The Car, Pettit Rebuild.
The Tool, Access Port.
2004 (03 build) 6 speed.
The Process to date:
Did a MAF Scale, and Injector Scale following the Kane process. Seemed to all make sense, not real issues in the scaling department. No big number changes except around 2,350 RPM / 50 MPH. Sorted that to the swap between the mid and high LTFT around 10 to 20 gps. Once I got those two trims about the same, the weird swings have gone away.
The engine is "street ported". I have been updating the VE map to allow for the different characteristics. I am making progress, screwing up a little, but getting better. I think I found a problem in my method though. I have been assuming that if STFT was changing, that the ECU was still in closed loop. Today I started mapping Open Loop areas with partial load and noticed that if I compare commanded AFR to Actual AFR (Equ Ratio) I get some large changes that are DIFFERENT from the fuel trims even when the STFT is moving around. I think that means that I cannot rely on a moving STFT to indicate Closed Loop.
When I went to the Closed Loop Exit Load tables, I found 3. I have no idea the difference between them, but they all pretty much track a similar line marking out a quadrant of the RPM / Load table. And all of them say the car should definitely be out of Closed Loop in areas where I am seeing STFT adjustments. I think this means that the car is closed loop only in the little corner defined by the Exit Loads (below 4,500 RPM and 50% load). And, if it tells me that it is adjusting fuel trims outside this area is is pretty much lying to both me and itself. I think I want to believe the target AFR and Actual AFR number over the Fuel Trim outside the little corner. Right?
Also, as a note, when the car does go OL, the STFT does NOT go to 0, it just stays where it was.
And, for reference, the numbers I see at high load say the car is running about 20% lean.
Thoughts?
The Tool, Access Port.
2004 (03 build) 6 speed.
The Process to date:
Did a MAF Scale, and Injector Scale following the Kane process. Seemed to all make sense, not real issues in the scaling department. No big number changes except around 2,350 RPM / 50 MPH. Sorted that to the swap between the mid and high LTFT around 10 to 20 gps. Once I got those two trims about the same, the weird swings have gone away.
The engine is "street ported". I have been updating the VE map to allow for the different characteristics. I am making progress, screwing up a little, but getting better. I think I found a problem in my method though. I have been assuming that if STFT was changing, that the ECU was still in closed loop. Today I started mapping Open Loop areas with partial load and noticed that if I compare commanded AFR to Actual AFR (Equ Ratio) I get some large changes that are DIFFERENT from the fuel trims even when the STFT is moving around. I think that means that I cannot rely on a moving STFT to indicate Closed Loop.
When I went to the Closed Loop Exit Load tables, I found 3. I have no idea the difference between them, but they all pretty much track a similar line marking out a quadrant of the RPM / Load table. And all of them say the car should definitely be out of Closed Loop in areas where I am seeing STFT adjustments. I think this means that the car is closed loop only in the little corner defined by the Exit Loads (below 4,500 RPM and 50% load). And, if it tells me that it is adjusting fuel trims outside this area is is pretty much lying to both me and itself. I think I want to believe the target AFR and Actual AFR number over the Fuel Trim outside the little corner. Right?
Also, as a note, when the car does go OL, the STFT does NOT go to 0, it just stays where it was.
And, for reference, the numbers I see at high load say the car is running about 20% lean.
Thoughts?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire