Second firmware live stream happening this weekend: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3992
Help with building your Speeduino, installing it, getting it to run etc.
By Black Knight
#42973
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO (1) ENGINE CONSTANTS.



There seems to be very little on this part of setting up your tune.

I kinda get the idea that it will make your tune leaner or richer if you change this value.
BUT.
Is it a percentage change of the fuel tuning like if you change the 14.7 by 5% the tune will change the tune by 5%?

I would like to know how it affects the tune.

Is it only used for tuning for rich or lean or can it be used after a tune is good to alter the tune for a richer or leaner out come.

I read on one thread that if you change firmware and you find you are rich or lean from this firmware change you can use stoich ratio to correct the ratio and not need to re-tune as much.

It seems to be a very nice tool for many areas of tuning. It just would be smart to know what it dose so less mistakes happen.

I have gotten real good results with O2 sensor calibration changes for changing the way my tune works but stoich ratio would be a much better and simpler way to do this I think.



Thanks to all in advance on this.

Black Knight
By ric355
#42981
Black Knight wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:12 pm
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO (1) ENGINE CONSTANTS.



There seems to be very little on this part of setting up your tune.

I kinda get the idea that it will make your tune leaner or richer if you change this value.
BUT.
Is it a percentage change of the fuel tuning like if you change the 14.7 by 5% the tune will change the tune by 5%?

I would like to know how it affects the tune.

Is it only used for tuning for rich or lean or can it be used after a tune is good to alter the tune for a richer or leaner out come.

I read on one thread that if you change firmware and you find you are rich or lean from this firmware change you can use stoich ratio to correct the ratio and not need to re-tune as much.

It seems to be a very nice tool for many areas of tuning. It just would be smart to know what it dose so less mistakes happen.

I have gotten real good results with O2 sensor calibration changes for changing the way my tune works but stoich ratio would be a much better and simpler way to do this I think.



Thanks to all in advance on this.

Black Knight
The stoich value is not used by the firmware at all at the moment.
#42985
ric355 wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 1:34 pm

ric355

The stoich value is not used by the firmware at all at the moment.


Thank you ric355

Nice straight up answer.

I hope more people read this so they don't think it will help for now.

I will now use what I have found to work.

Req fuel for resolution.

O2 calibration to adjust tune for rich and lean change.

And AFR target percentage for corrections as needed.

These all work very well so Speedy and TS are good enough as they are.



Thanks again.

Black Knight
User avatar
By PSIG
#42990
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.
#42997
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.

Thanks David.


Black Knight
#42999
I do read everything you do :) because I do not know not enough yet. Have try the Stoichiomatric ratio and notice it does nothing :) My problem is that I have a feeling that speeduino do to much. Now I run the engine on the D-jetronic and do read values via speeduino and TS at same time. WB AME gauge and TS gauge show same. Car runs 13-14 afr steady on D-jetronic. PW is almost same that speeduino do, so it should be very close to correct. But if I run on speeduino it jumps around 4-6 cells. I do logs on it in TS same time it runs on D-jetronic, so I see the values, rpm, afr, pw, map and so on. I try to figure how copy those values to a VE and AFR table and run speeduino on that.
#43001
Torslund wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:08 am
I do read everything you do :) because I do not know not enough yet. Have try the Stoichiomatric ratio and notice it does nothing :) My problem is that I have a feeling that speeduino do to much. Now I run the engine on the D-jetronic and do read values via speeduino and TS at same time. WB AME gauge and TS gauge show same. Car runs 13-14 afr steady on D-jetronic. PW is almost same that speeduino do, so it should be very close to correct. But if I run on speeduino it jumps around 4-6 cells. I do logs on it in TS same time it runs on D-jetronic, so I see the values, rpm, afr, pw, map and so on. I try to figure how copy those values to a VE and AFR table and run speeduino on that.
First of all, I have a limited knowledge of D-jetronic, one of the first electronic ECUs. I've also worked with K-jetronic, and I know, they are not the same.

I've read a few pieces of your threads and you have quite an interesting challenge and interesting idea. I would like to see you succeed, but I have to admit what you are doing will force me to learn more and that would be good for me. Hope I learn enough where I can be good enough to help you.

I think your issue is similar to what I'm working on with the table resolution, O2 calibration, CCs, Req Fuel, AFR target and Y-bins. There may be more but the objective is to get the target AFR and the outcome of the tune to be dead on. This is my goal right now because it can make tuning dead on or it can create nothing but problems.

There is something that might help you here. If you think your fuel calculations are correct, you may have an ignition timing problem. I had a few spots that were over advanced and this change gives you either a false rich or false lean result.

I've only been studying this area of using base tune to control fine tune for about 6 weeks and I'm still learning things everyday, so working with you to solve your problem will help me.

Wow, thanks for the compliment, hope I can live up to it. I will view your logs and thread next chance I get.

Two experimenters sharing. Could be good.

Thanks.

Black Knight
#43009
Torslund wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:08 am
I do read everything you do :) because I do not know not enough yet. Have try the Stoichiomatric ratio and notice it does nothing :) My problem is that I have a feeling that speeduino do to much. Now I run the engine on the D-jetronic and do read values via speeduino and TS at same time. WB AME gauge and TS gauge show same. Car runs 13-14 afr steady on D-jetronic. PW is almost same that speeduino do, so it should be very close to correct. But if I run on speeduino it jumps around 4-6 cells. I do logs on it in TS same time it runs on D-jetronic, so I see the values, rpm, afr, pw, map and so on. I try to figure how copy those values to a VE and AFR table and run speeduino on that.

I looked at your thread on Jag v12. You have gotten some real good help there.

The last request from the speedy men was to post your msq. Good advice.

I did see you found your car likes 12 to 1 afr at idle. That seems rich to me unless you have wild cams or some such mod to the motor.

It implies that the Speedy board may be getting false data. This implies that you may have something with sensors or calibration or configuration wrong to give the false data.

I am not sure what sensors you are using but it did sound like you may be mixing some from d-jet and some you added later. If so, calibration would be a fun challenge. Not sure on this last statement about mixed sensors.

Msq will help.

I would also like to see the O2 sensor log data to see if the voltage and afr are kinda normal.

Very interesting.

You are almost as wacky as I am with ideas, but fun.

I would like to see you win on this.

Are you still active on the Jag v12 thread? If so I will join you there.

What I have been working on is base tune. This includes calibration, and configurations and if set right they give valid data. So, I may be able to help??????

I will also ask about how the physical things are set up as a lot of problems I have had are not the ECU or sensors.

Like where is your map sensor vac line hooked up. Too close to the intake valve and you will get your fluctuations on the VE table. And or the map sensor filter is set too low.

Black Knight

Just be careful with the firing order.... as the […]

I fixed the timing problem, it has no jitter now. […]

New 202005 firmware

is it possible there's something particular in you[…]

Yes although a simple trigger for fuel only will s[…]

Still can't find what you're looking for?