OFFICIAL: New ATR Tuning Thread

[superskaterxes]

so i figured that we should be grouping all the new BETA information here in one thread. so far everything is working good for me. im starting over from my protune because everything is so different.




3-Bar MAP threads:

so far my 3 bar map sensor is working properly. here is the info i used in ATR

Bosch 3.0 Bar T-Map Sensor / 0 281 002 437:
Scalar A - 280
Scalar B - 0.23529412
Offset - 6.353

Stock Fitment 3 Bar Map Sensor Upgrade

Knock Threads:

Fuel Pressure Threads:

http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...er-logs-66266/


QUESTIONS:

whats the deal with the tables still only going to 2.0 for abs load? werent we supposed to be able to scale the axis's for people running higher loads? did i miss something on this somewhere?

[Dano]

in which scalar group are you inputing these values?

EM
Log
OBD

or all three?

and yes I thought there was going to be another toggle to adjust the load axis...guess it didn't make it into this revision.

[superskaterxes]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 in which scalar group are you inputing these values? EM Log OBD or all three? and yes I thought there was going to be another toggle to adjust the load axis...guess it didn't make it into this revision.

all 3

[Dano]

ty

how much PSI are you running?

[superskaterxes]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 ty how much PSI are you running?

only 20 right now (straight spring pressure)

when i had the SST i was running like 26 and pegging the 3bar because of the output. i was actually the first person to do testing with christian more then a year ago to find out that the ECU was data output limited haha. christian sent me a custom ATR version so that i could run the sensor and i been running it ever since (albeit still limited at ~22ish psi).

[Dano]

I hear 22PSI limit then I hear 24PSI limit...which is it? I've never gone above 22...

I have to go away this weekend for a Mt. bike adventure....if you guys could have all this figured out before I get back I would appreciate it..

thanks....

[superskaterxes]

its technically 22.5 but depending on the baro/temp/ect ive seen up to like 23.4

[Dano]

It looks like we might be able to adjust LTFT learning with some new CL tables...that is for guys that stay in CL...

All the breakpoints are at 200 MAF/g/s now but I guess adjustable....

[m4tic]

per cyl ignition compensation.... negative compensation for cylinder 3?

[superskaterxes]

i changed the D breakpoint back to 70 like it was stock and left the rest the same.


as far as the knock tables go this is how i presume they work.

decay magnitude - the mount between successive iterations of knock. i.e. you get PT knock at 2.7 and hold the throttle. the knock will decay down by .35 iterations (as it pulls timing) until it reaches 0.

decay rate - the mount of time between the above iterations in milliseconds (stock is 640 or .64 seconds)

multiplier - not sure yet what this is, but its interesting that the only cells that are not 2.0 are the ones in the PT knock zone.

offset - also not sure exactly what this is but it seems like its an addition/subtraction for a certain condition when KR is present that it will pull timing.

min ECT - this is the minimum temp the car needs to reach before it will react to knock. this is even in the service manual.

min load - just how it sounds this is a table where you need to be at or above X load/Y RPM before knock will become active.

RPM min/max - obviously the RPM range where knock will register. would be interesting to raise the max to 7000 to see if you can register knock up there.


ive been told that all of these knock tables only control HOW the car will use a knock reading. for example, if you set the min load to 2.5, and you never hit 2.5 BUT you are still knocking, the car will register the knock but the ECU will do nothing about it because you have told it to do so in the min load table.

just to reiterate, the car will always register knock, but these tables are here to tell the ecu what to do when that occurs.

[R.MS3]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes i changed the D breakpoint back to 70 like it was stock and left the rest the same. as far as the knock tables go this is how i presume they work. decay magnitude - the mount between successive iterations of knock. i.e. you get PT knock at 2.7 and hold the throttle. the knock will decay down by .35 iterations (as it pulls timing) until it reaches 0. decay rate - the mount of time between the above iterations in milliseconds (stock is 640 or .64 seconds) multiplier - not sure yet what this is, but its interesting that the only cells that are not 2.0 are the ones in the PT knock zone. offset - also not sure exactly what this is but it seems like its an addition/subtraction for a certain condition when KR is present that it will pull timing. min ECT - this is the minimum temp the car needs to reach before it will react to knock. this is even in the service manual. min load - just how it sounds this is a table where you need to be at or above X load/Y RPM before knock will become active. RPM min/max - obviously the RPM range where knock will register. would be interesting to raise the max to 7000 to see if you can register knock up there. ive been told that all of these knock tables only control HOW the car will use a knock reading. for example, if you set the min load to 2.5, and you never hit 2.5 BUT you are still knocking, the car will register the knock but the ECU will do nothing about it because you have told it to do so in the min load table. just to reiterate, the car will always register knock, but these tables are here to tell the ecu what to do when that occurs.

Nice, question is what would be a safe threshold to turn off the sensor? If the car pulls timing on PT, it must do so for a reason or just to save gas mileage? Just wondering what kind of things would happen if we limit the sensor to work from .80 load and above as most PT knock occurs before that.

Since i keep hearing any PT KR reading is not really damaging the engine or there's no real knock occurring, i guess it's safe to turn it off up to a certain load.

[JumpingJackson]

FYI I have an extra stock fitment bosch 3 bar map sensor for sale! brand new never been used. $75 shipped

[ljudgeii]

Sorry, Not ATR related, still waiting for my dowload, but I did a few logs tonight with the firmware updates, and notice the change in readings but the odd portion is that my boost seems to be inverted i.e., - shows a positive reading and when I was at WOT it showed -21.XX, just curious if anyone else has logged and this is happening?

[m4tic]

hpfp changes hmm
this is idle just bumped to 500psi just to see

[superskaterxes]

Originally Posted by ReNaToMS3 Nice, question is what would be a safe threshold to turn off the sensor? If the car pulls timing on PT, it must do so for a reason or just to save gas mileage? Just wondering what kind of things would happen if we limit the sensor to work from .80 load and above as most PT knock occurs before that. Since i keep hearing any PT KR reading is not really damaging the engine or there's no real knock occurring, i guess it's safe to turn it off up to a certain load.

i thought about this for a while yesterday. i figured it would essentially be REALLY easy to implement what you are saying but AFAIK PT knock is no biggie and only helps the car reach MBT. i may change the decay/magnitude tables a little but im pretty sure im going to leave the rest alone (sans the max rpm).

Originally Posted by bmorrisj hpfp changes hmm this is idle just bumped to 500psi just to see

hey can you tell us what table you used and where you made the changes? post screen shots if it not a big deal.

Originally Posted by hnda etr Did some basic fuel pressure changes/logging here if interested: http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...er-logs-66266/

linked in OP



P.S. if you guys make a good informative thread like the one honda did, post the link here and ill edit the OP.

[Lex]

When you guys are changing the HPFP pressure at idle for example, are the STFTs/LTFTs affected or is the injector PW compensated automatically?

[nighthawk358]

subd for ATR progress

[m4tic]

Originally Posted by Lex When you guys are changing the HPFP pressure at idle for example, are the STFTs/LTFTs affected or is the injector PW compensated automatically?

yea my stft dropped way down with warm idle

[rodrigo]

i just discovered that now im twice as confused as yesterday

[hnda etr]

Did some basic fuel pressure changes/logging here if interested:

http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...er-logs-66266/

[Ziggo]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj yea my stft dropped way down with warm idle

Anybody know what the minimum injector opening time is? If you bump your idle FP too high you might hit that limit and make your trims go wacky.

[hnda etr]

Originally Posted by Ziggo Anybody know what the minimum injector opening time is? If you bump your idle FP too high you might hit that limit and make your trims go wacky.

I think bmorrisj did it to test the function..

I can't really think of a reason to raise the idle fuel pressure...

[JacksonMS30]

How do you tune fuel pressure to be just right for your car?
What are you looking for to find the balance?

Or are these questions that we will just have to discover for ourselves?

[Ziggo]

It's fine at everything except WOT.

The only reason to really fine tune it is if we find that the injectors have limited lifespan at fuel pressure above xxxxpsi. Then you would only want to bump them up at very high loads and/or high rpms.

[hnda etr]

Originally Posted by Ziggo It's fine at everything except WOT. The only reason to really fine tune it is if we find that the injectors have limited lifespan at fuel pressure above xxxxpsi. Then you would only want to bump them up at very high loads and/or high rpms.

Good point...

What would you all suggest as a Load break point and and RPM break point? In other words, what load and what RPM would you all suggest as the point to start raising pressure?

Or as Ziggo states, is it even necessary to scale the pressure at high load/rpms until it's determined that high pressure all the time is detrimental...

[Dano]

Originally Posted by hnda etr Good point... What would you all suggest as a Load break point and and RPM break point? In other words, what load and what RPM would you all suggest as the point to start raising pressure?

Maybe when you transition into OL? [For those who try to get to OL ASAP and not wait till 4.5k]

For me that would be 1.25 load 2.5k-3K RPM. That's when you really start to make power and when you would want a better fuel mixture at hand.

this is also where my spool range is.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 Maybe when you transition into OL? [For those who try to get to OL ASAP and not wait till 4.5k] For me that would be 1.25 load 2.5k-3K RPM. That's when you really start to make power and when you would want a better fuel mixture at hand. this is also where my spool range is.

For me and everyone I have tuned, I force OL > 1.10 load.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go For me and everyone I have tuned, I force OL > 1.10 load.

yes I started out at 1.1 load but bumped it up to 1.25 and the car became more civil. Meaning there is more peddal position between just crusing and hauling ass. APP tables would probably have netted the same result but at the time I was just seeing if I could keep the car in CL longer and still have proper fueling....

ya know that was back in the load cap days and I haven't changed it LOL.

[JacksonMS30]

I have another question related to scaling fuel pressure.
I read on some thread (don't remember which one) that when someone installed there cpe fuel pump, they're mpg dropped to 14.5. I'm not all about mpg's but thats a little rediculous...
If this is the norm, where would one determine the points to scale fuel pressure back (if that is indeed what caused the huge drop in mpg)?

[Ziggo]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 I have another question related to scaling fuel pressure. I read on some thread (don't remember which one) that when someone installed there cpe fuel pump, they're mpg dropped to 14.5. I'm not all about mpg's but thats a little rediculous... If this is the norm, where would one determine the points to scale fuel pressure back (if that is indeed what caused the huge drop in mpg)?

Forget about it. MPG is dependent on so many variables it is worthless as a diagnostic. My MPG dropped after I installed my CPE HPFP, but thats because I was pussyfooting it before trying no to blow my engine.

More valid would be if it was screwing with his fuel trims, which a HPFP is known to do. Remember, variance in the flow output of the injectors is included in the "trims"

As an aside, my Cobb protune improved my MPG on the track pretty drastically, on the stock tune I got ~5.7MPG on the track, now I get more like 7.2MPG!

[socks]

realistically, the higher fuel pressure you can run anywhere should increase efficiency, but, its likely at a longevity (pump/injectors/rail/fuel-line) cost, and obvioulsy, you dont need higher efficiency at idle.

[cld12pk2go]

Just tossing this out there...

The Knock tables active - Min Load A/B call for the Knock sensor to not be active below 0.40 load.

If I recall correctly at great deal of the PT KR is in the 0.3 load range...I wonder if the ECU is using other tables to try to find MBT that are outside the scope of the min load KR tables?

[R.MS3]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Just tossing this out there... The Knock tables active - Min Load A/B call for the Knock sensor to not be active below 0.40 load. If I recall correctly at great deal of the PT KR is in the 0.3 load range...I wonder if the ECU is using other tables to try to find MBT that are outside the scope of the min load KR tables?

I think the least amount of load that i saw KR was around .35 when cruising in 6th gear but i'm not too sure as it's been too long.

Between .40 and .80 load is where i used to get most of my PT knock.

[JacksonMS30]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Just tossing this out there... The Knock tables active - Min Load A/B call for the Knock sensor to not be active below 0.40 load. If I recall correctly at great deal of the PT KR is in the 0.3 load range...I wonder if the ECU is using other tables to try to find MBT that are outside the scope of the min load KR tables?

I read somewhere or was told by someone (I think from cobb) that the pt knock you see in the .3-.7 range is not necessarily actual knock.
If I understood correctly what you are seeing is the computer retarding the timing to achieve better gas mileage.
What I gathered was that the ecu constantly adjust timing to maximize mpg's and when it has to retard it a little, it can show up as kr on the ap.
When you see it at wot it's actual knock though.

^^This could be completely false.
I don't remember where I heard this so it's just an idea for a possible cause that I'm just throwing out there.

Feel free to explain to me why I'm retarded and this is wrong...

[Lex]

The ECU uses the knock sensor as a tool to increase efficiency at part throttle. Knock is knock and that's what the sensor picks up. However low intensity knock at part throttle is not dangerous like knock at full load/boost is. The ECU rides the edge of the knock threshold to achieve best torque and efficiency at part throttle and pushes timing until it knocks, pulls it back, pushes it, pulls it back and so forth. It is part of the logic.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 I read somewhere or was told by someone (I think from cobb) that the pt knock you see in the .3-.7 range is not necessarily actual knock. If I understood correctly what you are seeing is the computer retarding the timing to achieve better gas mileage. What I gathered was that the ecu constantly adjust timing to maximize mpg's and when it has to retard it a little, it can show up as kr on the ap. When you see it at wot it's actual knock though. ^^This could be completely false. I don't remember where I heard this so it's just an idea for a possible cause that I'm just throwing out there. Feel free to explain to me why I'm retarded and this is wrong...

Originally Posted by Lex The ECU uses the knock sensor as a tool to increase efficiency at part throttle. Knock is knock and that's what the sensor picks up. However low intensity knock at part throttle is not dangerous like knock at full load/boost is. The ECU rides the edge of the knock threshold to achieve best torque and efficiency at part throttle and pushes timing until it knocks, pulls it back, pushes it, pulls it back and so forth. It is part of the logic.

Yep, I believe these are both correct.

[ToledoSpeed3]

What's up guys. I haven't been around in awhile...glad to see the steady stream of progress still continuing, especially from Cobb.

Quick question on this Cobb update, in particular the ability the control fuel pressure. I know it is a bit early as testing has just began, but do you think the ability to regulate FP with software is likely to allow the stock pump to perform as necessary for those with stock turbos and more modest setups? I realize that installing the upgraded internals with a larger piston was key as we had no ability to manage the regulatory functionality already in play in the ECU, but now that we do, do you think software regulation be able to sufficiently take over that role for more modest stock turbo 18psi setups? Installing the aftermarket internals always seems to come with some drawbacks (higher failure rate, noiser etc.).

Obviously the upgraded CDFP is better for BT setups that will benefit from both the hardware and software changes. It seems like it might lessen the need, at least for some, to drop $300 or more on internals. I have some KMD v2.1 internals laying around that I haven't installed yet. Not sure if I am going to now for my modest setup (SRI, TIP, TMIC, TP, BPV). Opinions?

[bova]

Originally Posted by ToledoSpeed3 What's up guys. I haven't been around in awhile...glad to see the steady stream of progress still continuing, especially from Cobb. Quick question on this Cobb update, in particular the ability the control fuel pressure. I know it is a bit early as testing has just began, but do you think the ability to regulate FP with software is likely to allow the stock pump to perform as necessary for those with stock turbos and more modest setups? I realize that installing the upgraded internals with a larger piston was key as we had no ability to manage the regulatory functionality already in play in the ECU, but now that we do, do you think software regulation be able to sufficiently take over that role for more modest stock turbo 18psi setups? Installing the aftermarket internals always seems to come with some drawbacks (higher failure rate, noiser etc.). Obviously the upgraded CDFP is better for BT setups that will benefit from both the hardware and software changes. It seems like it might lessen the need, at least for some, to drop $300 or more on internals. I have some KMD v2.1 internals laying around that I haven't installed yet. Not sure if I am going to now for my modest setup (SRI, TIP, TMIC, TP, BPV). Opinions?

no this won't make the stock pump work any better. think about it, if the car in stock form is requesting 1600+ psi and it can't maintain that, then bumping it up surely isn't going to help this. nothing shy of an upgraded pump can help this.

[Spirry]

Originally Posted by bova80 no this won't make the stock pump work any better. think about it, if the car in stock form is requesting 1600+ psi and it can't maintain that, then bumping it up surely isn't going to help this. nothing shy of an upgraded pump can help this.

Has anyone actually flow tested the factory pump, and if so how much does it flow? Has anyone played with these new ATR settings to see how the factory pump reacts (when dropping pressure)?

I get your logic but, until these two (well really three) questions are answered, this is currently an assumption. Correct me if I'm wrong. It has happened many times before.

[ToledoSpeed3]

Originally Posted by bova80 no this won't make the stock pump work any better. think about it, if the car in stock form is requesting 1600+ psi and it can't maintain that, then bumping it up surely isn't going to help this. nothing shy of an upgraded pump can help this.

Thanks for the reply. I totally agree with what you are saying and I appreciate Ziggo's input on when his pump fell off. It really is a volume thing, but holding a higher desired pressure is key to keeping the fuel flowing at higher demands as long as volume doesn't run out.

In my simple mind (and I not claimining to be correct!), I have calibrated my MAF to compensate for better airflow that I have allowed my car to have. The elevated g/s will now cause the ECU to request more fuel to compensate for a given voltage reading thus giving me more load than I had before at a given data point. I also observe that my DI system increases fuel pressure when I ask for more load. So now, I have the ability to also increase fuel pressure across the spectrum, so within reason it seems like if I dial it up a bit proporitionally to help compensate for fuel flow for my increaseded load demands, it seems like it may help to some extent, but again as long as fuel volume doesn't run out.

In my case, I am not talking about a faliing stock pump that can't keep up. When I log WOT runs, my 09 stock pump with under 15k doesn't seem to fall on it's face like in many logs that I see posted. I sometimes hit ~2.0 load or so, but never more and usually less. My question is for a stock pump that is keeping up with demands within reason for a modest setup.