Bodgetastic Injector Fitting +

[Tricky-Ricky]

Yes i do understand where your coming from Ian but, what bothers me about using the airflow map is you end up with lots of different adjustments all through the RPM/load points, which would be fine if you knew the thresholds that the std ECU uses to pull or advance timing etc, which make for a real pain to re compensate, at least with the global you have a constant to work from, i normally map by RPM V load?pressure, and TBH i don't like the EMU data logger i have found you cant trust some of the readings due to the sketchy software, i prefer the Innovate, at least i know that the AFR etc I'm reading is accurate and not a processed sim.

There is no right or wrong way with piggybacks as you are dealing with a fudged signal anyway, add to that know one has any cast iron fuelling or timing maps for the J spec TT so as i said we have no idea what the std ECU does at what point, its all a bit of a guess.

[Ian C]

I've never quite worked out how you match up the innovative datalog with everything else that's going on y'know. I mean it's probably possible but you've got two seperate datalogs and unless you start them both at exactly the same time with the same sample rate, how do you ever get them to correlate?

 

I log the 0-5v output off the AEM I've got, it logs it as a 0-5v input, the voltages always match what I'm seeing on the gauge and it's all there on a line by line basis in a spreadsheet with AFR values calculated off the table supplied by AEM. I can't see it getting any easier than that, or frankly any more accurate

 

Still, many way to skin a cat and all that.

 

-Ian

[Tricky-Ricky]

With the Innovate i log AFR, RPM, pressure and TPS and have an extra input which is G force as default, but when i figure out how to log ign timing it will be better, EMU software won't do it, i actually only use the EMU log to check max injector DC,

 

I have just been out and done a couple of back to back tests on both forms of mapping and found that the global is much more stable in that AFRs don't vary anywhere near as much as they do using a set airflow correction figure, which is strange as you would expect them to be the same or similar,

so i have now opted to use global and tweak the airflow to tweak things into line, rather than DC correction and see how that pans out.

another thing with the emange is that airflow correction and the global setting is before the ECU, whereas the injector correction is after, that is why i have always thought that is the better way to go, as it cant affect ign timing.

[xxcat]

another thing with the emange is that airflow correction and the global setting is before the ECU, whereas the injector correction is after, that is why i have always thought that is the better way to go, as it cant affect ign timing.

Exactly my thoughts.. And again, I don't see any problem to correct INJection... Ian C - please point me where I'm wrong.

[Ian C]

If you don't drop the airflow signal even just as a coarse tune you'll end up still hitting fuel cut. The issue with this, and I believe JustGav found this out first, is that once you hit anywhere near 1bar of boost, the stock ECU just chucks in the longest duration it can instead of something mapped around what the engine actually needs at that point. Makes it tricky to impossible to map around because you are fighting that at all times. Also, the airflow correction is extremely useful around the sequential transition point. I can't say I've ever had an issue with the timing due to cutting airflow.

 

I'm comfortable with how I use the EMU and the EMB. It appears it's a different way to others, no one is necessarily wrong. If you want to use just the injector correction then go right ahead I'll stick to using both.

 

-Ian

[Ian C]

With the Innovate i log AFR, RPM, pressure and TPS and have an extra input which is G force as default, but when i figure out how to log ign timing it will be better,

Aha I didn't know it could log other things, that makes it much more viable

 

EMU software won't do it,

 

It does on a good day if it's in a good mood, possible

 

AFRs don't vary anywhere near as much as they do using a set airflow correction figure, which is strange as you would expect them to be the same or similar,

 

Yup - that is indeed odd. Have you got the logs handy? I'd like a look at that

 

-Ian

[Tricky-Ricky]

If you don't drop the airflow signal even just as a coarse tune you'll end up still hitting fuel cut. The issue with this, and I believe JustGav found this out first, is that once you hit anywhere near 1bar of boost, the stock ECU just chucks in the longest duration it can instead of something mapped around what the engine actually needs at that point. Makes it tricky to impossible to map around because you are fighting that at all times. Also, the airflow correction is extremely useful around the sequential transition point. I can't say I've ever had an issue with the timing due to cutting airflow.

 

I'm comfortable with how I use the EMU and the EMB. It appears it's a different way to others, no one is necessarily wrong. If you want to use just the injector correction then go right ahead I'll stick to using both.

 

-Ian

 

I have mine clamped at 4.40V and use the greddy pressure sensor to scale the maps, not noticed my DC going really high,

I'll have a look for those logs, not sure if i kept them after reading, as its early stages, and the laptop gets cluttered with obsolete logs.

[xxcat]

If you don't drop the airflow signal even just as a coarse tune you'll end up still hitting fuel cut...

-Ian

 

I think we are talking about different airflow signals In my case it's MAF based. As I know MAF will not affect fuel cut?