Initial Details into How The Boost Based Tuning Works with AccessTUNER

[fjames]

Originally Posted by Jarods7920 Fjames, have you checked to see if the boost by gear is still functioning?

No, but it better not be lol. I did knock down boost comp 30% for 1st and 2nd, but haven't checked to see if it did anything. Both tuning methods have equal issues fundamentally, but the difference is the boost toggle seems to toggle OFF the factory load stuff - the stuff that hasn't been exposed in ATR I mean. All that perkiness they coded in is gone with the toggle.

I wouldn't want to start tuning with boost though - the reason it's easy for me is I'm so familiar with load tuning on this car. I can verify boost levels against load in previous logs. In other words, it would be pretty stupid to run more boost than you need at high rpm, and you won't know those limits until you fine tune load first. I think that makes sense Now thanks to Cobb, you can do both.

[FORZDA 1]

Originally Posted by fjames ...... run more boost than you need at high rpm, .....

WTF? Is there such a thing? LOL

At high rpms WOT, I'm thinking that boost is ALL that matters, until the head pops off, or the rods exit. The Load is a calculation of efficiency which does not matter when making max power. Heck, you can keep jacking up the Load targets until the motor blows and you'll not know what manifold pressure it took to blow unless you happen to be logging at the time.

IMO, Load tuning is great for emissions and if you want to consistently limit the power output, but "big power" is made with manifold pressure to get the air into and through the motor.

[fjames]

With your beaner3, sure, within reason, but with the stocker (I should have qualified my comment to apply to the stock turbo) there's so much heat it doesn't matter. This car likes to make power (by power, I mean hp and tq together) between 3.5 and 5K - tuning above that is in the "fine" tune area for sure to me. Of course, this is for a DD perspective. Most DD people aren't interested in using holes in the block as a tune indicator You could run meth, and just blow the turbo instead of the whole motor ... my comments are sans meth.

I prefer load tuning because I like using the ecu's brain power to manage boost. Trouble is, that brain has been corrupted by the factory in ways I don't like, that are still unexposed to us. So the boost toggle to me isn't "boost tuning" it's the "anti-factory load tune."

I don't know what you mean by limiting power. We're just moving air through a cylinder here, how you control that air is just a detail. If one guy tunes for 18psi boost at 6K and another guy tunes with load to give the same boost at same rpm, they're making the same power at 6K. If they did this in dead of winter, come summer the load tuned guy would be making more boost. Reverse the seasons and the result is reversed. That's a good thing to me, but the bugger is in the details. like always, and the factory tuning doesn't get those details right for me.

[FORZDA 1]

Originally Posted by fjames .....I don't know what you mean by limiting power. ..

No problem, just pokin' ya.

As for the Load based tuning, it certainly gives the tuner (OEMs especially) much finer control over the power output than the much simpler (but admittedly coarser) boost based tuning. In the old(er) days an EBC was the hot setup rather than fiddling with WG springs/preload.

[Dano]

Couldn't you blend boost tuning with the IAT comp tables to get the best of both worlds as far as keeping load in check in cold weather? ya know applying Christian's approach to your maps. I think this would be a great approach if it works as intended.

Of course you still lose gear based tuning unless the Boost comp tables do anything and I do like my gear based load tuning but think I would like gear based boost tuning better if we could get that to work. I think boost tuning would be both easier for the tuner and ECU. Trying to input load targets that match the natural rise in load through the RPM range is much harder to do than inputing target PSI. This naturally induces boost occiliations if you don't match the commanded load rise with RPM and PSI.

so many new things to play with

[fjames]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 Couldn't you blend boost tuning with the IAT comp tables to get the best of both worlds as far as keeping load in check in cold weather? ya know applying Christian's approach to your maps. I think this would be a great approach if it works as intended. Of course you still lose gear based tuning unless the Boost comp tables do anything and I do like my gear based load tuning but think I would like gear based boost tuning better if we could get that to work. I think boost tuning would be both easier for the tuner and ECU. Trying to input load targets that match the natural rise in load through the RPM range is much harder to do than inputing target PSI. This naturally induces boost occiliations if you don't match the commanded load rise with RPM and PSI. so many new things to play with

Yeah, that's a thought on the IAT table. Except I don't want to keep load in check in cold weather, I just mentioned it as something to think about for others.

I never thought it was trouble matching load through the rpm range, unless months of tedious, time consuming logging is trouble I never went for max load in the midrange though. I just kept increasing until the WGDC got out of line, or the increased boost produced diminishing results. I still think the culprit is still to be revealed to us, but working with what we've got, the boost toggle seems the way to go. I'm real curious to log, and should probably lay off hammering it until I do. Next week maybe.

Speaking of new stuff, I'm surprised you guys haven't tried setting the "BATvECT Comp % used" ignition table to 1.0. My car has never met mapped spark really, and now we know why - it knocks it down first thing according to the new help file. I set mine to .89 in the 6K column, because it's obvious that table is in tune with the stock ignition table where the 5.5K column is king - i.e. artificially high compared to others. If I was into spark tuning, that would be the first thing I did, so you're starting with half a clean slate with your map spark values (the other half is still dirty, with the "subtractive" table that follows.)

[fjames]

Originally Posted by FORZDA 1 No problem, just pokin' ya.

I'm honored to be worthy of a poke Would have appreciated some lube though.

[Dano]

on IGN

so you are saying you took the .70 value out of 6K and input .89...I was just working on my IGN advance and noticed in my logs that once I hit 6K I don't hit IGN targets anymore...ureka!

And a value of 1.0 effectively negates that whole table just like we do with ABS load tables setting to 2.50?

[fjames]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 on IGN so you are saying you took the .70 value out of 6K and input .89...I was just working on my IGN advance and noticed in my logs that once I hit 6K I don't hit IGN targets anymore...ureka!

Yes, that's what I did - haven't verified it yet.

Originally Posted by Dano2010 And a value of 1.0 effectively negates that whole table just like we do with ABS load tables setting to 2.50?

That's my hypothesis - you be the guinea pig