Gen 2 Cobb ATR discussion

[PapaSmurf]

Im running a catted downpipe and get a p0421 once and awhile since it's been cold in the morning recently. That's it though.


Tapafucku!

[bewsted]

This is only since the latest atr

tapa dat ass

[mrmonk7663]

For what its worth with my RMM and my PMM I got no additional knock in my logs....on night with ambient temps around 75 degrees I was logging 0 across the board.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by PapaSmurf Im running a catted downpipe and get a p0421 once and awhile since it's been cold in the morning recently. That's it though. Tapafucku!

just need to uncheck the code in ATR ....it may have reset all codes to "enable" [checked] when you upgraded.

[bewsted]

so your saying there is a bug LOL

[f-castrillo]

My CEL enable/disable settings remained the same after the upgrade. Could be an isolated install issue

[bewsted]

Right my settings are all still checked its just they are not disabling the cels.

[f-castrillo]

Oh I see what you're saying, ATR sees them as last toggled, but they're not "truly" toggled

[bewsted]

Exactly

[Dano]

You guys are confusing the issue lol

If the code is checked it is active and the ECU will report it.

Remove the check to defeat the CEL

Capisch?


Tappin

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano You guys are confusing the issue lol If the code is checked it is active and the ECU will report it. Remove the check to defeat the CEL Capisch? Tappin

But I think the problem here is that even though some of the CELs are unchecked in ATR (thus brig disabled), the CELs still come on during driving, as if they had never been disabled.

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[wolly6973]

Originally Posted by bewsted Right my settings are all still checked its just they are not disabling the cels.

Originally Posted by f-castrillo But I think the problem here is that even though some of the CELs are unchecked in ATR (thus brig disabled), the CELs still come on during driving, as if they had never been disabled. Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

I think Dano is right...

[bewsted]

Originally Posted by Dano You guys are confusing the issue lol If the code is checked it is active and the ECU will report it. Remove the check to defeat the CEL Capisch? Tappin

I was under the impression that checking them disabled the code...

Up until the last update I had them all checked and never seen these CEL's.

Now I am seeing them.

[Dano]

maybe its a gen2 thing

mine has always been "remove check to defeat cel"

Originally Posted by wolly6973 I think Dano is right...

shit niggah...if I post it you can take it to the bank!

j/k

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by wolly6973 I think Dano is right...

I see wat u did tharr... d'oh lol

Unchecking a CEL in ATR is supposed to disable them. The OTS stage2 maps have a MAF code and cat inefficiency code disabled due to the presence of a free flowing intake and catalytic converter. I think this applies to both gen1 and gen2s, as my ATR has all CELs enabled except for those two

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[Dano]

the gen2 guys are slow but they catch up eventually....that in the context of intelligence and the speed of their cars

[bewsted]

Man i must have been mad lucky or something then...

Catless, EGR Block off and was getting 0 cel's pre update LOL

Originally Posted by Dano the gen2 guys are slow but they catch up eventually....that in the context of intelligence and the speed of their cars

You got that right....

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano the gen2 guys are slow but they catch up eventually....that in the context of intelligence and the speed of their cars

Hey, we catch up, and that's all that matters lol

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[bewsted]

I <3 Dano even when hes a dick...

[Dano]

Originally Posted by bewsted I <3 Dano even when hes a dick...

hum...not sure I understand that statement....I thought I was just stating the obvious facts in evidence from this thread
















I <3 the genpu's and the guys that drive um.

my wife just got a 2011 MZ3, traded in her 06 MZ3...nice car with cool tech stuff, esp the bluetooth iPhone connection for playing music.

if it wasn't fail wheel drive I might consider getting another....but alas Mazda execs have their heads up their asses.

could you imagine the sales of an AWD MS3...course Suburu wouldn't like it one bit

hahahah

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano could you imagine the sales of an AWD MS3...course Suburu wouldn't like it one bit hahahah

But could you imagine the price of an AWD MS3? Lots of us wouldn't like it one bit....

but that said, I'd probably still buy one LOL

[Ziggo]

Gotta be better than the MS6 awd system. Not all of them are created equal and the system in EVOs and subarus are light years ahead of the ones in mazdas.


Zigatapatalka

[bewsted]

Originally Posted by Dano hum...not sure I understand that statement....I thought I was just stating the obvious facts in evidence from this thread I <3 the genpu's and the guys that drive um. my wife just got a 2011 MZ3, traded in her 06 MZ3...nice car with cool tech stuff, esp the bluetooth iPhone connection for playing music. if it wasn't fail wheel drive I might consider getting another....but alas Mazda execs have their heads up their asses. could you imagine the sales of an AWD MS3...course Suburu wouldn't like it one bit hahahah

As in your right budddy.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Ziggo Gotta be better than the MS6 awd system. Not all of them are created equal and the system in EVOs and subarus are light years ahead of the ones in mazdas. Zigatapatalka

oh I agree totally....adjustable tq bias center diff FTW.

and not the shitty newer limited bias like on the scoobies. IIRC 50/50 is as much rear bias as you can go. I could be totally wrong but it seems they dont go as far as the older diffs.

my buddy has an 04 which IIRC can go as far as 70/30 rear/front. yes I have had his car sideways on numerous occasions and it rules!!!!

Originally Posted by f-castrillo But could you imagine the price of an AWD MS3? Lots of us wouldn't like it one bit.... but that said, I'd probably still buy one LOL

K maybe I'm wrong but I don't see just adding a quality AWD system bumping a 26K car to 36-38K like a scoobie STI.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano K maybe I'm wrong but I don't see just adding a quality AWD system bumping a 26K car to 36-38K like a scoobie STI.

You're absolutely right. But I was speaking more in terms of the WRX and Ralliart. An AWD MS3 would be priced similarly to those, and in that situation, many would be hard pressed to give the Mazda a chance when you can have cars with reputable AWD systems in the same price range.

Of course, you'll always have the diehard Mazda loyals. I know I would've spent the extra $$$ to get a top end AWD MS3 even if it cost the same as a WRX.


Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[ahskeetz]

Hey guys, I'm doing some tweaking to the Fuel Tables using @Abilor 's guide. I'm using the OTS Stage 1 cpN 93 v200 map for a Gen2 and noticed several differences:

1. Closed Loop Max Throttle A - D have much lower load targets (1.00), while Abilor suggests 1.25 as a starting point.

2. In the Fuel OL Commanded EQ (base) table and several other fuel tables, setting the target AFR to 11.4 causes some cells to show up in red text (meaning dangerous?). Screenshot attached

Are the gen 1 and gen 2 maps that much different? I'm reluctant to continue using Abilor's numbers as a baseline, since he did most of his tuning on the gen1's.

Can some genpu tuners chime in on this? Any help is appreciated!
Thanks

[mrmonk7663]

Red does not mean dangerous. It means that it has changed outside of the parameters to a more aggressive level than the map was previousl set at. If you save the map the red becomes green, ie normal.

[ahskeetz]

did you vertically interpolate your values lower than 1.25 load? right now mine goes from 14.9 to 11.4. Idk if that would make things run rougher or what..

[mrmonk7663]

I clicked on my 11.7 @ 1.25 load and highlighted up to the .88...then vertically interpolated all in between.

[ahskeetz]

Thanks, I did the same. Any reason why you chose .88?

[mrmonk7663]

.88 is the quantatatvie product of the value 1.25 multiplied by the inverse of the intersection of lines x and y (on a graph), divided by 4/5 yielding the ideal value of .88









Acutally I just counted 6 lines up as advised by others My tune is rocking this way. If you interpolate all the way up you will jack with your fuel economy.

[f-castrillo]

I personally vertically interpolate up to the first stoich (14.680) value, so that the fuel table curves are similar to stock, but with more agressive high load/WOT values.

As for the CL/OL transition, obviously the lower the value, the earlier the car will switch into OL. I drove with my Closed Loop Max Load D table (AFAIK, the D table is the one we should be changing) at 1.0 for a while, and it made the car feel very eager to move, i.e. any pedal input beyond light throttle would set the car going faster than I intended it to. I've had mine set at 1.25 forever now, and I feel more in control of the car's CL/OL transition.

You may have to play with the CL Max Load D settings a bit, but it seems that most people are happy with 1.25 as the transition point. Some people have gone a little higher than that, even.

[ahskeetz]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I personally vertically interpolate up to the first stoich (14.680) value, so that the fuel table curves are similar to stock, but with more agressive high load/WOT values. As for the CL/OL transition, obviously the lower the value, the earlier the car will switch into OL. I drove with my Closed Loop Max Load D table (AFAIK, the D table is the one we should be changing) at 1.0 for a while, and it made the car feel very eager to move, i.e. any pedal input beyond light throttle would set the car going faster than I intended it to. I've had mine set at 1.25 forever now, and I feel more in control of the car's CL/OL transition. You may have to play with the CL Max Load D settings a bit, but it seems that most people are happy with 1.25 as the transition point. Some people have gone a little higher than that, even.

Actually the OTS map settings for Stage 1 cpN 93 was 1.00 as the transition point. I did feel the "eagerness" after I flashed the map though.

I took 2 logs (attached) after my tweaking of the OTS map. The MAF has been calibrated to abs(4) and this is the first tweaking I'm doing using Abilor's guide. It pulls harder but in both logs, boost spikes to 19psi (target 17), with minor knock, but also causing my FP to drop to 1400s. Before I tinkered with the OTS map, it held 17psi, very low knock and, and steady FP above 1600. I'm not very happy with the post-tweaking results.

Changes I made were modified Fuel Tables to target 11.4psi, changed CL to OL delay, changed load tables for normal BATs, and modified boost targets to 17psi in a higher hrottle position range.

I reflashed back to OTS cuz I don't like the idea of boost spikes and low fuel pressure. I think I'll go back and change one set of tables at a time, then do a log for each set to make sure i'm doing everything right.

Any suggestions or advice on what to do better are appreciated!

[mrmonk7663]

You can not arbitrarily change your boost target to 17psi without adjusting your WGDC tables, and quite a few other tables. Including the 10 Fueling tables you adjust, I count a total of 40 tables I had to edit in order to have my stage 1 tune on stock fuel pump running strong. This is WITHOUT touching timing tables.

[f-castrillo]

Like @mrmonk7663 said, you need to lower WGDC in areas where you're seeing the boost spike. It's better for the ECU to add WGDC to hit desired boost, rather than having it remove WGDC to correct severe overboost conditions. Some experimentation will be required; take note of what logged WGDC is when you finally hit desired boost, and set target WGDC lower than that. Retest to make sure your revised settings don't cause any more spikes.

[rfinkle2]

Change your knock retard decay rate to (A & B) from 640 to 200 when you have a moment, that will enable you to pinpoint @ which points the car is actually knocking.

Part of the reason that you may see knock @ 17 psi vs 19 psi is your car is hitting different loads, but @ the same rpm.

Spark advance is referenced by rpm vs. load, so adding 2 psi probably put your car into cells that weren't previously used when hitting only 17 psi.

[ahskeetz]

Thanks for all the advice, I'm gonna just redo my tuning, starting with the OTS map and just doing fuel targets first, then change one set of parameters at a time.. I think the OTS map has pretty aggressive tuning already, so I may have messed it up when I set all the values the same >2500RPM and 1.25 load.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by ahskeetz Thanks for all the advice, I'm gonna just redo my tuning, starting with the OTS map and just doing fuel targets first, then change one set of parameters at a time.. I think the OTS map has pretty aggressive tuning already, so I may have messed it up when I set all the values the same >2500RPM and 1.25 load.

The quick and skinny on fueling:

- start on a large open loop map- decide what load you want to use to transition to open loop (wot / conservative / fueling for power)
- make all cells in that load from 2000 - redline reflect your wot commanded afr (what afr you want to run @ wot)
- interpolate (vertically) up to stoich from that line per each rpm column
- Copy that table and paste to ALL greater than 1 line tables
- closed loop and throttle closed table will have 2 additional load lines to deal with
- general consensus = wot knocking table (1 row table) set to .5 point lower than wot no knock a&b (1 line tables)

- set closed loop max load tables to the load you chose above...
- set closed loop exit delays to 15/30/30
Done!

[Bucker]

I figured this might be a useful tool for this thread too. It is the basic settings I give any map before further adjusting it, be it mine or one I do for anyone else.

e85 kr thread

[f-castrillo]

So has anyone bothered calibrating part throttle ignition timing? We all pretty much understand WOT tuning, but I'm sure we could all benefit from a properly calibrated CL/low throttle ignition timing table. I've probably advanced my light load sections by 5 degrees or so, and didnt get any massive KR, but I stopped because I wasn't sure that part throttle timing advance should be handled the way we do at WOT.

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)