst heating spark table. I need to retard timing after cold start aggressively to get my converters heated for cold start emmissions test. I already achieved some promissing results, but Im struggeling with something I believe is a transient fuel issue.

    Right after cranking, this means cranking mode is just over, the spak starts to drop massively as supposed in order to get some flames shooted to the converter. My issue is, that in the moment the retarding kicks in, the efficiency of the fuel mass burned naturally goes down dramatically. With other words, since more fuel is burned outside the chamber less energy is used to actualy turn the engine. In return this means a higher need of fuel to keep the idle stable.

    The ECU does a pretty good job in quickly stabilising this within only a few seconds. The Abs. load goes up and inj cycle also gets to arround the doubled value. Then everything runs pretty straight slowly down the hill untill the heating cycle is ended.

    What I want to do now is taking the strugle out of the first few seconds. I want to have the fueling corrected without relying on the ECU ability to recognize the added need and compensate it. By doing this I want flatten out the iny cycle curve and the load curve. Reason is, that during this condition also a pretty rich AFR is commanded, what I think is the ECU?s strategy to gain the needed fuel.

    Has anyone expierience which tables or adders I could look at? I already have checked the warmup transient fuel correction and stomp compensation tables, but they seem not to do what Im looking for and effect later/other parts of the warmup phase.

    Is there any kind of spark retard related fuel adder I can look for? In a perfect world this would also be related to ECT and ERT to make sure this adder is only considered for a cold start.

    I will attach the log file of my last startup test. Looking realy close and slow you will also see a little strugle when cranking. This is due to leaning out the priming shot, since Im still under fine tuning of the priming fuel mass. So this should be possible to fix with my current "weapons". The issue is right between the first rpm peak and the time when falling back and passing 1000rpm. There you can see that inj timing goes low at first and spark retards. Both together will not gernate enough torque to turn the engine. So spark advanced again while load raises and inj cycle raises. Once a kind of stable status is reached, spark is retarded again.

    What I want to see is a constantly retarded spark and, to compensate, a inj cycle which doenst fall down to 3ms as seen in second 15 of the log. Instead the inj cycle should stabilse at arround 6ms after cranking, which is the value seen from second 18 of the log and suitable for a stable idle.

    Thanks in advance!

    Soeren20210628_V0.58.hpl

  2. #2
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Do you have a calibration file?
    What engine/car/mods? Do you have factory catalysts?

  3. #3
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by cadillactech View Post
    Do you have a calibration file?
    What engine/car/mods? Do you have factory catalysts?
    I just pulled up a E38 cal I had to look. I don't see any spark tables that relate fuel to degrees of retard for cold start cat warm up. There may be one but may be HP didn't give it to us?

    Have you tried to change open loop EQ ratio in the areas you want to correct?

  4. #4
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by cadillactech View Post
    Do you have a calibration file?
    What engine/car/mods? Do you have factory catalysts?
    Ive done a LSswap to a 2012 model year car in Europe what means I have to fullfill Euro5 emmission homologation to get aproval for road use. This means not a simple emmission test as done every two years here. A 11km run from cold start (engine/ECt, etc. @20C) on a dyno style test setup inside a laboratory has to be performed and the total emmissions are not allowed to exceed the limits of E5 spec.

    The engine used is a 2013 production LS3 out of a Gen5 Camaro. Airbox changed due to swap, routing of ignition cables slightly changed, aftermarket clutch with a slightly lighter flywheel, E38 ECU, shorty headers and factory converters. Belt routing is slightly changed, besides that the engine is bone stock. So far the car is running great with no issues. Also a regular emmission test can be passed with close to perfect numbers.

    I was bale to improve the measurements by retarding catalyst heating spark tables. The necessity goes obviously back to the shortys, which are as shortys still about 15" longer then the stock headers. (spoken for tube length)

    Calibration is nothing too exciting, pretty much stock besides some disabled DTCs because of the swap, corrected MAF curve due to custom airbox and the catalyst heating spark tables. Spark for sure is pretty extreme with -7degree. But thats the minimum I need. More retard is not generating any better results. To speed up things it would be crutial to get the -7degree spark right after cranking.
    Last edited by TRStech; 06-29-2021 at 04:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by TRStech View Post
    Ive done a LSswap to a 2012 model year car in Europe what means I have to fullfill Euro5 emmission homologation to get aproval for road use. This means not a simple emmission test as done every two years here. A 11km run from cold start (engine/ECt, etc. @20C) on a dyno style test setup inside a laboratory has to be performed and the total emmissions are not allowed to exceed the limits of E5 spec.

    The engine used is a 2013 production LS3 out of a Gen5 Camaro. Airbox changed due to swap, routing of ignition cables slightly changed, aftermarket clutch with a slightly lighter flywheel, E38 ECU, shorty headers and factory converters. Belt routing is slightly changed, besides that the engine is bone stock. So far the car is running great with no issues. Also a regular emmission test can be passed with close to perfect numbers.

    I was bale to improve the measurements by retarding catalyst heating spark tables. The necessity goes obviously back to the shortys, which are as shortys still about 15" longer then the stock headers. (spoken for tube length)

    Calibration is nothing too exciting, pretty much stock besides some disabled DTCs because of the swap, corrected MAF curve due to custom airbox and the catalyst heating spark tables. Spark for sure is pretty extreme with -7degree. But thats the minimum I need. More retard is not generating any better results. To speed up things it would be crutial to get the -7degree spark right after cranking.
    Sounds fun!

    Is it not passing the test? If so what portion? What is high? HC? CO? CO2? Nox?

    Like I said above, does the open loop EQ ratio change your fueling enough to get the amount of fuel burned in the cylinder to the engines liking? If you change the open loop EQ, you might need to play with timing again as the fueling may change the timing requirements to heat the catalysts.

  6. #6
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Hmm, OL EQ ratio could be indeed a possibilitys. Since CL anyway starts after a few seconds this could limit the effect to exactly the area I want.

    I already achieved the Limits for NOx after the last Iteration. But CO and HC is way of in the first part of the test which is cold start and "city driving". If you ask me, Nobody drives through the City with 15kph for, but its the first step in the cycle. Its pretty much like having a cold start and directly driving into a traffic jam. But it attempts to be kind of a worst case scenario. And thats pretty much what it is, since US driving cycles starts whith a much more aggressive accelartion phase what in the end also bringst up temps quicker. In return the overall system layout is not optimized for the low speed and low load European cycle. The low weight of my swap car and my shortys adds to that and my task is now to develope a system (software and hardware) which fullfils the requirements.

    I try keep as close to the factory system as possible, but still even small deviations can have a high impact. A fully factory setup isnt possible because of the restraints of the swap cars chassis. This being said, even if they claim that the limitations where enheld with the Gen5 LS3 EU spec Camaro, I meanwhile massively doubt that. At least with the factory calibration as found I cannot believe that.

  7. #7
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by TRStech View Post
    Hmm, OL EQ ratio could be indeed a possibilitys. Since CL anyway starts after a few seconds this could limit the effect to exactly the area I want.

    I already achieved the Limits for NOx after the last Iteration. But CO and HC is way of in the first part of the test which is cold start and "city driving". If you ask me, Nobody drives through the City with 15kph for, but its the first step in the cycle. Its pretty much like having a cold start and directly driving into a traffic jam. But it attempts to be kind of a worst case scenario. And thats pretty much what it is, since US driving cycles starts whith a much more aggressive accelartion phase what in the end also bringst up temps quicker. In return the overall system layout is not optimized for the low speed and low load European cycle. The low weight of my swap car and my shortys adds to that and my task is now to develope a system (software and hardware) which fullfils the requirements.

    I try keep as close to the factory system as possible, but still even small deviations can have a high impact. A fully factory setup isnt possible because of the restraints of the swap cars chassis. This being said, even if they claim that the limitations where enheld with the Gen5 LS3 EU spec Camaro, I meanwhile massively doubt that. At least with the factory calibration as found I cannot believe that.
    I would play with the OL EQ ratio to see how it affects the quickness of heating as well as the HC and CO on the cold start. I assume you have a 5 gas you can monitor these with??

    You might also think of either going to a large catalyst or secondary cats as some GM vehicles have these that are not monitored by oxygen sensors to help clean up the emissions more.

    The shorty headers no doubt will increase the catalyst heating times.

  8. #8
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    4 Gas tester and I already have additional post O2 converters...

  9. #9
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by TRStech View Post
    4 Gas tester and I already have additional post O2 converters...
    Well then you know what is up! Let us know what the OL EQ changes do!

  10. #10
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Think I found a route to deal with that. Did two things:

    -catalyst heating spark table: retard increased only for rpms arround target idle (to avoid that heating retard is already effecting the actual retard during rpm peak after cranking)
    -slightly adjusted EQr gain P/N + Gear for IVT vs ECT in the (small!) area which is relevant for startup phase

    Got a pretty constant spark and abs load curve when entering idle rpm after startup. Spark retard is reduced by arround 2degree when catching the rpm drop and stabilizes, load is stabilizing from the lower value during drop to a flat line for idle without any noticable peak.

    Thought about further adjustments, but I think its pretty close to optimal and another degree of stable retard during 1 or 2s will not make a noticable difference in what Im working at. (catalyst heating) So I decided to call it good.

    Will now proceed to test driveability during catalyst heating spark is active whats again another topic and table. Hope this will not be too much of a strugle. After taht Ill have to gather some equipment for mobile emission measurement.

  11. #11
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by TRStech View Post
    Think I found a route to deal with that. Did two things:

    -catalyst heating spark table: retard increased only for rpms arround target idle (to avoid that heating retard is already effecting the actual retard during rpm peak after cranking)
    -slightly adjusted EQr gain P/N + Gear for IVT vs ECT in the (small!) area which is relevant for startup phase

    Got a pretty constant spark and abs load curve when entering idle rpm after startup. Spark retard is reduced by arround 2degree when catching the rpm drop and stabilizes, load is stabilizing from the lower value during drop to a flat line for idle without any noticable peak.

    Thought about further adjustments, but I think its pretty close to optimal and another degree of stable retard during 1 or 2s will not make a noticable difference in what Im working at. (catalyst heating) So I decided to call it good.

    Will now proceed to test driveability during catalyst heating spark is active whats again another topic and table. Hope this will not be too much of a strugle. After taht Ill have to gather some equipment for mobile emission measurement.
    I hope that works for your emissions standards! Let us know. Got any pics of what you swapped this into?

  12. #12
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38

  13. #13
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    329
    YES! That is awesome. Must be a blast to drive!