How to adjust fueling vs intake air temp during closed loop?

[SiriusC1024]

Numbers above 1 do not actually change anything. No need to go over 1.0.

Zero is IAT. 2 is ECT. 1 is 50:50 ratio.

[04silverado6.0]

That is not how it is defined by hpt. 0 being iat, 1 being full ect.

[SiriusC1024]

That is not how it is defined by hpt. 0 being iat, 1 being full ect.

u sure?

[Fast4.7]

That is not how it is defined by hpt. 0 being iat, 1 being full ect.

Cannot help how it is defined. Look at the math equation I posted earlier. The table value range is 0-2. Zero is IAT only, TWO is ECT only, 1 is 50/50.

[04silverado6.0]

https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post108446

[SiriusC1024]

https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post108446

Well. He's wrong about that.

[04silverado6.0]

https://ls1tech.com/forums/forced-in...l#post15934417

[04silverado6.0]

I am finding a lot of conflicting information on this one. Like i said with my experience adding to the bias helped get rid of fueling swings on heat soak. No matter how it works the end goal is consistent trims.

[edcmat-l1]

I am finding a lot of conflicting information on this one. Like i said with my LACK OF experience adding to the bias helped get rid of fueling swings on heat soak. No matter how it works the end goal is consistent trims.

Fixed it for you dirt bag.

[Fast4.7]

https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post108446

I should have consulted my notes. I not only had the equation listed backwards but I also quoted the wrong bias value operation. The physical table does have a range of 0-2 thus my brain fart. Sorry been a long week.

Lets use 50C for IAT and 100C for ECT and ignore the Kelvin conversion to keep the numbers nice and clean.

Correct equation
273.15 + IAT + ((ECT-IAT)*Bias)

With a Bias value of Zero
50 +((100-50)*0) = 50 = IAT reading
Bias of Zero completely eliminates the ECT input.

With a Bias value of One
50 +((100-50)*1) = 100 = ECT Reading
Bias of One completely eliminates the IAT input.

With a Bias Value of Two which is completely possible to input into the software the charge temperature is higher than possible in reality.
50 +(100-50)*2) = 150 = ECT plus IAT combined

That explains why values over 1 had weird results when I experimented with them a few years ago.

[edcmat-l1]

HPT failed log in.jpg

I want everyone to know I'm pretty sure this dirt bag tried to hack into my account here today. I've been on here nearly 20 years and I've never had an alert like this. This happened today, in the middle of bickering with this idiot.

Not to mention, every damn thing he posts is incorrect. Minister of misinformation, the maintenance man.

[abc]

https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post108446

Your google foo is working awesome. What a great read. Right or wrong it is a very professional thread. Awesome discussion without the quibbling.Thanks for digging it up.

[abc]

There are a lot of things that can be adding up to this. But first start with this.. Does this have an actual drivability problem? No Is it something you would notice if you weren't hyper focused on a laptop. Not really. I was doing a random lambda check at WOT and I noticed the additional CL fuel comp. This is not a condescending question.. but a serious one.
I understand exactly why your asking this and don't take it as condescending.



On the ECT/IAT bias. If you didn't know.. it's meant to be an average between ECT and IAT. The math should be done in kelvin. For instance 100 F isn't twice as hot as 50F. Kelvin and Rankin fixes this. So at lower airflows you'll see it biased more towards ECT. This is because they assume the slower airflow though the engine is being heated by the intake ports, manifold, etc. The other table is the filter. How fast this calc can move. I honestly do not suggest messing with it.

Thank you for your professional response and time.

[04silverado6.0]

I should have consulted my notes. I not only had the equation listed backwards but I also quoted the wrong bias value operation. The physical table does have a range of 0-2 thus my brain fart. Sorry been a long week.

Lets use 50C for IAT and 100C for ECT and ignore the Kelvin conversion to keep the numbers nice and clean.

Correct equation
273.15 + IAT + ((ECT-IAT)*Bias)

With a Bias value of Zero
50 +((100-50)*0) = 50 = IAT reading
Bias of Zero completely eliminates the ECT input.

With a Bias value of One
50 +((100-50)*1) = 100 = ECT Reading
Bias of One completely eliminates the IAT input.

With a Bias Value of Two which is completely possible to input into the software the charge temperature is higher than possible in reality.
50 +(100-50)*2) = 150 = ECT plus IAT combined

That explains why values over 1 had weird results when I experimented with them a few years ago.

That is making sense.

[SiriusC1024]

That is making sense.

Yes that clears it up thank you.

[aaronc7]

Strange the HPT definitions don't clearly state this and what the values mean, or allow something greater than 1. Source of a lot of confusion over the years.

For what it's worth, maybe another confirmation, efi describes this exactly as the post above from 4.7 in their software

[04silverado6.0]

What is the progress on this?

[MarcWolfe]

The math should be done in kelvin.

If I remember right, -40F is roughly double the air density of 240F or so.

[MarcWolfe]

I should have consulted my notes. I not only had the equation listed backwards but I also quoted the wrong bias value operation. The physical table does have a range of 0-2 thus my brain fart. Sorry been a long week.

Lets use 50C for IAT and 100C for ECT and ignore the Kelvin conversion to keep the numbers nice and clean.

Correct equation
273.15 + IAT + ((ECT-IAT)*Bias)

With a Bias value of Zero
50 +((100-50)*0) = 50 = IAT reading
Bias of Zero completely eliminates the ECT input.

With a Bias value of One
50 +((100-50)*1) = 100 = ECT Reading
Bias of One completely eliminates the IAT input.

With a Bias Value of Two which is completely possible to input into the software the charge temperature is higher than possible in reality.
50 +(100-50)*2) = 150 = ECT plus IAT combined

That explains why values over 1 had weird results when I experimented with them a few years ago.

Sounds legit.