[Rednaxs60]

@LPG2CV - thanks for the info. Weather is not cooperating, so I did a warmup data log, have a stumble that is quite obvious, need to locate the culprit. Did change AE to TPSdot, tweaked a couple of settings and it works much better. With MAPdot there was a hesitation when doing multiple throttle blips, better using TPSdot. Settings are:
PW Adder
TPSdot threshold - 50% (not too sure about what this actually does). Thinking this has to do with the amount of time to open the throttle. If it takes 1 second to open to 100%, then it would take 1/2 second to open to 50% (?).
Accel Time - 200 ms
Taper Start RPM - 2000
Taper End RPM - 5000
(Rpm range is 0 to 7500)
Understand the temperature constraints

It can stay where it's at for the time being. It is interesting to see how the engine reacts when AE kicks in. Supposed to clear up today, get a couple of tuning rides in.

Was watching the Tune Analyze Live during warmup, not much change, but the WUE chart is interesting. Will get more familiar with this feature as I progress:

Warmup TS Live Tune - 11 Feb 2024.jpg (77.59 KiB) Viewed 1021 times

Will try to correlate this graph with the warmup data log.

Warmup.zip

(610.35 KiB) Downloaded 28 times

[Rednaxs60]

Good news IMO. The change to the AE from MAPdot to TPSdot with some changes in the settings made a difference in engine performance and operation. Shift change was smooth, no "bucking" when shifting. There was no hesitation when I rolled the throttle on faster than necessary. This was the only change for the road trial today.

Had TS Tune Analyze Live in play during the road trial. Interesting final graph:

Tune Analyze Live 1.JPG (89.31 KiB) Viewed 999 times

Did not accept changes, but there appears to be enough data to have TS make some convincing recommended changes. My understanding is the greener the plot the better. I notice that the initial plot is primarily red, the final plot is a "sea" of green. I have searched this forum and the internet for thoughts on this.

I did a further look at the various VE table changes in MLV for an AFR of 13.6:1, and 13.7:1 to compare VE table cell values. The TS Tune Analyze Live analysis and the values for an AFR of 13.6:1 or 13.7:1 are quite similar. Not ready to accept the TS Tune Analyze Live values just yet, but it is good to notice the similarities in VE table cell values.

This graph is another tool in the arsenal, one I intend to make use of.

Quick question, what is the "Save on ECU" feature?

[PSIG]

My understanding is the greener the plot the better.

No, the colors are differential, error or change. Regard colors as simply making it easier to read value trends or areas. Green is not better, as TS does not know what is "better". TS and MLV can only adjust to the targets you set. You have not found the best targets to set, nor set them, yet. You are skipping a critical step in the process.

The TS Tune Analyze Live analysis and the values for an AFR of 13.6:1 or 13.7:1 are quite similar.

Yes, as the error differential is small. The current problem is that neither AFR is the one that should be used in those cells.

Quick question, what is the "Save on ECU" feature?

"Apply" temporarily loads the values to run on (testing), while "Save on ECU" saves the values to the tune. Whenever you have question about a function or feature, either hover over it for a pop-up, or go to the top-right search box to find it. The info is very limited, but may either answer your question or provide a lead to more info to search elsewhere.

TS VEA Apply-Save.jpg (35.82 KiB) Viewed 977 times

[Rednaxs60]

@PSIG - Find that the more tuning is done, the more features are being discussed and trying to get a handle on the big picture. Road trial today - have adjusted the VE table cell values - blocked the area 80 to 60 KPa and 2500 to 3500 RPM, and using an AFR value of 13.6:1 in the block. Starting to climb out of AFR red zone. Noticed the AFR gauge readings for the 2500 to 3000 RPM and 70-85 KPa still dipping into the AFR red zone. Going to change VE table cell values to compensate. Need to lean out. Next road trial will be for timing, advance 1-2 points in the 2500 to 4000 RPM.

Went to start the engine and no fuel pump. Why, don't know. Temp power to FP with an off/switch. Let's me get on with the road trials. Noticed that the FP is a power hog, will investigate, but road trials will continue.

[Rednaxs60]

Looking at the ignition timing table. RPM is in 500 RPM increments, huge range for the ECU to interpolate. Would be nice to have a better resolution in the 2000 to 4000 RPM range. The cell values in the columns for the 7000/7500 RPM range are extremely close in all tables. The riding profile is such that riding in these RPM ranges will be far and few between, and maybe if I want to get "frisky" for get up and go quickly.

Having an extra column in the 2000/4000 RPM range would smooth out the timing in the 2000/4000 range. Instead of having 2000/2500/3000/3500/4000 RPM columns, have 2000/2400/2800/3200/3600/4000 RPM columns (drop the 7000 RPM column). Initial timing would be 22/25/28/31/34/38 instead of 22/26/30/38/38. Thinking the easier it is for the ECU to interpolate the engine data the better the result(s).

This initial spark (ignition) table can and will be adjusted to better suit the engine tune, but has been mentioned, it is probably based on a basic distributor setup as like many others. The VE and AFR tables would also need adjustment, but this could be a good thing as well.

Something to consider later on - thinking out loud, VE FIRST!!

[PSIG]

We don't need 123x123 cell tables, as we have interpolation and can move our cell spacing. A huge advantage over some other systems. Table spacing is a valuable tool. Move 'em where you need 'em: viewtopic.php?p=58581#p58581

... This initial spark (ignition) table can and will be adjusted to better suit the engine tune, but has been mentioned, it is probably based on a basic distributor setup as like many others.

While the table (alone) in the OEM ECM emulates the base mechanical advance, I'll bet the MAP sensors were used to also emulate vac advance to alter the timing in the table. As "vacuum advance" was well -established for decades when your bike was made, and Honda tends to apply more-advanced tech, I really can't imagine the table was the only source of timing control. My point is that I would not assume it's "OK" to assume that, and part of my reason for suggesting to spot-tune both fuel and timing as you go.

You're going there anyway. Get to it while you're there, so that 'big picture' of relationships develops as you get along. Some of those "AHA!" moments are waiting for you there.

[Rednaxs60]

Thanks for the comments. Looked at your post on the other thread, and it is a good example of what I mentioned. Have a new tune made up with the changes I mentioned. Will be trialing today. Not assuming that Honda's timing plot is spot on, but it does work well, JHolland mentioned this as well. Still need to sort out the FP issue.

[Rednaxs60]

Road trial done today, pleased with the change in tune, but the AFR is all over the place, the fuel injector PW as well. Reviewed today's log and wonder why the fluctuation is there. There doesn't seem to be a culprit that jumps to the front.

Have read and viewed videos regarding fuel injector pulse width. Understand that a pulse width of 2.5 to 3.5 ms. Mr Andy Whittle, like his videos, mentions that when the fuel injector PW gets below approximately 2.0 ms you are treading in an area that is not very controllable, nor is it in that area for the fuel injector curve that is more linear.

The data log from today had the fuel injectors trending from an approximate low of 1.6 ms to upwards of 6.0 ms when on the road. Over the next few days I will try to stabilize the fuel injector PW. Idle is approximately 2.2 ms at this time. Will look at the RF of 5.9 and fuel injector open time of 0.8 ms. Voltage is at a constant 14.2 VDC so this should not be an issue.

RF will be looked at. Using TS RF calculator, should be at approximately 6.4 ms, have it at 5.9 ms.

Not sure where I will go with this, but I have read posts/threads where fuel injector characteristics need to be addressed. Can do a few road trips to determine if the RF and fuel injector open time can be better dialed in with the present engine tune. Then back to VE adjustments. Peripheral components adjustment(s) may help.

[JHolland]

Have read and viewed videos regarding fuel injector pulse width. Understand that a pulse width of 2.5 to 3.5 ms. Mr Andy Whittle, like his videos, mentions that when the fuel injector PW gets below approximately 2.0 ms you are treading in an area that is not very controllable, nor is it in that area for the fuel injector curve that is more linear.

That depends on the injector and the engine, for example, my Swift has an idle PW around 1.2ms including the dead time. When you are swapping from a stock EFI setup its useful to log a few of these parameters first to allow a few 'sanity checks', sometimes the FSM includes information like this, unfortunately the GW FSM is quite poor in that respect.

[Rednaxs60]

@JHolland - thanks, Honda was very guarded with its information, so experimentation is the name of the game. Be interesting to know what the techs of the day were allowed to do. My thoughts are that it is better to do a bit of troubleshooting/fuel injector setup at idle at this point, then move forward with the tuning. As mentioned, starting with an open time of 0.8 ms, and an RF of 5.8 ms. If I were to change the fuel injectors (larger or smaller), I'd be doing this exercise as well.

The fuel injectors are closing to a lesser PW on deceleration, every now and then I do see the PW lessen with a steady RPM/speed, causing a lean condition, as mentioned to a PW low of approximately 1.6 ms. The PW, and lean AFR readings really came into focus when I changed the RPM ranges on the tables, adding another column in the area that is generally operated in, and let MLV interpolate. The table RPM values being used are now 2000/2400/2800/3200/3600/4000 RPM for the tables instead of 2000/2500/3000/3500/4000/4500 RPM.

Ride in the 2800 to 3200 RPM range for most times - 3000 RPM in 3rd is approximately 60 KPH (~40 MPH) - 3000 RPM in 4th is approximately 80 KPH (50 MPH) - (3000/3200 RPM in OD (5th) is approximately 100 KPH (62 MPH) - 4000 RPM is approximately 120 KPH (75 MPH), and try to keep it in this range when in the lower gears as well. - not lugging the engine, start of the power band. The idle area has not been touched.

As an aside, went into TS and looked at the Graphing and Logging feature, very nice. I think I'll relate better to the dash screen gauges and when I see what I thought might be an issue, look at the data log traces.

More to follow. Cheers.