My experience is that the 10% ethanol makes the mixture approx. 3% leaner. I looked at the O2 adaptation values on a "modern" car (with and without ethanol).

My next step is to find what influence the pipe has. Because the motronic is actually measuring the air volume, I didn't think this would make such a difference (except at WOT of course).

Even at WOT the AFM signal is used to calculate mixture till about 5200RPMs where the AFM is maxed out, after 5200RPM at WOT mixture is calculated based on RPM. It's a myth that's been going around for some time that AFM signal is not used at WOT. I know because I have dis-assembled the program code and can clearly see the AFM involved even at WOT.

Typically, you only need to set your base mixture with the Ethanol blended fuels and these cars run fine.

I could tell by the rpm values in the WOT fuel table that somewhere in the 5000rpm region the values from AFM are not used. It's good to know that someone has actually verified this by looking into the code. Do you have any documentation regarding the code that a non software guy can understand? In what region in the map do you think I will mainly need look at to compensate for the pipe? Can I simply disconnect the O2 sensor when I start calibrating the fuel map or is it better to load a euro bin and fill it with my modified US maps? Great thread...Thanks!

No need to change bins. Simply unplug the O2 sensor and do ALL tuning with it unplugged. You MUST have a WBO2 system to monitor AFR. The system also needs to be able to log at least AFR vs RPM. Then simply pull a WOT run in 2nd gear. For the first few runs concentrate on the 2000-5500RPM range no need to push past 5500RPMs. Then add or remove fuel in the correct places in the WOT Fuel Map to you achieve 13.0AFR across the RPM range. In the stock configuration these cars run very rich at WOT down in the 12.5AFR! Factory did this as safety margin, but these cars really like the 12.8 to 13.2AFR range at WOT.

Then you can also adjust your WOT Ign timing as well but I don't advice doing this till you really know what your doing.

Is this a US or EURO engine? What grade fuel do you run? 93 octane?

I really can't tell you what the effects of the by-pass pipe are, best way is to simply pull the WOT run and look at the AFR curve against RPMs you will then instantly see at what RPMs you are lean or rich and target 13.0AFR across the board.

Next, I'll tell you it's fine to tune the WOT fuel and ignition but this is not where you typically run on the street. I really found the best results by tuning the PartThrottle ignition and fuel. But to do this it must be done on a load dyno cell by cell. I'll only say that the factory PT ignition is far from optimal! It does not generate best torque for most cells, especially the first 4 lo-load rows of the table. I'm not sure why the factory did this? Tuning the car in the PT tables really wakes these cars up! Throttle response is much better and lo-end torque also increases.

PM me if you have more questions.

hello

Sorry for my English

I am French, I have a Porsche 914/6

engine 3.2 USA
CR 9.5
SSi headers Ø43mm
camshaft porsche 964 3.6 timing 1.26mm
megasquirt II V3

which table ignition do you recommend?

picture of my 914


thank's erwan

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1333631438.jpg

up ??

Erwan,

Single spark plug or twin plug?
If single plug I'd start with the 84-89 3.2L ignition table.
If dual plug I'd use the 964 ignition.

These of course are just safe starting points.

Erwan,

Single spark plug or twin plug?
If single plug I'd start with the 84-89 3.2L ignition table.
If dual plug I'd use the 964 ignition.

These of course are just safe starting points.


hello

single spark (EDIS6)

89 tables are up 58% on the Megasquirt is written 100%

58% = 100%?

I begun with programmable injection

thank's erwan



http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...4150759280.jpg

example table Megasquirt

http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...2053936035.jpg

hello

single spark (EDIS6)

89 tables are up 58% on the Megasquirt is written 100%

58% = 100%?

I begun with programmable injection

thank's erwan

erwan,

without going into great details yes 58% = 100%

But better yet use the WOT ignition map as the 100% load in MSII table.

Running 34deg ign at 5400RPM could have you in danger zone. If you have not determined those ign values on a load dyno you may want to back off and not exceed 30degrees.

Also do NOT assume the stock 3.2L ign table is tuned to achieve max cyl pressure in Part Load conditions. The factory PT table is far from optimal cyl pressure / torque tune.

I think if you back off to 30 deg max at full 100% load you'll be safe. Then get some dyno time on a load dyno and tune in the PT table.

hello

the table above was an example

here is the table that I put in the Megasquirt. this is a good starting point ?


http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...0753792350.jpg

"Also do NOT assume the stock 3.2L ign table is tuned to achieve max cyl pressure in Part Load conditions. The factory PT table is far from optimal cyl pressure / torque tune."

Really, and what do you base this on? You've done dyno runs using knock sensors in a
controlled temperature environment to fully evaluate what the maximum and save
timing should be for an engine management system without knock control,
e.g. 911 3.2, right? Porsche with its knock control ECMs, e.g. 928/964/993,
retards the timing up to nine degrees from their idea 'tuning' to protect the
engine from detonation which is NOT possible after 'tuning' a 911 3.2.
Read here for more info: http://www.systemsc.com/tests.htm

Bottom line: It doesn't take any great 'tuning' effort to effect performance,
as it's simple engine basics that a one degree change in timing will result
in a four HP change at the mid to upper RPM range, but will it be safe is the
real issue? As has been said before, 'tuning' is a joke!

Loren,

I removed my initial post, it adds no value to this thread. Not worth the time to respond or read.

Thanks.

some good fundamental info here. can we keep this thread on topic? i would like to hear more on tuning theory than "whats the best a/f for my car?" getting a tune that makes a good driving/running car is more than a/f targets

Thanks

Just get on a dyno runned by a competent operator.

thank you for your help, sorry for my english

if I understand well the table 89 is not the best to start?

at:Tests

http://nsa22.casimages.com/img/2012/...1319691822.jpg
WOT = maximum load ?

why the charge stops at 60%

after your comment I made this table, when do you?

http://nsa22.casimages.com/img/2012/...1429420669.jpg
@+ erwan

I think your original response was fine.

That said, keep up the good work! Your knowledge of Motronic tuning is in the big leagues.

Erwan,

This is a much better starting point for ignition.

As for your question on the load axis being 58% all I'll say is stop trusting the axis the Motronic load axis is NOT load! The folks who built the motronic editor did a fine job at the time but did not really understand how that load axis works and is selected by the software. I have a lot of time invested in my research and don't plan to disclose every detail as some of my finding will go into a product very soon. I will say that you should simply treat the last 58% row as very hi-load like 90% or 90KPA on the map sensor.

I also sent you a PM did you get it?

http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...3055586943.jpg

position sensor BMW 320I

http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...3843661226.jpg

picture my engine

Erwan,

Is this TPS and MAP setup or TPS only?
Also do you have Intake Air Temp Sensor?

Some questions:

1. Is that a BMW TPS?
2. I see Motorcraft wires. I assume you are using Ford EDIS?
3. Who made your crank trigger?
4. Are you running Motronic?
5. If you are using Motronic, how did you adapt a TPS? Using a later version or did you buy the aftermarket modified Motronic from the British company (can't think of their name)?

yes sensor air : GM Open Element IAT Sensor
http://nsa22.casimages.com/img/2012/...0404429406.jpg

Is this TPS and MAP setup or TPS only? =I do not understand

The 911 3.2 DME ECM is a very simple engine management to understand, troubleshoot,
and diagnose compared to other systems. Yet many attempt to either 'tune' that system
or utilize other engine management systems and lack the simple 3.2 basics!
This is exemplified by the fact that many can't even fix basic 3.2 running problems.
That's why the whole issue of 'performance tuning' is such a joke!

1: yes TPS BMW

2: edis FORD
http://nsa22.casimages.com/img/2012/...1142128727.jpg

4 megasquirt 2 v3

Ah, sorry about that erwan. Since you were asking "scarceller" questions about igntion, I thought it was Motronic related.

Have you got yours started yet and running? Assuming no. Still trying to figure out why mine does not.

Loren,

The internals (software) of the motronic is far from simple. I was amazed how much thought was given to the software design, I have fully disassembled the code over the past 4 years. Once I fully understood the code I then re-wrote the appropriate portions to properly handle a MAF conversion. I will say that I'm very glad I took the time to understand the stock program code and stick with the Motronic system.

With this said I now also know howto setup a after market system to follow the design principles I discovered in the Motronic. When I started the journey my goal was to keep the stock DME as I felt it was a great platform that only needed to be understood.

In the end there really is not much a after market ECU can add to these 3.2L engines in term of HP and Torque. What I'm saying is that given the same tune settings of AFR and Ignition the Motronic will perform just as well as any after market system, so long as both have same level of tune.

I have also come to the conclusion that for a street drivable car you can't beat the simplicity of a MAF system it's far better than the AFM in terms of keeping AFRs on target regardless of IATemps or altitude corrections. My converted MAF setup just keeps AFRs constant no matter what happens to IATs or Altitude. Cold start is also much improved.

In the picture I can see the TPS sensor but are you also using a Manifold Pressure Sensor? Is this speed density system, alpha-N, or a blend of the 2 systems?

Looks like it may just be a TPS AlphaN system where load is directly related to Throttle Position? AlphaN is usually only used in track cars and is very basic setup.

I never equiped the montronic. I buy the engine 3.2 and I have immediately equiped the Megasquirt

Sal, will you develop a Motronic platform that is speed density? MAF's are not good for boosted applications as I am sure you are aware due to the trickery. If you adapted a MAP sensor, guys could start boosting their 3.2's the right way without trickery.

I would have kept the Motronic but, I didn't like to run 110 PSI of fuel pressure and the AFM being maxxed out long before the engine had reached full hp, etc. I had to go to MegaSquirt to do it the right way.......plus I couldn't figure out what was going wrong with my Motronic period.

You are running naturally aspirated or boost? If naturally aspirated, I would just use the Motronic for it's simplicity and reliability.

In the picture I can see the TPS sensor but are you also using a Manifold Pressure Sensor? MPX4250 2.5 Bar MAP Sensor in the megasquirt



http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...3205564624.jpg

megasquit with the blue pipe where the sensor is connected

http://nsa21.casimages.com/img/2012/...3802714046.jpg

"I have also come to the conclusion that for a street drivable car you can't beat the simplicity of a MAF system it's far better than the AFM in terms of keeping AFRs on target regardless of IATemps or altitude corrections. My converted MAF setup just keeps AFRs constant no matter what happens to IATs or Altitude. Cold start is also much improved."

Anyone that's properly evaluated dyno runs understands the AFRs have little effect
on torque over the range of 11 to 14. That's the big scam in 'performance tuning'.
It's all about just 'pushing' the timing! Hardly takes any real expertise, i.e. just
a PC, a simple app, and an EPROM programmer.

I could do TPS / MAP but I don't see the point. Why do you say MAF is not good for boosted applications? The Maf I'm using has tons of headroom, the 3.2L only pulls about 14,000g/min of air and my MAF can accurately measure 22,000g/min which is tons of head room for boost. The MAF could go on either side of the turbo (suction or pressure side) Placing it on pressure side between the turbo and TB makes most sense since it will correctly compensate for air temp.

What have you heard about MAF not being good for turbo? Plenty of stock OEM turbo systems use MAF.

All the boosted cars I've been around, you had to trick the MAF once boosted in one form or the other.

I can see if you have a MAF large enough that can measure the airflow, you are fine. But, don't you still need the MAP so the engine knows it is under boost?

Loren,

You make it sound so simple, but you really need expertise to know howto properly use a dyno to tune. Also I don't even use a EPROM programer, you MUST have a full blown real-time emulator that let's you change chip parameters on the fly live while on the dyno. It's not as simple as you say. Please recognize the experts and the abilities they have.

Have you ever live tuned on a load dyno? Have you ever seen it done? Do you know the detailed procedures we follow? Also this is exactly how the OEM tuners do it also. I suggest you buy a few books, start with the books written by Greg Banish. After you read these and educate yourself then feel free to chat with me. Learn a little about Greg's background then judge us.

No, why should we care if under boost or not? The math for fuel calculations simply looks at intake airflow and then calculates amount of fuel for the given airflow. It does not care if the flow was accomplished by forced induction. Of course you modify the adders for fuel to richen up after VE=1 and also pull timing out but this has nothing to do with initial fuel calcs. I could be wrong here, but I think MAF should work just fine with Boost.

"You make it sound so simple, but you really need expertise to know howto properly use a dyno to tune. Also I don't even use a EPROM programer, you MUST have a full blown real-time emulator that let's you change chip parameters on the fly live while on the dyno. It's not as simple as you say. Please recognize the experts and the abilities they have."

You have no idea what I've done with Porsche/BMW/Mercedes engine management
systems in the last 20+ years. It appears the you have been reading too many posts
here on Pelican about 'tuning' and sucked-up the snake oil! Your statements about
MAF and effects on performance confirms the irrelevance of AFR 'tuning' (tweaking)
when within the range of 11 to 14. Yes using my emulator does simplify the process
but doesn't determine the final results. What has more effect on torque, a one degree
in timing or a one point change in AFR? You and others obviously don't understand
this or like to scam others into believing that 'tuning' is more than just 'pushing' timing.

My thinking has always been this:

If a naturally aspirated engine flowed, let's say 1000 CFM of airflow, that engine required a given amount of fuel.

Now, if a boosted engine flowed the same exact 1000 CFM of airflow, it would require more fuel due to the higher cylinder pressure to minimize detonation.

So, that theory goes back to a MAF system still needing a MAP to my thinking.

I could be wrong and please someone correct me if so. This might be an old school way of thinking from roots blowers with no intercooler vs todays more efficient intercooled turbos.

Loren,

Where did I say that MAF results in performance? You simply don't read very well, I stated that it helps drivability and overall AFR targets!

I know very well that ignition tuning and not just AFR effects torque, I also know exactly howto find Best Torque for a given condition on a engine. That's all we tuners really do, is validate or correct stock ignition on the dyno. It's not snake oil, it's a science that's used by OEM tuners.

I'm done here, please respect that others do not agree with you and are very interested in keeping this thread on topic which by the way is 'tuning programmable engine management systems'. If you don't like the topic simply don't read it!

Thanks for your time.