[Domenico.mezzacapo]

Hello everyone,

I’ve finished installing the turbo on my KTM 990 (using a K03 turbo from an Audi), and now I need to focus on tuning. I’ve purchased an NO2C, and I have a few questions:

Should I use the MAP algorithm considering the presence of the turbo?
Can I manage fuel injection specifically for each cylinder?
Can I manage the spark ignition specifically for each cylinder?
I have the original fuel injection and ignition tables available; can I use them as a starting point to begin tuning?

[digmorepaka]

Should I use the MAP algorithm considering the presence of the turbo?

Absolutely, TPS only fueling is a good way to blow a hole into your piston when running a turbo. You will most likely want to run a hybrid setup where in low throttle you will use TPS, and when the manifold pressure signal becomes usable use the MAP sensor.

Can I manage fuel injection specifically for each cylinder?

That's called sequential trims, if you are running the engine sequentially and have two O2 probes you can definitely utilize them

I have the original fuel injection and ignition tables available; can I use them as a starting point to begin tuning?

Absolutely, they will still need touchup work of course, both from the fact the fact that you're adding forced induction and changing the intake tract, but also because the stock ECU calculates it very differently than speeduino.

As for ignition, OEM ignition table is very useful to have, it saves a ton of dyno time, in the off boost areas you likely wont be changing it much if at all.



I always love to see a motorcycle here!

[PSIG]

+1 to all that. I would also suggst:

I have the original fuel injection and ignition tables available; can I use them as a starting point to begin tuning?

You can use any fuel and ignition tables that allow the engine to start and warm to operating temperature, in order to begin tuning. So yes, you can use transposed factory tables. However, I would not spend much time creating them, as they will change completely before you are done. The table only needs to get the engine running.

If you do use the factory data to create your tables from whatever data sources you have; one example is this thread that you may find useful for general process. But again, I would not spend much time on it, and any generated or general table with primary values for warm idle and max NA timing will get you started. In-fact, a wedge table can be quicker to tune, as it can be clearer which way the timing needs to move when tuning.

Example "wedge" first-start ignition table using a random engine's primary values of 10° idle, 30° max, and +/-15° scaled part-throttle and low-boost timing each way from 100kPa timing, using the principles in the link above:

Example wedge IGN table 10-30-15.png (41.2 KiB) Viewed 1049 times

The table in 3D view, and that it is like a ... wedge.

Example 'wedge' 10-30-15.png (32.62 KiB) Viewed 1049 times

[Domenico.mezzacapo]

I found a way to export the VE tables from the original ECU, I multiplied the values ​​by 0.01 (the maximum value in the table is 9000).
I have both the TPS and MAP tables available, I set the primary one as TPS and the secondary one as MAP.
I'm doing the same with the ignition advance, I have 2 different ones, one for the front cylinder and one for the rear one, can I dedicate the table for the corresponding cylinder?

[LPG2CV]

The 2nd cylinder will always follow the 1st cylinder by a specific number of degrees, so you only need the one ignition table. You can use the 2nd table for boost.

Take a look in Settings - Engine Constants.

Click on Engine Type and you will see you can select an Odd cyclinder configuration. You set how many degrees the 2nd cylinder follows the 1st.

[Domenico.mezzacapo]

I've already set up the engine configuration this way; I thought it was possible to have two different ignition timing tables for each cylinder, as it is on the original ECU.

[LPG2CV]

Not that I have ever come across I can't think why you would want to!

[jonbill]

I suppose like fuel trims, ignition trims per cylinder could be useful for ultimate precision in tuning.

[PSIG]

Yes, and it would be complimentary to the fuel trims. Fuel and ignition are a team. We have ICFT (fuel). I have requested Individual Cylinder Ignition Trims (ICIT) for many years, as it is as common (or more common) than fuel trims for maximizing safety and power in high-output engines or to reduce octane requirement in milder engines.

For example, your V-Twin engine rear cylinder runs slightly hotter than the front cylinder, and can enter detonation earlier. Without ICIT, both cylinders must be de-tuned. ICIT would permit the front cylinder slightly more timing advance to enable both cylinders to reach their maximum performance, with equal safety.

It is common for engines to be unequal in their per-cylinder performance, due to uneven cooling, unequal airflow, compression, exhaust flow, etc. The ICIT allows the total engine potential to not be limited by the cylinder that is weakest.

For now, we can use ICFT to add cooling fuel and slow the burn for some situations, but is not as efficient or coordinated that way, and cannot exceed max-torque fueling without timing even if a cylinder could make more power. Optimally we need both ICFT and ICIT, but can use ICFT for now, in some ways. Hope that helps.

[LPG2CV]

Sorry OP for hijacking your topic. But this is relevent for others who read the topic.

OK. I can see that Though it could be argued that those are flaws in the engine, or engine design. Though again, this would be a cheaper solution.

Would the difference be more than the integer value that is currently available? Or are we talking fractions of a degree?