Id compare the 2 logs and see where the knock starts, IAT wise. Id bet you could compare the 2 and alter the IAT spark modifier table to solve the issue. Higher temps usually equal higher IATsOriginally Posted by SmokeyOkie
Id compare the 2 logs and see where the knock starts, IAT wise. Id bet you could compare the 2 and alter the IAT spark modifier table to solve the issue. Higher temps usually equal higher IATs
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
7 20.hpl
ok I think i got it right this time
"Good hands... Bad taste in cars."
Heres the tune with log data applied. I couldnt do much past this point maf trims end.jpg The trims end there and you didnt post a wideband screenshot this time. If you happen to have one you can upload and i can apply it if you dont want to. Lets do one more sweep of the MAF curve after all of this is applied and make sure its falling in line with what we want.
Last edited by horsepowerguru427; 1 Week Ago at 10:00 PM.
"Good hands... Bad taste in cars."
The changes from that log are applied and i put it back into blended air, using MAF and VE table and DFCO is back on. Put this tune in, clear the trims and go see how it drives or what other issues you have going on.
Screenshot 2025-07-23 104710.png7 23.hpl
took it out for a short cruise ran great but don't know why its still showing lean
"Good hands... Bad taste in cars."
Fuel trims will always push it back to stoich or slightly lean in certain areas for fuel economy. We tuned on fuel trims, so dont compare the WB to the trims. We used them for different areas, so we're not going to pit the results against each other. Ideally, we want one area to blend nicely into the other.
OL WB.jpg The area i circled here is where it went into OL and that is where we started tuning with the WB.
trims OL.jpg This is from your log viewing the LTFT+STFT. Obviously its a little fat while in blended mode at the moment, but these are the trims we were using to tune CL area. Also, as you can see where i circled, The fuel trims hit 0 in the same cells I circled on the WB histogram. Meaning, it was in OL and we used the WB in those cells.
ST OL.jpg Even comparing to just STFT readings from the same log, its not too far off where we tuned it with trims. And again, it hits 0 in the same cells the WB took over at. Alternatively, there is a lean patch in the middle of the 1600rpm columns while viewing STFT. If we use the "C" (count) button Ive circled herecount button.jpg you can view how many hits that cell had during the run. Id like to see more hits everywhere, but Sometimes youll get an area of lean or rich that if you view the counts, only had a couple of hits per cell. Low counts arent good data to use. The more hits the better the average for that cell and the more accurate. We tuned it with LTFT+STFT so i dont care what the stft say on their own. Id prefer the LTFT+STFT graph to be closer to Stoich though. More tuning will get it closer.
Last edited by horsepowerguru427; 6 Days Ago at 05:13 PM.
7 24.hplScreenshot 2025-07-24 090000.pngScreenshot 2025-07-24 090109.pngScreenshot 2025-07-24 090131.pngScreenshot 2025-07-24 090146.pngScreenshot 2025-07-24 090207.png
This should be a decent log, let me know if I need to include anything else
Thank you
"Good hands... Bad taste in cars."
"Good hands... Bad taste in cars."
Reply With Quote