The resolution.
Advancement of fuel delivery?
- Thread starter Alky V6
- Start date
The resolution.
I was j/k with you Don.
I know, Scott. But, it is an open option. I'd just need a 4 bar though.
You mean the map breakpoints that are close together?
edit: Nevermind. Read the alert email.
The 2 pairs where the kPa breakpoints are close together was done in order to form steps in the fuel table. One step is needed to adjust the fueling when the aux fuel system begins supplying fuel.
The other step was done to form 'the wall'. A very indepth explanation of 'the wall' is in this thread.
The 80 kPa step was done in a zone where the fuel delivery is very linear, and a breakpoint was not needed in between them. I've had breakpoints between those points before, but they were found to not be necessary, and I really needed the breakpoints elsewhere.
Hi Jay. I use the Electromotive TEC3r w/WinTEC4 upgrade. It's just that their graphing for the tables is not very good. I prefer to use the Motec software to render the fuel tables to get a better feel for the fueling requirement of the engine.
Yesterday, I sat down and read through this whole thread. It was interesting to see where I was trying so hard to tune out the als. Those were frustrating times. I tried so many tuneups.
There are thousands of wrong tuneups, and only one right one.
The first sign of the als was noted at post number 425. As the posts progressed from there, it's amazing how many times we went off on a tangent. Only my persistence brought me back to the notions of trying to understand what was really happening with the fuel and how to possibly work it. Kinda neat to have a diary of the experience to look back on.
I want to thank each and everyone that participated in the thread. I'm positive we all had a little part in pushing to making this unique discovery.
Salute!
There are thousands of wrong tuneups, and only one right one.
The first sign of the als was noted at post number 425. As the posts progressed from there, it's amazing how many times we went off on a tangent. Only my persistence brought me back to the notions of trying to understand what was really happening with the fuel and how to possibly work it. Kinda neat to have a diary of the experience to look back on.
I want to thank each and everyone that participated in the thread. I'm positive we all had a little part in pushing to making this unique discovery.
Salute!
I myself would like to thank you for furthering my knowledge Donnie. Your "thinking outside of the box" has helped me with my little project. If you hadn't posted the info I don't think I would have figured out what I need to do, even though I'm running a draw through. Thanks.
First off, I want to note that the nitrous bottle was down to 7 lbs for a 10 lb bottle. Anyone familiar with the use of nitrous knows that 7 lbs is scraping the bottom of the barrel. At 5 lbs, it's time to change out the bottle.
I wasn't really sure what to expect and the results were certainly enlightening.
The best 60 foot out of 3 attempts was a 1.581. The others were close to 1.60s. The 1.581 was the first pass on that low bottle. The best 330' was on the last pass. A 4.286.
Total time before transbrake release was extended to .955 second.
I'll have to do a closer study of it after doing some comparison runs on a full nitrous bottle, but my impression is that the spool valve is changing the exhaust bp enough to affect the als reaction. The two methods used together does not work.
With nitrous injection w/o als or spool valve, the best 60 foot was around 1.69.
With nitrous injection and spool valve w/o als, the best 60 foot was around 1.59.
With nitrous injection, the spool valve and als tune, the best 60 foot was around 1.59.
With nitrous injection w/ALS, and w/o spool valve, the best 60 foot has been 1.49.
My conclusion is that the anti lag reaction is more sensitive than I thought, and that the engine configuration, including the amount of exhaust back pressure plays a much larger part in making this type of system work, than I had originally thought.
The a/f ratio reading showed an erratic lean mixture reading throughout the zone that was normally reading a flatline 14.64:1 when the als was working affectively.
This new als beat out the spool valve.
That is a big surprise.
I wasn't really sure what to expect and the results were certainly enlightening.
The best 60 foot out of 3 attempts was a 1.581. The others were close to 1.60s. The 1.581 was the first pass on that low bottle. The best 330' was on the last pass. A 4.286.
Total time before transbrake release was extended to .955 second.
I'll have to do a closer study of it after doing some comparison runs on a full nitrous bottle, but my impression is that the spool valve is changing the exhaust bp enough to affect the als reaction. The two methods used together does not work.
With nitrous injection w/o als or spool valve, the best 60 foot was around 1.69.
With nitrous injection and spool valve w/o als, the best 60 foot was around 1.59.
With nitrous injection, the spool valve and als tune, the best 60 foot was around 1.59.
With nitrous injection w/ALS, and w/o spool valve, the best 60 foot has been 1.49.
My conclusion is that the anti lag reaction is more sensitive than I thought, and that the engine configuration, including the amount of exhaust back pressure plays a much larger part in making this type of system work, than I had originally thought.
The a/f ratio reading showed an erratic lean mixture reading throughout the zone that was normally reading a flatline 14.64:1 when the als was working affectively.
This new als beat out the spool valve.
That is a big surprise.Datalog comparison ALS vs ALS w/spool valve
1/09/2010
Testing was done to see if the als would work with the spool valve. The best 60 foot from the testing was a 1.581. A timeline study of data file
0109201010573227e is in regular type.
A datalog timeline study using the als. Best 60 foot to date w/91mm, and with an initial tune of the ALS is a 1.49. The datalog file is 27a. A review of that datalog is in bold type.
Organized by MAP level.
37.34 (-.94) 2420rpm @ 92.2kPa. Staged at WOT. Transbrake button released on first amber, nitrous activated, spool valve begins to close.
62.68 (-.90) 2420/93.5. N2O starts. MAP rise was immediate, with the a/f mixture before the start of the hit at 12.65-13.15:1.
38.28 (0.0) 3731 @ 95.9. Transbrake releases. The time frame just after this one (38.34), the map stepped from 95.9 to 99.6. This may be where the spool
valve finished closing.
63.58 (0.0) 4097/99.6. Tbrake released. ALS has been on for .3 sec. 1 psi boost at this point.
38.68 (.40) 3809 @ 103.3. Rpm remained pretty flat from the last time point to this one. The map maintaining a steady climb.
63.82 (0.24) 4133/103 kPa tuning point -1%.
38.98 (.70) 4097 @ 109.5. Map rise leveled for 2 frames after this point. RPM rise rate seemed to slow at this point also, after picking up speed from
the last time point (.40).
39.14 (.86) 4214 @ 109.5. ALS shows first sign of trying to light off.
64.22 (0.64) 4364/109.5 kPa tuning point good. Rpm lagged a bit between the last time point and this one, although map maintained a steady climb.
39.62 (1.34) 4768 @ 124.3. RPM and MAP rise rate steady to this point.
64.74 (1.16) 4695/124.3 kPa tuning point good. Map rise very smooth after this point.
39.74 (1.46) 4898 @ 130.4. ALS attempted to fire off starting at 39.14. This point gave a peak lean reading of 12.57:1, then went back rich. This is
also the point where the spool valve has started to open.
39.88 (1.60) 5166 @ 140.3. Closest time frame to 60 foot. 1.581.
39.98 (1.70) 5401 @ 144.0. MAP rise rate steepening after this point. Beginning of wall.
65.08 (1.48) 5289/144.0 kPa tuning point good. Crossing 60 foot at this point. ALS killed by wall .100 before this point. Map maintained good climb rate.
40.34 (2.06) 6366 @ 179.7. End of wall. Short rich spike at middle of wall duration (157.5kPa).
65.38 (1.78) 6101/177.2 kPa tuning point good. Wall is finished with a sign that ALS is recovering. A good point to have boost control lower pressure in
preparation for the 1-2 shift.
65.42 (1.82) 6194/185.9 tuning point good. The nitrous system times out. RPM momentarily leved for .110 sec at this point. Map rise maintained a good
climb rate.
65.48 (1.88) 6285/193.2 tuning point good. Approaching boost target (200 kPa) for 1-2 shift.
40.48 (2.20) 6713 @ 208.0. End of nitrous hit. MAP on a very steep climb that started at the end of the wall.
40.58 (2.30) 6940 @ 224.0. MAP still on the same steep rise rate.
40.62 (2.34) 7171 @ 230.2. Good 1-2 shift point for the future. Need to maintain no more than 210 kPa for this point.
40.68 (2.40) 7338 @ 237.6. MAP rise rate starts to slow at this point. Boost controller taking affect. Too late for the 1-2 shift.
40.82 (2.54) 7778 @ 245.0. Start of the 1-2 shift. Tire spin would ensue for the following .80 second. Only after getting completely off the throttle did
it recover.
65.74 (2.14) 7192/246.2 tuning point good. 1-2 shift point. MAP too high.
Map reaching 1-2 shift target level in 2.78 seconds from nitrous activation. 1.88 seconds from tbrake release.
1/09/2010
Testing was done to see if the als would work with the spool valve. The best 60 foot from the testing was a 1.581. A timeline study of data file
0109201010573227e is in regular type.
A datalog timeline study using the als. Best 60 foot to date w/91mm, and with an initial tune of the ALS is a 1.49. The datalog file is 27a. A review of that datalog is in bold type.
Organized by MAP level.
37.34 (-.94) 2420rpm @ 92.2kPa. Staged at WOT. Transbrake button released on first amber, nitrous activated, spool valve begins to close.
62.68 (-.90) 2420/93.5. N2O starts. MAP rise was immediate, with the a/f mixture before the start of the hit at 12.65-13.15:1.
38.28 (0.0) 3731 @ 95.9. Transbrake releases. The time frame just after this one (38.34), the map stepped from 95.9 to 99.6. This may be where the spool
valve finished closing.
63.58 (0.0) 4097/99.6. Tbrake released. ALS has been on for .3 sec. 1 psi boost at this point.
38.68 (.40) 3809 @ 103.3. Rpm remained pretty flat from the last time point to this one. The map maintaining a steady climb.
63.82 (0.24) 4133/103 kPa tuning point -1%.
38.98 (.70) 4097 @ 109.5. Map rise leveled for 2 frames after this point. RPM rise rate seemed to slow at this point also, after picking up speed from
the last time point (.40).
39.14 (.86) 4214 @ 109.5. ALS shows first sign of trying to light off.
64.22 (0.64) 4364/109.5 kPa tuning point good. Rpm lagged a bit between the last time point and this one, although map maintained a steady climb.
39.62 (1.34) 4768 @ 124.3. RPM and MAP rise rate steady to this point.
64.74 (1.16) 4695/124.3 kPa tuning point good. Map rise very smooth after this point.
39.74 (1.46) 4898 @ 130.4. ALS attempted to fire off starting at 39.14. This point gave a peak lean reading of 12.57:1, then went back rich. This is
also the point where the spool valve has started to open.
39.88 (1.60) 5166 @ 140.3. Closest time frame to 60 foot. 1.581.
39.98 (1.70) 5401 @ 144.0. MAP rise rate steepening after this point. Beginning of wall.
65.08 (1.48) 5289/144.0 kPa tuning point good. Crossing 60 foot at this point. ALS killed by wall .100 before this point. Map maintained good climb rate.
40.34 (2.06) 6366 @ 179.7. End of wall. Short rich spike at middle of wall duration (157.5kPa).
65.38 (1.78) 6101/177.2 kPa tuning point good. Wall is finished with a sign that ALS is recovering. A good point to have boost control lower pressure in
preparation for the 1-2 shift.
65.42 (1.82) 6194/185.9 tuning point good. The nitrous system times out. RPM momentarily leved for .110 sec at this point. Map rise maintained a good
climb rate.
65.48 (1.88) 6285/193.2 tuning point good. Approaching boost target (200 kPa) for 1-2 shift.
40.48 (2.20) 6713 @ 208.0. End of nitrous hit. MAP on a very steep climb that started at the end of the wall.
40.58 (2.30) 6940 @ 224.0. MAP still on the same steep rise rate.
40.62 (2.34) 7171 @ 230.2. Good 1-2 shift point for the future. Need to maintain no more than 210 kPa for this point.
40.68 (2.40) 7338 @ 237.6. MAP rise rate starts to slow at this point. Boost controller taking affect. Too late for the 1-2 shift.
40.82 (2.54) 7778 @ 245.0. Start of the 1-2 shift. Tire spin would ensue for the following .80 second. Only after getting completely off the throttle did
it recover.
65.74 (2.14) 7192/246.2 tuning point good. 1-2 shift point. MAP too high.
Map reaching 1-2 shift target level in 2.78 seconds from nitrous activation. 1.88 seconds from tbrake release.
New tuning issue
I was bored so I went to the shop and played with the tune at TC stall. I had recently changed the stator in the TC and haven't revisited the tune at TC stall since the change.
I have a large hump of fueling increase between 2550 and 3000 rpm. This hump was just past the stall speed I was getting with the old stator (2440rpm).
While approaching stall speed with the new stator, the mixture was making a quick drop to 'rediculously rich' after passing 2440 rpm. So rich that the a/f meter wouldn't go low enough. I started the process of leaning down the hump. The more I leaned it, the more the stall speed came up. I ended up dropping the fueling at one spot 11%.
I ended up with a sweet spot mixture range that netted the highest stall speed for me. 10.9-11.3 at 95 kPa. This range is not unfamiliar to me. It's always seemed to net the most torque at TC stall in the past. The new official stall speed with the new stator is now 2,760 rpm at 97 kPa. No nitrous. This is almost smack dab in the middle of the old fueling hump.
There is still a bump of fueling between that range, but it's much smaller. Further work is still to be done in that rpm range between 91 and 72 kPa.
The hump of fueling between 2550-3000 was a relic from a time when I was desperately trying to tune out a lean mixture reading I was getting at the initial hit of the nitrous. Obviously, the new als affect was even making itself known to me way back then.
Now that the fueling is more in line for the initial hit of the nitrous, will the boost now begin to rise sooner with the als kicking in right at the point of nitrous activation? I'm thinking at the very least it will take care of much of the power drop off I've been feeling a split second after nitrous activation.
I was bored so I went to the shop and played with the tune at TC stall. I had recently changed the stator in the TC and haven't revisited the tune at TC stall since the change.
I have a large hump of fueling increase between 2550 and 3000 rpm. This hump was just past the stall speed I was getting with the old stator (2440rpm).
While approaching stall speed with the new stator, the mixture was making a quick drop to 'rediculously rich' after passing 2440 rpm. So rich that the a/f meter wouldn't go low enough. I started the process of leaning down the hump. The more I leaned it, the more the stall speed came up. I ended up dropping the fueling at one spot 11%.
I ended up with a sweet spot mixture range that netted the highest stall speed for me. 10.9-11.3 at 95 kPa. This range is not unfamiliar to me. It's always seemed to net the most torque at TC stall in the past. The new official stall speed with the new stator is now 2,760 rpm at 97 kPa. No nitrous. This is almost smack dab in the middle of the old fueling hump.
There is still a bump of fueling between that range, but it's much smaller. Further work is still to be done in that rpm range between 91 and 72 kPa.
The hump of fueling between 2550-3000 was a relic from a time when I was desperately trying to tune out a lean mixture reading I was getting at the initial hit of the nitrous. Obviously, the new als affect was even making itself known to me way back then.
Now that the fueling is more in line for the initial hit of the nitrous, will the boost now begin to rise sooner with the als kicking in right at the point of nitrous activation? I'm thinking at the very least it will take care of much of the power drop off I've been feeling a split second after nitrous activation.
First. GO CHARGERS!!!
An interesting property I've just realized with the methanol fuel. During the recent stall testing and tuning, I came across something that was very puzzling. On each datalog I performed 2 stall tests a couple minutes apart before shutting down the engine to study the datalog and make adjustments. On subsequent datalogs, as the mixture started to come in line as I leaned it down, I noticed that each stall test on the same datalog recorded a different a/f ratio once the engine was at TC stall. The stall speed was also different with each test.
I finally got to a point with the datalogs where the first stall test reported the a/f target I was shooting for and the stall speed increase had peaked, and then the next test on the same datalog would show rich with a trend to continue to go richer. The stall speed also reporting lower on the 2nd test.
The amount of ECT increase between the tests was only 4 to 5 C. IAT didn't change. I checked my fueling temp corrections and they were zeroed for that temp range. The difference between the two tests was equivalent to a 3 to 4 percent spread in the amount of fueling.
What was causing the reading to go so much richer on the second test?
An interesting property I've just realized with the methanol fuel. During the recent stall testing and tuning, I came across something that was very puzzling. On each datalog I performed 2 stall tests a couple minutes apart before shutting down the engine to study the datalog and make adjustments. On subsequent datalogs, as the mixture started to come in line as I leaned it down, I noticed that each stall test on the same datalog recorded a different a/f ratio once the engine was at TC stall. The stall speed was also different with each test.
I finally got to a point with the datalogs where the first stall test reported the a/f target I was shooting for and the stall speed increase had peaked, and then the next test on the same datalog would show rich with a trend to continue to go richer. The stall speed also reporting lower on the 2nd test.
The amount of ECT increase between the tests was only 4 to 5 C. IAT didn't change. I checked my fueling temp corrections and they were zeroed for that temp range. The difference between the two tests was equivalent to a 3 to 4 percent spread in the amount of fueling.
What was causing the reading to go so much richer on the second test?
After seeing this in the datalogs, I decided to go back over some recent datalogs from the track. The one I picked showed a burnout that maintained 5200 rpm at 98 kPa for a decent amount of time. What it showed was the a/f ratio starting out on target, then slowly ramping richer to a point that it affected the engine power enough to have to cut the burnout short.
I think this property of the fuel follows the same thinking behind the leaning procedure that many alcohol racers tune for at the top end of the run.
Many alcohol racers will lean out the mixture as the car goes through the top end of the track to gain power, or more precisely, to prevent a loss of power as the engine warms up through the run. The thinking is that the intake air and manifolding is heating up due to boosting, causing a less dense air intake. I agree that is happening. But look at my burnout. I maintained a level 98 kPa. No boost was building and no intake air heating was occurring. So, in my case, the rich condition is not being caused by the intake air becoming less dense. It has to be caused by something happening with the fuel. More of the fuel making itself available to be burned as the engine cylinder is heating up? The amount of fuel hasn't changed. Maybe more fuel becoming vaporized and dissociated by ignition time?
What this means is that I will have to change some of my target a/f numbers to account for different levels of engine temperature at the start of a run. A number that will report a little on the lean side for a cooler engine and report a little rich for a warmer engine. I tried this strategy with the TC stall tune and it worked well to get the stall speed close to the same number between 2 tests done within a short time of each other.
Come on Chargers. :frown:
I think this property of the fuel follows the same thinking behind the leaning procedure that many alcohol racers tune for at the top end of the run.
Many alcohol racers will lean out the mixture as the car goes through the top end of the track to gain power, or more precisely, to prevent a loss of power as the engine warms up through the run. The thinking is that the intake air and manifolding is heating up due to boosting, causing a less dense air intake. I agree that is happening. But look at my burnout. I maintained a level 98 kPa. No boost was building and no intake air heating was occurring. So, in my case, the rich condition is not being caused by the intake air becoming less dense. It has to be caused by something happening with the fuel. More of the fuel making itself available to be burned as the engine cylinder is heating up? The amount of fuel hasn't changed. Maybe more fuel becoming vaporized and dissociated by ignition time?
What this means is that I will have to change some of my target a/f numbers to account for different levels of engine temperature at the start of a run. A number that will report a little on the lean side for a cooler engine and report a little rich for a warmer engine. I tried this strategy with the TC stall tune and it worked well to get the stall speed close to the same number between 2 tests done within a short time of each other.
Come on Chargers. :frown:
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
I was pulling for the Chargers. Rivers is the hometown hero around here. The kicker blew it:frown:
They all helped a little here and there for that loss.
Some new best numbers for the 91mm.
60 foot: 1.479
1/8 mph: 123.455
E.T.: 6.163
The top end boost level at the moment seems to be traction limited. The car stays glued to the track at 30-31 psi boost. 32 brings on skating through the top end. It may be time to look into a rear downforce wing.
Some advancement in tuning in the als system. It appears that the more fuel that is added, the better the launch. The mixture reading through the als is now at a point where it's bouncing between 14.64 and 13.73:1. I'll continue to add fuel until there is a drop off in launch performance.
The wall has been decreased by a very large amount. It's real close to being gone altogether. I'm still slowly working on decreasing it as much as possible. Judging by a pass that was made on a dry aux fuel plumbing with the wall taken completely away, it's looking like I will have to setup some sort of purging routine for the aux fueling system.
The fuel map is going through more evolution. Some very interesting developments there.
It's becoming challenging to get the boost to tame down for the 1-2 shift. I'm going to switch over to a new boost control curve strategy. As the performance at the launch continues to improve, the boost rise rate continues to quicken, making more boost by time for the 1-2 shift. I'm going to work on a boost control curve that will not involve a timed cutback of control pressure. It's too difficult to chase the advancing boost rise rate with the timing of the control pressure cutback.
The car is starting to get that yank back into her.
60 foot: 1.479
1/8 mph: 123.455
E.T.: 6.163
The top end boost level at the moment seems to be traction limited. The car stays glued to the track at 30-31 psi boost. 32 brings on skating through the top end. It may be time to look into a rear downforce wing.
Some advancement in tuning in the als system. It appears that the more fuel that is added, the better the launch. The mixture reading through the als is now at a point where it's bouncing between 14.64 and 13.73:1. I'll continue to add fuel until there is a drop off in launch performance.
The wall has been decreased by a very large amount. It's real close to being gone altogether. I'm still slowly working on decreasing it as much as possible. Judging by a pass that was made on a dry aux fuel plumbing with the wall taken completely away, it's looking like I will have to setup some sort of purging routine for the aux fueling system.
The fuel map is going through more evolution. Some very interesting developments there.
It's becoming challenging to get the boost to tame down for the 1-2 shift. I'm going to switch over to a new boost control curve strategy. As the performance at the launch continues to improve, the boost rise rate continues to quicken, making more boost by time for the 1-2 shift. I'm going to work on a boost control curve that will not involve a timed cutback of control pressure. It's too difficult to chase the advancing boost rise rate with the timing of the control pressure cutback.
The car is starting to get that yank back into her.
Thinking to myself here.
It appears that the more fuel I throw at the als, the better the launch. The O2 reading is still way up there (14.64). As I add more fuel I'm starting to see the reading bounce off that steady line 14.64 reading, periodically bouncing to 14.56/14.41:1. We all know that more fuel makes more power/heat. So what does the reading mean? I know that the reading is not indicative of what's happening in the cylinder. With the amount of ignition timing retard used to trigger the als, the reading is a mix of what is happening in the cylinder and what's happening in the exhaust system.
I'm thinking that the exhaust temp is higher with a particular O2 reading. With a turbo we want as much exhaust temp we can get up to a limit. So taking the als into consideration, what O2 reading will net the best mix of added exhaust volume AND heat? It's a known fact that methanol burn temperature will be highest at a particulat a/f ratio, or mix for the circumstance at the moment, and will decrease as you move either rich or lean of that mix.
The exhaust temp sensor I use is too slow reacting. I'll be judging the search for this target point with O2 and launch performance.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that 13.73-13.3 will end up being the target number.
It appears that the more fuel I throw at the als, the better the launch. The O2 reading is still way up there (14.64). As I add more fuel I'm starting to see the reading bounce off that steady line 14.64 reading, periodically bouncing to 14.56/14.41:1. We all know that more fuel makes more power/heat. So what does the reading mean? I know that the reading is not indicative of what's happening in the cylinder. With the amount of ignition timing retard used to trigger the als, the reading is a mix of what is happening in the cylinder and what's happening in the exhaust system.
I'm thinking that the exhaust temp is higher with a particular O2 reading. With a turbo we want as much exhaust temp we can get up to a limit. So taking the als into consideration, what O2 reading will net the best mix of added exhaust volume AND heat? It's a known fact that methanol burn temperature will be highest at a particulat a/f ratio, or mix for the circumstance at the moment, and will decrease as you move either rich or lean of that mix.
The exhaust temp sensor I use is too slow reacting. I'll be judging the search for this target point with O2 and launch performance.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that 13.73-13.3 will end up being the target number.
Similar threads
