[radz28]

It was the E92 MAF... I was trying, initially, to keep the PORT from coming in too early, and remembered I was buff'ing up my E92 MAF to keep up with the fuel (because I'm an idiot..., and newbie to this kind of fueling), which was just WAY too much to ask for, and Josh got me thinking more about it. So - I pulled fueling out of the E92 MAF (after comparing to early PORT files), bringing it back to what it was before adding the REFLEX, and IPWs went down, and the HIGH PRESSURE side started to stay where it needed to be. I have a tiny bit more touch-up for this, but, like you're saying CJ' - I'm just going to blend in better, and use the THROTTLE PE in the REFLEX to help balance, too

Ugh... This is part of the problem with not being able to just tune until done, rather than spread it out over months. Adulting, lol... I'M ON TRACK NOW THOUGH!!!

Originally Posted by cjperformance

I know your method is different than mine, but my thought would be to continue to balance the E92/Reflex MAF at the same time to keep the 30%/70% split... and not just add to one or the other.

My theory on balancing is what kept driving me away, because I know the combustion of a GEN V is based around DI. So - I was trying to push the PI from coming in until I really needed it, thinking that would just be the most efficient. At least - that's what I was hoping for, but, obviously - didn't really know for certain, and certainly haven't had any experience with the demands of E' yet. But you hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD here!

I would think changing only in E92 will affect torque model more than splitting the difference between the E92 and Reflex... or not at all if you only add to reflex... but then... I feel like it would just make things wonky for tuning if you only add to reflex. Then again... you already started with a valid torque model... and haven't changed that right? The E92 still thinks you are doing the exact same thing as before, it just thinks it needs to run the DI less because it thinks they flow more fuel...

I'm fairly confident my TQ MODEL was pretty close for my gasoline-side, as if I lowered much, in the WOT areas, I would get TMA, or THROTTLE closures (or both). I then added about 80-lb.ft. to that model, and created my E' MODEL, which certainly makes the tranny shift harder, lol. I'm not getting any TM/THROTTLE CLOSURE, but do know that I'll, eventually, come back around to this one to polish it some more. The problem, though, is there are new methods for tuning GMVE every once and a while, and so I try those out, and because I'm farting around in those a lot, sometimes it make the TORQUE MODEL change a bit. At WOT - above 4000 RPMs, my MAF, DYNAMIC, AND VVE all trend, mostly, within about 10g/s of each other (until VVE/MAF hit there limits [512/655]), so I'm pretty solid there. I'm constantly evaluating most everything below that, though (I might not make changes to the VVE, but I'm always watching and trying to see trends and think about how I should manipulate it). But - like you said - I was farting around with the E92 MAF, and shot myself in the foot. I'm pretty much back to my gasoline MAF now, and IPW/RAIL PRESSURE is looking a LOT better.

I recombine the E92/Reflex curves to a total value in a spreadsheet... do my fuel adjustments to the combined number and then split back out 30/70 (actually 20/70 because of the 10% PE ->MAF, lol)... confusing to explain.

I haven't gotten to the point yet where I need to go above 30% in the reflex, but I decided that I would probably recombine the curves and do a 35/65 split or whatever I need instead of just increasing the Reflex. Although effectively that's what would happen right

I guess my point is that in my completely uneducated opinion... I'd keep splitting the same % across the entire range and not unbalance by adding more to one or the other unequally.

Good times indeed. I have no basis for my opinion, lol. Other than it makes me feel better. Jump then look right

All of that makes sense, as far as I have the ability to understand it. I have trouble with than spreadsheet working for me all the time. I think part of it is one laptop doesn't have Excel, and bouncing back and forth between laptops screws me up, too. I should know better... But - surprisingly - I'm not too far off from what my calculated REFLEX MAF curve calculates to. As you're suggesting, though: I'm not splitting any more. I see that was a mistake, and probably a fruitless trial, with no real benefit to anything, except draw this out more. I THINK I understand a little more, but, I'm more uneducated than you, so what do I know? HAHAHA.

A lot of your build has been SO HELPFUL. I've reread so much of your initial build, and you, King, Greg, Josh, Mike, and several others have been so generous in sharing.
I hate PM'ing for advice, and try to research before I bug anyone, but when people like you, and the guys above, among SO MANY other, share as much as you do, it helps guys like me.
I appreciate it, and am more grateful than I could express.

Thank you for continuing to help me, and not giving up - even when it sounds like you're repeating yourself. It's never that I'm not listening, or believe anyone - sometimes I just have to try and explore. I learn ALMOST as much with my mistakes, but appreciate all the knowledge ya'll share.

Thank you, all.

I intend on polishing a little more, now that my feet are back under me, as far as I can tell. I am planning on trying to aggregate and coalesce as much of the tuning as I think I can make intelligible. After I verify I haven't missed anything (so far as I can understand it), I'll put some thoughts together that I hope will be helpful.

[cjperformance]

You can get OpenOffice Calc instead of Excel too if you need a free option for addl computers. It is basically a free near-clone of Excel. I have used it for many years on the job and off. Good stuff.

Dont inflate my ego. Im just a crazy dude messing around and learning. I love pushing all the buttons and turning all the knobs to see what they do.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

You can get OpenOffice Calc instead of Excel too if you need a free option for addl computers. It is basically a free near-clone of Excel. I have used it for many years on the job and off. Good stuff.

Dont inflate my ego. Im just a crazy dude messing around and learning. I love pushing all the buttons and turning all the knobs to see what they do.

AH!!! Thanks for the tip!!! I found something similar for Adobe (for unrelated work, but along the same lines, it seems), and just never get around to looking for something for Excel. Thank you!

Well - credit should go to where it's due

[radz28]

05/01/23 UPDATE:
It's probably obvious to anyone who's changed DI injectors, but perhaps a newer realization to me, but I think I'm finally getting a good grasp on this method, and learning more and more what effects it has on the calibration. I'm making it crazy with this method.

• Re-characterizing DI Injectors
  
  It's been a challenge trying to balance the DIRECT INJECTORS and REFLEX. Because I', essentially, retarding the DI INJECTOR flow in HIGH-DEMAND/WOT conditions, there are points, at the low-end of the HIGH DEMAND parts of this definition [33355] that can move around between PROFILE 2 and PROFILE 3 ([33355]). It's in this area where there's trying to balance everything is very demanding. Because RAIL PRESSURE can change a lot, from 10-20MPa, in this area, load-dependent, I've been playing around with the individual cells (16, 18, specifically), because these are the, relatively, primary part-throttle cells the RAIL PRESSURE floats within. I can see fueling change as RAIL PRESSURE moves through these cells, and that can change the E92 MAF shaping, if that's what I choose to rely on. I am pretty sure that's how I backed myself into a corner with my DI going crazy at the LOW-RPM/WOT, where I lost all the RAIL PRESSURE, and IPW when through the roof. It was IN THIS PART OF THE E92 MAF CURVE WHERE I KEPT ADDING FUEL BECAUSE OF PULLING OUT [33355] multiplier. Another side effect was lower areas of the E92 MAF were pretty lean, because the DI INJECTOR was flowing less fuel here, too.
  
  So - it seemed if I wanted to stay with this method (or continue to try to refine it), I had to lower fuel demand at WOT with the DI, and bring up the leaner areas, very near where it was going crazy RICH from the DI going crazy. I needed to see how to get the E92 MAF richen-up from 4000-Hz-5000Hz, while pull-back the fueling from about 5000Hz-just-past-6000Hz (it was fine, and following what I was requesting normally after that point).
  
  
• How to compensate for recharacterization
  
  I am using a multi-tiered approach, with pulling E92 PE from about 1400-2000 RPMs (this is where the DI goes crazy rich (about 4850Hz-about 6000Hz @ WOT), and drains the RAILS, and pushes the IPW through the roof). Then, I'm richening-up the E92 MAF, where it's lean, from about 4000Hz-5000Hz, with putting a little more DI with the [33355] MULTPLIER. Next - I'm lowering the THROTTLE PE for the REFLEX enough such that it will come on at lower load/RPM, to cover anything else the DI doesn't get from 4000-6000Hz (and up the scale, as before).
  
  + Pulling PE will get that small RPM-window covered for WOT, keeping IPWs low and RAIL PRESSUREs up. As soon as RPMs get past about 2000, it's all fine.
  
  + Pulling E92 MAF from about 4850-6000Hz will compensate, and give me MORE IPW/RAIL PRESSURE headroom, and is where the MAF is supposed to be, from my gasoline file.
  
  + Adding a little fueling back to [33355] MULTIPLIER in 16/18MPa will put a little more fuel back, where the spot from 4000-4800Hz was a little lean, because of the transitioning between the MULTIPLIER PROFILES and the RAIL PRESSURE cells within [33355], where I've reduced fuel flow for the DI a little. This will give me a little more fuel back, in lower E92 MAF, so I'm not running on PI for every little THROTTLE increase.
  
  + Lowering REFLEX THROTTLE PEDAL PE % will supplement, where it needs to, to cover the whole spectrum, from around 4000-6000Hz. REFLEX can continue making corrections, while I monitor, and make tune adjustments, pretty much solely in the REFLEX.
  
  
• Is it an improvement?
  
  I'm not sure it this is that big an improvement over the standard PI-compensation method.
  
  There's still a lot of balancing, and while I'm pretty sure I have a fair enough grasp over both methods (even though I've only been using this one so far), I think the standard method it simpler. It sounds like TORQUE compensation (which is what I've been trying to avoid from the standard method) is the biggest hang-up to me, and seems easy enough to overcome (I have a fair amount of familiarity with the VTT, and that seems like the biggest factor). Compensating with the TORQUE compensation (I forget the term at the moment, but it was one of the few other larger parts of the standard method adjustments) looks like it' easy enough.
  

Not that my knowledge should carry any weight on any strategies that any of you should follow (this is all at your own risk - duh, lol). Only because this was a method I saw, and had some information on and posted here, that I finish the trial I started posting, here, on. I'm not convinced this method is any better than what has, seemingly, been used for years. With the ability to tune, most TCMs nowadays - I'm not sure calculated TORQUE is a big issue. Manipulating VTT and other related definitions that affect TORQUE is probably doing anything that I tried, smoother, and better. Particularly if you aren't using a whole lot of the PI-side, one could probably take most of the compensation from the E92 PE, and the remaining from the E92 MAF, without influencing the torque calculations much at all. The standard method is probably the easiest to get the car tuned and happy.

I'm still nibbling away, and will take some screenshots of what I eventually conclude my little side project with. I'll never be done tuning, so why not keep playing around until I run into a dead end? I don't think I have yet, but wouldn't argue with anyone that this method is better, in most any way, so far.

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by radz28

05/01/23 UPDATE:
It's probably obvious to anyone who's changed DI injectors, but perhaps a newer realization to me, but I think I'm finally getting a good grasp on this method, and learning more and more what effects it has on the calibration. I'm making it crazy with this method.

• Re-characterizing DI Injectors
  
  It's been a challenge trying to balance the DIRECT INJECTORS and REFLEX. Because I', essentially, retarding the DI INJECTOR flow in HIGH-DEMAND/WOT conditions, there are points, at the low-end of the HIGH DEMAND parts of this definition [33355] that can move around between PROFILE 2 and PROFILE 3 ([33355]). It's in this area where there's trying to balance everything is very demanding. Because RAIL PRESSURE can change a lot, from 10-20MPa, in this area, load-dependent, I've been playing around with the individual cells (16, 18, specifically), because these are the, relatively, primary part-throttle cells the RAIL PRESSURE floats within. I can see fueling change as RAIL PRESSURE moves through these cells, and that can change the E92 MAF shaping, if that's what I choose to rely on. I am pretty sure that's how I backed myself into a corner with my DI going crazy at the LOW-RPM/WOT, where I lost all the RAIL PRESSURE, and IPW when through the roof. It was IN THIS PART OF THE E92 MAF CURVE WHERE I KEPT ADDING FUEL BECAUSE OF PULLING OUT [33355] multiplier. Another side effect was lower areas of the E92 MAF were pretty lean, because the DI INJECTOR was flowing less fuel here, too.
  
  So - it seemed if I wanted to stay with this method (or continue to try to refine it), I had to lower fuel demand at WOT with the DI, and bring up the leaner areas, very near where it was going crazy RICH from the DI going crazy. I needed to see how to get the E92 MAF richen-up from 4000-Hz-5000Hz, while pull-back the fueling from about 5000Hz-just-past-6000Hz (it was fine, and following what I was requesting normally after that point).
  
  
• How to compensate for recharacterization
  
  I am using a multi-tiered approach, with pulling E92 PE from about 1400-2000 RPMs (this is where the DI goes crazy rich (about 4850Hz-about 6000Hz @ WOT), and drains the RAILS, and pushes the IPW through the roof). Then, I'm richening-up the E92 MAF, where it's lean, from about 4000Hz-5000Hz, with putting a little more DI with the [33355] MULTPLIER. Next - I'm lowering the THROTTLE PE for the REFLEX enough such that it will come on at lower load/RPM, to cover anything else the DI doesn't get from 4000-6000Hz (and up the scale, as before).
  
  + Pulling PE will get that small RPM-window covered for WOT, keeping IPWs low and RAIL PRESSUREs up. As soon as RPMs get past about 2000, it's all fine.
  
  + Pulling E92 MAF from about 4850-6000Hz will compensate, and give me MORE IPW/RAIL PRESSURE headroom, and is where the MAF is supposed to be, from my gasoline file.
  
  + Adding a little fueling back to [33355] MULTIPLIER in 16/18MPa will put a little more fuel back, where the spot from 4000-4800Hz was a little lean, because of the transitioning between the MULTIPLIER PROFILES and the RAIL PRESSURE cells within [33355], where I've reduced fuel flow for the DI a little. This will give me a little more fuel back, in lower E92 MAF, so I'm not running on PI for every little THROTTLE increase.
  
  + Lowering REFLEX THROTTLE PEDAL PE % will supplement, where it needs to, to cover the whole spectrum, from around 4000-6000Hz. REFLEX can continue making corrections, while I monitor, and make tune adjustments, pretty much solely in the REFLEX.
  
  
• Is it an improvement?
  
  I'm not sure it this is that big an improvement over the standard PI-compensation method.
  
  There's still a lot of balancing, and while I'm pretty sure I have a fair enough grasp over both methods (even though I've only been using this one so far), I think the standard method it simpler. It sounds like TORQUE compensation (which is what I've been trying to avoid from the standard method) is the biggest hang-up to me, and seems easy enough to overcome (I have a fair amount of familiarity with the VTT, and that seems like the biggest factor). Compensating with the TORQUE compensation (I forget the term at the moment, but it was one of the few other larger parts of the standard method adjustments) looks like it' easy enough.
  

Not that my knowledge should carry any weight on any strategies that any of you should follow (this is all at your own risk - duh, lol). Only because this was a method I saw, and had some information on and posted here, that I finish the trial I started posting, here, on. I'm not convinced this method is any better than what has, seemingly, been used for years. With the ability to tune, most TCMs nowadays - I'm not sure calculated TORQUE is a big issue. Manipulating VTT and other related definitions that affect TORQUE is probably doing anything that I tried, smoother, and better. Particularly if you aren't using a whole lot of the PI-side, one could probably take most of the compensation from the E92 PE, and the remaining from the E92 MAF, without influencing the torque calculations much at all. The standard method is probably the easiest to get the car tuned and happy.

I'm still nibbling away, and will take some screenshots of what I eventually conclude my little side project with. I'll never be done tuning, so why not keep playing around until I run into a dead end? I don't think I have yet, but wouldn't argue with anyone that this method is better, in most any way, so far.

You can always give Mike a call if you need to.

[laynlo15]

Here is a cover I made for the Reflex and all the wiring that goes with it. Just started out with a raw piece of .025 Aluminum, easy to work with. Painted it Summit White, didn't match perfectly but I think the clear I used changed it as the Gloss Summit white was real close. Oh well I'll pull it back off and sand the clear off and shoot it with just the Summit white.

[toohighpsi]

Originally Posted by radz28

It's probably obvious to anyone who's changed DI injectors, but perhaps a newer realization to me, but I think I'm finally getting a good grasp on this method, and learning more and more what effects it has on the calibration. I'm making it crazy with this method.
[LIST][*]Re-characterizing DI Injectors

Interesting findings, not surprising in hindsight when you really start to think about it. I am still looking forward to trying this method myself though, maybe a combination of both methods could yield good results.

When we started working on controllers for the port system, one consideration was to try and use the DI injector output to drive both the DI and PI injectors, but the more we dug into it, we realized that the amount of corrections that are placed on the DI delivery system due to the pressure changes would have to be addressed to be able to drive a port injector. The DI injector idles at about 300psi and pressure increases to 2500psi at WOT - all of which has a corresponding change in the DI system pulse-width to maintain consistent flow no matter the pressure - a rather large change. You get a immediate respect for this as soon as the rail pressure drops at WOT and you see the rapid increase in PW trying to make the injector flow the demanded amount. I'm sure we could make it work, but probably not in the cost effective package we were looking for...

Originally Posted by radz28

I'm not sure calculated TORQUE is a big issue. Manipulating VTT and other related definitions that affect TORQUE is probably doing anything that I tried, smoother, and better. Particularly if you aren't using a whole lot of the PI-side, one could probably take most of the compensation from the E92 PE, and the remaining from the E92 MAF, without influencing the torque calculations much at all. The standard method is probably the easiest to get the car tuned and happy.

I'm still nibbling away, and will take some screenshots of what I eventually conclude my little side project with. I'll never be done tuning, so why not keep playing around until I run into a dead end? I don't think I have yet, but wouldn't argue with anyone that this method is better, in most any way, so far.

You are correct, with small amounts of port (30-40% for up to 800 RWHP on full E with stock LT1 high side) the tuning and torque management can be easily handled with PE and EQ torque table adjustments, no real need adjust virtual torque tables at this level. If you're up in the 50-60% area (well over 1000 RWHP on full E with a stock LT1 high side) then you'll need to sharpen your VTT skills to achieve the necessary level of reported torque to keep everything happy. Skilled tuners don't have much problem sorting torque quickly on these high power applications, I'm still an apprentice with virtual torque at those high power levels and maybe the combination of both methods could make it easier.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by toohighpsi

Interesting findings, not surprising in hindsight when you really start to think about it. I am still looking forward to trying this method myself though, maybe a combination of both methods could yield good results.

When we started working on controllers for the port system, one consideration was to try and use the DI injector output to drive both the DI and PI injectors, but the more we dug into it, we realized that the amount of corrections that are placed on the DI delivery system due to the pressure changes would have to be addressed to be able to drive a port injector. The DI injector idles at about 300psi and pressure increases to 2500psi at WOT - all of which has a corresponding change in the DI system pulse-width to maintain consistent flow no matter the pressure - a rather large change. You get a immediate respect for this as soon as the rail pressure drops at WOT and you see the rapid increase in PW trying to make the injector flow the demanded amount. I'm sure we could make it work, but probably not in the cost effective package we were looking for...



You are correct, with small amounts of port (30-40% for up to 800 RWHP on full E with stock LT1 high side) the tuning and torque management can be easily handled with PE and EQ torque table adjustments, no real need adjust virtual torque tables at this level. If you're up in the 50-60% area (well over 1000 RWHP on full E with a stock LT1 high side) then you'll need to sharpen your VTT skills to achieve the necessary level of reported torque to keep everything happy. Skilled tuners don't have much problem sorting torque quickly on these high power applications, I'm still an apprentice with virtual torque at those high power levels and maybe the combination of both methods could make it easier.

I'm sure you could figure it out better than I, of course. Frankly - I'm not terribly unhappy where I am now, and really don't think I have too much left to get to about 95%. WOT and high RPM/High Load are completely fine, and tracking predictably. I was able to get the PI-fueling-transition to come in pretty smoothly. I was just having trouble, this last bit, where I was less than 2000-RPMs, and stabbing the throttle to WOT, LUGGING/locked into 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th gears, which is where NO ONE would reasonably drive. For personal reasons that made sense to me, I just wanted to see what would happen in these areas. I'd never drive in these areas, because it makes no sense, and is, from what I understand, very hard on the engine. Everything else is pretty good though. A few more drives, and I think I'll be at least 90% done, and the rest will mostly be massaging the REFLEX MAF.

I have no plans, nor desires, to get past around 800-WHP, so it sounds like I'm about where I want to be, and have a good path to tuning for it, in case "my" method falls through. Thank you for your continued support through all of this. It would have taken a lot longer to get to where I am without you sharing so generously.

[SHE'Z 18]

Radz,
When are ya coming to Michigan to help me install this same system!?!? 😁👍

[radz28]

Originally Posted by SHE'Z 18

Radz,
When are ya coming to Michigan to help me install this same system!?!? 😁👍

HAHAHAHA

It's relatively easy, in concept, but I think if you can change brakes, you can do this. There's a little heavy lifting, but beyond that, it isn't bad.

Doing a low-side at the same time as this was time consuming, but it's certainly not hard. The way Greg/Mike laid out the basic plumbing and installation videos, and the follow-up tuning details from them and Josh, King', Chris and a little research made the back-side part of the installation something that was doable. Mike laid a great groundwork for the tuning.

IMO - like my 2650 - there's more cost effective ways to get to where I am with the PORT. But - there was an architecture I was trying to follow (and HAD to follow), but I'm pretty much future-proof'd. I won't have to upgrade the blower, ever, and I have fueling for as far as I'd ever want to go. You could port a 1740 and add port and get to where I am, and have a harder hitting punch, too, for less. This port set-up is awesome though. The controller does what it needs to, and Mike keeps trying to add more and more support to get it to do more.

It's really TooHighPSI that makes this so good. I have NO regrets, and we keep getting updates and improvements that we don't have to pay for. I'd do this all over again. I don't have enough positive things to say about these products, the service, and the thought put into everything.

[radz28]

05/22/23 UPDATE:

A couple more thoughts/ramblings/soundboard on progress. I think I had an epiphany this weekend. Or - just another step in either being able to continue down this path, or reach the point of abandoning it for the traditional method. With, what I think is, a new strategy, I'll be exploring it's effects this week.

• [33355] PROFILE 3 - MULTIPLIER
  
  I had been struggling with the totality of how these MULTIPLIERS work with or influence fueling. I wasn't sure if I were seeing the effects from what I've been messing with, or - if it was the E92 just doing what it does. Admittedly - I've bitten off a lot more than I was expecting with this method, so I could be wrong on my theories and how the E92 is operating. I THINK I'm on track, but this is my first time getting into the fuel system. I feel like I'm seeing trends as I'm changing things, so I FEEL like I'm not far off in my understanding of what I'm seeing.
  
  I've been struggling to understand how the E92 moves through it's process of calculating airflow/fueling. As it moves through RAIL PRESSURE, it moves through different PROFILES that characterize the fuel capacity of the system as it provides the engine what it needs. I understood the general principles of how it was calculating air-to-fuel, but I couldn't really understand a consistency between them. I think I have figured out where I was lost, and that is the DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE table. I'd modified this table to account for another condition I was seeing in the past, and I think that's where I need to start to focus for the PART-THROTTLE/THROTTLE TRANSIENT regime I'm trying to tune for now.
  
  Once I'm high enough in my E92 MAF curve, and the REFLEX is doing it's thing, it's not too big a deal. The WOT-tuning, largely, isn't to difficult, and I'm close enough that I only need to trim a few % of fuel off of the REFLEX, but trying to understand part-throttle is a different ball game. Keeping a clear eye on the global system (the E92 AND REFLEX together) is kinda' tough, and I THOUGHT only I had a couple tools that could help, but I think the RAIL PRESSURE is the biggest player now. I think I have a better understanding how and why I see the desired pressure move around the way that it does.
  
• PART-THROTTLE/THROTTLE TRANSIENTS
  
  I had really brought-in BASE HIGH PRESSURE FUELING in the E92 sooner, and higher, than stock some time ago. Because I was seeing a huge RAIL PRESSURE drop, and HUGE spike in IPW when I'd stab the pedal to the floor at low RPM (without allowing the tranny to downshift), I altered that base table to try to command more fuel pressure in that area to come in sooner. That seemed to help, which seemed great, but I think I'm now seeing what I was chasing my tail with some parts of the lower-THROTTLE areas of my tune.
  
  If the THROTTLE was low enough, there was no issue. If the THROTTLE was high enough, there was, largely, no issue. But if I got the THROTTLE within a certain spectrum, between low and high, the E92 would command a LEAN area and the REFLEX wouldn't bring fuel in. Or - the opposite, and the E92 AND REFLEX would both add fuel, resulting in WAY too much. I could, sometimes, see that RAIL PRESSURE was high, and I could see a RICH condition, and or the opposite other times, and get lower RAIL PRESSURE, and see a LEAN condition. I was able to, mostly, whittle either condition down to where I couldn't really feel it in the car (though could see it on the WB and in the SCANNER file), but I knew it was there. And - it probably wouldn't really hurt anything, being light-THROTTLE, but I knew it was there... and I can't stand that. I thought this was because I had PE EQ too low, or THROTTLE PE unbalanced between the 2-controllers, or a combination of those, or more than I haven't even realized yet. I'd been asking why it does that, and more so: can I control that? Then - it occurred to me that I had already messed with that, and it might be in the BASE PRESSURE table.
  
  I know that once RAIL PRESSURE gets into PROFILE 3 MULTIPLIER [33355], that the E92 is calculating INJECTOR fuel flow at 16-20MPa (it's actually more on an LT4, but I'm not shooting for more - that's what the REFLEX is for). Because this method alters this particular multiplier table, I have reduced fuel flow out of the DI injectors so that the REFLEX can add fuel by way of the PI injectors at these RAIL PRESSURES. But - that's at higher throttle inputs/loads, and this part is largely close right now. However - at IDLE and PART THROTTLE - these pressures can float from 3-15MPa, so I think I now have a new lead to try to follow, and strategy to try. Seeing where the RAIL PRESSURE hovers by AIRMASS, in this table, I think I can, probably, better establish where I can start blending the PI into the fueling better, and with more consistency. I think if I can associate AIRMASS to the MAF curve, I can probably plot this blended area in to make the transient regime smoother, safer, and more accurate. Because I don't live far from foothills and mountains, I don't want to have to worry about these transient-areas and thinking I have to downshift to stay within a better EQ-zone or something like that. Or worse yet - have areas where fueling causes the car to respond with less control or rough THROTTLE transitions.
  

So - that's the next part of my saga. I feel like this is closing in on a good conclusion though. If I can sort this out, I feel like I can be confident in this method. Whether or not I can articulate it in such a manor it's useful or understandable to anyone else is a different matter... On to testing!

[KingLT1]

I thought my OCD was bad. lol

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

I thought my OCD was bad. lol

You thought wrong

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by radz28

05/22/23 UPDATE:

A couple more thoughts/ramblings/soundboard on progress. I think I had an epiphany this weekend. Or - just another step in either being able to continue down this path, or reach the point of abandoning it for the traditional method. With, what I think is, a new strategy, I'll be exploring it's effects this week.

• [33355] PROFILE 3 - MULTIPLIER
  
  I had been struggling with the totality of how these MULTIPLIERS work with or influence fueling. I wasn't sure if I were seeing the effects from what I've been messing with, or - if it was the E92 just doing what it does. Admittedly - I've bitten off a lot more than I was expecting with this method, so I could be wrong on my theories and how the E92 is operating. I THINK I'm on track, but this is my first time getting into the fuel system. I feel like I'm seeing trends as I'm changing things, so I FEEL like I'm not far off in my understanding of what I'm seeing.
  
  I've been struggling to understand how the E92 moves through it's process of calculating airflow/fueling. As it moves through RAIL PRESSURE, it moves through different PROFILES that characterize the fuel capacity of the system as it provides the engine what it needs. I understood the general principles of how it was calculating air-to-fuel, but I couldn't really understand a consistency between them. I think I have figured out where I was lost, and that is the DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE table. I'd modified this table to account for another condition I was seeing in the past, and I think that's where I need to start to focus for the PART-THROTTLE/THROTTLE TRANSIENT regime I'm trying to tune for now.
  
  Once I'm high enough in my E92 MAF curve, and the REFLEX is doing it's thing, it's not too big a deal. The WOT-tuning, largely, isn't to difficult, and I'm close enough that I only need to trim a few % of fuel off of the REFLEX, but trying to understand part-throttle is a different ball game. Keeping a clear eye on the global system (the E92 AND REFLEX together) is kinda' tough, and I THOUGHT only I had a couple tools that could help, but I think the RAIL PRESSURE is the biggest player now. I think I have a better understanding how and why I see the desired pressure move around the way that it does.
  
• PART-THROTTLE/THROTTLE TRANSIENTS
  
  I had really brought-in BASE HIGH PRESSURE FUELING in the E92 sooner, and higher, than stock some time ago. Because I was seeing a huge RAIL PRESSURE drop, and HUGE spike in IPW when I'd stab the pedal to the floor at low RPM (without allowing the tranny to downshift), I altered that base table to try to command more fuel pressure in that area to come in sooner. That seemed to help, which seemed great, but I think I'm now seeing what I was chasing my tail with some parts of the lower-THROTTLE areas of my tune.
  
  If the THROTTLE was low enough, there was no issue. If the THROTTLE was high enough, there was, largely, no issue. But if I got the THROTTLE within a certain spectrum, between low and high, the E92 would command a LEAN area and the REFLEX wouldn't bring fuel in. Or - the opposite, and the E92 AND REFLEX would both add fuel, resulting in WAY too much. I could, sometimes, see that RAIL PRESSURE was high, and I could see a RICH condition, and or the opposite other times, and get lower RAIL PRESSURE, and see a LEAN condition. I was able to, mostly, whittle either condition down to where I couldn't really feel it in the car (though could see it on the WB and in the SCANNER file), but I knew it was there. And - it probably wouldn't really hurt anything, being light-THROTTLE, but I knew it was there... and I can't stand that. I thought this was because I had PE EQ too low, or THROTTLE PE unbalanced between the 2-controllers, or a combination of those, or more than I haven't even realized yet. I'd been asking why it does that, and more so: can I control that? Then - it occurred to me that I had already messed with that, and it might be in the BASE PRESSURE table.
  
  I know that once RAIL PRESSURE gets into PROFILE 3 MULTIPLIER [33355], that the E92 is calculating INJECTOR fuel flow at 16-20MPa (it's actually more on an LT4, but I'm not shooting for more - that's what the REFLEX is for). Because this method alters this particular multiplier table, I have reduced fuel flow out of the DI injectors so that the REFLEX can add fuel by way of the PI injectors at these RAIL PRESSURES. But - that's at higher throttle inputs/loads, and this part is largely close right now. However - at IDLE and PART THROTTLE - these pressures can float from 3-15MPa, so I think I now have a new lead to try to follow, and strategy to try. Seeing where the RAIL PRESSURE hovers by AIRMASS, in this table, I think I can, probably, better establish where I can start blending the PI into the fueling better, and with more consistency. I think if I can associate AIRMASS to the MAF curve, I can probably plot this blended area in to make the transient regime smoother, safer, and more accurate. Because I don't live far from foothills and mountains, I don't want to have to worry about these transient-areas and thinking I have to downshift to stay within a better EQ-zone or something like that. Or worse yet - have areas where fueling causes the car to respond with less control or rough THROTTLE transitions.
  

So - that's the next part of my saga. I feel like this is closing in on a good conclusion though. If I can sort this out, I feel like I can be confident in this method. Whether or not I can articulate it in such a manor it's useful or understandable to anyone else is a different matter... On to testing!

Haha, I thought I was long winded.