Yes, it does. Basically, it can generate the table using any of the logged data.

To build your VE table you need to use data generated while the vehicle is in a relatively steady state condition. This is why a load-bearing dyno gets the best results. You can set say 3000 rpms and then press the throttle to increase the load and hold it at a certain value and adjust VE at that cell in the table.

When you are street tuning you also want steady state at different cell values but traffic gets in the way, speed limits get in the way, and some cells are not normally accessible during normal driving.

To answer your question, I would keep the wall wetting and use the filter in MLV. Even if you remove the wall wetting, it only is active during transient changes, and you don't want to use the data generated during transients to build your VE table. That said, I am presuming that your wall wetting is not overly active and you can indeed have stretches where you can hold relatively steady conditions and the wall wetting is not active. If you drive in an expressway, you can get up to some constant speed and very slowly press the throttle so that even if the RPM goes up it does not activate the wall wetting. My procedure is to try to keep a given MAP by continuing to press the accelerator and allowing the RPMs to increase until I need to let off. By doing this in a high gear, parameters change slowly enough that it can be considered steady state. If you use throttle%, you can follow the same procedure but rather than holding a constant MAP, you hold the throttle% constant and allow the RPMs to slowly increase.

yep, have been doing this a lot. But like you say, difficult to hit all the cells. I've been doing a little bit of driving at cruise and for some reason, the generated logs and new vE table, just don't seem to be lean enough.. for example, I am targeting 14.7 at 5% throttle at all rpm.. but after generating my new table, and then driving again, I can see that when driving in a steady state, there are some cells that are giving me say 13.5.... maybe this is splitting hairs, but I figure if I am cruising, I want it to be as economical as possible, without causing damage...

But I am now very intrigued to see how to use this similar method for ignition timing. My engine does not have a knock sensor... so not entirely sure what the ecu is using to measure the effects of changing the timing?

Hey guys, we're completing the 3.6 rebuild /swap and would like to have the car fire and idle before we send it out to the paint shop. Does anyone have a map for 993 3.6 , aem infinity, w/dc 21 cam, Rasant ITB's with a GT3 plenum that might allow us to fire it up. John Behe is going to be tuning it after it comes back from paint.

PM me with your email and I'll send you one we did that is similar.
Ours was AEM Infinity 993 with 50mm PMO ITB's and similar cams. No GT3 plenum.
Andrew with Rasant will have a base tune to start too.

You will still need to sync the timing before starting.

Awesome, I greatly appreciate it. The tuner is about 2.5 hours away so we want to try and make sure that everything is working properly before dropping it off up there.

thanks!

hi guys - looking for some help and maybe a few pointers/suggestions

1983 3.0L
Clewett Cam
Clewett Crank
3d printed TPS adapter for webers
GM Generic IAT
Turbokraft CHT
10.5:1 JE Pistons
964 cams
dual channel WBO2
twin plug "R8" red top VWAG coilpacks

Weber IDA3C 40 carbs

Haltech elite 2000 ECM

Ive spent the majority of covid quarantine converting the engine over to the haltech - got to the point where I got it to fire and run for 2 min then the ECM went unresponsive - got it back today after 3 weeks from Haltech plugged it in and it runs and stays running now - warranty repair thankfully

I have a set of ClosedCourse Motorsports manifolds and throttle linkage and Triumph ITBs that will eventually be installed but for right now its going to run on the Webers and use the Haltech as a glorified ignition controller (still trying to figure out what im going to do for fueling - im currently leaning to Holleys EFI retrofit kit which really impressive)

this is the map I modified a bit just to get it running and ive done nothing other than let it idle - I know the timing map is off - I know from this thread and others that twin plug should be 6-8* less timing then single plug

https://i.imgur.com/T2AOl6g.png

on page 2 on of this thread shamrok posted a map with specs that seem really close to mine - if I take their map and pull 6-8* from the cells will that be a decent starting point? Do i actually pull that timing from every cell? should I be using 5* for the starting cells? It starts right up after about a crank and a half at 10*

https://i.imgur.com/ZXnWBCh.png


oh and if anyones interested here is the adapter and bracket I made and printed out for the TPS sensor - I reverse engineered the 'official' setup ive see from weber for DCOE carbs

https://i.imgur.com/1bZIHnM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/iZZ1OOA.jpg


many thanks in advance

I dont have answers for you but I do like the ingenuity with the bracket!

3.0L SS twin-plugged DC-24 108 center cams. 10:1 compression JE pistons, M&K 1 5/8 headers and twin-out muffler. 91-93 octane. Megasquirt using Tunerstudio. Car weighs 2200 lbs with me in it...still getting the tune dialed in.

I feel like I am not getting as much acceleration in 4-th gear pulls. On WOT from ~2500-6000 my AFRs are ~12.8 all the way, and total timing is 22-30 degrees. I am not hearing any pinging...I am interested in opinions on total timing on WOT with my setup...

Thanks!


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1598121925.jpg

Closeup

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1598122063.jpg

try with less advance. take a look at 964 and 993 WOT curves. They don't run anything like 30 degrees

I noticed I didn't make any more power above about 25 degrees WOT beginning around 4k rpm. I increased a couple degrees and didn't notice any pinging or trace detonation, but also made no more power at 27 degree than at 25 degrees. Your results may vary of course. My bore is only 92mm.

I am at 25 at 3500 and 22/23 from 4000WOT. Tried with less and with more but hard to tell by seat of the pants. It goes from lethargic to slow

Trond: " I am at 25 at 3500 and 22/23 from 4000WOT. Tried with less and with more but hard to tell by seat of the pants. It goes from lethargic to slow"

Thanks guys. Are you talking mechanical/vacuum advance, plus the base ~8-10 degrees base timing, or are you talking total advance? My numbers are total advance, and naturally aspirated in case that wasnt clear.

Thanks!

Total advance

well, call me stupid but I don`t get one thing...
If single plug gives us hypothetical 25 degrees with no knock and good power, does it make much sense to retard your ignition on twin plug in order to get the same amount of fuel properly burned? My logic (which might be quite broken) tells that we could go more advance with twin plug hence more power.
Am I that wrong on this?

CC,

My engine made nearly 15hp more with less advance when the second plug was activated. Nothing magic about faster combustion. Results in less mechanical and heat losses so more is left over to finds its way out of the crank as torque.

Kevin Cameron from Cycleworld writes wonderfully concise explanations on topics like this and it is well worth a look at some of his past columns. Examples:

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/bikes/detonation-engine-knock-ping-call-it-what-you-will/

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/bikes/compression-ratio-cylinder-size-and-engine-speed/

https://www.cycleworld.com/setting-ignition-timing-experience-begins-at-zero/

The physics of this is as follows:
Best power is obtained when the maximum cylinder pressure happens around 15 deg after top dead center (ATDC) (due to mechanical leverage of rod to crank). When the spark plug lights up, it takes some time for the flame front to travel across the cylinder. As RPMs go up, you advance timing to fire earlier, say 25 deg before top dead center (BTDC). This gives more time for the flame front to travel so that max cylinder pressure happens 15 deg ATDC.

With a single plug in the center, the flame front has to travel half the diameter in all directions. In our cars, the plug is off center, so it takes even longer to travel in one direction.

With twin plug, you start two flame fronts so you get peak cylinder pressure faster because the flame front travels half the distance. The result is that you do not need to fire so early. Hence, you decrease advance. In fact, keeping the same advance can cause the engine to work against itself, generating peak pressure when the piston is still traveling up or around TDC, where you are stressing the piston, rod, and crankshaft rather than using that pressure to turn them.

For the sake of completeness of this explanation, I would mention that other things that affect the speed of the flame front are air fuel ratio, manifold pressure from turbo/supercharging and things like water-methanol injection.

well, that makes sense. thank you

got things to read, cheers!

Another excellent one:

https://www.cycleworld.com/what-does-it-take-to-achieve-fast-efficient-combustion/