FUDGE THE KOOLAIDE- Time for some Whiskey Tuning

[rbabos]

I was doing VE tuning with the Twin Scan back in 2008. I originally wrote MyTune because the VE tuning part of the Twin Scan was not so great. The wego part worked great though. They may have fixed the VE tuning softare by now. I fully tuned my build using the wego and MyTune, then had it dyno tuned to see how the self tune came out. The result: peak numbers roughly the same, driveability the same, fuel efficiency slightly better with self tune. My verdict: you should have no problems getting a good tune using the Twin Scan wego.

Cool. Some of us are really looking forward to playing with it.
Ron

[rbabos]

Got my TS11 stuff and playing with the program but have a couple questions.
Why would someone want to run a base afr of 13.2 when it clearly states in the directions not to use this clunky method. For me, it would make more sense to run my existing afrs since it runs pretty good as is. Plus, this way I can leave it hooked up for a decent amount of time collecting data over varying conditions, have running better and less carbon than 13.2 across the board would do. I know this has been hashed out before but having clearly read the instructions why deviate from them?
Ron

[hrdtail78]

"I know this has been hashed out before but having clearly read the instructions why deviate from them?"

If you know you are close.  Like in your case.  Probably don't need the clunky way.  But what if you are starting from Scratch?  On a nonfamiliar build?

Question I have for you.  Have you read all the instructions that came with the kit?  Are you going to use the guideline of 13-14 for best cruise?

[Herko]

Blanket 13.2 or blanket 13.5 etc. vs. AFR/Lambda table populated with the end result numbers. The good thing is we have a choice. The choice should factor in the build, the situation, and the comfort level of the user.

[rbabos]

"I know this has been hashed out before but having clearly read the instructions why deviate from them?"

If you know you are close.  Like in your case.  Probably don't need the clunky way.  But what if you are starting from Scratch?  On a nonfamiliar build?

Question I have for you.  Have you read all the instructions that came with the kit?  Are you going to use the guideline of 13-14 for best cruise?

Makes sense on the fresh start. I think I will just run it at the 14.4 and see how much change there is. Then I'll see which path to take.
Ron

[Durwood]

Ron,I forsee a dyno in your future...

[hrdtail78]

As per PM.  I don't know why the Corrected VE cells are so small.   No excel master here.

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[Steve Cole]

Look at the top of the page and see where the scale is set. Typically in Excel when people see small sizes its set to something less than 100%

[hrdtail78]

I found the slider. Bottom right.

[strokerjlk]

Ron
Tune your current cal as it is plain and simple.
If your start another cal. Tune your open loop to target what you want.
If you want a closed loop portion tune to 14.6 with 450 CLB
You know the drill from there

[hrdtail78]

Biggest problem you are going to have is making an open loop tune set up with an outside source. Work with the close loop portion being read by the ECM. Most will see leaving the whole thing open loop and blame the system for what they can't figure out. The easiest way to go. There is more out there.

[Herko]

Excel is a powerful tool and is highly valuable in the tuning arena.
This will seem rudimentary to some, but, a tip I would pass along when using/teaching Powerpoint for technical applications is reverse engineering. Excel is very similar in this regard.

For example, open one of the DTT spread sheets and save it as a different file name. Then take the new-named file (initially, it's still fully the same file as the DTT file) and have at it. Start experimenting. Try things. Dissect. Add/remove columns and rows. Carry over formulas. Use the help files etc. If all gets convoluted, no harm no foul, simply start over with what you learned. Your original saved DTT file is still as it was when downloaded. With some time, you'll be handy with tailoring Excel files for specific tuning purposes and tasks. 

[rbabos]

Well, went through the motions and got it all working. Couple of observations. As was mentioned to tune the existing aft table so went at it. Discovered vtune was nice enough to add 14.7s ,15.5, 10.0 afrs within the map. AE, DE, PE, all disabled during runs.
Raises the question of why narrowbands put those afrs there and it took broadbands to find it. The whole mt8 calibration was vtuned richer than what's shown in he afr table . Up to 1 afr near idle and 2 around 60%. I think some of you will be surprised at what actual afr vtune gave you.
Ron

[mayor]

 

[rbabos]

This is my first run.
Ron

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[glens]

I hope the TS software allows you to use RPM/MAP axes on its fueling table like what's in your calibration or looks like it's going to be real hit-and-miss trying to incorporate the suggested changes.

[Hilly13]

So what do we make of it Ron?

[Herko]

Ron,
What's the TS table look like with the data filtered?

[rbabos]

Ron,
What's the TS table look like with the data filtered?

The one 15.7 disappears as well as the one other but the high 14s remain. I started to filter on later runs. I will not ever TS my existing cal again. Making corrections to bring the ve's into what the AFR table is produces a condition where the engine runs like crap. It likes 13.2-13.5 but hates when the ve is chased to produce 14.0 as an example in the low end. Gets really confusing at times too. Next time it's 13.5 accross the board and then fine tune tune the afr table. Excel correction tables I tried do not give the exact corrections for some reason so I didn't trust them and did it manually from TS to TTS ve tables. More practice with them and it might be fine.  Spent 2 days and 200 miles and in the end have a smoother running engine at all rpms, except my light load jerking returned. I need to dial this in again with the afr table. Easy to use tool. Hardest part is fitting it all back into the case when done. Tuned open loop so I stuck the supplied O2 plugs in the bungs. I'm surprised unplugging the sensors don't produce a code.
Ron

[strokerjlk]

Making corrections to bring the ve's into what the AFR table is produces a condition where the engine runs like crap.

thats because your v tune was soooo lean to begin with.

[Herko]

Ron.
You may be aware, but on your 'Table Format' window you can select "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' to better match your 176 cal grid. I.e. your 7 and 25 columns will be presented.

I hope the TS software allows you to use RPM/MAP axes on its fueling table like what's in your calibration or looks like it's going to be real hit-and-miss trying to incorporate the suggested changes.

The TS table Ron attached targets the VE Tables and shows the results in AFR for the VE calibration. Hence, it shows the X axis as TPS for the 176 cals.

[ToBeFrank]

I strongly suggest setting your entire AFR table to one value when logging with the twin scan and widebands. The software that generates a tune from the widebands has to be a lot smarter than with the narrowbands because the widebands are slow. Allowing the AFR target to move around makes it pretty much impossible to generate a correct tune.

EDIT: Note that I'm assuming you're street tuning, not on a dyno.

[rbabos]

I strongly suggest setting your entire AFR table to one value when logging with the twin scan and widebands. The software that generates a tune from the widebands has to be a lot smarter than with the narrowbands because the widebands are slow. Allowing the AFR target to move around makes it pretty much impossible to generate a correct tune.

EDIT: Note that I'm assuming you're street tuning, not on a dyno.

I'm tending to agree and one of the reasons is what Stroker mentioned. Too much variance between fuel command and actual TS results. If I ever do it again it will be 13.2-13.5 from the start. Might work to tune the existing if closer but you don't know until at least one run.
Yup, street tune and with a 120 in a softail that's a fkg joke. The run I posted has close to 110 mph in there at one spot. Loads , well, finding that with a big engine and light bike is a chore. From the first posted run I decide to live and worked my real driving range with a tad more rpms between shifts along with some short shifting. This engine runs in a very narrow tps range even getting on it, so real world driving and a tad more is where I drew the line for road tuning.
Ron

[rbabos]

Ron.
You may be aware, but on your 'Table Format' window you can select "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' to better match your 176 cal grid. I.e. your 7 and 25 columns will be presented.

I hope the TS software allows you to use RPM/MAP axes on its fueling table like what's in your calibration or looks like it's going to be real hit-and-miss trying to incorporate the suggested changes.

The TS table Ron attached targets the VE Tables and shows the results in AFR for the VE calibration. Hence, it shows the X axis as TPS for the 176 cals.

I see the option now but I set it to basic. How much difference would it make? Seems I got both afrs balanced between the cyls. Front one was always leaner throughout the table and need the most work. I see the advanced adds the extra tps % areas missing in the Basic. Those missing areas ,being I used basic, I blended.
Ron

[Herko]

How much difference would it make?

Go ahead and open your .log file(s) and then select the "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' format while it's there and see what you get.  TS is generous in logging data that we may think don't need or did not intend to see.  As Boz says, everyday is a school day.