Unable to hit commanded load

buttons said:
I just swapped my stock BOV for a go fast bits unit. no other changes, logged 380hp on virtual dyno this morning, tip in throttle feels much cleaner, 358g/sec. my highest with stock bpv was 334g / sec i think. car feels really good now, ive achieved my goals. I did see a 112% IDC logged, but i still have my limit set to 100. car is holding .8 AFR desired / actual across the entire log.
Click to expand...

I fixed a huge intake leak, and an exhaust leak. turbo spools better now. Holds PSI to redline, hits my Load targets of 2.7. I just logged 410hp / 403 tq with SAE 86F 30.2 baro The road appeared flat, the car felt strong -- but not THIS strong. I tried 4 logs, 2 of them i am now hitting fuel cut. I am actually scared to drive the car now. No its not too fast. its to old and im too fat to be stranded in this heat.
 
Wow... Was looking through your thread and Versa.net forum. Great timing. I am learning and your posts are a help. Load base seems like a 3-d environment and is unfamiliar to my way of thinking... I'm learning the only useful tune with my mod's are all high load and figuring out what other parameters to use or watch out or modify. Finally past the jitters of don't touch OTS and need to fine tune my own. I'm caught between high load and high load & high flow dp and the difficulty in seeing 3d mapping differences.
I would like to know the resolution too, a lot of the threads just..................
 
Last edited:
This issue appears to have been related to an engine with a displacement other than 2261cc. The load calculations are based on the engine displacement amongst other things. Without direct access to a car with an engine with non-standard displacement, it is hard to test this.
 
Makes sense. Hit me up with suggested changes; my actual displacement is 1996cc or thereabouts.
 
Enki said:
Makes sense. Hit me up with suggested changes; my actual displacement is 1996cc or thereabouts.
Click to expand...
Maybe scale MAF down 15% and VE up 15 % See what reported load looks like and if AFRs are close. Or maybe the other way around? MAF up and VE down?
 
The MAF curve and voltages all match my last engine, and the AFRs were never off. Messing with one of those is going to mess up fueling again, isn't it?
 
If you change those two tables reciprocally, they should offset each other in the fuel calc. The load calc does not appear to be affected by the VE table. the MAF skew should fix the load calc, and the VE skew should correct the fuel.
 
So, I did at least part of this test the other day (only updated the VE table), and with the *stock* closed loop at all times setup, there was no change in load, AFRs or IDCs @WOT, though it did drive like shit and was quite rich from the VE change; this was both on the first pull of the flash as well as a followup pull later on. I'd like to note that I'm commanding full nuts on the WGDC across the entire RPM band, but only seeing 50% up top. The big limiting factor appears to be the IDCs, as they still don't want to go over 80%.

If I do as you ask, and reduce the MAF curve, wouldn't that reduce calc load (when I'm trying to increase it)?

Do you know what the actual formula is for calculated load? Is it IDCs and/or massflow and/or AFRs? If I had that information, I could probably do some simple tests with the tune to figure it out, but as of this moment I still think there's some arbitrary setting somewhere that needs to be updated.
 
If it has, nobody told me.
Edit: Do you have the *exact* same symptoms? What are your mods?
 
Enki said:
If it has, nobody told me.
Edit: Do you have the *exact* same symptoms? What are your mods?
Click to expand...
Not yet. I was doing some research for BT setups and I came across this topic.
I have a new BT setup (6062) with PI on my genwon that I'm trying to dial in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top