06 Ultra 95" 37b cams TTS

[wolf_59]

06 Ultra 95" SE FT pistons, Andrews 37b cams, .030 HG, .020 shaved off stock heads, stock air cleaner, stock headers, SE Fatshotz closed end caps, O2 conversion
CPZ176 cal. PE set to 10,000, AE DE AKR set to 0, spark temp correction set to 0, CLB set to 798 up to 60 map 817 at 75 map and 836 at 95 map
maxing out the ve tables added 15% to engine size
here is the latest Vtune and Historgram

Whats your thoughts do I need to set the CLB's to 1 value across the board to vtune then take those higher map settings out of closed loop or continue on with what I'm doing?



[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[mayor]

spark temp correction set to 0

  huh?  what did you do that for? your engine will likely thank you for keeping that on while vtuning....since vtuning does generate some heat. 

did you set your afr to 14.6 in as many of the afr cells that would allow?

CLB set to 798 up to 60 map 817 at 75 map and 836 at 95 map

I don't think running the narrow bands that rich is recommneded. I think all your settings are too rich for the afr based narrow bands.   Keep in mind that Delphi system is not a 100% closed loop system, and you are only running closed loop in some of the higher map areas during vtuning to populate the ve cells...after that, you will be switching these areas to open.  The goal with vtuning is to populate your ve cells with as accurate of data as possible, then you use the afr tables to adjust to the desired afr settings.

Whats your thoughts do I need to set the CLB's to 1 value across the board to vtune then take those higher map settings out of closed loop or continue on with what I'm doing?

I think you should lower your CLB value to 781 or less, then see what the ve's look like. 

[wolf_59]

all cells set to max 14.6 and 14.5
turned off spark temp would rather find and address spark that occurs then reset the correction
reset CLB's to 798 for 14.2 across the board ( figured this was throwing off the VE's)



[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[mayor]

reset CLB's to 798 for 14.2 across the board ( figured this was throwing off the VE's)

ok....but that's still too rich.   


can you repost the 2nd Vtune VE screen shot with the low MAP highlighted.   Here's where you do that:

[wolf_59]

ok set CLB's to 759 it is bringing down the VE #'s but it's not liken it to much starting to get some pinging
will have to do a data run to get the timing a little closer before I get back to vtuning
I'll post that when I get it done
Thanks for the help

[mayor]

did you reset the temp correction to include the reduced timing at temp? if not, you should.   

[wolf_59]

Here is the last one highlighted I didn't get as good of run as I wanted due to the pinging
Yes, I did reset the spark correction as you suggested

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[mayor]

wow, that sure brought the ve's down.  what's the c.i. setting? looks like you can reduce it.   

[wolf_59]

15% increase took it to 108.8
I'll continue in this direction and see how the temps (engine & exhaust) and fuel milage are like when completed.
Was trying to make full use of the available closed loop areas of the cal without having to move some areas to open loop after tuning.

When Vtuning my 04 Fatboy 95" reg. HTCC heads squish set at .037, pistons,intake, WT tc26G cams, 2-1 Supermeg 11-1 CR  tried to richen up the settings and had to bump it up 15% to keep from maxing out the VE cells, ended up doing what we are doing here set CI back to size, took a LOT of timing out, Vtuned at 447 CLB, tuned in VE's pretty quick, ran hot so I set AFR for 13.5 across the board except for a small window from 2000 - 3000 rpm up to 60 map and added timing back in. Runs great and getting 50 - 52 mpg but kind of a waste on the O2 conversion since it's really not getting used

[mayor]

Was trying to make full use of the available closed loop areas of the cal without having to move some areas to open loop after tuning.

yea, I understand the logic. The narrow bands just don't allow for an accurate or long life solution running that rich. 

When Vtuning my 04 Fatboy 95" reg. HTCC heads squish set at .037, pistons,intake, WT tc26G cams, 2-1 Supermeg 11-1 CR  tried to richen up the settings and had to bump it up 15% to keep from maxing out the VE cells, ended up doing what we are doing here set CI back to size, took a LOT of timing out, Vtuned at 447 CLB, tuned in VE's pretty quick, ran hot so I set AFR for 13.5 across the board except for a small window from 2000 - 3000 rpm up to 60 map and added timing back in. Runs great and getting 50 - 52 mpg but kind of a waste on the O2 conversion since it's really not getting used

well, if the conversion helped you dial in the ve's...it likely wasn't a waste.   

I'm running a clb of 762, and before the cam swap this spring I ran a CLB of 781.  I think 781 is the richest recommended for the narrow band system.  I didn't think that the 762 setting (14.5) made the bike feel like it ran overly hot, even during a trip in the 100+ degree weather around the Ohio river basin this summer.  This is a leaner setting than I would prefer (I'm still a little old school in my afr thoughts), but it's the limitation of the system. The bike is air cooled, so it don't feel cool at this setting...but it wasn't any hotter than my TMax bike running 14-14.2 afr (at least that's the set point, the actual may be leaner).  If you can get the ve's dialed in well and get the timing dialed in well, the bike should not run hot. 

On a side note, I've got two carb bikes (same frame- Dyna, similar compression, same exhaust, same carbs, very similar ignition timing rates, but slightly different cams).  The one runs cool (freakishly cool), the other runs hot...I tuned the one that runs hot with an afr meter and dialed in the afr to much richer settings than we are discussing above...bike still runs somewhat hot.  The bike that runs cool, runs cool regardless of how lean I run it (and I have run it freakishly lean  ).  The point is, afr is only part of the equation...timing, whether ignition or valve, plays into the equation for the particular bike as well.   BTW, the bike that runs cool is running 37's. 

I would suggest a clb setting around 762-781, then dial your ve's in, do plenty of data recordings to check timing and ve's, then decide if the bike needs to be run richer.  It might suprise you.  I run my tts vtuned bike in closed loop for the majority of the afr chart, and I really haven't given a thought of needed to run richer than the clb setting of 762 that I run now.   

[wolf_59]

 Yeah can't say honestly that it was a waste because it runs better than it ever did even after 4 dyno tunes

No problem, I'm going to give it a try and see how it works
As long as it runs cooler than it did as an 88" with the stage 1 download, I had no idea as to what people were talking about when referring to the heat on these touring bikes until I bought this, Un-fricking believeable
Thanks

[lonewolf]

15% increase took it to 108.8

I have found with the MT8's that cu in constant can be set very close to actual size.

[wolf_59]

15% increase took it to 108.8

I have found with the MT8's that cu in constant can be set very close to actual size.

Yeah, I'm going to set it all back like I had it to start with before I started messing with it
Thanks

[wolf_59]

ok got a run in this afternoon clb set to 739, could use help to get me started on adjusting EGR effects table

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[wolf_59]

historgram attachment

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[mayor]

can you post the cal you are working in as well?  it makes it easier in suggesting the egr table corrections to try. 

[hrdtail78]

Something to remember about EGR.  It will add more to the lower TP than the higher.  Example 1750 on you front cyclinder you posted.  From 15% to 20% the VE climbs only 3.5 but from 0% to 2% VE's climb over 10.  It steps all the way up.  So adding 30% to the EGR table in the 1600 and 2000 will help this, and it will add 30% to 0% maybe 25% to 2%, 20% to 5%......  Don't quote me on those numbers excatly because I just made them up for example sake.  Adding to the lower left portion, is really going to help you out with off idle and take off from stop transitions.

[wolf_59]

CPZ 176 cal I've been reading some of the EGR threads but haven't figured it out yet once I do it a couple of times it will come easier

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[wolf_59]

Something to remember about EGR.  It will add more to the lower TP than the higher.  Example 1750 on you front cyclinder you posted.  From 15% to 20% the VE climbs only 3.5 but from 0% to 2% VE's climb over 10.  It steps all the way up.  So adding 30% to the EGR table in the 1600 and 2000 will help this, and it will add 30% to 0% maybe 25% to 2%, 20% to 5%......  Don't quote me on those numbers excatly because I just made them up for example sake.  Adding to the lower left portion, is really going to help you out with off idle and take off from stop transitions.

Thank you