Smooth your timing!!

[GeoffH]

do this to all tables i take it?

[oldskool]

I don't like our smoothing algorithim. It smooths as if the axes are equal units apart, but there's more resolution in some spots. To put it as simply as I can - it is supposed to just flatten the map, but because it assumes equal spacing between the axes, it also kinda stretches it. For example - the first two RPM rows are 200 apart, but the last two are 320 apart. The first two load columns are 5 apart, but the last two are 20 apart.

I have the same gripe with the interpolate function.

I get around this by smoothing in quadrants - divide the map in to four pieces and smooth them indidually - then do one MAYBE two smooths on the whole map.

this probably doesn't change a whole lot in an absolute sense, but it bothers me lol. I guess you could also adjust your axex, but i wouldn't recommend it just for the purpose of accurate smoothing.

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

I have adjusted all of my loads above 80% on my car. And since doing this I get 0 KR anywhere and the car is smoother. Hand smoothing is acceptable as well of course!! This is just the easy method

[HawkZ28]

FWIW, I tried both methods (BYT's and oldskool's) on my HO table to see what the differences were from eachother....with my tune it came out almost identical, the majority of the differences were +/-.5 difference.....a few oddball cells showed 1.5+ degrees difference between methods, though.

I can't wait to test it out, but I'm testing new COP wires right now, and won't/can't alter my tune until my test and review period is over I'm curious to see what it does to the feel as well as amount, and counts of knock I get on my commute so I can compare it to prior!

[kuprito]

We are changing the spark timing not the intake cam angle. How does the ignition timing affect the HPFP?

I said nothing then

[GeoffH]

yeah i had also tried it and the timing is reduced greatly at cruising RPM's to about 28* and not getting good MPG on the hwy, I switched the info on the dash and was only getting about 26 mpg instant @ around 60-65mph and I was getting 32-35 mphat the same speeds before

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

I was getting an overall average of 23.8-24.2 and Im at 24.2 still with doing pulls dialing in other stuff. You can raise the cruise areas up and then smooth around them

[mkriebs]

Yeah, I have been a big proponent of smoothing since day 1. I usually do mine manually, but occasionally use the smoothing function.

Now, raising timing in the cruise areas will help with fuel mileage? I was intending to make a thread on that, or post the question elsewhere, but since it got brought up here, thought i would clarify if I should retard or advance it.

[Jaxon]

advance helps mpg

[oldskool]

Since we have an AFR spark modifier, has anyone tried adjusting the loads in the PE table to set up a lean cruise below say 40%? I have but it doesn't seem to take - commanded lambda is always 1 even if i set it as high as 1.05 in the low rpm, lowest load part of that table. The only time the commanded lambda is higher than one is when your foot is off the gas.

I was thinking of setting one of the column axis to 0 or 1, but since we only have four columns to work with, I don't want to sacrifice safety to save a mpg or two. Not to mention there would probably be serious interpolation going on between columns and it may net worse mpg anyways because of having the loads too far apart.

Thoughts?

[mkriebs]

Bill at one point in time said that there is no possible way that we could set a tune up through HPT to enter a lean cruise mode. He said HPT is designed to never allow that, because it is illegal, somewhere.

[oldskool]

I've read that too - but i interpreted it as if there is an actual "lean cruise" mode in the calibration that it would not be unlocked for usdm applications. I don't know if it necessarily means we can't work our low load lambdas to be above 1. Who knows, it could be a scanner limitation too.

[Iam Broke]

Term and I both tried to raise the Lambda in the 60% and less column for the PE Lambda table to 1.05 and it wouldn't command anything higher than 1.0

If you change it to say .97, it commands .97 in cruise just fine.

[oldskool]

Wow, that sucks donkey dick. Legal ramifications aside, i now wonder if it is a software imposed limitation or calibration imposed limitation. Maybe we cannot command above 1 lambda because of the operating mode?

I know on other calibrations, I can command greater than 14.7 afr if i so choose, however this is independent of operating in a true "lean cruise" mode, if it's even available on that calibration.
Quick edit: This is done by forcing open loop and tuning the VE tables accordingly on the other calibraion (NOT LNF!)