[dfv2]

UPDATE 13 August 2012

I've been steadily road tuning my 135i with ATR since it was released (thanks Cobb!) and I've had a special interest in E85 since it's readily available to me in Upstate NY. I wanted to start sharing my maps, logs, and road dyno calcs, hopefully you guys can chime in, post your own logs, maps, etc.

I'm now running a 50/50 mix of E85/93. I've been tweaking non-stop and this is the latest result using a lot of good input from BB, Shiv, PTF, Carl Morris, and many others I forget to mention:

Run one was the OTS Cobb Stg2+ map with WGDC table fixes based on non-oscillating OEM values, a cobb "alpha" fixed map, and my own changes for my car. It's essentially identical to the 4.02 Stg2+ Agg map. Note that 40% E85 was in the tank which did juice my WTQ by about 3-4% compared to straight 93 octane.
Run two was my latest E85 map. The log tells the story, I have literally zero timing corrections and haven't felt the need to explore further to be honest! It was about 75-80 degrees out.

Both datalogs were calculated at 1.09x for your typical "dynojet" resultants, but please focus on the delta and notice that boost is almost the same, all the power is coming from the timing, AFR and E85 content:





Instead of attaching the map file I'd prefer to email it to those that request it via PM as the map is pretty specific to my setup and fairly aggressive. At least this way I can filter it out a bit and throw a warning on it. Shoot me a PM for the IJE0S map!

Enjoy!

[Lulz_M3]

Are you modifying the base fuel pressure tables at all? What are your LTFT/STFT's looking like with 60:40 E85?

[Carl Morris]

Thanks, I'll be curious to take a look at your timing map. I've been focused on getting control of boost and trying to make the system follow the requested load and haven't done much with timing yet. I run about 20% E85 and haven't really seen any knock yet with what I've done so far, so I'm ready to try a little more timing.

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

Are you modifying the base fuel pressure tables at all? What are your LTFT/STFT's looking like with 60:40 E85?

No (not yet), with the 40% mix I'm close but never go over 32-33% and change. Have you successfully increased fuel pressure to keep trims lower?

[Lulz_M3]

Originally Posted by dfv2

No (not yet), with the 40% mix I'm close but never go over 32-33% and change. Have you successfully increased fuel pressure to keep trims lower?

I havent needed to yet, but i am debating on trying to run 50:50. Right now im only running about 25% ethanol and my trims are quite low. I let someone run a copy of my current map, he says he put in 5 gals of E85 to 10 gallons of 93 and he is maxxing fuel trims.

[AU335i]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

I havent needed to yet, but i am debating on trying to run 50:50. Right now im only running about 25% ethanol and my trims are quite low. I let someone run a copy of my current map, he says he put in 5 gals of E85 to 10 gallons of 93 and he is maxxing fuel trims.

do you know if he has ever had his injectors replaced?

[Lulz_M3]

Originally Posted by AU335i

do you know if he has ever had his injectors replaced?

No idea, last email was me telling him to go put in some 93 before he Eff's something up. Havent heard from him in a few days.

[dfv2]

IIRC, the later model subie sti/wrx could run above 100% IDC and the ecu kept adding fuel. That was a winter month issue, ahh the old days.

I know STFT caps at 34%, but I've not yet personally seen AFR take a hit due to capped STFT, I have only seen the car throw codes. Are we sure that the 34% limit is a hard fuel add limit (I'm guess yes and not willing to experiment, but just throwing it out there...)

Maybe the DME is that good and detecting a parameter out of it's expected control. Either way we need a way to tune for more than 40% E85! In the meantime, I'll keep exploring what's available with our current limitations.

[The Ghost]

Originally Posted by dfv2

IIRC, the later model subie sti/wrx could run above 100% IDC and the ecu kept adding fuel. That was a winter month issue, ahh the old days.

I know STFT caps at 34%, but I've not yet personally seen AFR take a hit due to capped STFT, I have only seen the car throw codes. Are we sure that the 34% limit is a hard fuel add limit (I'm guess yes and not willing to experiment, but just throwing it out there...)

Maybe the DME is that good and detecting a parameter out of it's expected control. Either way we need a way to tune for more than 40% E85! In the meantime, I'll keep exploring what's available with our current limitations.

I've had my car on the dyno with 50/50 e85/93 and when the trim go to 34% sustained, the AFR indeed goes leaner than the target table. Currently, at this mix I'm out of fuel when running low 12:1 AFR.

I also get codes (10722,10738) if I do a full 4th gear pull (from 2-7k).


I'm interested to see if you are able to lower trims by raising FP.

[AU335i]

Originally Posted by The Ghost

I've had my car on the dyno with 50/50 e85/93 and when the trim go to 34% sustained, the AFR indeed goes leaner than the target table. Currently, at this mix I'm out of fuel when running low 12:1 AFR.

I also get codes (10722,10738) if I do a full 4th gear pull (from 2-7k).


I'm interested to see if you are able to lower trims by raising FP.

did you see any dips on the dyno when you hit trim max and started to run leaner?

[type rrr]

great !!!!

thank's

[rader1]

Originally Posted by The Ghost

I've had my car on the dyno with 50/50 e85/93 and when the trim go to 34% sustained, the AFR indeed goes leaner than the target table. Currently, at this mix I'm out of fuel when running low 12:1 AFR.

I also get codes (10722,10738) if I do a full 4th gear pull (from 2-7k).


I'm interested to see if you are able to lower trims by raising FP.

Increasing rail pressure should keep the trims in check. Its essentially the same thing that the piggys do when adjusting OL fueling. I would like to know what pressure the PROcede runs when the OL is set to 100. Just guessing but I'm assuming when our trims are at 34% we have quite a bit of headroom between our rail pressure and that of a piggy(which has proven to be a safe pressure thus far.)

I'm in no way a tuner, just guesstimating based on empirical evidence.

[Joshboody]

The DME will just recalculate fuel mass when changing pressure... shouldn't have any effect I assume. Piggies get more fuel by reducing the fuel pressure signal to the DME. This can also raise IDC when DME cannot reach pressure target. At this time there is no way to increase fuel mass with ATR (from what I've reviewed). Potentially reconfig a torque table to reduce load per torque and indirectly get more fuel?

Good work OP. I guess to review these maps, I have to upload another ATR for this ROM? I have I8AOS

[cleex024]

hmmm this is interesting...but are cobb maps really more conservative than the procede? cause im still debating whether i should make the switch to procede

[rader1]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

The DME will just recalculate fuel mass when changing pressure... shouldn't have any effect I assume. Piggies get more fuel by reducing the fuel pressure signal to the DME. This can also raise IDC when DME cannot reach pressure target. At this time there is no way to increase fuel mass with ATR (from what I've reviewed). Potentially reconfig a torque table to reduce load per torque and indirectly get more fuel?

Good work OP. I guess to review these maps, I have to upload another ATR for this ROM? I have I8AOS

If everything else stays equal(IDC) and requested/actual pressure increases wouldn't that mean that actual fuel flow would increase? If your not maxxing trim and hitting requested AFRs I could see where the DME would run as little as possible to meet demand and not run the max requested pressure. However, if its not hitting targets and the table allows for increased pressure wouldn't that mean the DME WOULD make use of the available fueling?

Sorry if I explained that wrong/weird but I'm not at good at getting ideas across lol

[The Ghost]

Originally Posted by AU335i

did you see any dips on the dyno when you hit trim max and started to run leaner?

No, it didn't because my AFR was a point lower than max power, so I had headroom.

I'm running a PROcede BTW. Looking for fuel solutions.

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by rader1

If everything else stays equal(IDC) and requested/actual pressure increases wouldn't that mean that actual fuel flow would increase? If your not maxxing trim and hitting requested AFRs I could see where the DME would run as little as possible to meet demand and not run the max requested pressure. However, if its not hitting targets and the table allows for increased pressure wouldn't that mean the DME WOULD make use of the available fueling?

Sorry if I explained that wrong/weird but I'm not at good at getting ideas across lol

DME is targeting a fuel volume. This is accomplished by calculating flow based on fuel pressure and IDC. Change one, the other changes for the same end result. We need access to the conversion tables or calcs to change volume per load I think, or change the logic.

But wouldn't hurt to try and see if trims are reduced. I don't know anything 100%, except that this stuff is complicated.

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

Good work OP. I guess to review these maps, I have to upload another ATR for this ROM? I have I8AOS

Thanks, and unfortunately yes. I requested both I8A0S and IJE0S when it was released so I'd have both, which is handy since it seems like half of us have one or the other.

For anyone with a different rom build, I'll post screenies of any table you want, just ask.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by The Ghost

I've had my car on the dyno with 50/50 e85/93 and when the trim go to 34% sustained, the AFR indeed goes leaner than the target table. Currently, at this mix I'm out of fuel when running low 12:1 AFR.

I also get codes (10722,10738) if I do a full 4th gear pull (from 2-7k).


I'm interested to see if you are able to lower trims by raising FP.

I'm doing a bunch off e85 mapping this week/weekend. Will have a solution for you soon that will allow you to run high boost on a strong e85 mix. Similar to the mapping methodology we applied for the single turbo cars.

As for raising fuel pressure targets (via flash), doing so will have a minimal effect on fuel trims.

[rader1]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm doing a bunch off e85 mapping this week/weekend. Will have a solution for you soon that will allow you to run high boost on a strong e85 mix. Similar to the mapping methodology we applied for the single turbo cars.

As for raising fuel pressure targets (via flash), doing so will have a minimal effect on fuel trims.

For the same reason as suggested by Joshboody?
What rail pressure does the PROcede run when OL is set to 100?

[dfv2]

Only took a few hours!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by rader1

For the same reason as suggested by Joshboody?
What rail pressure does the PROcede run when OL is set to 100?

Yes. I didn't even see Josh's post. But he is correct. ThE extra enrichment comes from the DME perceiving an under-pressure situation and then making big changes to IDC in an attempt to compensate. The increase in actual fuel pressure does little to increase fuel volume flow. But if you take this to the extreme, dme perceived fuel pressure drops low enough to trigger fuel rail pressure codes. So the key is to only rely on this method of fuel enrichment up to this fault threshold.