WOULD YOU CAP OR SCALE IN THIS SCENARIO?

[misfitJason]

I don't know if I should for just the two cells in this scenario.  What do you gentlemen think

[rbabos]

I don't know if I should for just the two cells in this scenario.  What do you gentlemen think

In theory, yes. The thing about 127.5 is a max, so if it's beyond that, you don't know how lean it really is.
Ron

[Coyote]

Scale it IMO

[rigidthumper]

Where is your CID at present? How many cycles have you gone through?

[misfitJason]

It's a 95 inch motor with andrews 37h cams and mild headwork.  This is the third autotune with target tune.  Current cubic in in the map is 95.9.  Scaling bumps it up to 101.9.  The reason I ask is that it is really only 127.5'ing in a couple of cells

[rbabos]

It's a 95 inch motor with andrews 37h cams and mild headwork.  This is the third autotune with target tune.  Current cubic in in the map is 95.9.  Scaling bumps it up to 101.9.  The reason I ask is that it is really only 127.5'ing in a couple of cells

127.5 so far. Give it some head room for more runs, where more might develop. Me thinks we were around 105 is when we did NB tuning last spring. Stands to reason it should follow with TT.
Ron

[joe_lyons]

Lower the cde values in those rpm areas.  I can't see what the rpms are. 

[misfitJason]

I removed cde from that rpm area and will try that on my way home from work.  WHat I generally have happen when I scale is, the bike always seems to run hotter.  I don't know why but it does always at normal operating range

[rbabos]

I removed cde from that rpm area and will try that on my way home from work.  WHat I generally have happen when I scale is, the bike always seems to run hotter.  I don't know why but it does always at normal operating range

Whats' your normal AFR target in that area?
Ron

[misfitJason]

Rbabos, with target tune my afr in that area is 14.1

Joe, I reduced the cde in that area by twenty percent to see a small change.  I ran an autotune session on the way home.  It didn't do squat to that area! 

I am going to autotune the scaled version of the map and see where that gets me and then compare the two (scaled/ non scaled) to see which one is a better fit i.e. cooler running and snappier.  I do live in Florida so heat is an always present issue to keep on top of

[joe_lyons]

Higher rpm areas require alot of change to make a difference.  Lower the high spots in the ve table to flow with the rest of the table.  Do this using the percentage part of the calculator and multiply that 4x above 4000 rpm for the egr table. 

[Gordon61]

Is this a Power Vision only thing??  I don't think I have seen another thread about any of the other tuners capping or scaling the CI, why is that??

[KE5RBD]

I would not do either.  That is a shift point and won't hurt a thing.  I have seen the scale run the engine size up 30 cubic inches trying to scale that area.  It isn't just a PV deal.  I know SEPST does it and pretty sure TTS can also.  Now if you start needing capping or scaling in other areas such as WOT or below 3500 rpms above 10 Throttle Position or 40 Kpa then something is likely going on. 

[Gordon61]

I would not do either. 

I've got the same peak on the rear cylinder only (also a sharp peak on the front 1750 WOT) so have seen the same message ...you have to do one or the other?  What would you do there? thanks

[BVHOG]

rbabos  is correct, get the numbers in range or you won't know just how lean it is.  No good reason not to get them in range and you are not far off in your CI at the present. I would set it at 103 and try it over.

[rbabos]

rbabos  is correct, get the numbers in range or you won't know just how lean it is.  No good reason not to get them in range and you are not far off in your CI at the present. I would set it at 103 and try it over.

Ran into the same thing when we did a ballpark NB tune back in the spring for this bike. Seems to me 105 or so did the trick. Just enough but not too much. Hard to remember will all the cals I've looked at and played with but this engine really liked to breath in that area. While the rest is a bit of a fog, that much I remember.
Ron

[misfitJason]

SO I decided to let both version of the cal play out.  One scaled and one not scaled.  I autotuned both until I reached the desired rate of change, which is much quicker with target tune and at pro I must say.  My scaled map ended up at 101.9 ci and the not scaled map was 95.9 ci.

I ran a test this morning just to see how lean the not scaled map would end up in that area. Target tune can add or remove fuel somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 percent, I have read.  When I run the bike up to those maxed out cell my cli was was at the most 120% which I take as two afr points leatuning the bike last time (5-7 percent throttle an.  SO that was the decision to run the scaled map.

Here is what I have found helps in my case.  The marjority of the time I am running dead 100 on my cli's except where rbabos and I had a hard time tuning the bike in before (5-7 percent throttle and 2200-3000 rpms).  I attribute this to decel or reversion skewing the data collected.  So I have been logging holding the throttle at these specific areas and putting the logs into mytune.  It has made the changes based off of the cli and has been very accurate.  I have found that using mytune for the whole mapped worked well before the addition of target tune to my bike.  Target tune overall has made a huge improvement to teh accuracy of the ve tables once I figured out that my cde was off at lower rpms causing my kpa to jump all around and ultimately causing my miss at idel when I autotune with pro or basic last year.  (which is when rbabos helped me out big time)  All in all I cant recommend target tune enough. 

My only gripe through all of this process with a variety of tuning products from dynojet (pcv to powervision to atpro to target tune) is and has been documentation or something to provide me, as not a professional tuner, a better understanding of how to work with the tables or how to use the products to their fullest potential (I did have it dyno tuned by the way but it did not work out well about a year and a half ago)

Also a big thanks to fuelmoto for taking the time to talk to me on the phone and also getting me a better base map to run off of.  Much better timing tables

[Gordon61]

Thats some good info there Jason, thanks for sharing. 
I think I'd agree that more samples and MyTune gets better numbers than 99 hits in an autotune session (provided you are not looking at the edge of your logged cells, when it can skew the number horribly sometimes).  Ttuning on a dyno makes the whole process so much easier to hit the centre of those cells, but some of us are stuck with tuning it on the street.

once I figured out that my cde was off at lower rpms causing my kpa to jump all around and ultimately causing my miss at idel when I autotune with pro or basic last year.  (which is when rbabos helped me out big time)

You noted that you saw your MAP jumping around, I see that too and noticed it got better when I was treating CDE to smooth out the VE tables in that area.  I think I've got an awful lot closer in the lower revs but I'm not sure it's quite as perfect as it could be.  Do you/rbabos have any pointers to how you worked through your fix that might help us?  What you saw, what to aim for, kind of thing?

cheers

[misfitJason]

I saw large jumps between rows of ve.  I used cde to bring those up into normal ranges.  Dynojet told me that they do not recommend a bike having any ve's in the fifty to low sixty range at idle.  Some bikes it doesn't effect but in my case it did.  I lowered the map to the point of idle that it was at about 34-36. My particular bike didn't like this for whatever reason. Maybe the combination of all my performance parts. With cde adjustment it likes to be at an idle of 37-39 now and it runs better and holds a more consistent afr

[Gordon61]

Good stuff, I saw that too. I was chasing the lowest MAP I could get at idle but found you can go too far.  Mine was about the same at 32 as it was at 40 kpa at idle, so I'm hunting for the middle now. 

Can you say, just as an example, how stable you managed to get your MAP at idle?

I've managed to get mine to about 33 +-3 but I wasn't sure if the +- variation is a result of the PV log collection timing, or actual instability. 

[misfitJason]

I would say I have the same fluctuation.  The biggest difference is +2 to -3

[Mirrmu]

good writeup misfitjason, the wide bands are of benefit to street tuners

[rbabos]

32 or 40 really don't matter that much. Most of idle KPA fluctuation is from poor ve's and the engine not running smooth or as smooth as possible. Up and down idle rpm fluctuations move the kpa with it. It has no choice. Idle kpa is seldom rock solid.
Ron