MR2 Roadster Owners Club

Does it make sense to have LTFT readings consistently around -15 when running the eManage?
I'm assuming the eManage is upping fuel, which the ECU doesn't like in closed loop.
BUt...when it closed loop it;s not using emanage...so it makes no sense.

If not, I seem to be running very rich. STFTs are perfect. So not sure how I;m getting LTFTs of -14ish
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160229/985f40badc0be328e21d775081890ddd.jpg)

Quote from: "shnazzle"Does it make sense to have LTFT readings consistently around -15 when running the eManage?
I'm assuming the eManage is upping fuel, which the ECU doesn't like in closed loop.
BUt...when it closed loop it;s not using emanage...so it makes no sense.

If not, I seem to be running very rich. STFTs are perfect. So not sure how I;m getting LTFTs of -14ish
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160229/985f40badc0be328e21d775081890ddd.jpg)

I think you need to re read the thread we had when you first talked about fitting this because I reckon what you are now describing is showing that the conclusion we reached back then was correct.

To recap:
Yes it makes sense to have LTFT readings at -15 if the eManage is putting more fuel in than the standard setting because that is the standard ECU trying to compensate for the  extra fuel the eManage map is providing. As you say, "the ECU doesn't like" the added fuel and is trying to take it away.

The eManage is being used in closed loop, it works all the time, what is important is whether the tuner adjusted any settings in closed loop. It looks like they did. This means that the standard ECU is seeing those changes in the closed loop and therefore assuming the engine is running rich everywhere (including open loop) so it then sets the LTFT to compensate in both closed and open loop.

I think the only way to avoid this is for the tuner to make sure they only change any fuel settings in open loop because then the standard ECU wouldn't be able to see these.

It is absolutely correct that the STFT is good while the LTFT is -15 because the only reason the LTFT exists is to ensure that the STFT returns to 0, that is why it is there. I would think if you reset the ECU you would see STFT running at -15 and LTFT running at 0 for a few days, then when the LTFT takes over, the STFT will go back to 0 and the LTFT will go to -15. The only time you would have the STFT and LTFT running changes at the same time is when the amount of change the LTFT needs to apply is so big that it is beyond its capability so it also needs to add STFT to make the change necessary, you really don't want to be in that situation!!

This does suggest that the eManage needs to be set up very carefully by someone who knows exactly how to avoid making any changes in closed loop, otherwise the standard ECU just brings everything back to standard over time.

As I say, re read the last thread as I am sure I will have missed something here.

Quote from: "lamcote".....
The eManage is being used in closed loop, it works all the time, what is important is whether the tuner adjusted any settings in closed loop. It looks like they did. This means that the standard ECU is seeing those changes in the closed loop and therefore assuming the engine is running rich everywhere (including open loop) so it then sets the LTFT to compensate in both closed and open loop.

I think the only way to avoid this is for the tuner to make sure they only change any fuel settings in open loop because then the standard ECU wouldn't be able to see these.
.

That's what I was after. I wasn't sure whether the the eManage even operated in closed loop. If it didn't, it would make it very odd that the ECU was compensating. But as you pointed out, it does work in closed loop, so it all makes sense  s:) :) s:)

It does indeed verify the previous thread. I remember what was discussed, but the key I missed was that eManage is active all the time and "working against" the ECU.

So it seems the map Noble did on this is full range, so the only way to get the best out of it is to reset the fuel trim table frequently.
WHich leads me to the next question; is there a way to reset the table without disconnecting the battery? If so, i'd be very tempted to start looking into writing an arduino application to reset the ECU every time I shut down the car.

I reckon the trouble with all this is that the effect is the same whether the standard ECU is using the STFT or the LTFT to compensate, so even if you reset the ECU every time you drive it, the STFT will presumably still apply the changes within a few minutes of starting the engine. All you would be doing is avoiding the ECU ever changing the LTFT but that doesn't actually help because the STFT will still be undoing all your eManage mapping!

It always comes back to the fact that the remap must avoid changes in closed loop settings.

I can't imagine thats very easy as it spends most of its time in closed loop. THe odd thing is that I've had the emanage on for a while now without resetting the ecu, and it's still noticeably nippier.
So in open loop it's definitely using eManage. But what I've noticed as well (will log this as a separate parameter) the fueling status doesn't change when I expect it to. I've had TOrque running for a couple days now and it's interesting to see when the car goes into open loop. It's certainly not only over 4k rpm. Deceleration obviously as well, but I've seen it in open loop under 3.5k rpm.

I could do with knowing the exact parameters for determining when it goes open

Yes, that's the problem, I've never seen any information on these parameters but I think it is a combination of revs and/or throttle position.

I am totally guessing but I would think open loop may kick in as follows:

Full throttle at any revs
Over c.4,500rpm at any throttle position
Over c.2,500rpm and more than 50% throttle
etc etc

Quote from: "lamcote"Yes, that's the problem, I've never seen any information on these parameters but I think it is a combination of revs and/or throttle position.

I am totally guessing but I would think open loop may kick in as follows:

Full throttle at any revs
Over c.4,500rpm at any throttle position
Over c.2,500rpm and more than 50% throttle
etc etc

Indeed. Guessing is the game. Maybe even water temperature.

Another assumption here but I reckon Noble is pretty in-the-know. So I assume that they were able to somehow force the car into open loop in order to be able to map the closed loop areas of the map without the ECU constantly sticking its oar in. Otherwise whatever values they put in closed loop territory are totally dependent on the parameters that day. Humidity, temperature,pressure, etc etc

Yes, good point, water temp must be one.

I think the remapping process just adds/subtracts a percentage value to the standard settings rather than specifying an absolute value. This means the standard ECU can still adjust for humidity/temp/pressure as it does normally and the remap then just adds/subtracts from that value, so this gets around that issue.

Remember, the standard ECU and the eManage work in series, the standard ECU sends its output to the eManage which then modifies the value (based on the remap) it receives and passes the adjusted value on to the engine.

I would agree that Noble should know what they are doing, BUT how else do you explain the LTFT you are seeing which is the reason why you have asked this question......?

And this is why I wanted to tap into the map to see what they've done  s:) :) s:)
So many unknowns. And as far as I can tell, the Boomslang harness I have does have the extra injector wiring, so they've clearly done all they can do.

Seeing the remap would be interesting but unless you know the parameters when open loop kicks in, it may not help.

You sound like a bit of a tech wiz, couldn't you write something to keep a log of some relevant settings each time the engine goes into open loop?

Quote from: "lamcote"Seeing the remap would be interesting but unless you know the parameters when open loop kicks in, it may not help.

You sound like a bit of a tech wiz, couldn't you write something to keep a log of some relevant settings each time the engine goes into open loop?

ooo tech wiz   s:) :) s:)   Praise indeed.
Not a bad shout. I will see if torque lets me log the fueling state, clear the ECU and drive around on as many loads and rpm ranges as I can

Sorry, hope that wasn't patronising???

Quote from: "shnazzle"

Quote from: "lamcote"I will see if torque lets me log the fueling state, clear the ECU and drive around on as many loads and rpm ranges as I can

If you can do this, please would you share your results?

Quote from: "lamcote"Sorry, hope that wasn't patronising???

haha no not patronising at all! JUst having a laugh. I am decently techy to be fair...I was called a geek at work yesterday.

Quote from: "lamcote"

Quote from: "shnazzle"

Quote from: "lamcote"I will see if torque lets me log the fueling state, clear the ECU and drive around on as many loads and rpm ranges as I can

If you can do this, please would you share your results?

Absolutely. I might roll this all up in to the earlier post I had, as it's all around the same topic

That would be a really useful reference because this topic does come up fairly regularly and no-one seems to have any data about these parameters.

Just been out for a walk to clear the head and I've had a thought.

Do you know for sure that the LTFT you have shown in the original post is definitely being applied in open loop? It's possible that it may only be trimming the closed loop settings, this would explain the presence of that LTFT along with your impression that the car still feels faster. Is there any way of finding out whether there are separate trims for closed loop and open loop? Indeed there may be no trim for open loop at all.......

Others may know the answer to this?

One thing i did notice that in open loop, STFT figures go to 0.0, but LTFT figures still show

What figures for STFT and LTFT show in closed loop? Are they different to open loop?

Edit: Hmm, thinking about it that probably shows that the situation may be as follows:

1. Closed loop creates a STFT which eventually gets transferred to the LTFT, therefore you can get a report of both STFT and LTFT in closed loop
2. Open loop doesn't have any STFT, that makes sense because there is no mechanism to create one, therefore STFT would report as 0 or provide no report at all
3. The LTFT from closed loop does get applied to both closed loop and open loop (but if crucially the STFT doesn't, see edit 2), therefore a LTFT would be reported in open loop, but there would be no STFT as in 2. above

That may be bad because it means the standard ECU is able to pretty much override the eManage, (subject to edit 2 below). I suppose you may still be getting some benefit from the remap under the following theoretical scenario:

Based on the dyno run to achieve maximum power the mapper increases fuelling by 10% on average in the closed loop settings and by 15% in open loop. The standard ECU notes that you have 10% "too much" fuel in closed loop. The standard ECU therefore reduces fuelling by a corresponding 10% but it applies this to both closed and open loop. This means that you are getting no benefit at all from the remap in closed loop but you are still getting 5% more fuel (ie 15%-10%) in open loop so the car is still faster, but you are not getting the 15% more fuel that you really need for maximum power.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record but.....it must be possible to work round this situation BUT only if the mapper knows (or can control) exactly when the engine switches to open loop. Therefore I can only conclude that ideally you should always ask any mapper if they know this information before agreeing to use them to tune a piggyback ECU.

Edit 2
N.B. However if the above scenario is correct and only the LTFT gets applied to open loop, then resetting the ECU regularly would actually help because; if it is only the LTFT that ever gets applied in open loop, and you can prevent the standard ECU from ever arriving at a LTFT by regular resets, the standard ECU won't then ever be able to apply any override in open loop. Hooray.... but for how long? Booooo. (Read on).

Quote from: "lamcote"What figures for STFT and LTFT show in closed loop? Are they different to open loop?

Edit: Hmm, thinking about it that probably shows that the situation is as follows:

1. Closed loop creates a STFT which eventually gets transferred to the LTFT, therefore you can get a report of both STFT and LTFT in closed loop
2. Open loop doesn't have any STFT, that makes sense because there is no mechanism to create one, therefore STFT would report as 0 or provide no report at all
3. The LTFT from closed loop does get applied to both closed loop and open loop, therefore a LTFT would be reported in open loop, but there would be no STFT as in 2. above

That is bad because it means the standard ECU is able to completely override the eManage.

I've just mapped it against o2 voltage. Obviously 0 volt = open loop, >0 volt = closed loop.
No more clarity...
From what I can tell there are is one very clear trigger; deceleration. Letting the car coast in gear puts it into open loop. ANd obviously no STFT (0 reading) in periods when o2 is reading 0 volt.
LTFT however does not return to 0 or even return no reading. It returns an adjusted value, but it doesn't change in the period of time that the o2 sensors are returning 0 volt.

So, the ECU does apply trim even in open loop... but that makes no sense because then I would never be able to feel any change. The only thing I can imagine is that the ECU applies max trim, but the signal comes from eManage, so really you never see what it's actually fueling. WHat'd be interesting is if I could overlay the map from eManage onto a run.

That is valuable information, see my last post which I have edited to reflect this. My edits have crossed with your last post.

I agree, you may not be able disentangle the different outputs of the standard ECU and the eManage. That's tricky.

So we've come full circle haha.

...wonder if I can build something to autoamtically clear the fuel trims on car stop  s:) :) s:)

We have if my guesses about what might happen are correct, (and it will still mean you are getting no benefit in closed loop). Can anyone actually confirm or deny?

Could you run the car until a LTFT is reported and then do an ECU reset and see if it feels any faster after the reset, that may give some indication about what is going on?

Edit
Possible Options:
If it doesn't feel any faster then Noble have successfully avoided making changes in closed loop, but there is something else going on to create your reported LTFT
It is a bit faster which could mean you were getting the part benefit described in my pre edited post
It is a lot faster which could confirm the reset works as per my final edit

It would also be very useful to find out how quickly a LTFT is recreated after a reset, is it minutes, hours, days, as that will determine how often a reset is required and therefore how practical this solution would be?

Gosh this is fun.

Edit 2:

I've just done some general Google searches and it is quite possible that the LTFT is updated in a matter of seconds, (see quote below) in which case the reset strategy isn't going to be much good as the standard ECU will then be undoing the remap, even in open loop, within a couple of miles after each reset. Can anyone confirm this is a likely timescale on our cars? If so we have gone full circle but are back to square one!

"As a general rule, STFT can deviate as much as +/- 20%, but normally should be within +/- 10%. If it deviates by 10% or more for very long, LTFT will adjust the baseline to bring the STFT deviation back within the 10% range. This will then be reflected by a change (+/-) in the LTFT.

To illustrate: suppose the vehicle were operating at 0% correction in LTFT and +10% in STFT when an air leak occurred. STFT initially adjusts for this increase in oxygen by increasing fuel +20%. It does that in 0.6 millisecond. After 30 seconds, LTFT increases +10%. This brings the STFT down to +15%, which is still too much. So, after another 30 seconds the PCM moves LTFT +20%, and STFT drops to less than 10%.   "

i have heard that the LTFT is updated prety much straight away

Thread revival time!
So I've finally managed to get into my emanage and can answer another question;
Noble has no fuel adjustments for anything below 50% throttle. But adjustments at 50% and over for all rev ranges.
Ignition timing on the other hand has changes across the board.
This explains why when I first reset, I get a nice surge of extra power. But soon after, it fades on the low end. That;'s because all I've got left is a bit of airflow adjustment and ignition advance.

I know someone mentioned this on either this post or Lee's thread on his VTEC-controlled box of tricks, but it seems that since the ECU doesn't have a long term "learning" map for ignition timing, the EMB values are used regardless throughout the load/rev range and in open and closed loop.

Also, I have noticed that the front A.A.V. (airflow adjustments) dials on the front of the EMB have been set to 11 for up to 2000 rpm and 10 above that. I assume this is to compensate for the 57i K&N induction that Dave (robsonic) had on his car at the time of mapping. I should probably reduce these a bit as I have the stock MAF positioning and only a panel filter and markiii pipe. I'll dial these down to 8 and 9.

So here's my next challenge; mapping the fueling table for closed loop. As funny as that sounds.

I found a thread on newcelica.org about exactly this and it essentially says that if LTFT is negative for that load cell, I should remove fuel (can't do that on EMB) and if it's positive, to add fuel (this I can do!).
I wonder if EMB can reduce fueling at all. I cna't do this via the map. But what if I tell it I have 240cc injectors instead of 260cc. It should apply a correction of -7.69% across the maps. So if I then go into the current map and add 7.69 to everything, it also means I can reduce the fueling in the closed loop cells by adding any value less than 7.69 (not that it does 0.1 increments but work with me...).

Is that an area worth exploring or does the EMB simply not possess the power to reduce fueling in any way shape or form?

The simplest way to mess with the closed-loop fuelling is to get a wide-band O2 (such as the Innovate LC-2)with a simulated narrow band output. This can then be programmed to switch at different lambda's fooling the stock ECU into pulling (or adding) fuel using it's LTFT.

Couple this with the eManage playing with the MAF values being fed to the ECU and you should achieve a 0 LTFT

Lee sent me the details for the closed loop thing, i even ahave a copy of the map for reference
I'll post it up later when I get home

Quote from: "SteveJ"The simplest way to mess with the closed-loop fuelling is to get a wide-band O2 (such as the Innovate LC-2)with a simulated narrow band output. This can then be programmed to switch at different lambda's fooling the stock ECU into pulling (or adding) fuel using it's LTFT.

Couple this with the eManage playing with the MAF values being fed to the ECU and you should achieve a 0 LTFT

And where have you been all this time Steve? We needed you months ago

Here's a link to the open loop mod that Lee made if it helps...
 m https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QMt ... npaeVg4NFk (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QMtjsKQzIoNzdjNnpaeVg4NFk) m

top level files are N/A with mods as described in the forum and it's labelled where the open loop mod is inserted. Then within that folder you've got Lee's Turbo ones (assuming they have the open loop mod on them too).

Just a comment about open loop mods, if that relates to the TPS being used to force the ECU into open loop I recently found a thread on Spyderchat by Cap Weir where he says the TPS alone does not trip the ECU into open loop. It only happens when the load conditions are right. This was from around 2012, so unless he found something to contradict it later his view is that TPS alone won't force open loop.

That would also explain why your Noble map is undone by the standard ECU, because the map must be changing fueling at some point in closed loop, even at 50% throttle. I believe a remap must avoid making any fueling changes at any point in closed loop to avoid being undone by the standard ECU.

Quote from: "lamcote"TPS being used to force the ECU into open loop

The guy who bought my car off me was playing around doing this (using one of the spare outputs on the eManage) and we all know what ultimately happened to that engine!   s:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: s:crazyeyes:    s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

Quote from: "shnazzle"

Quote from: "SteveJ"The simplest way to mess with the closed-loop fuelling is to get a wide-band O2 (such as the Innovate LC-2)with a simulated narrow band output. This can then be programmed to switch at different lambda's fooling the stock ECU into pulling (or adding) fuel using it's LTFT.

Couple this with the eManage playing with the MAF values being fed to the ECU and you should achieve a 0 LTFT

And where have you been all this time Steve? We needed you months ago

I've been too busy driving around in a proper Izzy powered car   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

One thing to note - the wideband kludge for closed-loop fuelling is a single setting across the entire closed-loop range of the map. If you use the eManage rewrite of MAF values to achieve LTFT=0 then you will need to adjust your open-loop section of the eManage map to cope as the stock ECU uses the LTFT as the basis for it's fuelling (ignoring the O2 input).

.... Can I be bothered?
Haha

You know what... After seeing the logs from my run I'm tempted to wonder if it's even worth having.

The only thing is that the car runs much nicer with the exhaust and intake mods with the emanage installed.

As I sat in the car today I turned down the airflow adjustment for <2000 rpm and the car started doing its lumpy idle again like it used to before I had the emanage.

Just trying to get to grips with what the eManage does. Is it:
1. Without any optional harnesses it just modifies the airflow signal from the MAF to the ECU ie it intercepts the signal before the ECU  
2. With the injection harness added it can control the injectors directly (intercepting after the ECU?)
3. With the ignition harness it can control the ignition timing (intercepting after the ECU?)

That's right.
So without the harnesses I really don't see the point other than to smooth out idling a bit if you've done breathing mods or have a non-standard MAF.

In the case of fueling you can only add. Which is a bit kak but only really plays a role in boosted cars I guess.

Timing you can advance and retard and seems to be the only thing that the car can't compensate for in closed loop

I guess without the harnesses it's just an expensive way of doing the same as the MAF riser mod? In which case any adjustments impact on both fueling and timing at the same time. Seems best to leave these settings standard and just use the harnesses, do you know how much control over the injectors and timing there is available?

Also does it have a boost input?

Regarding your question about reducing fueling,  the write up below says you can;

"The e-Manage system is a universal piggy-back type unit which taps into most Japanese factory ECU wiring, by utilizing the existing sensors. Basic functions will allow the user to slightly alter factory injector duty-cycle (+/- 20% at 5 preset RPM points) by intercepting and altering airflow or MAP sensor signals."

Exactly. I was told on here once that if I had the Blue, there's no need for the MAF mod... Which is why I sold it.

Although it all becomes a bit more interesting if you have vtec or boosted. Then the emanage is pretty decent at adjusting fueling/timing/air flow based on boost levels.

The Ultimate is miles better.

In my map the timing is advanced by a few degrees as it was mapped on 97.
Runs ok on 95 though so the ecu must draw back timing a bit when I hoof it on 95.

Fueling can be adjusted up to 20% I think. That is, 20% more than the stock signal.

And yes it has boost/map input in the front

If you can't reduce fueling how do you get it to run at low load/idle on a turbo setup using big injectors? Presumably the fuel required at idle is the same whether standard or turbo,  if you are running big injectors for the top end power it would run way too rich at idle without some method of cutting fueling via the Emb? (Unless this is why the airflow adjuster exists??)

Thanks for your help.

In the emb you can tell it what the stock injector size is and what size the new ones are. It calculates the percentage difference and applies it to all the maps.

But, as I mentioned on the sc thread, it doesn't allow for changes to the lag times etc

Oh I see,  handy.

Can you adjust for lag time by slightly tweaking the size of the injector you enter?

Quote from: "lamcote"Can you adjust for lag time by slightly tweaking the size of the injector you enter?

I'm not sure it works that way.
You might be able to compensate by retarding/advancing timing by 0.1 perhaps.

What is your concern about lag times? I see you mentioned idle quality in the other thread, what is causing the problem?

It's may not become an issue. And to be honest as we're staying amongst the same "branch" of injectors the lag times are likely to be negligible.

But especially during idle if you put in some larger injectors which take longer between receiving the signal and being at full fuel release, it may make very low rpm activity a bit stumbly.

Logically it won't make a lick of difference once you're even anywhere about 1200rpm or so.
It's just stumbling idle I was "warning" about.
It's probably best it's ignored  s:) :) s:)

I just wondered whether the effect of the longer lag time of a 310cc injector might be say, as follows :

Extra lag time for a 310cc injector means the engine is c. 5% (for example) too lean at idle
Therefore instead of entering 310cc in the EMB settings you enter 295cc.
This should mean EMB gives c.5% more injector signal time than it would have done, offsetting the longer lag time?
Closed loop will look after itself
Open loop might need fueling to be tweaked back a bit

Just a thought?

It's more of a timing thing.
So you program it and expect it to have the perfect amount of fuel injected per cycle.
So every minute during idle at 800 rpm it injects X fuel 800 times consistently. Always X amount.
But that's assuming that the time it takes for the injection to take place is perfectly in time with the crank rate.

If there is lag that is not accounted for, you'll have some cycles running lean (ignition before injection is completed) and other times too rich. Because they're out of sync.

So changing the amounts doesn't help, it just makes the issue more noticeable.


Bear in mind this needs verification from someone who actually knows their arse from their elbow. I'm just applying normal temporal logic

I don't think that's how it works. From what I've seen lag is just the time it takes the injector pintle to react to the electrical pulse driving it, so although the electrical pulse is 3ms long it might take 1ms to react on opening the injector and 0.5ms to close it, so the actual time the injector is open is 3ms - 1ms + 0.5ms = 2.5ms

This means the fueling is a bit leaner than you'd expect for a 3ms pulse and the longer the lag the leaner the mixture.

Ah I see what you re saying. So the total time is the same but the "open time" longer/shorter.
That also makes more sense from a timing perspective as it'd be really really hard to get the timing exactly right for each injector.

In that case, yes I suppose it would be possible to adjust the size to make it think it's bigger or smaller than it is

Presumably you could test your theory for removing fuel with the EMB by entering a different injector size by noting your current LTFT,  entering a 5% bigger injector size than you have, then after a few days checking if the LTFT has gone up by 5%?

If so, your theory should work.

Not sure if you've seen this?
 m http://www.spyderchat.com/forums/showth ... &_k=834io4 (http://www.spyderchat.com/forums/showthread.php?14197-Greddy-E-manage-Blue-Resource-Center-How-To-Installs-and-Maps!#/topics/14197?page=1&_k=834io4) m

It seems to suggest you can fix this squabbling by adjusting the air map.

True. Now I wish I didn't sell the 2zz injectors

What would you be doing with the 2zz injectors?

Never mind. Was multitasking yesterday and not thinking haha

Oh, I thought you'd spotted something in the post jonbill had linked to (which looks excellent!)

Quote from: "lamcote"Oh, I thought you'd spotted something in the post jonbill had linked to (which looks excellent!)

I didn't see that actually but I've had that bookmarked for a good while as it really gave a good start point for emanage on the 2.
The problem is that the images that his example/tutorial are around are missing and it's aimed towards boosted cars.

Here's a link I've found a bit more relevant. I intend to do this once I can be arsed to hook up a wideband.
 m http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264746 (http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264746) m

Basically he's saying that it is possible to keep the tune as long as you over-compensate in the cells where LTFT is adding/subtracting fuel. The part I don't get is; do I always want to aim for 14.7 in closed loop areas like the ECU does?
Would I just be changing values to do exactly what the stock ECU already does? I wouldn't really be gaining anything if I "tuned out" the LTFT. I would just be doing what the ECU already does automatically.

My thoughts about what he is saying are :

1. Yes you would want to aim for 14.7:1 in closed loop, ANYTHING other than 14.7 at any point in closed loop is likely to result in the standard ECU undoing your open loop mapping (by introducing a LTFT)
2. Yes you are doing exactly the same as the standard ECU would do, but there is a good reason for that;
3. If YOU tune closed loop to keep the AFR at 14.7, thereby preventing the standard ECU from having to do it, the standard ECU won't then create a LTFT (so it can't then use the  LTFT to undo your open loop performance map) so this should mean your remap isn't destroyed
4. That's the theory, will it work? I don't know.

I would say however, it would seem to me to be FAR easier just to make sure you ONLY remap fueling in open loop in the first place. I think I may have said this once or twice before.

This whole thread hurts my brain!!  

I've tried to read and catch up but it's not happening.. but I am curious..

Could you give a brief summary in one place to make it easier to wrap my head around (and others who may be thinking the same..)

A. What engine/mods are on the vehicle..
B. What are the "problems"/symptoms you're trying to fix.

I know the informations all there, but its scattered about so much I can't gather it all together clearly  s:) :) s:)

Ah. Yes I see the thinking.
So basically what you're saying is that it uses closed loop as a means to determine fueling in open loop?
So if closed loop is sorted to 14.7 in part throttle conditions, then the ecu (theoretically) wouldn't see th need to interpolate those same trims to open loop areas.

I like the theory...
Now to test it. Just need a wideband  s:) :) s:)

Yes that's exactly how I am interpreting it.

But as I say, if your mapper knows what they are doing and avoids changing any fueling in closed loop in the first place,  that should be job done.

Stupink, what exactly are you asking? Are you asking what mods shnazzle has on his car or are you asking more generally about the issue of open/closed loop and fuel trims?

Shnazzles' car,  I can't quite put together what the setup is, or what the problem is..  too much information spread over too many posts/threads plus a busy life on my part  s:) :) s:)

There are no problems with my car Stu  s:) :) s:) ... That I know of.

The thread is about piggyback ECUs and how to tune the closed loop area.

I.e. My emanage has been mapped by Noble and drives more aggressively when I reset the ecu, indicating that the stock ECU is using LTFT to basically undo what Noble has done in some ranges.
It's not until WOT that I notice any gains over a stock 2.

So the question is, can a piggyback be tuned to provide some improved performance where you want it without the stock ECU undoing your work?

So if I want to run a bit leaner during cruise for a bit more efficiency, can I do this? Or is the stock ECU already well on it?
It may be well possible that I tune it to 14.7:1 at cruising speed but Toyota has found that 15:1 is actually better for efficiency.
Inversely if I want to run 12.5:1 at WOT, will the stock ECU also modify the closed loop table so that it goes back up to 13 or whatever it is stock

Ahhh.. I see.. that is probably why I was struggling to suss out what the problem was then haha!!

Trust stock ecu for part throttle stuff totally imo, logic behind that is if you want more power you push more pedal.. the limiting factor on part throttle to power isn't fueling or ignition its the fact theres a hoofing big bit of metal blocking the inlet, so theres no real point (unless mods you've done have ruined running) to adjusting anything other than full throttle  s:) :) s:)

I tried to reply to some of your other points, but I've got a bit of a head cold and I just confused myself even haha..  but basically you wont want to run leaner than stock ecu, and if you change it, it will reset to 14.7 anyway, if you want more efficiency, change the efficiency of the engine mechanically, so better cams/inlet/exhaust etc  s:) :) s:)

I definitely see the "issue"  with the part-throttle scenario. And I don't expect much in the way of performance increases.

What I do find interesting is the prospect of making the car more aimed at a flatter torque curve and less aimed at efficiency and emissions.

Can't help but wonder if I'm getting all out of the stock setup that it has to offer. Bearing in mind that it is designed to be stable across tons of different real world scenarios. But the car is never going to California or Norway so, can I not just get it mapped to its best for the situation it is in?

Ìn theory.. and its a big in theory, Toyota already did map it best for here..  inlet temperatures etc are taken into account during the running, so the ajustments made by the ecu to compensate should be pretty good.  but I agree you could probably sway away from efficiency and emmissions more.. Just not sure it would make enough difference to make a noticeable difference... if you want flat torque... add a turbo  s:D :D s:D    mines within about 20lflb from something like 3800rpm to the rev limiter.. i'd need an iron to make it flatter  s:D :D s:D   but I apreceate that's not what this is about.. I just like turbos.  s:D :D s:D

You know I had no idea you like turbos... Who knew..  s:) :) s:)  hehehe

Temps etc are taken into consideration but via calculations. General calculations.
Maybe I don't have enough faith in Toyota's fine work in making these ECUs auto-calibrate. Which is furiously arrogant of me; doubting a couple dozen highly trained engineers with a seemingly unlimited budget.
Hey ho.
 s:) :) s:)  

Yeah the turbo thing definitely plays on ye olde nugget. But so does built 1zz and 2zz and built 2zz...and turbo 2zz....and 1.8t....

I think it comes down to whether you trust the airflow meter or not.. its more of an Air Mass/flow.. so if its doing its job, the engine knows what airs going in accurately regardless of temperature. the operating temp of the engines going to be similar so I don't think much else changes other than air density?   I feel sure they dyno tested the engine at different inlet temperatures to map the ignition rather than guessing. or maybe now i'm being naïve!

Personally I think there are five reasons why it is potentially worthwhile remapping a naturally aspirated engine:

1. Toyota has mapped the engine to run on 91 octane fuel. If you remap to 95 octane or even higher, there must be gains to be had, mainly from ignition timing changes?
2. Mass production inevitably has some tolerances built into it. Toyota must map their engines to take account of the odd engine coming off the production line with all the worst case tolerances and therefore the lowest power potential. So their mapping must be done towards the lowest power output likely. The chances are your engine will be better than that worst case so there are gains to be had from a remap.
3. Toyota must assume that some people won't bother servicing their engine very often or very well. To avoid problems they will use a very conservative tune to minimise stress in all the engine components, again there are gains to be had. Any engine produces most power at AFRs c.13.5:1, however Toyota use full load AFRs around 12:1 because the overly rich mixture cools the combustion process and protects the Cat from overheating under prolonged load. (If they didn't do that and some bloke living in the Alps who spends all his time thrashing up long 1 in 4 hills finishes up burning his Cat out within 6 months, it's Toyota that carry the can.) Reducing stress on the engine maximises reliability but that inevitably means you aren't maximising power. Toyota, understandably, aren't prepared to take risks with reliability, if you are prepared to risk reducing reliability (from Toyota's very high standard), you should be able to get more power. It's all about balancing risk and your personal attitude to that risk, and having an engine set up to match your own usage scenario. (Of course if you do actually maintain your engine correctly you should get the best of both worlds by maximising power while still getting excellent reliability.)
4. Toyota have mapped the 1zz for maximum economy, not power. If you've watched Formula 1 you will have seen there can be a big difference between power and economy engine maps even when they were running naturally aspirated engines.
5. If you have installed any engine mods, a remap will get the best out of them, if it's done properly.

Overall there must be potential for noticeable gains from a remap, even in a totally standard engine, never mind a modified one. This is why it's such a shame that your remap can finish up being undone.

I'm quite certain that if Toyota's mapping engineers had exactly the same goals as shnazzle, the 1zz would have been a very different engine, even if the only thing that changed was the software mapping.

By the way I totally agree with the point about only needing the power towards full throttle. Maximum low end and mid range power is no different to top end power in that it's still only achieved at full throttle. This really does reinforce the point that remapping fuel for power shouldn't (and doesn't need to) be done anywhere in closed loop. This would then avoid any need to mess about trying to hold on to the map you have paid for. (Of course, things probably get a bit more complicated when big injectors and boost are involved.)

Well those 5 points pretty much sum up the "why" for this post  s:) :) s:)  Spot on.

To bring this home to me;
Mods are markiii pipe and K&N filter, decat manifold and TTE exhaust and emanage to support changes with injector and ignition control.
The current map has fueling changes only in the open loop areas (over 50% throttle only) and timing changes seemingly aimed at freeing up some power (using 97 ron fuel) in low-load areas and also high-load/high-rpm.
The airflow has also been slightly adjusted upwards using the dials on the front of the unit. When turning down the airflow increase in the idle <2000 rpm range, idle begins to stumble as it did before I had the emanage.

So;
1) The car was mapped for anything from low to higher RON fuels with timing being conservative to satisfy points 2 and 3
2) The extra fueling and timing advancing does suggest that Noble thought the same and found areas on the dyno where the car would easily and reliably tolerate some more power
3) Don't have wideband so can't verify the fueling conditions. But as the EMB doesn't allow for leaning out fueling there's only one way to go. So if Toyota has chosen 12:1, there's nothing the EMB can do about it. So any power I could squeeze out from going to 13.5 (assuming I service the car as I do), is out of the question unless I go standalone (or EMU?). All power Noble has managed to extract (allegedly) is brought in through advancing the timing. Granted some of the timing advancing will be because the fueling was increased.
4) Point used in above
5) My mods are similar to Dave's car, where the EMB was mapped, but the engine is not the same and the mods aren't identical.

So I basically need to get my self kitted out with a wideband and a private road at the very least and see if I'm losing out on some potential power. Also, I could do with making sure that in the closed loop areas, I change the map to fuel to 14.7:1 so that the ECU does as little as possible. As per the CElica thread on LTFT.
If I manage to tune out LTFT changes, there;s a good chance that the ECU will think that there's nothing to change in the open loop areas.

Sound about right?

I would agree with pretty much all of that. The only comment I would make is that I strongly suspect (but don't know for sure) that you can still be in closed loop well past 50% throttle, so you may well have quite a bit of closed loop fuel mapping that will cause you problems. Presumably that's why you eventually experience the power reduction after a reset that you have mentioned?

Quote from: "lamcote"I would agree with pretty much all of that. The only comment I would make is that I strongly suspect (but don't know for sure) that you can still be in closed loop well past 50% throttle, so you may well have quite a bit of closed loop fuel mapping that will cause you problems. Presumably that's why you eventually experience the power reduction after a reset that you have mentioned?

Yes I thought the same. I think we agreed somewhere else that there's a hell of a lot more to closed/open loop than just load. I'll log my morning run in the 2 tomorrow and make sure i;m logging open/closed loop. Maybe we can come to some kind of understanding of when it goes into each.

Wouild be good to put it alongside an emanage log as well. So I'll monitor both

That would be great, I would love to see the logs, I can't quite work out what data you can get and how it's presented so seeing some would be really interesting.

Torque Pro can produce some pretty spiffing charts and data.
I usually monitor:
- LTFT
- STFT (all banks)
- Fuel Rate
- IAT
- MAF reading (translated from voltage into volume)
- Timing
- rpm
- Fuel state (open/closed loop)
- Coolant temperature
- Throttle position
- O2 sensor voltages (all 3, particularly interested in pre and post cat to get cat efficiency)

And now on emanage
- rpm
- throttle position
- FUeling (stock ecu, EMB addition and total)
- timing (stock ecu, emb addition and total)
- airflow changes

What I'll do is start the EMB log and then OBD2 log, and then rev the engine to 3k-ish 3 times so that I can see where the logs should sync up.

The only thing missing is next week's lottery numbers!

Just to add, I doubt it was tuned on 91octane, tuned to run 91 yeah, but tuned on higher, and then the knock sensor takes it down a peg or two when you're on rubbish fuel. Or do you know it really was on 91? if so uk 91 or usa 91?    not too relevant either way really,  just curious if it was fact or guess work  s:) :) s:)

And blue can remove fuel, you do it with the airflow compensation table, this also ajusts the ignition though, so you can then edit the ignition table to "un-ajust" it after if you want..  s:) :) s:)     its just hasstle, hence the ultimate is better as you do them both totally separately..

Methinks you misread. It's ninety seven.

Interesting on the reducing of fuel.
Sounds like it's best left alone to be honest.

I should see if I can trade mine in for an ultimate at some point

Sorry too many angles of conversation I meant lamcotes comment about the oem ecu being mapped on 91octane..

if you intend to play at any point i'd definitely upgrade to ultimate, I did the same myself, you then have more clear tables, direct adjustment, and live mapping for instant feedback.  the blue does the job, but i'd hate to be the one having to set it up where as me and a mate did my ultimate on the road all live  s:) :) s:)

I am as sure as I can be that it is tuned as standard for 91 octane UK/87 octane USA fuel. I've seen evidence supporting this quoted in many different sources.

That's what I was thinking Stu. Also the ultimate makes it a lot easier because it can auto-tune with a wideband.

So, best thing is to leave it be (car runs like a dream) and tinker if and when I do some more mods and can get an ultimate

I messed up on collecting some measurements  s:( :( s:(
I selected the wrong PID for O2 voltage. So I can't see where it goes into open or closed loop.

I did have the display on during driving on Torque Pro and it was actually pretty hard to get it out of closed loop!
It seems to be in closed loop most of the damn time unless you're WOT. But, it's even at closed loop in some WOT conditions believe it or not.

I lost some data (turns out EMB only logs for a limited amount of time) because I didn't save the log file before starting a new one.

From the first limited log this morning the EMB does damn near nothing except for two little blips where I went WOT.
Also, EMB doesn't log ignition timing from OBD2. So, the only metric it spits out is how much it adjusted timing by, but not how much it was originally and what was output.

I do have the timing from OBD2. So I can overlay those to get the pre/post. But not sure what that will tell me really.

LTFTs across the log hover around -17 during cruising at low rpm and a bit lower, -14 at higher rpm cruising.
At WOT it cuts down to about -5.5 to -6.  Here's the one interesting point out of this log... this is exactly where the visible peaks are in activity for the emanage.
So, I think I can pretty much say for certain that the ECU is undoing the EMB. That's assuming the units are the same on the metrics. So the EMB puts in an additional 3-4% duty cycle. And trim is around -5 (whatever the ECU unit is for ltft).

 m https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1X5pQtlfc4qVExzZmFCcExTcVE?usp=sharing) m
Here is what I have collected.
I don't have the EMB in CSV format for the 2nd run (11:00) as the converter wont work for a log this size...which is crap.

I need someone sitting next to me with the laptop and torque in hand to do this properly.
Having map tracing on for example would allow me to know when I've covered off certain parts of the map, and then save each as a separate log. So say 4 logs splitting the map in 4 areas.

That's very interesting, have you definitely correlated 100% TPS with closed loop? If so you seem to have confirmed that tricking the ECU in to open loop can't be done using the TPS, that's a real shame. The amount of closed loop running is a real worry, the EMB just isn't getting a look in. We need to identify if it is possible to find a repeatable method of getting into open loop. Will you log any more runs?

I'm definitely going to do a few more shorter runs tomorrow.

I'll specifically log a run from about 30 upwards in 3rd or maybe 4th at WOT to get a good range.
Should help suss out where open loop sits.
I'll get the correct o2 voltage metrics set up as well so we can see when it goes into open loop (no o2 voltage)

Excellent

OBD2 is failing me today for some reason. Keeps disconnecting.

Also, it won't log to file the fuel status. It only displays it on screen. I need to find the PID for this so I can put it in manually. Internet tells me HEX 03 03 but that doesn't work.
Will keep digging. Put 3 more logs up in CSV format on the share link above for your perusal. I'm none the wiser.

Can you run me through how to put a csv file into a spreadsheet so each column of values goes into its own spreadsheet column?

sorry I think I've done it..

Thanks

you should just be able to open the CSV file in Libre and save-as a spreadsheet file.

I'll convert them to xls files for you as well sometime today

Look at Hitokiri's response on this thread. It confirms our suspicions and my data. The stock ECU is playing with the maps in closed and open loop

 m http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=812164 (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=812164) m

Quote from: "shnazzle"Look at Hitokiri's response on this thread. It confirms our suspicions and my data. The stock ECU is playing with the maps in closed and open loop

 m http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=812164 (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=812164) m

As he notes (and don't forget his article is about working with a Scooby ECU!), the LTFT is effectively used to provide an offset in the open-loop part of the map (as I mentioned previously  s;) ;) s;)  ) to cope with different fuel ratings. Once in open-loop, NO changes to LTFT occur (as it's ignoring the O2 sensors at this point). You may see the values changing as it commits short-term data into the long-term registers but the overall behaviour remains the same during OL.

[edit]

TBH, if you want complete control of the fuelling and ignition timing the only option is complete standalone - aPexi PowerFC or Emerald K6 (to name a couple). Piggybacks are always going to be a (huge) compromise.

[/edit]

Yes that's what we're saying I think. It doesn't actively change anything in open loop, but it does set the trims etc across the LTFT map (in all areas) during closed loop.

I suspect most ECUs will do this for safety reasons. Otherwise if it had to adjust timing for safety/knock reasons in closed loop and not in open.. It'd cause damage.

So logically... We should have known the answer to this from the get go haha

With regards to your edit Steve. There's one point in that scooby forum post that got my attention; the fact that piggyback can actually be a great option for day to day car use as you keep the stock safety mechanisms. Whereas with PFC...youz mess up...youz engine go boom.
Obviously the stock ecu can only compensate for so much n00bness  s:) :) s:)  haha. So...I think I'd be best sticking with piggyback tuning for a good while hahaha

Hi, I just did a load of analysis on one of the spreadsheets and thought I had saved it but I seem to have lost it, can't believe it....

There does seem to be a tiny bit of a trend, I wondered the following:

Is it possible that the areas where the LTFTs drop to between 5-10% is when the ECU was going into open loop. This would be because, instead of trying to pull the AFR back to 14.7:1 in closed loop, the ECU only tries to pull it back to 12-13:1 which the ECU is happy with in open loop, so the amount of negative LTFT is lower?

Having had a look at the data there seems to be a case that when the MAF and TPS signals are at low to medium values but both are increasing at a noticeable rate, the LTFTs drop to 10%. When one or other of these is at a high level and the other is increasing or both are stable at a high level, the LTFTs drop to 5%.

It might be useful to highlight the data for; MAF, TPS, LTFT bank 1x1, LTFT bank 2x1 and to have it in graphical form to see if there are some trends?

I'm not convinced a piggyback is a lost cause, if we can understand exactly what's happening, we may be able to deal with it.

Do you know the time interval between rows of data collected? It seems to be every second on one of them but the other doesn't specify.

Cheers

It won't be a lost cause by any means but I am finding it very hard to know what the car is trying to achieve. Which is frustrating.
I've said it a million times but I think the only way this is going to become any more clear is if I can log AFR alongside this.

AFR/Lambda is the final goal for the ECU isn't it? At idle/cruising it wants 14.7 and at full throttle it has a set amount htat it's aiming for. Then it adjusts timing etc to try to stay around that but still be safe based on hwat the knock sensor is saying, etc.
So without knowing AFR, we won't know what the reason is for some of this.

I'm going to try again to see if I can get the Fuel System Status PID working on Torque. Knowing exactly when it goes into what fueling status will help a lot as well.
Will do that now  s:) :) s:)

EDIT: I think I've managed to find the PID and entered it. I'll log it on the way home to see what it does. It has 5 values
1   Open loop due to insufficient engine temperature
2   Closed loop, using oxygen sensor feedback to determine fuel mix
4   Open loop due to engine load OR fuel cut due to deceleration
8   Open loop due to system failure
16   Closed loop, using at least one oxygen sensor but there is a fault in the feedback system

I just loaded it up and it returned 2. Which is correct as I was sat idling, it will have been in closed loop.

So hopefully we should see it switching from 2 to 4 and vice versa during the drive. Maybe a bit of 1 as I pull away from the work parking lot  s:) :) s:)
Once again...watch this space.
If I get this data it might clear up some of the analysis you did Patrick

Really good, be interested to see it.

Right Patrick I've put up the log from just now.
Unfortunately there's not much range I can get in after-work traffic but I tried my best to get a bit of everything in there.

So the open/closed loop monitor seems to have worked on PID 0103 (Mode 1, PID 3). It has returned 2 and 4 as predicted. The car must ahve warmed past 1 when I was tinkering with the OBD2.

You're right about the relation between higher throttle (particularly WOT) and the sudden drop in LTFT. This must be exactly as you say, trying to get that 12.5 lower AFR from its "best case" table. You'll notice it go into open a lot, that's because I had to slow down a lot  s:) :) s:)  As I said, hard to do in traffic.
I can see now what they mean that it's damn near impossible to tune a car on the road. A track maybe and only if you've rented it out.

Might be best to filter on specific areas of the run.

Can I upload a file into that folder? I have repeated the analysis and there are similar patterns again. I have highlighted where the LTFTs go down to -10 and -5 and tried to pick some change in MAF and or TPS values that may have triggered the LTFT change.

I think so. If not, send to shnazzle at gmail dot com and I'll put it in
Was the open/closed loop measurement of any use?

Ooh,  might have missed that, was it in the spreadsheet file?

Quote from: "lamcote"Ooh,  might have missed that, was it in the spreadsheet file?

You must have!
It's under Fuel Status  s:) :) s:)  Values 2 (closed loop) and 4 (open loop)

Oops, how did I miss that?

I'll have another look.

I've done some analysis to try to identify any trends, I'll email the sheet to you. It shows:
All rows highlighted in yellow are open loop data
All cells highlighted green in column X are where the MAF reading just changed by +/-10 or more
All cells highlighted green in column AD are where the TPS just changed by +/-4 or more

Do you notice any trend? I can't stare at it any longer for the moment!

One other thought, these logs seem to be logging data once per second. At 3,000rpm there are 100 combustion events per second, so we are getting around 1-2% of the total fueling data it, may be tricky to track down fueling trends with such a small sample of data?

Hmm... I've just checked and changed the sampling rate. It was set to 1sec so I set it to 0.1sec. That should be better.

We'll get there!?

I'll have a look later today at your work

Do you know why there are 3 different fuel trims per bank?

I do not. I've always wondered this myself.

My only guess is that there is a LTFT, a "proper" STFT and the third is logging the constant +/- AFR swing introduced to "drive" the O2 sensors. One of them does seem to go from +ve to -ve on a very regular basis.

Visually it looks like the following scenarios:
Low RPM + Open loop (status 4) = LTFT down
Low Rpm + Closed loop (status 2) = LTFT up
High RPM + Open loop = LTFT UP
High RPM + CLosed loop = LTFT down
WOT + Open loop / closed loop = random...all over the place. Can't see a correlation (yet).

Not surprisingly, more throttle = more timing advance. Not sure that's a massive revelation  s:) :) s:)  hehehe.
What is a revelation is why timing goes down in the middle of a climb in RPM?

How does this work?
Does the stock ECU have a theoretical timing map that it reads, and then applies a timing advance/retard on top of that?

Quote from: "shnazzle"Visually it looks like the following scenarios:
Low RPM + Open loop (status 4) = LTFT down
Low Rpm + Closed loop (status 2) = LTFT up
High RPM + Open loop = LTFT UP
High RPM + CLosed loop = LTFT down
WOT + Open loop / closed loop = random...all over the place. Can't see a correlation (yet).

Not surprisingly, more throttle = more timing advance. Not sure that's a massive revelation  s:) :) s:)  hehehe.
What is a revelation is why timing goes down in the middle of a climb in RPM?

Either knock detected or to adapt to the change in cam timing.

Quote from: "shnazzle"How does this work?
Does the stock ECU have a theoretical timing map that it reads, and then applies a timing advance/retard on top of that?

No it does it by magic (or smoke and mirrors)   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

It uses a timing map in exactly the same way as the piggyback does with offsets added / removed in response to knock being detected.

Quote from: "lamcote"One other thought, these logs seem to be logging data once per second. At 3,000rpm there are 100 combustion events per second, so we are getting around 1-2% of the total fueling data it, may be tricky to track down fueling trends with such a small sample of data?

The Bosch sensors (and at a guess most other mfr's) have a response time of ~100ms (or a max of 10 events per second) so you wont be getting any more data than that anyway. They are only used to detect trends in the exhaust gas, not the result of every exhaust stroke.

Going to have to dig further into the potential that it's pulling back timing based on knock values.
That's obviously not favourable.

Does it mean this or is there another explanation?

Can the airflow adjustments also tamper with the timing directly? Or only indirectly via causing knock?

It's a multi-dimensional map which gives a timing value based upon multiple inputs (air temp, air flow, water temp, throttle position, engine rpm and possibly O2/fuelling as well). This value is then used along with an overall knock-detected offset adjustment.

Use of the knock sensor is essential for Toyota as they don't know what grade of fuel is in use (can range from ~91 RON in Japan/US to ~100 RON in Europe). It's the reason that it takes quite a while to get the benefits from Shell Optimax etc - the ECU will pull timing advance very quickly in response to knock but then add it back VERY slowly when it doesn't see any. This is one of the contributing factors resulting in better performance after an ECU reset.

How ECU's work in the real-world is very much a black art - hence why good tuners make mucho dinero!

The Lotus ECU in Izzy (my Elise) is base-tuned to 97RON (with a BIG sticker in the fuel filler alerting you to this) and it really hates having anything other than super-fresh fuel - I've had problems with fuel from garages that aren't very busy and have stale Super-Unleaded in their tanks.

kinda half read stuff because I just got in and want to go bed but found myself on laptop on here :p  but think comments relevant, ignore if not..   det happens easiest in the mid rev range (from experience I find 3,500rpm about the usual place to get misfires etc). so that's probably why ignitions going funky around there. just preventative measures..     I think perhaps you're interpreting the figures wrong too?? if not then again ignore, but sounds slightly like you're reading -5 on ignition as "read base figure, don't run that run it -5.."  but its not like the fuel trims, they're not ajustments typically displayed, they're actual figures of whats being run.. unless you're looking at something other than what i'm thinking.. the ultimate for example can show requested and adjusted ignition figures.

Next on my list of PIDs to find... Knock detection.
I know it's there as I saw that Steve's funky handheld device showed knock.

I had no knock at all at idle. But if it's knocking at full throttle then I want to tone down my timing advances

He's reading from the OBD2 so it's the absolute figure that the stock ECU is trying to deliver. I can't recall how the Blue & Ultimate do their timing adjustments - if it's the same as the Dastek then the TDC sensor is intercepted and modified to trick the stock ECU so it doesn't know that the engine is actually a few degrees away from where it thinks it is based on the piggyback map.

Quote from: "stupink"kinda half read stuff because I just got in and want to go bed but found myself on laptop on here :p  but think comments relevant, ignore if not..   det happens easiest in the mid rev range (from experience I find 3,500rpm about the usual place to get misfires etc). so that's probably why ignitions going funky around there. just preventative measures..     I think perhaps you're interpreting the figures wrong too?? if not then again ignore, but sounds slightly like you're reading -5 on ignition as "read base figure, don't run that run it -5.."  but its not like the fuel trims, they're not ajustments typically displayed, they're actual figures of whats being run.. unless you're looking at something other than what i'm thinking.. the ultimate for example can show requested and adjusted ignition figures.

I'm reading is at -5 is the sum total of the timing in the table(s), the EMB and the stock timing adjustment.

Unfortunately the Blue only shows the adjustment.
I'd have to subtract the adjustment from the obd2 total to get the stock ECU value. But only if the logs are 100% sync.. Which they're  not

Quote from: "shnazzle"

Quote from: "stupink"kinda half read stuff because I just got in and want to go bed but found myself on laptop on here :p  but think comments relevant, ignore if not..   det happens easiest in the mid rev range (from experience I find 3,500rpm about the usual place to get misfires etc). so that's probably why ignitions going funky around there. just preventative measures..     I think perhaps you're interpreting the figures wrong too?? if not then again ignore, but sounds slightly like you're reading -5 on ignition as "read base figure, don't run that run it -5.."  but its not like the fuel trims, they're not ajustments typically displayed, they're actual figures of whats being run.. unless you're looking at something other than what i'm thinking.. the ultimate for example can show requested and adjusted ignition figures.

I'm reading is at -5 is the sum total of the timing in the table(s), the EMB and the stock timing adjustment.

Unfortunately the Blue only shows the adjustment.
I'd have to subtract the adjustment from the obd2 total to get the stock ECU value. But only if the logs are 100% sync.. Which they're  not

What you need is the Profec e-01 (actually a boost controller) - it show the real-time absolute timing values from the Blue (and Ultimate) (along with TPS, airflow, temp etc) and can log it all to an SD card.

I can see now how people end up with a profec, wideband, ultimate, map (not me obviously)  etc...

And the next step to a link, apexi, etc is a small step away.

I've added a misfire PID to my logs now. Might be interesting to see if i get and and if so, how many.

Obviously I'd rather have none

A quick look at the Toyota data-stream analysis done by a few people seems to indicate the knock timing adjustments are returned in PID 21B2 (http://www.mthrfknwin.com/diagnostic-port-obd2-detail-manufacturer-specific-pids/) but it's not a straight-forward value (see the URL for more detail).

Oh that's different from the one I found (01F3). I'll have a read of that

Ah I think 21B2 is already being looked at. That's the timing value in the logs in think.

01F3 is the number of misfires

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161127/4b1e943735bb9d6a642b62e8d75883cb.jpg)
My new Torque Pro live screen.

Then monitoring everything in the background to file at 0.1ms intervals.

Obd2 has been flakey last week so I might have to try another adapter. I want a USB one actually

Quote from: "shnazzle"Ah I think 21B2 is already being looked at. That's the timing value in the logs in think.

01F3 is the number of misfires

21B2 is the timing correction based on knock - if you're seeing that changing then knock is being detected (which is quite normal but shouldn't result in excessive changes).

Basic timing advance is a standard OBDII PID - list here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBD-II_PIDs

Quote from: "shnazzle"Then monitoring everything in the background to file at 0.1ms intervals.

Obd2 has been flakey last week so I might have to try another adapter. I want a USB one actually but can't find one

Don't blame the adapter too readily - the ECU used in the '2 is limited in the amount of data it will serve up on the OBDII connector before you start getting timing errors. Sampling more than a couple of PIDs at 10Hz is going to overwhelm it. (P.S. I think you mean 0.1 seconds not milliseconds as that would equate to 10,000 samples/second which is way outside what OBD is capable of  s;) ;) s;)  )

Ah... That'll explain it then. Need to reduce the number of PIDs I'm logging.

And yes I definitely meant 10ms haha.
Time for sleeps methinks.

Reconfigured my dash again. Added 21B2.
So two screens; one for timing and one for fueling.
Timing has misfires, knock timing, timing advance and some general parameters.
Fueling has stft, ltft, o2 readings and fueling status.

No progress today.
Constant "Faulty Obd2 Detected" issues, takes ages to connect since a few days ago.
Today's issues could be that its not happy with the new PIDs I put in.
They didn't display anything today once it did connect. That's either because it's  not knocking or it's not working  s:) :) s:)

Late to the party

Some random thoughts..

Here is a logging I did of my Stock USDM 1ZZ Spyder With MAF Mod on a Flat Ground Pull
The Lower Pink line is the Stock Fueling..  Starts at ~12.5 AFR  and peeks out at 12.8afr..

Something is wrong with the RPM scaling..  as it should be topping out at 7K..  its showing RPM by about half..  Green Line is the Ignition Advance.. Orange is Air Flow.  Blue line is the TPS..

This is with 2ZZ Injectors and the MAF mod.. I was able to 'pull' the fuel in Open Loop, by offsetting the 'Starting Point' of the Fuel Trim Line by setting it at a LTFT -7 by offsetting the MAF air flow Unit.. The Variable Vane Intake I built allowed me to Mess with the MAF Calibration and watch the resulting AFR tracings..  

(http://i312.photobucket.com/albums/ll351/CapWeir/PostAcceleration.jpg)


Here is a log with my Stock ECU running in Closed loop 15.2 AFR..  then half way through the log I switch it back to 14.7 AFR Closed loop Cruse..  I was able to get up to 17 AFR closed loop Fueling..  I did not try the other way..  looking for 13.5..  but it's possible..  Switching is cumbersome.. The ECU is still using the Narrow Band Sensors..  just an Offset Voltage is used to get the required AFR

(http://i312.photobucket.com/albums/ll351/CapWeir/O2SteppedUp.jpg)

I experimented with the LC1 Analog Outputs to offset my AFR's but the AFR's were not stable..  they were swinging wildly..  I spent many hours of trial and error trying to get it sorted out..  but I could not..  so I had to use the Voltage Offset on the Standard Narrow Band Sensors


Cap

Thanks Cap.
Few questions;
1) Did you offset the voltage on the MAF only (by raising it) or also the o2 sensors themselves? Not sure how you switched the commanded AFR from 15.2 to 14.7 mid-drive
2) What would be the equivalent action in the emanage (change fueling, timing advance, injector size compensation, air flow changes, etc) to the MAF mod?
3) What are the effects of raising the MAF on timing, if any?

With regards to the 2nd question; the 2zz injectors are 310cc/min and stock are 260cc/min right? So 19% bigger than stock
So two options:
- I can pretend I've put in 210cc injectors in the emanage settings (19% smaller). So emanage should over-compensate by 19%, mocking the 2zz injectors. That's assuming that the 2zz injectors are running nowhere near 80% duty cycle. Then adjust the airflow map to mock the raising of the MAF (or using the dials in the front of the EMB). Leaving the timing table blank
- Add 19% fueling across the range via the injection table and then adjust the airflow to mock the raising of the MAF. Leave timing table blank.

Both these "solutions" allow the car to have full control of timing. As is the case with the MAF mod but mock the higher amount of fuel going in as per the MAF mod. I assume that the changes in airflow cause the car to adjust its timing accordingly, assuming you're running a higher octane fuel that burns slower and doesn't detonate at the advanced timing.

This contradicts the idea that any gains from N/A tuning are to be had from advancing timing (and using a higher octane).

I had a look at two other maps available on the forum; one from Alex (northernalex) and one from Phil (evileye_wrx). Both take a very different approach.
Phil's does all his work in fueling by adding massive amounts of fuel (from 10% up to 55%) depending on rpm and throttle. He actually retards timing by -2 above 6k rpm and 70% throttle. With up to 10% airflow adjustment in top RPM/WOT.

Alex on the other has NO fueling changes (guessing he didn't have the harness) and has big timing adjustments. starting at 2 at just above idle to 6deg from about 5000rpm onwards with medium airflow adjustments across the board.

Phil's approach seems quite akin to the MAF mod. Adding lots of fuel and adding a lot of airflow at high load.
Alex's approach is entirely around timing. The timing map advances while it is undone a bit by changes to airflow.

My understanding is:

1) The voltage offset is on the O2 signal, not MAF. (This is a separate thing from the MAF mod)
2) The simplest eManage equivalent to the MAF mod is to use the airflow adjustment and alter injector sizes as you describe above (but presumably Noble have already done the same thing with the timing on your car, but by using the ignition harness? (If so, you can't do it twice)
3) The MAF riser works by simulating lower than actual airflow mass, thereby causing the timing to be advanced by the ECU, the 2zz injectors and fuel trims then return the fuel flow back to normal 1zz levels. Thus you get the standard 1zz AFR but with advanced timing.

I'd be very interested to see Cap's comments though.

One other thought, if the MAF mod works with 2zz injectors and a LTFT of c.-7-8%, wouldn't it also work with standard 1zz injectors and LTFT of c.+10-11%?? (As long as you drive in closed loop for a while before going into open loop to minimise the risk of running lean.)

Quote from: "shnazzle"Thanks Cap.
Few questions;
1) Did you offset the voltage on the MAF only (by raising it) or also the o2 sensors themselves? Not sure how you switched the commanded AFR from 15.2 to 14.7 mid-drive

I only raised the MAF to produce a lower Engine Load Calculation..  causing MORE ignition advance and LESS total fuel..  Less fuel then the fuel trims can compensate for which is why the Bigger Injectors.

Quote2) What would be the equivalent action in the emanage (change fueling, timing advance, injector size compensation, air flow changes, etc) to the MAF mod?

Likely the same..  but the E-Manage can be tweeked over the range, where the MAF Mod is a Fixed Offset

Quote3) What are the effects of raising the MAF on timing, if any?

Advanced it by forcing the ECU to calculate a lower engine load

QuoteWith regards to the 2nd question; the 2zz injectors are 310cc/min and stock are 260cc/min right? So 19% bigger than stock
So two options:
- I can pretend I've put in 210cc injectors in the emanage settings (19% smaller). So emanage should over-compensate by 19%, mocking the 2zz injectors. That's assuming that the 2zz injectors are running nowhere near 80% duty cycle. Then adjust the airflow map to mock the raising of the MAF (or using the dials in the front of the EMB). Leaving the timing table blank
- Add 19% fueling across the range via the injection table and then adjust the airflow to mock the raising of the MAF. Leave timing table blank.

Both these "solutions" allow the car to have full control of timing. As is the case with the MAF mod but mock the higher amount of fuel going in as per the MAF mod. I assume that the changes in airflow cause the car to adjust its timing accordingly, assuming you're running a higher octane fuel that burns slower and doesn't detonate at the advanced timing.

This contradicts the idea that any gains from N/A tuning are to be had from advancing timing (and using a higher octane).

I was only able to get performance gains by advancing timing..  my view was that the 1ZZ ECU is dumping plenty of fuel for an NA Machine..  as discussed previously in your threads

QuoteI had a look at two other maps available on the forum; one from Alex (northernalex) and one from Phil (evileye_wrx). Both take a very different approach.
Phil's does all his work in fueling by adding massive amounts of fuel (from 10% up to 55%) depending on rpm and throttle. He actually retards timing by -2 above 6k rpm and 70% throttle. With up to 10% airflow adjustment in top RPM/WOT.
Alex on the other has NO fueling changes (guessing he didn't have the harness) and has big timing adjustments. starting at 2 at just above idle to 6deg from about 5000rpm onwards with medium airflow adjustments across the board.

Phil's approach seems quite akin to the MAF mod. Adding lots of fuel and adding a lot of airflow at high load.
Alex's approach is entirely around timing. The timing map advances while it is undone a bit by changes to airflow.

Initially I started playing with Fuel by Installing a wide band (LC1) and using the Output of the Analog Outputs to force the Closed Loop Fuel Ratio to where I wanted it..  besides the fact that the ECU AFR swings went wider than with a Narrow Band Sensor ( Fuel/Air ratio Hunting during closed loop actually is programmed to feed fuel then air to the Cats..  that is why it's there )  but the Hunting swing was causing a lean/rich stumble..  but by messing with the LTFT in closed loop, I was able to force an Open Loop AFR in the range I wanted to test..  I did not notice any real difference on the Butt Dyno..  so I abandon that work and proceeded to attack the ignition advance part of the problem..  That is where I saw the best improvement in Fuel Millage and in performance..

  In testing the AFR theory of Fuel Economy, I did various runs from 14.7 up to 17 and checked the approximate fuel millage..  mostly the same..  nothing remarkable different..  but as the AFR's went up..  the HP produced went down so my Foot was slightly more into the throttle to get the Cruse Speed..  

Thought Change..

By Removing the 'Ground Wire' in the Narrow Band O2 Sensor Wire Harness..  I was able to Inject an Offset Voltage ( Raise the Ground of the O2 Sensors above the Veh Ground Voltage Potential ) in the Narrow Band O2 Sensor Circuit of the ECU. This forced the ECU while in closed loop to Pull Fuel to make the 'Total Voltage' it wants to see as proper..  this same technique can be used to move the Ground Potential BELOW the Veh Ground to cause it to run in Closed Loop Richer than Stoch Mixture..

And you were told that Ground Offsets were Bad!.. No So..

Cap

A little More information to digest on the AFR/Narrow Band O2 Sensor Tweeking..

This is a chart of the Voltage output by a Narrow Band O2 Sensor, and the Approximate AFR that is refers to..
O2 Volts to A/F ratio
volts ............................. A/F
0.1 ............................... 17
0.2 ............................... 16.5
0.3 ............................... 16
0.4 ............................... 15.4
0.5 ............................... 14.9
0.6 ............................... 14.4
0.7 ............................... 13.8
0.8 ............................... 13.2
0.9 ............................... 12.7
0.985 ............................ 12.1

By looking at this system as a feed Back Computer..  the ECU is looking for a Voltage of .52 Volts to be returned by the Upstream O2 Sensor(s) in the Tail Pipe at Closed Loop..  
In Closed Loop, the ECU will Read the Lbs of Air Flow of the MAF, Then Calculate how many Pulses needed to Squirt 14.7 Lbs of Fuel for the measured Air Lbs. ( EDIT..  OOOPs 1 Lb Fuel to 14.7 Lbs Air )
If the Voltage Returned is HIGH then the ECU needs to PULL some of the Fuel Pulses from the Calculation of the Injector System..  ( Fuel Trims go to the Neg Numbers )
If the Voltage Returned is LOW then the ECU needs to ADD some pulses Fuel Pulses to the Calculation of the Injection System.. ( Fuel Trims go to the Pos Numbers )

For practical Numbers, the Fuel trims can only Compensate up to 30% Error Sig before they are Frozen from Moving..  Usually an Error Sig or Greater then 20% ( Plus or Minus ) will toss the Lean or Rich Error Code..

Back to the Chart..  in Closed Loop, the ECU wants to have .52 from its 'Sensor' to get 14.7 AFR..  If I put a little Battery in the O2 Sensor Line and 'Add' 0.1 Volt to the Sig coming to the ECU from the O2 Sensor, the O2 Sensor will only have to be running at .42 Volt ( Plus the Batterys .1 Volt = 0.52) so the the ECU will be happy and 'In Loop'..  Extrapolating 0.42 Volts from the Chart Above gives us about an AFR of 15.2..  Closed Loop 15.2 AFR.

If I take the Same 'Battery' and  wire it 'Backwards' into the O2 Sensor Voltage Circuit, it will 'Subtract' 0.1 Voltage from the O2 Sensor input to the ECU..  The Sensor will be running at .62 Volts.. the Battery removes .1 Volt and the ECU sees .52 Volts..  so the O2 Sensor will have to be running at about 14.1 AFR!..  Closed loop!..

Lets Play with the Numbers..
13.5 AFR is about a Voltage of 0.75 Volts..  That is about 0.23 Volt that needs to be removed from the O2 Sensor Circuit before it gets to the ECU input..  Hey that is about One Foreword Transistor Drop ..  

So by MY Math..  If you put a Signal Diode foreword Biased in the Sig Line going to the ECU you will have a System that will be running at about 13.5 in closed loop all the time..

Wonder if that would work?..  

Cap

That AFR/narrowband table is great!
I'll assume your electrical engineering
concepts are correct. Well above my pay grade.

A bit confused about the 14.7 fuel though. Isn't it the other way around? Needs to inject 1 part fuel for every 14.7 parts measured air?

This is starting to seem a bit like a tuning box  in that actual feedback signals are being changed to force the stock ECU to "map" itself instead of applying changing to airflow, fueling and ignition via the emanage and trying to work around the built in tables.

My main concern with the o2 voltage manipulation is; do I always want to run 13.5 AFR during closed loop?
Other than the obvious passing of emissions tests, it seems that cruising around and idling at 13.5 seems a waste of fuel.

Where the "tuning box" would become interesting to me is when it could be coupled with a responsiveness to the throttle and rpm within the closed loop range. Which takes us back to one of the original questions of what are the parameters that determine closed/open loop?

Bringing it back to emanage...
As I can't control the o2 signal, my only raw feedback parameter that I can change is airflow.

But no matter how much I manipulate the airflow, the stock ECU will always respond to the o2 sensor reading off 0.52.
Seems like a dead end to me for the emanage.
The only way this looks to be possible is to bypass the narrowband o2 using a metered power source to 0.52v and then let emanage do its thing in closed and open loop

Yes shnazzle I agree, if it's possible to bypass the O2 signal and replace it with a mock signal automatically switching between 0.9v to 0.1v and back, telling the ECU it is getting 14.7 AFR, this would provide a solution. The key is being able to get this to kick in at a specific and repeatable point (based on revs and or TPS?). This would allow the mapping to be done at all load cells beyond the point it kicks in and then the fuel trims wouldn't be affected. The two things required are:

1. Define the point at which the signal would kick in
2. Identify all load cells beyond this point which could then have the fuel remapped

Thank you for the Heads up on my mistake..  I was sitting on the wrong side of the equation..  It was late on a Friday nite

A Few more thoughts about the Signals..  

I went back through my notes on the ECU inputs..  and the Switching point for the O2 Sensor input is 0.45 Volts..  The MR2 ECU needs to see the O2 Sensor input Switch Above Below .45 Volt..  It can not be a Stable .45 volt. so it's like a Set/Reset Input triggered at .45 volt to switch from adding fuel to subtracting fuel..  
That does not center at 14.7 AFR..  but that is where my testing showed it to be..

If you run one or two foreword biased Signal Diodes in the O2 Sensor Line to the ECU..  this will cause Richer Mixture when they are in..  

A Plan could be..  Take an Arduno that is controlling a Miniature Relay that Normally shorts out the Diodes, this will cause the Mixture to revert back to 14.7..  Have the Arduno reading the MAF and Calculating the RPM from the Tack Line.. This can give you a Engine Load Calculation.  When the Load is above a certain Calc, have the Arduno Open the relay, forcing the Mixture to go to the 13's

Not the direction the Thread started out..  but it's a plan

Cap

I've edited my post above to clarify some details.

On a tangent;

Today I cleaned out my air filter and reset the ECU. The air filter wasn't really dirty so that can't play a role.

What I can 100% say is that an ECU reset makes way for the eManage and it goes like the clappers! It genuinely made the car very noticeably quicker, particularly in the low/mid range. Also, what's new is that at a certain rev range I can hear a bit of induction noise now. Now as I said, the air filter really wasn't dirty. A hardly noticeable amount of black dust came out when I washed it (it's a K&N). But if I floor it in 2nd or 3rd at >2.5-3k rpm I can hear the distinct noise of intake. It could be that the filter clean helped a bit of flow, but I severely doubt it. Also, I had exhaust burbling. I usually only get that after a hard run out when I've got the exhaust flaming hot.
This must mean that with the ecu reset, the car is sucking harder  s:) :) s:)  

I purposely toodled out of our estate very slowly as to not trigger any LTFT changes past 2k rpm. When I pulled out in 2nd it was a genuine kick in the back. I coasted back down to 1500rpm in 2nd and put my foot down, wheel spin! Last time it did that was when I first installed the emanage.
I drove up the dual carriage way and it was noticeably quicker in higher revs as well. I didn't have to drop to 4th to get it to go. I put my foot down in 5th at about 3k rpm and it gave me a right kick.

Back off the dual carriageway in a 50 zone I tried the 2nd and 3rd gears again. While now a bit less punchy, it's still absolutely quicker than it was before the reset.

Conclusions (which we already knew but figured it was worth re-iterating haha):
1) ECU reset clears the LTFT tables and the emanage makes the car come alive with intake "roar" and exhaust burbling (de-pre-cat stock mani and TTE exhaust). duh.
2) The LTFT table adjusts very quickly, within 10 mins, but it doesn't adjust fully! There's still a huge gain over the pre-reset condition. This means that it's applying some sort of adjustments across the ranges but doesn't finish adjusting until a good few cycles. I reckon the car will be back to "normal" by the time I get home tomorrow after work.

What I'll do next is pick a "course" that will allow me to do some pulls. I will log those and then reset the ECU and repeat it immediately. Keeping all environmental parameters the same.
It'll be interesting to see the difference overlaid kind of like a dyno chart.

What'd be more interesting is if I could get an actual pre/post dyno chart

Yes, thanks for that. It demonstrates that there is a lot to gain on a largely standard engine but that the standard ECU is very adept at undoing the remap if it sees any changes in closed loop.

The only way to get this right is either to identify all the load cells in the eManage's map that fall within the standard ECU's open loop parameters, presumably on a dyno, or force open loop by some method such as the one I mentioned above, if this works?

Quote from: "Cap"A little More information to digest on the AFR/Narrow Band O2 Sensor Tweeking..

This is a chart of the Voltage output by a Narrow Band O2 Sensor, and the Approximate AFR that is refers to..
O2 Volts to A/F ratio
volts ............................. A/F
0.1 ............................... 17
0.2 ............................... 16.5
0.3 ............................... 16
0.4 ............................... 15.4
0.5 ............................... 14.9
0.6 ............................... 14.4
0.7 ............................... 13.8
0.8 ............................... 13.2
0.9 ............................... 12.7
0.985 ............................ 12.1

By looking at this system as a feed Back Computer..  the ECU is looking for a Voltage of .52 Volts to be returned by the Upstream O2 Sensor(s) in the Tail Pipe at Closed Loop..  
In Closed Loop, the ECU will Read the Lbs of Air Flow of the MAF, Then Calculate how many Pulses needed to Squirt 14.7 Lbs of Fuel for the measured Air Lbs. ( EDIT..  OOOPs 1 Lb Fuel to 14.7 Lbs Air )
If the Voltage Returned is HIGH then the ECU needs to PULL some of the Fuel Pulses from the Calculation of the Injector System..  ( Fuel Trims go to the Neg Numbers )
If the Voltage Returned is LOW then the ECU needs to ADD some pulses Fuel Pulses to the Calculation of the Injection System.. ( Fuel Trims go to the Pos Numbers )

For practical Numbers, the Fuel trims can only Compensate up to 30% Error Sig before they are Frozen from Moving..  Usually an Error Sig or Greater then 20% ( Plus or Minus ) will toss the Lean or Rich Error Code..

Back to the Chart..  in Closed Loop, the ECU wants to have .52 from its 'Sensor' to get 14.7 AFR..  If I put a little Battery in the O2 Sensor Line and 'Add' 0.1 Volt to the Sig coming to the ECU from the O2 Sensor, the O2 Sensor will only have to be running at .42 Volt ( Plus the Batterys .1 Volt = 0.52) so the the ECU will be happy and 'In Loop'..  Extrapolating 0.42 Volts from the Chart Above gives us about an AFR of 15.2..  Closed Loop 15.2 AFR.

If I take the Same 'Battery' and  wire it 'Backwards' into the O2 Sensor Voltage Circuit, it will 'Subtract' 0.1 Voltage from the O2 Sensor input to the ECU..  The Sensor will be running at .62 Volts.. the Battery removes .1 Volt and the ECU sees .52 Volts..  so the O2 Sensor will have to be running at about 14.1 AFR!..  Closed loop!..

Lets Play with the Numbers..
13.5 AFR is about a Voltage of 0.75 Volts..  That is about 0.23 Volt that needs to be removed from the O2 Sensor Circuit before it gets to the ECU input..  Hey that is about One Foreword Transistor Drop ..  

So by MY Math..  If you put a Signal Diode foreword Biased in the Sig Line going to the ECU you will have a System that will be running at about 13.5 in closed loop all the time..

Wonder if that would work?..  

Cap

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e9/f2/19/e9f219dce30f13670158832310b0e42c.jpg)

Seriously tho this thread is an enlightening read, will be referring to this in the spring when I start my turbo conversion

Two new logs from just now uploaded to the share. In zip.
Two logs because my obd2 keeps conking out for some reason. Very annoying.

LTFT stayed at 0 until about 3/4 through the drive when all of a sudden they took a nosedive.
I also noticed a misfire or knock cut when I was flat out in 2nd or 3rd I forgot coming from a traffic light onto a 70 road.
Again shows that timing is quite aggressive when you reset ecu. But it pulls it back.

Doesn't the knock show that your eManage was mapped for 97 octane and the standard ECU is unable to override timing other than using the knock sensor?

Well I'm running Vpower nitro so you'd think that if the advance was on on 97 then it would definitely be OK on 98.

It might not have been knock. But I had my foot flat and there was a little bump in power for a fraction of a second

OK. I thought I remembered you saying you ran 95 octane, I must have got confused.

Taking the discussion from the TPS trickery back to here;

So I'm going to apply the TPS trick which will allow me to send the car WOT at pretty much anything over 50% throttle and 2500 revs or so. I'll tweak that based on where the most work is in the maps I have.
Fact is that even at WOT, the car isn't always in open loop. So the solution isn't perfect, but I reckon it will cover a fair bit of the stock closed loop areas.

The way to tell I suppose will be if LTFT remains around 0 for a longer period of time across rev ranges than before the trickery.

I'm also going to install a Fast and the Furious style button to activate the trickery  s:) :) s:)
What this will allow me to do is some seat-of-pants testing by taking it to say 70% throttle, holding it there and flipping the switch, then it SHOULD do something. At the very least I should feel a stutter and I should see my TorquePro fuel state go to Open Loop.

I look forward to the video of this!... please be sure to change gear at least 7 times whilst accelerating prior to pushing the button! (just like in the film!).

I will also need to plagiarize some of your work to carry across to mine!

Quote from: "jvanzyl"I look forward to the video of this!... please be sure to change gear at least 7 times whilst accelerating prior to pushing the button! (just like in the film!).

I will also need to plagiarize some of your work to carry across to mine!

That's the idea! But you've already got all the gubbins set up  s:) :) s:)
Some detailed pics of the box of tricks would be great in my email  s:) :) s:)

So I guess this thread has come to an end with the conclusion from the open loop trickery thread.

LTFT remain stable when forcing the ecu into open loop via the box of tricks.  End result being that you're always driving on the emanage map when it counts. No meddling from the ecu.

Guess my conclusion is; emanage blue piggyback (and possibly many others) is utterly utterly pointless on N/A setup without this open loop trickery.
You can work around it, but really... No...

Another update; not the end  s:) :) s:)

Did a few logs post-open loop mod. Although I forgot to log TPS, it is obvious when I;m on throttle through the MAF values.

It has been a few days since the mod and the ECU has caught onto my trickery a bit. All this means is that I need to play with the VTEC areas a bit more. But it'll never be perfect.
It hasn't caught on fully though. Once i'm over 3000rpm and on WOT the LTFT flies up from around -12/-14 to -4/-5.  

So that's a massive improvement of almost 10% more fuel vs what it was doing before. No wonder it is massively noticeable.

You spend a fair amount of time around 3k with about 50-75% throttle, which in my map doesn;t kick in the tweak yet. So I'll change that and reset ECU. Should improve things

Tweaked map a bit. Bit better as far as I can tell, but obd2 broken so no LTFT readings.

Did install a little switch to turn the trickery on/off. Lights up when active. Quite fun  s:) :) s:)  
When it's MOT time I'll press the switch to turn it off then drive around a bit so that the car can make the emissions nice and pretty. Then press it again when it's done.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170306/dd5a3cee2555b53caf7f44866f7f1353.jpg)

 m https://youtu.be/WVuhl56upqE (https://youtu.be/WVuhl56upqE) m

I'd like to place an order for an installation of the box of trickery with aforementioned "GoGo" button!!! @ ding day if possible???

Quote from: "jvanzyl"I'd like to place an order for an installation of the box of trickery with aforementioned "GoGo" button!!! @ ding day if possible???

Yup drop me a pm

Further adjustments required via a capacitor or timer delay relay.

Reason is, if you switch gears in an area where the car wants to be in closed loop, but you're forcing it open, then you have a sudden judder as you switch from the emanage map to the car map.
So it needs a little 1 second  delay to allow you to switch gears and stay "in-map"

All is not well.
Managed to get my obd2 reader working today. Patience was key.
Then I put 4 large displays on the screen in Torque; STFT1, STFT2, LTFT1, LTFT2.

Then I watched in horror as my LTFT was hovering around 25% (the maximum it will trim) pretty much whenever it's in closed loop.
Good news is, whenever it's in open loop, it always maxes out at 4.7%. Which is an odd number, but at least it means that when I'm going for it, the ECU isn't battling me and I'm running purely on the emanage. So as far as that "trick" goes, it works a charm.
Do need to establish though whether the trick isn't ruining my closed loop fueling. Wasn't like this before the Hurricane and the throttle body though.

Need to configure my Torque again because it didn;'t actually log anything useful.
But, LTFT was pretty much always 24-25% when idling and toodling around, and upwards of 13-14% when in closed loop but moving along.

What I could really do with is a remap of the emanage methinks. Properly. With wideband and dyno. To accommodate the new mods and the open loop trickery

It sounds like a lot of faffing around (aka fun) and ultimately,  compromise.
If you had all the knowledge you have now, but hadn't invested anything yet, would you still start with a piggy back, or would you go for a standalone ECU?

I'd go standalone today if I could afford it. That would have been the case from day 1.
There's no comparison really. Especially with Toyota's ECUs. They're too darn clever.

Given the same budgetary constraints I'd do the same mods again.

I;m thoroughly enjoying the farting about, and learning a lot as I go.
Reason I'd do the same is that with the piggyback, I know I can tinker a bit and the stock ecu will protect my engine if I screw something up. It'll cut out or pull back timing for me based on knock sensor input.

To get the same level of protection from a standalone, I'd need to spend 1500-2000 on one of the more expensive units. And I'd never do that unless I was running some serious mods.

So far so good, no logged knocking. So tinkering continues  s:) :) s:)

Fair play [emoji41]

Forgot to mention...
In my brief stint with a working obd2 I noticed that the car didn't show it was in open loop when the trick was active.

This was when the car was fully warmed up.
So tps control does not open loop make.  s:) :) s:)  
It must rpm-based as well.

What would be good fun is using the trace function, log a run where I hit every cell. Then cross-reference that with the fuel status to see where the car triggers open loop. With the trickery off.

In case anybody is still reading;

I've left the car be for a bit after adjusting my airflows to 0 (via the front panel pots). The previous values were set in by Noble on Rob's car with the 57i intake. I have no idea what the Hurricane intake does to the MAF readings so I figured I'd set it to 0, and let the car run its course and adjust LTFT.

End result after 3 weeks is very simple;
When I'm in open loop (which now oddly seems to coincide pretty much with the open loop mod), the car has a LTFT of 4.7 across the board. I'm pretty happy with that. Not sure what it based that on, and it's a very odd number to have, but if that's all it's trimming when I'm trying to run on my map, I'm happy with that.

In closed loop; full on max fuel trim. 25. 24-25. How I don't have a CEL for that I don't know. I thought it would flag P0171 or P174 for running too lean.
So, unmetered air basically. When I got home I sat on the drive and adjusted the first airflow dial until STFT was showing around -18 to -20. I'll run that for a while to see if I can bring the idle range LTFT back to as close to 0 as possible.
Then I'll apply that airflow correction to the over 4 dials to cover the rev range. The MAF compensation for idle should be the same as for high rev full throttle I reckon.
Then I'll reset ECU and run that for a while.

That should then leave me with LTFT values that aren;t based on airflow (due to the hurricane and throttle body), but on map "issues". Then I can start tuning out the LTFT from closed loop ranges and let the stock ECU do what it does best.

Still reading  :-) :-) :-)  Waiting for you to have figured this out so I can enjoy the fruits of your labour after you install it on mine!

Well to be honest John the best way in my humble opinion is to install the mod and take it to somewhere like Redline or another good tuner who can make sure they map the car to get the best out of WOT and pickup while keeping the closed loop areas clear.
Giving them the mod allows them a bit more range to play with.

My approach is the peasant approach, not wanting to shell out 400 quid for a map that will get me either nothing or a few HP.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

My approach is the peasant Mk2 version. Find another peasant who's got the skillz and borrow them ( the peasant ) and get them to work their magic on the car...

That's the "lazy peasant" approach

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

The long and short of it is that I need a wideband AFR gauge.
So much easier and quicker. Instead of waiting for LTFT to come around, just look at what AFR it's running.
Zero map, log stock AFR in closed loop, then go from there.

Hey ho.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Yes, definitely still reading. Are you saying the TPS mod now seems to be behaving as initially expected?

I can't understand how you have such a massive STFT adjustment if you haven't changed anything for 3 weeks? Surely it should have fed through to the LTFT by now?

No not stft, LTFT. I should have specified  s:) :) s:)  
STFT swings up and down as expected around -1 to +1. LTFT is stuck at 25 or slightly less.

But yes, the mod seems to be working. I was even trying to get it to go into open loop before the vtec map kicks in but the mod always kicked it into open loop sooner. So yes, I'm still claiming that to be a success and something I'd recommend for anybody with the EMB

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

OK, it's still puzzling if that closed loop LTFT hasn't fed into the open loop LTFT in some way?

The 4.7 has to come from somewhere. But it's exactly 4.675 I believe, in closed loop, regardless of rpm.



Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

I cheated. Went for a drive for a couple hours with Helen and figured it was a good opportunity to try to hit as many of the closed loop areas under 3k rpm as I could.

End result; 0.8 and 1.6 across both banks. Result!

And also in the open loop. So, better than 4.7.

Two notes;
1) the stock ECU has SO many cells. Where my EMB is by 10% steps in throttle and 500rpm in revs, the stock ECU literally seems to go in 1% and 10rpm steps.

2) the stock ECU extrapolates LTFTs heavily across ranges.
Once it had determined 0.8 and 1.6,it applied it to a massive range. From 1k to 4k across the board for a whole block of throttle.
So that's interesting

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk