Switched over to Beta9 over the weekend. Besides have to lean out the VE tables (alot) no issues. Car seems much more responsive.
Also had to pull some timing at low MAP and RPM to smooth things out. Probably not related to the new BETA.
BMW e30 rear mount turbo with nitrous, BMW e21 with mid mount LS1 and T56
redmist1 wrote:Switched over to Beta9 over the weekend. Besides have to lean out the VE tables (alot) no issues. Car seems much more responsive.
Also had to pull some timing at low MAP and RPM to smooth things out. Probably not related to the new BETA.
Ken only thing I did was turn off warm up and acceleration enrichments and disabled the IAC stepper to recheck the VE table. Think that had something to do with it?
Thanks
Pete
BMW e30 rear mount turbo with nitrous, BMW e21 with mid mount LS1 and T56
Ken, gave the beta 9 a shot today. AFR at idle was 10.5-11 (normally 13-13.5) and PW was 4.5ms (normally at 12.8-13ms). Because of this the engine ran like crap and I couldn't really rev it past 1300rpms. Everything else was fine like timing. I tried two settings for the MAP sampling time mask, which were 0 and 50%. Both had nil effect.
Before updating to Beta9, I was running Beta6 which has been flawless. I've been following the release notes between releases 7 through 9 and can't find anything that would cause this rich condition except the testimony of other users.
Am I missing something? No settings changed between the Beta 6 and Beta 9 msqs except that option to adjust timing mask of map sampling (and 0% should be what the Beta 6 and all previous releases default to anyways). I'm just a little confused. Should I re-tune the entire ve table or wait for a fix? For now I'm back to Beta 6.
Have you compared the pulse-widths under identical conditions? Are they the same? Different? (If the same, then it'd lead me to believe that something odd is going on with the outputs).
I'll look for this issue when I get time, most likely Wed night. I had intended to work on working out the remaining bugs this weekend, but it didn't work out that way.
Are either of you running low-impedance injectors?
Also, could one or both of you try the betas in between to help me pinpoint where I need to be looking?
I didn't change anything that should've caused this, but that doesn't mean that I didn't somehow cause this problem anyway.
I did test the pulse widths under identical situations (idle and low rpms). Both msqs as you can see are identical. I am also not running low impendence injectors. PW is about 1.5ms above the norm with the beta 9 code.
I will try to give beta 7 and 8 a try before wednesday to help you better but that's gonna be tough as i'm going to school full time and working full time.
I'll have to see when I added the usec resolution for opening time... That's the only thing I've changed that might cause what you're seeing.
In any case, retuning the opening time should make it work for you again if that's the problem, so that's another thing I'd like you to try at some point.
EDIT:
I changed EAE to be dual-channel back in beta 7. That is really the only thing that I've changed that could cause the problem you're seeing.
When I made that change, I also said that it may be necessary to retune EAE and VE a bit. I can see if I can tweak the change I made to make it so that retune is completely un-necessary if people want. Those who are having a problem, if you could try turning off EAE to see if the problem is solved that'd be good. Just try at idle, and reboot the MS after making the change.
I just loaded 0905. I was running 0812. The only thing I noticed was that closed loop idle now tracks the clt/rpm table now during warmup. PW and VE tune remained the same. This is with EAE, 36-1, 2nd trigger, 4 cyl COP, 1 squirt simultaneous.
muythaibxr wrote:1.5 ms difference? that's quite a bit.
I'll have to see when I added the usec resolution for opening time... That's the only thing I've changed that might cause what you're seeing.
In any case, retuning the opening time should make it work for you again if that's the problem, so that's another thing I'd like you to try at some point.
EDIT:
I changed EAE to be dual-channel back in beta 7. That is really the only thing that I've changed that could cause the problem you're seeing.
When I made that change, I also said that it may be necessary to retune EAE and VE a bit. I can see if I can tweak the change I made to make it so that retune is completely un-necessary if people want. Those who are having a problem, if you could try turning off EAE to see if the problem is solved that'd be good. Just try at idle, and reboot the MS after making the change.
Ken
I can try this during lunch time today so expect to see a report around 1pm. Since Beta 9 increases PW by about 1.5ms, should the opening time be increased or decreased? Shouldn't I be able to just adjust the Req_fuel instead of the opening time? And lastly, I'd appreciate a fix that makes a full retune un-necessary. A partial retune is fine but correcting a table that is off by 1.5ms is just not an option right now for me. Maybe over the Winter Break (or maybe Thanksgiving) from school I’ll have time but right now, if it can't be retuned during lunch time (approx. 1 hour) or on my way to school (20 minute drive) then I can't do it. Juggling working full time and school full time has proven harder than I thought.
If people are seeing the need to do a full retune (you may notice the "need" changing with the number of squirts you're using), then I'll try to figure a way to do it without the need for a full retune.
You can retune however you want... I suggesting opening time thinking that my old opening time changes may have caused your problem. I doubt that those were the cause, so I'd recomend changing req_fuel instead if you want to use beta 9.
beta 10 is probably going to be a while, as I'm going to try to fix all known bugs (except maybe the neon issue) before releasing it. That beta will probably make it out towards the end of the week.
Ken I just tried Beta 7 and the issue was the same. Idle oscilated between 3.5ms and 4.5ms pulse-width. At first I thought it was EAE because when EAE was only at +5% it would be at the 4.8ms pulsewidth however, when I turned EAE off, nothing changed. Very small changes in the MAP (load %) cause HUGE changes in the pulsewidth and just sitting at a steady idle was 1.2-1.5ms higher than normal. The engine was shaking and rocking all over the place because of the excess of fuel. Hopefully this helps. I didn't have time to mess with the open time or req_fuel. Again, I'm back to beta 6 and all is well. Thanks
Ken, I was running 2 squirts alternating both before and after. Didn't change anything beyond what I relayed previously. I also run high impedance injectors (42lb bosch at 1ms min pulse width, 6.4 req fuel, 2.7liter turbo bimmer) I can't do a before and after (BETA 7 VS BETA 8) until next weekend.
Like Matt the car was so rich it wouldn't even run if I got into it at all (rising MAP).
I did load my beta 7 msq into my beta 8 directly rather than re-entering. I only got a warning related to values for boost control which I'm not using anyway.
Maybe it was just a re-flashing issue, ie maybe I had to reflash several times?
I wouldn't worry too much Ken if other people aren't having any issues.
The car was just so well tuned under Beta 7 (dtd 7/22) that I don't want to screw around with a retune right know.
EDIT: I turned off smiley's in this post (Ken)
BMW e30 rear mount turbo with nitrous, BMW e21 with mid mount LS1 and T56
So you just went from Beta 6 to Beta 7, didn't change anything at all other than that, and it was suddenly richer, correct? If that's the case, I'm almost sure I screwed something up when making the EAE changes.. That's really the only thing it could be.
I'll have to go through sometime soon and look at what changed in the code to see if anything other than the EAE changes could cause this issue.
I do remember going in and checking beta 6 vs beta 9 at different numbers of squirts, and not seeing any difference in pulse-width.
Ken, not sure if all your questions were directed towards redmist1
or not, but I am running 1.0ms opening time. Remember also, that it also ran very rich when I turned EAE to OFF. Maybe there's an EAE bug that still affects PW even if EAE is off?
mattd860 wrote:Ken, not sure if all your questions were directed towards redmist1
or not, but I am running 1.0ms opening time. Remember also, that it also ran very rich when I turned EAE to OFF. Maybe there's an EAE bug that still affects PW even if EAE is off?
There shouldn't be any EAE bugs that'd cause that, but there might be a change I made at the same time that does.
Now that I know where I'm looking, I should be able to find it pretty easily.