nindoja
Greenie N00B Member
@Enki @VTMongoose - Here's the thread I said I'd make about the CL max load limit tables.
Background: VT and ATR have three CL max load limit tables that we believe are used to allow the ECU to trim fuel even when in OL conditions so long as the load is below this amount. These tables were the source of the great "AP 2.5 load limit glitch" from a year+ ago.
Hypothesis: The best MAF calibration approach would be to:
In reality, I've not seen that. Attached are 2 datalogs taken from my AP. When I ported my map to VT (partial port, anyways), I saw the same behavior.
datalog1.csv was taken with the CL max load limits matching my CL->OL transition tables. datalog2_trimmed.csv has the CL max load limits set to 3.0 and the AFRs go crazy.
Thoughts?
@steve@versatune @ugnius@versatune @phate @AYOUSTIN - Y'all might be interested too
Background: VT and ATR have three CL max load limit tables that we believe are used to allow the ECU to trim fuel even when in OL conditions so long as the load is below this amount. These tables were the source of the great "AP 2.5 load limit glitch" from a year+ ago.
Hypothesis: The best MAF calibration approach would be to:
- Do the normal idle/CL maf calibration
- Set the CL max load limit tables to the CL->OL load threshold values
- Do WOT pulls and calibrate based on the values seen in the logs
- Set the CL max load limit tables to unreachable loads
In reality, I've not seen that. Attached are 2 datalogs taken from my AP. When I ported my map to VT (partial port, anyways), I saw the same behavior.
datalog1.csv was taken with the CL max load limits matching my CL->OL transition tables. datalog2_trimmed.csv has the CL max load limits set to 3.0 and the AFRs go crazy.
Thoughts?
@steve@versatune @ugnius@versatune @phate @AYOUSTIN - Y'all might be interested too