PSIG wrote: ↑
Wed May 20, 2020 7:06 pm
I use my logs to help identify the source of errors. For example, I will initially test several different "spots" across the VE Table, to see if they are generally rich or lean. If the test spots are all roughly in-error by similar amounts (all spots rich or all lean), then Req_fuel needs adjustment, which affects the entire table. If they are different errors rich and
lean, then VE needs adjustment. Hope that helps.
Yes it helps.
I have used CCs to set VE table resolution to get higher VE numbers to make tuning more accurate.
CCs will change Req fuel but Req fuel seems not to change CCs. CCs wil change the number value of the VE table, but if I hear you right Req fuel will change the fuel ratio of the tune and richen or lean the tune.
I thought they did the same thing. Guess not.
I will test this soon. Could be useful.
I have been using O2 calibration as one way to do this.
If I extend the lean end of the O2 calibration there is a greater affect on the lean end than on the rich end. Kinda like a bell curve. Shift both ends in the same direction and it all changes evenly. And there are more options with one end or two ends. But you must stay within the limits of the O2 or the afr gauge reads unstable. Found my O2s lean best today and now it is never stuck on lean and hits afr target smooth and fast.
I also have used the y bins to give more weight to a particular KPa area if I find that area lean or rich.
Then there is good old AFR target for each KPa range.
All of these work well in their own but similar way.
I am not even sure that the stoich ratio on engine constants would do anything new, it just looked like something that I should understand. Now I don't need to experiment with it. Good.
All is good and my tune works very well.
As I learn more about Speedy and TS I find most of the problems with it are the tuner. Me.
Great system and it is just getting to be fun now.
I still will have things to learn. That is what I like about it.