MPG Tooning with ATR

[bnoon]

Posting my settings for the two main tables I've touched for MPG tuning. Ignition Tables> Ign Table - Max A, Ignition Tables> Ign Table - Max B, and Ignition Tables> Ign Table - Low Throttle/CL (No Knock) are all set the same on the low end of the spectrum (meaning from .31 Calculated Load, to .69 Calculated Load and from 500 RPM to 3000 RPM all match from each of those tables).

Ignition Values here:

[php]40.16 40.16 50.02 54.73 57.30 58.48
26.24 34.16 42.52 41.77 43.70 43.80
27.85 34.27 42.84 41.77 41.77 41.77
24.63 33.20 40.70 40.70 40.70 39.63
17.03 21.96 28.38 31.06 36.95 34.81
7.65 11.73 20.91 24.99 31.11 29.07
4.08 5.10 10.61 20.20 27.03 24.99[/php]

Fuel Tables > Fuel OL/Part Throttle Commanded EQ (No Knock),
Fuel Tables > Fuel OL Commanded EQ (Throttle Closed)
Fuel Tables > Fuel OL/Part Throttle Commanded EQ (Unused),
Fuel Tables > Fuel CL Commanded EQ (base) are all set similarly. Here's what I'm using for my fuel tables as of today:

[php]14.700 14.700 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.175 15.350 14.700
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.142 15.284 14.568
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 16.112 15.225 14.450
15.000 15.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000 15.329 14.808 14.318
14.700 14.700 14.700 14.700 14.700 14.700 14.531 14.362 14.185[/php]

I had started a couple months ago with my ignition tuning using the OTS economy tune as my reference, but really didn't get much from that tune until I started messing with timing advance in low load situations. I started by logging several of my main commute routes to see where my cruise load cells were at, generally from .38 to .69, so I made most of my advance there in 1-2% changes. Still making changes from day to day and no knock yet. If you make too large of a change and go too far, you will get some surging during cruise though, so back off a degree or two if you get that. MPG went from 26 to 28-29 MPG with these changes.

I started with fueling after talking with Will (Bucker) in shout this week. Logging actual AFR, ignition advance, and load, and was feeling for a similar surge to make sure I wasn't going too lean. I set AFR up to 17 in the low load tables, but had some start-up stumble the last few days, so I changed .25 and .31 at 500 and 1000 RPM back to 14.7, and interpolated .38 values to try to smooth out the start-up idle. Up to .75 and up to 3000 RPM I changed to 17:1 and interpolated around those to smooth out. MPG has jumped this week to 32+ and I'm 90+ miles into the second tank and it's holding true on 50/50 mix of driving. I write down my mileage every tank as it's filling and figure my MPG, not just the DIC. I can't wait to get a full tank on highway!!!

EDIT: Updated fuel table code above to what I'm running as of now 03/14/2012

EDIT: FYI codes P0137, P0140, and P2096 will most likely come up and need to be unticked. Downstream O2 codes.

[Mistersix]

Good info but UGH! Did you have to make the value's blue? Shit's killing my eyes.

[helmetface]

LOL at the groan? @AzSpeedin

I've been talking to people slowly for a while about this..

I have a 1200 mile(one way) trip coming up in May and I'd love to give some true economy tuning a go..

[BigRedSpecial]

What are you using for gas? Very much part throttle knock? I've been following @Bucker's thread but I'm still a little weary of trying it out.

[HPFPUPGRADE]

It works well, very well. Moving the MPG up to 18.5 is possible. We have seen gains as high as 8 MPG by doing this. EGT's are still in check and with some fine tuning you will be able to get the car running and starting with zero issues.

Great info.

[ScarMS3]

Making changes now. Highway cruise on Saturday.

[lilred]

I would be happy with the 26... As long I don't go in the teens I still jusitfy my purchase

[Mistersix]

I'm interested in your research on this bnoon, so keep it coming. I'm all for anything that could advance the platform.

[gotspeed]

lol car-tooning

[ScarMS3]

Bnoon are you cat less like bucker? And since I'm now running my stock down pipe how long until I melt it, will I be experiencing problems you think even if the exhaust gas temps are down like john says?

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by ScarMS3 Bnoon are you cat less like bucker? And since I'm now running my stock down pipe how long until I melt it, will I be experiencing problems you think even if the exhaust gas temps are down like john says?

@Ziggo

If I recall his explanation correctly, the reaction in the converter requires Hydrocarbons to work properly. Running exceptionally lean means all of the HC are consumed in the engine, and are not available for the Cat to use. I am not sure what the long term results would be, but if you blip the throttle every few minutes and dump some fuel, you should be good lol.

[chuckms6]

This is awesome! I was thinking of making a thread like this because I'm doing the same thing. $4 a gallon its killing me! I'm only leaned out to 16-15.5 afr at cruise but I was getting a code for too lean afr target. However I'm seeing 32 mpg up from 27 in the city, and I'm not knocking or having driveability issues. your results let me know I can push it even further, thanks!

tapatalkin to you

[Ziggo]

From the book I finally looked the information up in, running lean degrades the cats ability to process NOx, and running lean actually increases NOx output as well. You can get around it with CATs designed to run lean, or in one case the car was tuned to run slightly rich for 1-2 seconds every 2 minutes. Or just say fuck it and dump the NOx

Not that I really care or that you will have a huge effect, but NOx is actually a precursor to smog and is known to cause respiratory illnesses like asthma. As opposed to CO2 which is plant food.

[ScarMS3]

Gotta say I'm already slightly disappointed, could be because I just flashed the tune and it's learning still, but I still drop from completely full to below the top bar at around the same mileage, maybe a little sooner.

[Nataphen]

Don't they make some sort of "lean burning" cats that would allow us to do this without creating more NOx?

EDIT: I just googled and found this one. I'm doing some more reading right now.
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=10666

Even better:
http://www.physorg.com/news102868231.html

I'm finding that the Mercedes BlueTEC diesels and VW TDI cars have these, but I have no idea how they would work on our cars being gas motors and performance driven. The VW/Audi FSI 2.0 motors have a clean-burning system with these cats as well.

http://www.audiworld.com/news/02/fsi/content3.shtml

This is probably the main reason that the Golf GTI is rated at 24mpg city while the MS3 is rated at 18mpg city. I think that this is a worthwhile subject to look into. I drive 160+ miles a day, so cutting down on trips to the gas pump would be great. 30+mpg in the MS6 would be like getting a raise, LOL.

[Bucker]

Just another note, don't go thinking we can run ultra lean just because of DI...

Read: MAZDA: SKYACTIV-G | ENGINE | SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY

Look at that awesome piston, lol.

[HPFPUPGRADE]

Originally Posted by Bucker Just another note, don't go thinking we can run ultra lean just because of DI... Read: MAZDA: SKYACTIV-G | ENGINE | SKYACTIV TECHNOLOGY Look at that awesome piston, lol.

Diesel piston... you would figure that they would have something "cool" for that engine. I guess GDI will just keep stealing from the diesel market until they come up with something better, LOL.

The MFG's cannot go lean because of air standards. Think about it this way... you can get a full size diesel truck to get 30 + MPG that weighs 5,000 lbs. When we start to figure out GDI, you are going to see cars getting 40 to 50 MPG.

[Nataphen]

Looks like a fat man's belly button.

@Ziggo
How much more NOx would running lean on a catted car produce than running normally on a catless car? I'd guess that it wouldn't produce as much, but you'll know more than me for sure.

[BrianB6]

how did you know what my belly button looks like?

[Ziggo]

Are the sky-actives actually lean burn motors though? They mention stratified charge, so maybe they are, but in those cases you are talking about extremely lean burn, like 20+ AFR. I thought they just EGR'd the shit out of em so that most of the cylinder volume was inert.

[Nataphen]

Seeing that VW/Audi is running 22:1 from the factory helps me to not worry as much about the long term affects on the engine and internals. I doubt that they have anything dramatically different as far as materials.

[chuckms6]

so i increased cruise afrs to about 17-16:1 and added two degrees of timing then went about 150 miles today. in the city and on a rural highway (60mpg at 2400 rpm in 6th) i got about 33 mpg. on the interstate (80mph at 3100 in 6th) i got 27 mpg. the mixed total for the day was 28mpg. diesel final drive for 5-6th would be awesome...

[Nataphen]

I disagree. I rather like the way that these cars are built to have usable torque in all gears. I'll sacrifice a few mpg for that. It's the same argument that used to come up about 03-04 Cobra 6-speeds vs. GM 6-speeds, it just depends on your opinion.

What would you say was your normal mpg before the adjustments, because I can get 28 now if I drive correctly. Before and after gains are really what would be beneficial for this.

BTW, increasing timing in any table other than global max probably isn't going to do much, if anything, for the car in CL cruising. Would anything beyond 60* be a good idea?

[Bucker]

I still haven't seen any changes in my logged timing by increasing the timing tables in ATR. It pretty much does what it wants.

[bnoon]

Originally Posted by Mistersix Good info but UGH! Did you have to make the value's blue? Shit's killing my eyes.

Sorry, that's what color the php code tags change it to, not me. The other code tags fuck up the formatting, so you get what you get.

Originally Posted by BigRedSpecial What are you using for gas? Very much part throttle knock? I've been following @Bucker's thread but I'm still a little weary of trying it out.

I use BP 91 octane or QT 91. Never knock at all with stock plugs and air/water intercooler.

Originally Posted by Bucker I still haven't seen any changes in my logged timing by increasing the timing tables in ATR. It pretty much does what it wants.

Have you tried zeroing out the comp/low octane tables? Some sort of compensation is going on for sure as the logged values aren't what are in the low/high tables at all.

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by bnoon Sorry, that's what color the php code tags change it to, not me. The other code tags fuck up the formatting, so you get what you get. I use BP 91 octane or QT 91. Never knock at all with stock plugs and air/water intercooler. Have you tried zeroing out the comp/low octane tables? Some sort of compensation is going on for sure as the logged values aren't what are in the low/high tables at all.

Nope! Ill give it a try one of these days.

[chuckms6]

Originally Posted by Nataphen I disagree. I rather like the way that these cars are built to have usable torque in all gears. I'll sacrifice a few mpg for that. It's the same argument that used to come up about 03-04 Cobra 6-speeds vs. GM 6-speeds, it just depends on your opinion. What would you say was your normal mpg before the adjustments, because I can get 28 now if I drive correctly. Before and after gains are really what would be beneficial for this. BTW, increasing timing in any table other than global max probably isn't going to do much, if anything, for the car in CL cruising. Would anything beyond 60* be a good idea?

I agree with having available torque, but 3k at 80 is just inefficient. I wouldn't mind downshifting if I could get 5 mpg more on the interstate. 75 more miles on a tank its a pretty good gain. This engine is happiest at under 2500 rpm for cruising.

My mpg was approximately 27 city, 31 rural highway and 25 interstate, so improvements everywhere but really evident in the city.

A lot of people say the low load timing table has no impact but I mess with it anyway. I wouldn't figure the ecu world mess with timing during acceleration unless there was knock, but I could be wrong.

tapatalkin to you

[JacksonMS30]

Any chance you could post some pics of your tabels and graphs? Did you leave it rough or did you interpolate everything to where its smooth all the way across?

[bnoon]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 Any chance you could post some pics of your tabels and graphs? Did you leave it rough or did you interpolate everything to where its smooth all the way across?

I just interpolated 1 cell around the ones I really wanted, the rest are stock or OTS tune values. For me, that's up to .69 load and up to 3000 RPM set at 17 (other than the start up cells due to a lean start stumble). Some do up to .81 and up to 4000 RPM, but that's above where I cruise by my logs, so I just left those alone. I notice no transition problem, stumble, or otherwise only interpolating one cell, so I've left it that way.

Originally Posted by Nataphen What would you say was your normal mpg before the adjustments, because I can get 28 now if I drive correctly. Before and after gains are really what would be beneficial for this.

From first post...

Originally Posted by bnoon ... MPG went from 26 to 28-29 MPG with these changes. ... MPG has jumped this week to 32+ and I'm 90+ miles into the second tank and it's holding true on 50/50 mix of driving.

[JacksonMS30]

Originally Posted by bnoon I just interpolated 1 cell around the ones I really wanted, the rest are stock or OTS tune values. For me, that's up to .69 load and up to 3000 RPM set at 17 (other than the start up cells due to a lean start stumble). Some do up to .81 and up to 4000 RPM, but that's above where I cruise by my logs, so I just left those alone. I notice no transition problem, stumble, or otherwise only interpolating one cell, so I've left it that way. From first post...

This is what I get when I do that. Are you saying the fact that it isn't smooth shouldn't matter? This is from a modified PERM tune...

[bnoon]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 This is what I get when I do that. Are you saying the fact that it isn't smooth shouldn't matter? This is from a modified PERM tune...

My ignition is kinda all over the place, but yeah, it doesn't seem to matter as much YET. We need to get requested ignition to mean something first though, stay tuned for more on that after we try zeroing out some ignition compensation tables to get requested to = logged. Pay more attention to the AFR tables for now.

[chuckms6]

Originally Posted by JacksonMS30 Any chance you could post some pics of your tabels and graphs? Did you leave it rough or did you interpolate everything to where its smooth all the way across?

I'll post some pics when I get home. I just bumped the entire timing table up 1 or 2 but for the fueling tables I put specific numbers in certain places them interpolated the rest of the table

tapatalkin to you

[Nataphen]

@bnoon
I was asking chuckms6. I saw your info, and thanks again for the research.

[bnoon]

Originally Posted by Nataphen @bnoon I was asking chuckms6. I saw your info, and thanks again for the research.

Gotcha.

[Eric28243]

Subbed cuzz leat mileage. You guys kick ass and the more I can brag about the mileage of this car vs power, the better.

[HPFPUPGRADE]

Some one needs to try 19.5 to 1, this should yield the greatest gains without any issues with EGT's.

[IshiKage]

someone do it.

[Nataphen]

I'm about to take a 4 hour trip tonight, so I'll give it a shot.

I'm just going to move CL exit up to a higher load and leave the timing tables to do their thing unless you guys think that it's going to make a difference to change them. I'll set all the low load points to 19.5:1 AFR.

Any suggestions?

I just set up my CL exit to 1.25 load, 19.5:1 up to 0.75@3500, and interpolated from 0.75-1.00 which goes back to OTS values. Good or bad? I'm going to be leaving in about 30 minutes, so I need to know if I should change something.

[bnoon]

In reading the Cobb tuning help file I think we found why we don't get commanded ign values in our low load situations...

Ign BAT vs ECT Comp. A-B Table Description - These are subtractive values (even though the number is positive) that are applied to the final ignition advance values after the initial look-up table values has been applied to the % Used multiplier. These values are subtracted from the final ignition calculation before the final ignition output is calculated. These tables are referenced by Coolant Temp. on the x-axis and by Boost Air Temp. on the y-axis. Table values are subtractive values applied to the ignition advance calculations.

I zeroed out the effected tables for low load and will try to log it tomorrow to see if I can get the Ign Table - Low Throttle/CL (No Knock) values or at least close. Then I can add back in a safety margin and know what my Ign advance should be after all of the safety stuff is factored in.

Originally Posted by HPFPUPGRADE Some one needs to try 19.5 to 1, this should yield the greatest gains without any issues with EGT's.

I'll go higher than where I'm at. I just want to get some more timing in there and learn what's effecting what before I go any leaner.

[HPFPUPGRADE]

Originally Posted by bnoon In reading the Cobb tuning help file I think we found why we don't get commanded ign values in our low load situations... Ign BAT vs ECT Comp. A-B Table Description – These are subtractive values (even though the number is positive) that are applied to the final ignition advance values after the initial look-up table values has been applied to the % Used multiplier. These values are subtracted from the final ignition calculation before the final ignition output is calculated. These tables are referenced by Coolant Temp. on the x-axis and by Boost Air Temp. on the y-axis. Table values are subtractive values applied to the ignition advance calculations. I zeroed out the effected tables for low load and will try to log it tomorrow to see if I can get the Ign Table - Low Throttle/CL (No Knock) values or at least close. Then I can add back in a safety margin and know what my Ign advance should be after all of the safety stuff is factored in. I'll go higher than where I'm at. I just want to get some more timing in there and learn what's effecting what before I go any leaner.

Sounds good, if you need any additional help let me know. I have been playing with this for 6 months now and I have a thread started over on Cobb forums about what we are playing with.

Watch the total timing advance, you can get into some pretty serious pressure spikes during ignition event that could potentially cause some knock. I normally only adjust timing above 3k RPM to avoid any possibility of the pistons moving to slow.

Hope this helps, and keep us posted. It will be great if we can get to 45 MPG yet still have full power!