rao Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Sure you could wire other components in, but that's annoying. Innovate is the only brand that insists on "calibration" Everyone uses a stock OEM sensor that requires doens't require any calibrationin its stock application. Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 How about a wireing diagram? We just put all 3 together and grounded them. sure. I'll get one sketched and scanned when I'm back from my travels. Here's a quick description of what I'm using : 2700uF cap between V+ and heater ground 100uF cap between V+ and the other grounds a couple uH choke between the two grounds the heater ground end gets tied to the car ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 Sure you could wire other components in, but that's annoying. Innovate is the only brand that insists on "calibration" Everyone uses a stock OEM sensor that requires doens't require any calibrationin its stock application. depends on how you look at it. the ability to wire other stuff in is why I went with innovate. because more signals are made available to me, I have the ability to tweak the setup more for my application. I eventually plan to use the unit to allow leaner than 14.7 AFR cruising by offsetting both my fuel maps and the sensor lambda 1 calibration on the aux output. the extra cal is the whole point of their product. using the bosch lsu 4.2 without additional calibration yields an AFR accuracy of +/- 0.15 (I think that's the number... need to double check the datasheets). the innovate calibration procedure tightens up the absolute accuracy of the measurement by doing a sensor specific calibration of the heater and pump cell. the other wideband o2 manufacturers depend on factory trim of the calibration resistor in the sensor to null out sensor to sensor variation while innovate does a measurement of the sensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 depends on how you look at it. the ability to wire other stuff in is why I went with innovate. because more signals are made available to me, I have the ability to tweak the setup more for my application. I eventually plan to use the unit to allow leaner than 14.7 AFR cruising by offsetting both my fuel maps and the sensor lambda 1 calibration on the aux output. the extra cal is the whole point of their product. using the bosch lsu 4.2 without additional calibration yields an AFR accuracy of +/- 0.15 (I think that's the number... need to double check the datasheets). the innovate calibration procedure tightens up the absolute accuracy of the measurement by doing a sensor specific calibration of the heater and pump cell. the other wideband o2 manufacturers depend on factory trim of the calibration resistor in the sensor to null out sensor to sensor variation while innovate does a measurement of the sensor You can use the Zeitronix and others to monitor other sensors as well. I don't buy that calibration makes a difference, plus the heater and "Free air" calibration are separate. Even if they did work, +/- .15 is plenty accurate; I doubt that the calibration claims te get it any better then +/- .1 and it could be a whole lot worse if the calibrationis done wrong. I am going to make a separate thread for Street Tuner and related issues, this one is way too cluttered. Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005garnetGT Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I'm actually applying the correction a bit differently. The boost targets are increased below 34 MPH so the turbodynamics number sit higher and force more WG bleed. At idle, I've got the targets set low so there's no vacuum leak. Have you tried trimming your idle timing? I bumped mine up a bit to get better vacuum. I'll try that, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasopoliS Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 this is a great thread, it was a good read. I wish I has the knowledge to tune a car like you guys have with ST and 'other methods'. I need to find someone around me that can street tune like you guys... I liked everything I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted October 8, 2006 Author Share Posted October 8, 2006 Hey Guys, I'm back from my travels in Asia. I now have a better appreciation for the quality of the cars we have here Here's the corrected and updated maps. The changes are as follows: 1) corrected low speed boost trim values. The base map now specifies 10% higher boost targets for speeds less than 34mph. This pretty much pegs the WGDC at the upper limits during 1st gear pulls. 2) Low speed WGDC high increased slightly to take advantage of 1) 3) 2000 - 3200 rpm max load fueling trimmed to increase EGT. The spool up is a couple hundred revs earlier now 4) 2800 rpm timing retarded slightly (helps spool by dumping more energy out the exhaust) 5) low rpm, medium load fueling adjusted to make throttle response a bit more crisp when the car is essential NA As usual, no knock on my car but YMMV. I was having some SW config problems with my wideband this weekend so I didn't lean out the maps as much as I would have liked. The spool up can probably be improved a bit more by driving up the egts at real low revs... update: I got the WB running again. The mixtures are as expected...Copy of 91_low_speed_booststb.pdfCopy of trimmed_fuel_wg_vss_spool4str.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted October 8, 2006 Author Share Posted October 8, 2006 How about a wireing diagram? We just put all 3 together and grounded them. I'll have one as soon as I can getg this bloody scanner working.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REM87O Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Innovative recommends using some 4"x4" 16ga copper sheet drilled for the sensor. It acts as a heat sink, to draw heat away from the sensor itself. I haven't had to do it, but if I come across this issue that's how I'll resolve it. I have a heat sink as well but it is a little smaller than 4x4. It really is a great idea. Did you bend the corners up as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 FWIW here are my latest maps. The map notes are not updated and possibly incorrect. The hardware on the car is as follows: Cobb up, dp. AVO v2 tmic. The following was adjusted: boost targets set to 18 psi max WGDC tables adjusted (many of the lower throttle points were not right even before the TMIC swap so the change from my older values is not really applicable. I think I must have the softest wastegate spring in existance...) low speed boost trim decreased to 5% (the normal boost targets are now higher) tip in enrichment trimmed load rescaled WOT mixture adjusted WOT DA timing adjusted As usual, YMMV. Use these maps at your own risk.91_low_speed_boost_avo_tipstb.pdfavo_v2_5str.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does throttle duty cycle relate directly to throttle opening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmundu Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does throttle duty cycle relate directly to throttle opening? No, not in the sense of the LGT only going to 80%, vs the Sti going to 100%. As I understand it, these are not actual throttle opening %, but rather throttle motor duty percent. The LGT's throttle does indeed open 100%, so the only real perk, if you will, to using Sti throttle mapping, is it more aggressively opens the throttle, with smaller inputs from your right foot. If however, you plant it, it is WOT just like any car out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I was thinking of trying to make it more linear than it is now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 one thing to keep in mind is that flow restriction is not linear with throttle plate angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Not really concerned with flow, more with feel. To me the throttle is a little bit edgy right off the bat. Trying to see if I can soften it a tad Sucks that you have to flash a new base with throttle duty and tip in enrichment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 that's what makes it edgy. At low throttle plate angles, a small change in angle can make a big difference in flow. Once the throttle is more open, the same change in angle makes a smaller difference. yeah... adjusting tip-in is such a pain. I finally got it dialed in on my setup. it is much smoother at low throttle openings now. the adjustment is certainly worth the trouble.... you just need to datalog 10-20 mins of driving and get average data from the logs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 What kind of numbers did you end up with? Having the start duty at at 30% like they have it seems a bit much. Right now Im thinking that adjusting just the 7-14 columns might be enough to get it where I want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 I didn't adjust the throttle maps. Only the tip-in enrichment. I didn't have to make changes to the higher tip in value only the lower end. The maps I posted have the changes in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Ahh, I see now. I am concerned with tip in enrichment, but Im primarily complaining about the throttle response to pedal movement. Ive been examining the maps a bit and it appears that the lgt map ramps up the throttle duty a lot faster than an sti. Once I get the throttle duty down to a level that I like, I think the tip in stutter should fall in line rather quickly/easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 when you adjust the throttle mapping, you may need to adjust the boost targets too.... just something to keep in mind. I found that certain combinations of boost target and throttle opening made the car really jumpy as it tried to stabilize boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yeah, I know, but Im not really worried about that right now. My current boost targets are REALLY hard to keep so if its kinda wacky for the moment im not concerned with it since its kinda staying around my target. Im running like 5-10% duty just to keep it down to 14psi. I still need to get around to that new BCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 wow. you must have one hell of a stiff spring in your wastegate actuator. or a plugged restrictor pill. I did a bit more playing this weekend and found that you can decrease the jumpiness at light loads with the throttle maps but the boost table has a bigger effect at mid to high loads, as would be expected. in the end I didn't like the way the car felt so I switched back to the original maps. have you done any adjustments to the AVCS tables? I tried this weekend but found it really tough to extract any statistically valid data from the logs. There's so much noise in the data, I think the only way to adjust the AVCS table is going to be proper dyno runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I havent played with the avcs yet. I was going to wait until I got it on the dyno. Ive gotten the throttle and tip in to be just about where I want it. So much smoother, however I still have a little remainder below 2k at what I believe to be moderate tps delta. I havent dl'd it yet so I cant be sure. Are you using ST to datalog? I find that its not that useful for dl'ing tps delta. I see virtually no useful information. Maybe I need to reduce datalogging to just tps delta, throttle and af. <shrug> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugblatterbeast Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 I've been using ST for the logging. There's a lot of noise in the DTPS data. I found that I had to drive for 20-30 mins to get enough readings to extract a good average. During the drive cycle, you really need to be jerky with the throttle to get good DTPS data. The numbers actually show up better in the WBO2 logs. Are you using stock headers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedNeeder Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 interesting stuff My other car is a 1993 Chevy S-10 Tahoe! (Currently being driven to failure by my nephew) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.