samseed101

I know at least a couple are. Anyway, I've been trying to lean out my LAMBSE at WOT, but can't seen to find what table or function would take care of that in the CBAZA strategy. At WOT, the LAMBSE is showing a 9.65 AFR and the wideband is showing 10.65. I know I need to dial in the MAF a bit better to bring that up to about 11.5:1 A/F ratio at WOT. But I also am trying to figure out what the LAMBSE is showing such a rich mixture at WOT.

The multipliers that I normally look at seem normal and the OL fuel table shows low 12s at that RPM / Load range. So what the hell am I overlooking?

AdderMk2

shoulda just gotten a megasquirt sam

samseed101

LoL, I'm giving it some serious consideration. I know I can lean it out slightly, that won't be a problem. And it will run just fine that way as long as I don't lean it out too far. But I can't for the life of me figure out why the **** the LAMBSE is calling for a 9.65:1 A/F ratio! I think in the end I'm just gonna say screw it and make the adjustment in the MAF transfer. I was going to try to do it via the breakpoint / injector slopes, but then it would throw off my entire MAF Transfer. And as it stands, I have my closed loop KAMFR to within +/- 3, which is pretty good.

Or maybe I'll start looking at that MegaSquirt 2. How do you program and datalog those? Does it have it's own software? I've never really looked into it before.

AdderMk2

IF...like I said... IF you decide to get a megasquirt... DONT get an MS2

get a MS1 with a V3.0 PCB. and run the MSnS-E firmware

samseed101

That's good info to have. I would have just assumed that the MS2 would have been better and I wouldn't have even looked at anything else.

AdderMk2

the MSnS-e firmware is more geared towards boosted applications, where the MS2 is more of an N/A protocol.

the MS2-E firmware is beta right now

samseed101

Problem solved. It was just another case of Head-Up-***. I knew there had to be a multiplier in there because the OL fuel table was spot on accurate. The problem was with the function that handles WOT fuel vs. ACT. When the air charge temp was hotter, it adds more fuel. But I was reading it backwards. I knew that 1 meant no multiplier. But I thought that numbers lower than that would take away fuel and numbers over 1 would add fuel (the same way KAMFR works.)

Once I went over the equasions in my head, I figured out my flawed logic. It works the opposite way. The end result of the equasion is the actual A/F ratio, NOT just another fuel multiplier. So it was reducing the actual A/F ratio number, thus making the car richer.

I know, it may sound confusing... it was enough to have my head spinning until i pulled it out of my *** and looked at the actual equasions instead of just making wild assumptions.

Now I have a LAMBSE of 11.5 and an A/F ratio that's pretty damned close!

mjr46

so did you actually go in and change any thing if so in what table??? I'm gearing up to do the same thing your doing right now.

samseed101

First. I changed my "Open Loop fuel multiplier vs. ACT" function. Here's what it was set to (stock)

Temp Multiplier
254.00 0.70
210.00 0.70
176.00 0.72
126.00 0.78
116.00 1.00
-256.00 1.00

I changed the 126 degree and 176 degree settings to 1.0 so that it did not adjust the fuel flow based on my ACT.

Then I went to my "Open Loop stabilized Fuel Table" and changed the top row. The top row deals in high loads, which is what happens under WOT. The table was calling for an A/F ratio of 12.35. That is what my LAMBSE would be, which is the fuel ratio that my computer thinks i need to be at. To determine the fuel ratio, you take the number from the fuel table (12.35) and multipy it by the ACT multiplier I mentioned above. That tells your computer what your new target A/F ratio is.

Now doing some math: 12.35 x .78 =9.633 LAMBSE. Now remember that using the chart above, 0.78 is what the computer would have used as a multiplier for any air charge temp around 126 degrees. So due to that, my computer was asking for an A/F ratio of about 9.63, which is freaking RICH!!!!

If I changed it from 0.78 to a 1.00, then 12.35 x .1 = 12.35 LAMBSE

But that is a tad lean for me. So I went back to the top row of the stabilized table and changed the ratio from 12.35 to 11.50. So between changing that and changing the ACT multiplier, I was able to completely adjust my LAMBSE.

Not sure if that helps any, or if it just confuses the hell out of you, LoL. My original mistake was assuming that the 0.78 multiplier was pulling fuel and not adding fuel. I was thinknig that because when you look at KAMRF instead of LAMBSE (inother words, long term fuel trims vs. short term fuel trims) it's the exact opposite and lower numbers means that it's pulling more fuel, not adding.

So you can see how I managed to almost **** it up by not paying attention and not using common sense. If I would have just looked at the equasion (Commanded A/F ratio from the table X Multiplier = New A/F ratio) then I woul ahve seen my mistake right away. Instead I looked right over it without even thinking about it.

mjr46

Thanks samseed that's helpful to know in the near future as to what I need to be mindful of when I starttunning the wide open throttle mixture tables. I understand why you do it in the open loop mode perfectly as that't what the computer switches to when in wide open throttle......it's easy to watch that on a obdII equipped cars with the proper scan tool....anyway I know our cars aren't odbII just wanted to make the connection