Request: EGO Control to add but not remove

[LSXCutty]

I would like to see an option in the EGO control to be able to add in fueling but not remove. Or say be able to add up to 10% and only remove 5%. Or is there that option now?

[LSXCutty]

Reason being last time I had my car out ego control was taking fuel out in boost enough though it was already on the lean side. So I'd like to take off negative correction while in boost.

[kjones6039]

Reason being last time I had my car out ego control was taking fuel out in boost enough though it was already on the lean side. So I'd like to take off negative correction while in boost.

Hmmmmmm......... I (for one) would be interested in seeing your MSQ and log files.

Ken

[Reverant]

I would like to see an option in the EGO control to be able to add in fueling but not remove. Or say be able to add up to 10% and only remove 5%. Or is there that option now?

+1 for separate min and max limits.

[CRSTune]

I'd also like to be able to command separate limits (+10%, -5% for example).

[LSXCutty]

I can upload the tune file later. But I have no logs of that event. The car is away for the winter. I'm going to try and replicate it in the summer.

[93supercoupe]

id also like to see separate limits

[kjones6039]

I'm going to try and replicate it in the summer.

Works for me! I HATE working in the snow!

Seriously...... Perhaps I am not understanding the issue! Shouldn't a correctly functioning O2 controller and properly tuned AFR/VE table insure the engines not going lean save some other intervening factor.

Ken

[jamies]

why are you relying on EGO control to ADD fuel on boost anyway?
on a properly tuned VE map, ego mostly be removing fuel (ie tune on the rich side) and also EGO should really only be active under 90kpa.
Dont rely on closed loop EGO at atmospheric or on boost, what happens if your sensor/controller drops out or fails??

[93supercoupe]

if thats the case, why would we need ego correction at all?

[mrx79]

Because of the I-Part beeing the only which uses lambda deviation, this can actualy happen.
Even if it should not in a major amount if VE and EGO parameters are tuned properly.
But i can understand the thread-starters wish.

The argument that VE might not be tuned perfect does not count for me, because this is what a good lambda controller should be able to deal with (my personal oppinion). Of course it should not be used as a fix for beeing lazy to tune VE as good as possible.
But tollerances are always there, and there is nothing like a <1% perfect VE under ALL external conditions.

Just a ansymetric EGO limit would make it safer in a general manner.

+1 from me for this as well ;-)

[LSXCutty]

Just wondering if this is going to be considered for a future update? I know you guys have been busy getting 1.5.0 out for use with the new pro-ultimate coming out.