[radz28]

Originally Posted by 2023_ZL1-AUTO

radz28 - WOW !!! I just stumbled on to this post ! What an Awesome mod/build !!! Sweeet !!!

Thanks!

I'm continuing to polish the initial posts in the thread. Over the last month, I've spent, probably, 10-hours trying to make the description of how to do this shorter and easier to navigate, and push the details of why, a little later down.

Every time I drive, it gets better and better. It's not easy on the street, lol. But - regardless of the method the individual chooses, this, IMO, is a great upgrade - especially for someone like me, in the position I'm in. I'm SUPER HAPPY with everything.

[radz28]

09/12/23 - Supplemental Follow-Up to Final Report:

After continuing to polish (as I said I was going to), I'm still confirming [17071] seems to be the table that really completes this method, as far as I can see (from all of the SCANNER data I'm capturing/reviewing). But - I don't think I mentioned that among the things you might have to consider is VVE-tuning. While - I maintain that should have already been optimized, it occurred to me that after a pulley update, some parts of the VVE-tuning might be compromised. This might already make sense to others, but I haven't noticed anyone say anything so far, so I wanted to make a little supplemental comment.

I'm still looking into this, but I feel like my regular SCANNER GRAPHS, in CLOSED LOOP (CL), don't work like they used to. They are considerably off, after adding the smaller pulley. After reviewing SCANNER data from before the pulley, my VVE seemed (essentially) the same as before the PI (on the 90mm upper that I've been using this whole time). Now - after the 82mm upper, my VVE, in CL, is all wonky. I panicked a little at first, but realized that the changes in [17071], as far as I understand, altered the FUEL MODEL. This is my current logic, because all my OPEN LOOP (OL) readings, before the PI, make sense (obviously, though, need a little work because of the extra boost), and those parts of the VVE table are not all crazy and way out of whack. I'm validating my theory, because my MAF/VVE/DYN_Af all line-up, as good as they had before, through all of my STEADY STATE scanning. So - since this is what we're actually tuning the AIRFLOW MODEL to (as far as the conventional wisdom I've read), and my model is still all lining up together, I an convinced the changes I made to the FUELING MODEL for the PORT INJECTION are what has thrown off my CLOSED LOOP VVE. As stated - my SCANNER GRAPH continues to show MAF/VVE/DYN_Af lines are well within 5% at all times.

So - for anyone who's messed with the FUEL MODEL, be prepared (as far as I can understand) to know that the old SCANNER GRAPHS/FILTERS could be off in CL. I hadn't thought about this before, but after seeing it now, I get it. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, and correct the post. I am all ears. Fury's running better than ever.

[jlaudio11]

Originally Posted by radz28

09/12/23 - Supplemental Follow-Up to Final Report:

After continuing to polish (as I said I was going to), I'm still confirming [17071] seems to be the table that really completes this method, as far as I can see (from all of the SCANNER data I'm capturing/reviewing). But - I don't think I mentioned that among the things you might have to consider is VVE-tuning. While - I maintain that should have already been optimized, it occurred to me that after a pulley update, some parts of the VVE-tuning might be compromised. This might already make sense to others, but I haven't noticed anyone say anything so far, so I wanted to make a little supplemental comment.

I'm still looking into this, but I feel like my regular SCANNER GRAPHS, in CLOSED LOOP (CL), don't work like they used to. They are considerably off, after adding the smaller pulley. After reviewing SCANNER data from before the pulley, my VVE seemed (essentially) the same as before the PI (on the 90mm upper that I've been using this whole time). Now - after the 82mm upper, my VVE, in CL, is all wonky. I panicked a little at first, but realized that the changes in [17071], as far as I understand, altered the FUEL MODEL. This is my current logic, because all my OPEN LOOP (OL) readings, before the PI, make sense (obviously, though, need a little work because of the extra boost), and those parts of the VVE table are not all crazy and way out of whack. I'm validating my theory, because my MAF/VVE/DYN_Af all line-up, as good as they had before, through all of my STEADY STATE scanning. So - since this is what we're actually tuning the AIRFLOW MODEL to (as far as the conventional wisdom I've read), and my model is still all lining up together, I an convinced the changes I made to the FUELING MODEL for the PORT INJECTION are what has thrown off my CLOSED LOOP VVE. As stated - my SCANNER GRAPH continues to show MAF/VVE/DYN_Af lines are well within 5% at all times.

So - for anyone who's messed with the FUEL MODEL, be prepared (as far as I can understand) to know that the old SCANNER GRAPHS/FILTERS could be off in CL. I hadn't thought about this before, but after seeing it now, I get it. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, and correct the post. I am all ears. Fury's running better than ever.

Our setups are different but I don't have this issue really. I don't spend much time in the the higher regions of 17071 and in closed loop, I'm really only open loop at those points. I then go off my wideband readings to compensate etc. I wonder if you could play with your desired pressures in 17071 and that it stays out of the modified areas while in closed loop, only getting to them in open loop. You wouldn't have to worry about weird changes in fueling from stft and ltft's.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

Our setups are different but I don't have this issue really. I don't spend much time in the the higher regions of 17071 and in closed loop, I'm really only open loop at those points. I then go off my wideband readings to compensate etc. I wonder if you could play with your desired pressures in 17071 and that it stays out of the modified areas while in closed loop, only getting to them in open loop. You wouldn't have to worry about weird changes in fueling from stft and ltft's.

I agree. My FUEL TRIMs, though, are still looking, and responding to very low corrections. I'm pretty much doing what you're doing though, it seems.

My OL region (from about .75 AIRMASS and up) is where I don't have really much of an issue, in this regard, because the PI is on, my DI flow [33355] is pulled down, and I'm in PE. MOST of my changes have been below this area, where I have adjusted the COMMANDED pressure to compensate. My CL STFT/LTFTs are all well below 10% correction, in pretty much all of this area. That kinda' confirmed, too, that yeah the SCANNER data was off, but because I made the FUELING model off. I'm actually pretty happy with how it is now. I was caught off guard with the VVE GRAPH showing it was way off. I'm on a stock long block, too, so I have no expectation that my VVE should be that different from stock anyways. I've seen people with similar combinations to stock VVE, and that's totally fine, and my table isn't too different, which also suggests to me my SCANNER data is just not configured effectively for this combination now.

But - yeah - My STFT/LTFTs are actually all great, even in the areas where the SCANNER says my VVE is all jacked up, and since my MAF/VVE/DNY_Af are all in line, I'm not too worried. I just wanted to add that I noticed this, think I'm still good, but was looking to see if I was wrong, or if I was missing something.

[jlaudio11]

Raced the car yesterday, among other things when looking at the log I noticed it was lean up top. I thought maybe cooler air, something and that my quick fix was just adding more fuel to the port injection and "it'd be fine". It didnt hurt anything but looking closer at data today I have an issue of my commanded eq going lean and then gradually coming back down. So far the main thing i can relate this to is the density multiplier table. I tried hiding more port injection there to keep ipw down and I think the sustained 1/4 mi run got the injector tips temps higher moving it into an area I hadn't adjusted or messed with.

[Megahurtz]

In a nutshell, tuning cars with the 2HPSI port injection is similar to tuning cars using lots of meth. There is a method to the madness and a few tricks are required because of the lowered airmass calculations. All in all, pretty easy though.

[radz28]

I believe I'm seeing some effects of lower temperatures, too.

Our Summer blend is about 75%. Well - I haven't tuned on that content, and the last time is was this cool, I was only able to get about 50% I think (I'd have to look). BUT - I'm also compounding my complications with a smaller upper, so I'm getting a touch higher in the MAF, where I haven't been before, it's cooler, at a higher E' content, and I am theorizing I'm placing a slightly higher load on the blower, which is only increasing my fuel demand, and causing me to demand enough additional fuel (above where I WAS), such that my HPFP/IPW has gone nuts. I've been able to get it under control, but I think a lot of that was the smaller upper and having the DI right on the edge for upper 80s and the stock (Maggie) 90mm upper.

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

In a nutshell, tuning cars with the 2HPSI port injection is similar to tuning cars using lots of meth. There is a method to the madness and a few tricks are required because of the lowered airmass calculations. All in all, pretty easy though.

Would you say he's on the right track, Jason? I don't think I've seen what he's posted so far, or - I just haven't identified it in my logs. I will get a small lean spike when the DI goes into PE, but as far as not getting COMMANDED EQ, I'm not seeing that yet.

I know, in my tune, I have:

• DI MAF curve has not been reduced for fueling
• Adjusted [33355] to limit INJECTOR flow
• Adjusting [17071] to bring STFTs/LTFTs back in-line
• Adjusted VVE
• Adjusted VTT
• Adjusted DD
• Taken some fueling out of PE ALCOHOL table

Would there be something else I'm missing? I'm trickling PI in around 5500Hz, and in, fully, by 6000hz. My HPFP is staying around 20mPa and IPWs are low 5s (ms). I haven't tune meth' cars or anything, so I'm, really, just running tune off what Evan's tuning training says to. I'm not getting THROTTLE closure or TMA, and except for that little tip-in lean spike, it SEEMS like I'm getting what I'm commanding. Before adding the 85mm upper recently (came down from a 90mm), my MAF/VVE/DYNAMIC AIRMASS's, for the most part, were all moving along very close to each other, and CYLINDER AIRMASS would trend up, to upper 1.5s into the 1.6s at WOT/redline.

Would you care to say I'm missing anything, and if I need a "consultation", I'd like to look into that, if possible. I found this familiar post, too, which might sum-up a lot of what you were suggesting above:

".78 is awfully rich. The goal is to reach your target lambda using both pump and meth. Pick your meth jet and make a pull. If you're rich, start pulling fuel from the PE table. If you're lean start adding fuel to the PE table. If your fuel system is maxed out and you're still lean then you need to add more meth. There is also a way to spray a bunch of meth and full e85 which requires you to reduce your MAF table to not tap out stock fueling but then you have to address the drop in calculated airmass with Torque changes. This is a little more complex but it works."

Thanks!

[jlaudio11]

Digging deeper into the logs, I'm seeing a few abnormalities. Last time the car was out, it was on fresh pump E and 82%, this time the fuel had been sitting in the car for over a week, we've had a lot of up and down weather temps and I'm wondering if the E absorbed some moisture or something. My E content was down to 73% and I thought it was higher than that, when I filled it up. This trip to the track I actually had misfires reporting, that I didn't feel. Last time out compared to this time, commanded never moved like it did this time. I'm not sure what it all means, just sharing.

[Megahurtz]

So it depends on if you're using the closed loop feature or not with the Too High PSI system.
If you are not, and fueling is off due to weather change, then your MAF curve needs to be adjusted to make up for the additional airflow in cooler weather. Cooler weather means the blower moves more air and your fuel demand goes up. Also, if the port system cannot account for ethanol content then its going to spray a fixed volume in open loop mode. If the E content changes vs what it was tuned on, your final Lambda will be different as well.

If you are using the closed loop capability of the port system, it should try to maintain a target with the port injectors regardless of what the DI system does. In this instance you would set your MAF curve to keep the Injectors in the safe range regardless of weather and rely on the port system to adjust for more airmass in cooler weather.

In regards to Virtual Torque, this may or may not need to be adjusted. Depends how much the port system is taking a load off of the DI side.

VVE is also a maybe. It is pretty much ignored at WOT steady state but it does play into some torque calc stuff. Usually there isn't much need to adjust VVE for Meth or Port Injection. Meaning, just because you run either, it doesn't mean you have to adjust the VVE. But you may have other reasons it needs changing such as heads, cam or an aggressive blower setup.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

Digging deeper into the logs, I'm seeing a few abnormalities. Last time the car was out, it was on fresh pump E and 82%, this time the fuel had been sitting in the car for over a week, we've had a lot of up and down weather temps and I'm wondering if the E absorbed some moisture or something. My E content was down to 73% and I thought it was higher than that, when I filled it up. This trip to the track I actually had misfires reporting, that I didn't feel. Last time out compared to this time, commanded never moved like it did this time. I'm not sure what it all means, just sharing.

I get more missing on high E', at idle, with these NGK 6510s. I figured it was just these plugs, since the misses go away after warm-up. I'm also running as wide a gap as I can - like .040 I think.

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

So it depends on if you're using the closed loop feature or not with the Too High PSI system.
If you are not, and fueling is off due to weather change, then your MAF curve needs to be adjusted to make up for the additional airflow in cooler weather. Cooler weather means the blower moves more air and your fuel demand goes up. Also, if the port system cannot account for ethanol content then its going to spray a fixed volume in open loop mode. If the E content changes vs what it was tuned on, your final Lambda will be different as well.

If you are using the closed loop capability of the port system, it should try to maintain a target with the port injectors regardless of what the DI system does. In this instance you would set your MAF curve to keep the Injectors in the safe range regardless of weather and rely on the port system to adjust for more airmass in cooler weather.

In regards to Virtual Torque, this may or may not need to be adjusted. Depends how much the port system is taking a load off of the DI side.

VVE is also a maybe. It is pretty much ignored at WOT steady state but it does play into some torque calc stuff. Usually there isn't much need to adjust VVE for Meth or Port Injection. Meaning, just because you run either, it doesn't mean you have to adjust the VVE. But you may have other reasons it needs changing such as heads, cam or an aggressive blower setup.

I switch back-and-forth, but have left the CL on, to just keep me safe. I thought this controller sees the alcohol, too, but I'm probably mistaken. You'd know better than I. I was under the assumption that it did compensate (through the CAN), since there's a table for it, and MOTIV offers an alcohol sensor. Hmm... Regardless - I run in CL most of the time, when I'm not actively tuning, sometimes, anyways.

Yeah. The CL is nice, and is configurable to report EQ correction, which is nice. It seems to work well though.

SWEET!!! Thanks for commenting on the rest. It seems like I might be fine where I am for that stuff. Thank you, sir!

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

So it depends on if you're using the closed loop feature or not with the Too High PSI system.
If you are not, and fueling is off due to weather change, then your MAF curve needs to be adjusted to make up for the additional airflow in cooler weather. Cooler weather means the blower moves more air and your fuel demand goes up. Also, if the port system cannot account for ethanol content then its going to spray a fixed volume in open loop mode. If the E content changes vs what it was tuned on, your final Lambda will be different as well.

If you are using the closed loop capability of the port system, it should try to maintain a target with the port injectors regardless of what the DI system does. In this instance you would set your MAF curve to keep the Injectors in the safe range regardless of weather and rely on the port system to adjust for more airmass in cooler weather.

In regards to Virtual Torque, this may or may not need to be adjusted. Depends how much the port system is taking a load off of the DI side.

VVE is also a maybe. It is pretty much ignored at WOT steady state but it does play into some torque calc stuff. Usually there isn't much need to adjust VVE for Meth or Port Injection. Meaning, just because you run either, it doesn't mean you have to adjust the VVE. But you may have other reasons it needs changing such as heads, cam or an aggressive blower setup.

I agree...I believe closed loop is the only way the Port can correct because it's not receiving live MAF data from the ECU. So the fueling will be off with weather change. If running the port in open loop could you do like we use to do on Speed Density stuff and tune it a little fat for summer weather that way when it cools down AFR will still be in range? Since there is plenty of fuel headroom with the port, it's not going to hurt anything to run a little fat anyway. Or have a couple of tunes setup for different weather conditions. I think I would just run it in closed loop if the option is there.

[Megahurtz]

Some of the older versions didn't have the closed loop option. But if you've bought it recently I would recommend closed loop.

They have recently added more features and what signals the 2HPSI can see from the CAN BUS. It's been a minute since I tuned one so I forgot the details and they may be out dated.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

I agree...I believe closed loop is the only way the Port can correct because it's not receiving live MAF data from the ECU. So the fueling will be off with weather change. If running the port in open loop could you do like we use to do on Speed Density stuff and tune it a little fat for summer weather that way when it cools down AFR will still be in range? Since there is plenty of fuel headroom with the port, it's not going to hurt anything to run a little fat anyway. Or have a couple of tunes setup for different weather conditions. I think I would just run it in closed loop if the option is there.

Of course - I'm not arguing or ANYTHING like that - but if I'm not mistake, I believe, at least the MOTIV REFLEX+ that I'm using, does get/use MAF data, because there is a break-out jumper for it that goes between the OEM MAF harness and MAF sensor. Again - I'm only adding what I'm seeing and have connected myself, but I am definitely just a guy who's only tuned his own stuff, and doesn't have, nearly, the mileage you do.

I admit that when I was, initially, using the CL feature, I didn't have a good grasp of all the data I was seeing. I turned it off, made the MAF curve pretty fat, and drove and trimmed, and drove and trimmed until I was within 2-3% of COMMANDED. BUT - that was before it got cooler again, before I got E' content about as high as we get it out of the pump, and before, recently, adding the smaller upper. I'm able, now, to kinda' get a global picture of what the E92/REFLEX are saying, and how to put that together to get to where I need to.

I'm getting close to the point, though, in this method, to start considering lowering the MAF curve, though, to keep the DI happy. Right now, I'm commanding about .90 in PE, and compensating the REFLEX to bring the remaining fueling down to about .82-.83. We're finally getting in to the lower 60s now, and good air, and I'll see how much more I need to bring that down. I think there's another table I can get into that might give me a little more DI INJECTOR control (it was either the SHORT PULSE ADDER or OFFSET PROFILE). I have to research that again and see if that's even a thing I can use.

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

Some of the older versions didn't have the closed loop option. But if you've bought it recently I would recommend closed loop.

They have recently added more features and what signals the 2HPSI can see from the CAN BUS. It's been a minute since I tuned one so I forgot the details and they may be out dated.

I bought my set-up from THPSI just just before they released the CL functionality, but I only had to buy the connection for the WB, download the updated software, and make a few adjustments to turn the function on. It was pretty easy. I would definitely recommend it to anyone, and believe you are right.

I think I'll have another drive under my belt today and see if I'm continuing to get improvements for the smaller upper pulley, and I think I'm going to call MOTIV and see if this controller DOES, indeed, compensate for alcohol.

I'll report back. Thank you, gentlemen, for commenting

[radz28]

I did follow up with Mike, and - YES - the REFLEX+ does compensate for alcohol as long as it's (and - obviously - the E92) set-up properly.

Along those lines - for anyone interested, if you go to his set-up video, it does show what the REFLEX is getting off the CANBUS.