Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Scaling the entire tune, cyl charge temp tables also?

  1. #1
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221

    Scaling the entire tune, cyl charge temp tables also?

    When setting units to Metric and scaling every gram related table for more room with the spark table, do you also scale the 'Cylinder Charge Temperature' tables: 'Cylinder Charge Temp Bias vs Airflow' as well as 'Cylinder Charge Temperature Filter Coeff vs Airflow?'

    They have a column axis in g/s so I ask.

    Thanks
    20220213_234044.jpg
    Last edited by Matt_lq4; 02-14-2022 at 01:24 AM.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    The difficulty seems when extrapolating values past 150 g/s in the "filter coefficient" portion of table 13002, especially in my situation where the scale factor I'm using is 0.5

    For example, with a scale factor of 0.5, the new value at 70 g/s in that table will be based on an actual g/s value of double that, 140 g/s.
    So 0.6055 originally at 140 g/s would now be placed at the 70 g/s spot, all seems straight forward so far.

    However 80 g/s would now want the value that's originally in the 160 g/s spot, but the table ends at 150.

    The numbers increase to the right inconsistently, such as by a factor between 1.04 and 1.08, so choosing a number to multiply by between that range is a guess. (The 'bias factor' values go up by a more consistent factor so extrapolating that data was much simpler).

    I suppose I could use the last known value such as placing the 140 g/s entry into the freshly scaled 70 g/s area after scaling, then place the maximum value allowed for that table (0.9961) in the last entry at 150 g/s, then interpolate so there's a progressive ramp from 70 to 150.
    Last edited by Matt_lq4; 02-16-2022 at 11:34 AM.

  4. #4
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Finland, Europe
    Posts
    548
    As a side note, be careful with idle airflow scaling.

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pekka_Perkeles View Post
    As a side note, be careful with idle airflow scaling.
    If using a scale factor of 0.5, would the base idle airflow simply get the same reduction of airflow by 50%? Or is there more you're mentioning?

    Thanks

  6. #6
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Finland, Europe
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    If using a scale factor of 0.5, would the base idle airflow simply get the same reduction of airflow by 50%?

    Thanks
    You can do that if you want, of course.

    But if it doesn't want to idle with those settings, use stock (non-scaled) values instead.

    It would also be nice to reply back here with final results.

  7. #7
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    why not just use the AFR advance table to dial in your timing to avoid scaling everything

    seems like if all you wana do is control timing you only need 1 table to change.

  8. #8
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    20220216_181732.jpg
    The top version of table 13002 is how it was stock and the bottom is what I got after scaling by 0.5

    Greg, I forgot about the suggestion in HP Tuners to set 'Cylinder Charge Temperature- Complex Model' to disabled when using an iat sensor in the intake manifold.
    I've seen this on positive displacement supercharged setups where the iat sensor is in the intake manifold.

    For a turbo charged setup where there is a 2 wire iat sensor in the intercooler piping, do you suggest I also disable this 'complex model?'

    Thanks
    Last edited by Matt_lq4; 02-16-2022 at 06:23 PM.

  9. #9
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    20220216_181732.jpg
    The top version of table 13002 is how it was stock and the bottom is what I got after scaling by 0.5

    Greg, I forgot about the suggestion in HP Tuners to set 'Cylinder Charge Temperature- Complex Model' to disabled when using an iat sensor in the intake manifold.
    I've seen this on positive displacement supercharged setups where the iat sensor is in the intake manifold.

    For a turbo charged setup where there is a 2 wire iat sensor in the intercooler piping, do you suggest I also disable this 'complex model?'

    Thanks
    Depends on the hardware. That distance from the intake valve, I'd say it still needs to be enabled...particularly if the intake is prone to heat soak. Dialing that in isn't intuitive though, so proceed with caution.

  10. #10
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeshow View Post
    Depends on the hardware. That distance from the intake valve, I'd say it still needs to be enabled...particularly if the intake is prone to heat soak. Dialing that in isn't intuitive though, so proceed with caution.
    I suppose putting the iat sensor on the plastic intake manifold will be better than stainless steel intercooler piping. Closer to the intake valve and attached to a less heat-soak prone surface.

  11. #11
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    I suppose putting the iat sensor on the plastic intake manifold will be better than stainless steel intercooler piping. Closer to the intake valve and attached to a less heat-soak prone surface.
    Stainless is definitely not quick to transfer heat. The closer you can get the IAT sensor to the intake valve, the more representative it will be of true MAT, and thus the less authority the complex temp model needs to correct for heating/cooling of the charge post-IAT. Not sure how easy it would be to get it into a plastic intake though.

  12. #12
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by kingtal0n View Post
    why not just use the AFR advance table to dial in your timing to avoid scaling everything

    seems like if all you wana do is control timing you only need 1 table to change.
    The ignition timing table maxes out very easily at the 1.20 g/cyl limit with a turbo setup. So you're in the bottom of the timing table with not much control over any higher airmass timing.
    I'm scaling this tune entirely by 50% (0.5) so if I do see 1.10 g/cyl for example and reference that area of the timing table, in reality I'll be seeing 2.20 g/cyl despite it being reported as 1.10. The scaling causes the airflow to be under-reported by the scale factor.
    This gives a little more room for fine timing adjustments.
    Last edited by Matt_lq4; 02-23-2022 at 06:03 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    The ignition timing table maxes out very easily at the 1.20 g/cyl limit with a turbo setup. So you're in the bottom of the timing table with not much control over any higher airmass timing.
    I'm scaling this tune entirely by 50% (0.5) so if I do see 1.10 g/cyl for example and reference that area of the timing table, in reality I'll be seeing 2.20 g/cyl despite it being reported as 1.10. The scaling causes the airflow to be under-reported by the scale factor.
    This gives a little more room for fine timing adjustments.
    I Have a 5.3L I run 20psi of boost through it. I Use a 2-bar map sensor and I have the OEM scale in my 411ECU, 620rwhp via 4l80e.
    I Put 35,000 miles on it since 2017 just change the oil.

    The timing table does max at whatever but you can still command timing reduction based on other factors. Think outside the box.

    Here is an example for AFR advance
    whatafradvdoes.jpg
    Last edited by kingtal0n; 02-23-2022 at 06:42 PM.

  14. #14
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    Heres my car clipping the 2-bar map couple years ago on the dyno.
    Attachment 117743

    Notice base timing table advance is like 17* but the commanded total is only 12*

    And cyl airmass is way over the limit, no control from there. Set the 1.2g/cyl line exactly where it should be for 1.2g/cyl then use alternative provided (many different tables) means to reduce the timing further as needed.

    It isn't as elegant as using a stand-alone computer but its sure a hell of a lot easier and more reproducible/predictable than scaling the entire tune if you've never scaled a tune before. Either method is a band-aid, so choose ur poison I guess

  15. #15
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by kingtal0n View Post
    Heres my car clipping the 2-bar map couple years ago on the dyno.
    Attachment 117743

    Notice base timing table advance is like 17* but the commanded total is only 12*

    And cyl airmass is way over the limit, no control from there. Set the 1.2g/cyl line exactly where it should be for 1.2g/cyl then use alternative provided (many different tables) means to reduce the timing further as needed.

    It isn't as elegant as using a stand-alone computer but its sure a hell of a lot easier and more reproducible/predictable than scaling the entire tune if you've never scaled a tune before. Either method is a band-aid, so choose ur poison I guess
    I'll look into this a bit further, thank you for the information.

  16. #16
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Finland, Europe
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    If using a scale factor of 0.5, would the base idle airflow simply get the same reduction of airflow by 50%? Or is there more you're mentioning?

    Thanks
    So how did it go? Scaled idle 50% and now runs fine?

  17. #17
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pekka_Perkeles View Post
    So how did it go? Scaled idle 50% and now runs fine?
    I'll know in spring as the turbo vehicles are in storage until the snow melts.

  18. #18
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Finland, Europe
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    I'll know in spring as the turbo vehicles are in storage until the snow melts.
    So how did it go?

  19. #19
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    221
    Sorry for the super late reply.
    Everything went well except for the deceleration fueling. It's extremely rich no matter how much you shrink the VE table in that area, or how small the min fuel mg value is.
    Maybe just a side effect of SD 80 injectors at low pulsewidths.

    I somewhat forgot about this thread I made with cylinder charge temp scaling once it was time to tune this setup. I did scale the 13002 - Cylinder Charge Temp Filter Coeff vs Airflow table down by 50% but I think that was incorrect.

    I did scale the 13001 - Cylinder Charge Temp Bias vs Airflow table correctly except I left that table's 0 g/s cell as 0.7998, while technically 0.6558 would be more ideal...not sure if that is enough to cause my rich decel.

    Looking at the '13002- Cyl Charge Temp Filter Coeff' table properly now, because the incoming air will be under-reported by 50%, the values shift over accordingly (140 g/s values are now placed in the 70 g/s cell).
    So previously at 140 g/s of airflow, the Bias Factor was 0.2456, now the 70 g/s cell will get that 0.2456 Bias Factor as that was the correct Bias Factor before any scaling occurred. This shifts the Bias Factor values to now work as they were designed.

    Here are what I believe the 2 tables should look like now, keeping in mind that table 13002 can only go up to a maximum value of 0.9961
    More testing in spring haha.

    stock p59 cyl air chrg temp factor and coeff.png Stock

    settings I had in it this year for cyl air charge.png The incorrect settings I had this year for the coefficient table, but Bias factor was mostly correct

    scaled p59 cyl air chrg temp factor and coeff.png Scaled
    Last edited by Matt_lq4; 12-04-2022 at 01:20 AM.

  20. #20
    Senior Tuner eficalibrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt_lq4 View Post
    It's extremely rich no matter how much you shrink the VE table in that area, or how small the min fuel mg value is.
    Maybe just a side effect of SD 80 injectors at low pulsewidths.
    I've said it a ton of times: my testing has shown that the Deka80's are pretty unhappy and inconsistent at very small pulse widths, even with the right "average" data. What you are seeing is normal for them, unfortunately.