[LPG2CV]

Have you looked at your log in megalogviewer? If you haven't,you should learn to use it. You can download it for free.

Next step may be to get a better shape to the VE table by reducing the active rpm in O2 corrections. You only needed to set it out of range when adjusting idle. I suggest perhaps setting to 1200 rpm.

Assuming you have a licensed version of TS, you can use the autotune feature. In the autotune screen, you can right click on on cells you have selected, and lock them. So, in the first instance, lock the idle cells. This will prevent autotune from altering the VE values in those cells. Then some gentle driving at sustained rpm to allow autotune sufficient sampling time to adjust the VE. Don't get to enthusiastic about it as your advance table is not proven yet. you will still need to revisit the hesitation point in your tune, but this may go part way to solving it.

Enjoy

[HugoW]

Yeah, I have paid versions of both TunerStudio and MegalogViewerHD. They helped me a lot getting a decent tune. I looked at this morning's log, you can clearly see the lean spikes after the TPS DOT spikes. I, just as a test, doubled the acceleration enrichment values, and did a log again this afternoon. You can still see the TPS DOT spikes, followed by a lean spike, but now followed by a rich part. It didn't cure the lean spike, despite the double fuel adder. Weird. Makes me think the lean spike originates somewhere else. But where...

My active O2 corrections are off (only active above 7k rpm) as I don't want it to interfear with the tuning process. There is no closed loop (or open loop for that matter) now, I want it to be OK across the tables and only let the corrections handle weather influences.

Hugo

[HugoW]

Is your VE table tune complete and 100% finalised?

If it's not then you shouldn't be working on anything else until then.

It is as close to good as I can get it myself without a rolling road.

Hugo

[HugoW]

Hugo,
Can't see the pictures either.
Are your files stored in a cloud somewhere ?

IAC, are you sure you didn't wire or put it in backwards in some way.
Because if it loses power or isn't controlled it should shut down and no causing your engine to run at 6K, je wilt geen Marco Bakkertje !!

Injectors, like mentioned bij others get the voltage correction and deadtime spot on.
Because every time the voltage drops or raises it effects the delay (deadtime) of injector.
Using big injectors gives very small opening times close to deadtime at idle.
So tuning idle and alternator puts out 13Vdc everything seem to run well.
Now putting headlights on, voltage drops and engine starts running crap.
That is the effect of not sufficient voltage correction, you shouldn't use the the IAC to compensate on this.

Then there is an other thing on injectors and deadtime.
The closer you get to deadtime it might not respond lineair any more.

Where do you live the Netherlands ?
I'am somewhere in the middle.....

Thanks. I'll have a look at what is wrong with the pics again, they are in my Google Photos.

The IAC cannot be wired backwards, it's a two wire coil. I've tried disconnecting it. I remember it not spiking the revs when I switched IAC controls off in firmware 202008, soo despite everybody telling me it isn't, I still think it's a bug in 202012. But I just keep it on closed loop, now, and all seems well. The PID settings probably could be improved upon, but it works good enough to drive.

The voltage from the alternator is rock steady at 14V. In the logs, even when the engine stumbles to 400 rpm and does or does not recover, the system voltage is 14V. It's the NB alternator, with an external controller, which obviously does it's job well.

I live in Sint-Oedenrode, near Eindhoven. I used to live in the middle of the Netherlands but moved here for my job and I love it here. I do drive up to the Utrecht area regularly to my inlaws, but with the Corona that happens a lot less often.

Hugo

[HugoW]

Just to try, I drove around with the same tune, only change is I doubled the acceleration enrichment values. Here's the log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQqnPW ... sp=sharing
The lean spikes are still there, not noticably smaller. Which is weird. It does add a rich spike, now, afterwards. It is as if the correction is too slow.

At 23,7 seconds into the log, I have a huge lean spike. I opened throttle, obvilously not enough to activate TPSdot, AFR rockets to 19.5, which is the max reading the sensor gives.
At 27.239, I have an active TPSdot spike and accompanying Acceleration enrichment spike, no noticable AFR change but a big lean spike a few tenth of a second later at 27,868 seconds.

These are my current acceleration enrichment settings:

Accelleration enrichment 2.PNG (53.2 KiB) Viewed 5559 times

I'm considering to lower the TPSdot threshold to 0, as I have no weird TPSdot signals, it's a pretty clean signal it seems so far.

And I tried something else with the pics in the first post, please see if you can see them, now.

Hugo

[LAV1000]

Hugo,

Only pics in the first post and latest are visible.
I live in Nijkerk.

Did look at your latest settings and data log.
Injector closing time at 355is this where the intake valve is already open ?
Most end to injection settings use the a closed intake valve timing, bit more heat into the fuel mixture so it evaporates better.
Also something happening on the ignition.
When tps and map are rising rpm goes up but ignition drops a degree ?
Also AE taper starts at 1000rpm, if engine idles below 1000.......

[PSIG]

There is a lower limit to the AE response. Speeduino reads TPS relatively slowly, so instant response may not be possible. IIRC, someone here calculated it to be 35ms between reads in code a year or two old. This lag had caused frustrations or confusion with tuning TPS AE.

That said, also check your Analog Filters. They are not set for anything in-particular, nor even as a suggested starting point. In TS under Tools > Set Analog Sensor Filters, all of the filters should be adjusted to minimum effective levels in order to improve response.

For this testing, I would suggest only changing MAP first for effect, then adjust the others as you would normally do for their added effects if any. Of course, there is a balance involved, but it may be of interest to the community in how your filter adjustments change engine operation or response on your specific setup in any way.

David

[HugoW]

Thanks for the input, PSIG and LAV1000, I'd digg into this and come back.

In the meantime, there is another part I'm still struggling with, the VVT control. And since I posted a help request on Facebook and got an answer, I'll post the data here. Be ware, this is from one enthousiastic contributer / Speeduino user, I have not tested it. Will do, hopefully soon.

These are the settings used to control the VVT closed loop (open loop does not work on this engine, as there is no direct fixed relationship between PWM value and VVT angle, the PWM controls a valve controling oil flow to a mechanism. This mechanism responds differently at different RPM, loads, oil temps, etc):


And the related table:


I tried these settings before, but they didn't work for me. However, I now got the additional info that the user does not have a diode across the valve wires. I do. It helped me greatly to get the IAC valve going, give it more precision. However, adding it to the VVT might give it too much precision, making it too difficult for Speeduino to control. I will desolder the diode, load the values conform his settings, and see what I get.

As a side note, I am not really after the perfect tune, I am just looking for a decent driveable tune. When I have that, I will mount the turbo and all stuff that goes with it. Once that is up and running semi-decently, I will get the car professionally tuned on a rolling road.

Hugo

[HugoW]

So close, and yet so far away...

Today I received a VVT control settings overview from someone who has got the VVT fairly stable, with the diode over the output port in place. Here they are:

And his table:


I changed my settings accordingly and started the car. At cold idle the VVT was searching / hunting a little bit, but quite soon it settled and it worked! For about 10 minutes or so with the car idling in the driveway to warm up (I was working at Warmup Enrichment) and for the next few minutes driving around, it worked. I had noticeably more more mid-range power, and on my screen (datalogging for this does not work in 202012 firmware) I could see the system working. OK, not 100% perfect, but close. I doubt the original ECU would do a better job.

And then, the lot froze. The PWM number froze at 38, which is the hold duty, and does not move from it anymore. Leaving the VVT angle around -5, -3, 0. I reset and restarted everything, in the next drive the system immideately froze at 26 duty cycle. In the third drive, all on the same settings, it was back to freezing on 38. But it did work in the beginning! No settings changes! The car war properly warm in all three drives! What could be going on? It is taking this hold duty a bit too serious, I think. I tried switching that off, but that didn't change anything. Bummer. What could be happening?

All input is appreciated.
Cheers,

Hugo

[LAV1000]

Hugo,
VVT, Coil, Diode.
If you switching a coil off you get a voltage spike much higher then then applied voltage.
No when putting a diode in parallel across the coil then voltage is cut down and the spike energy is put back into the coil.

When doing this way the coil reacts slower because of the returned energy.
Now when it reacts slower you can set the 300 Hz lower like 250, 200, 150 maybe.
But then you also need to tune the PID again.
This way the whole system has more time to respond to changes.
Then there is also the "load" parameter if you filter to much then VVT controller can't catch up because its info is to late.
Try to read and understand something about PID controller settings, check you tube on it.
Use a common explanation on it and not specific MX5 related.
Otherwise you are just putting numbers in certain area's and still don't understand what you are doing