Dano's Boost Tuning 101 + Cool Stuff

[Dano]

that's just it. what you are seeing is a symptom of not having the CL exit setup.

I do see that your exit is set to 1.2 load so I don't know why it hung that way.

Also see that your CL fuel tables call for 11.8 so it really wouldn't matter either way.

FP looks good as well so IDK

car has a mind of its own.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by manelscout4life I just want to say thanks for everyones useful info on this thread. I just got my fp this past weekend and made some small changes to the map Christian had made me when boost tunning first came out. The car is running beast now I just need to get me a dp asap! Here is my map and a few logs from today for those who are interested. Edit: just noticed that on the 1st 4th gear pull there is a part where I get lean that doesn't occur on the 2nd 4th gear log any one know why that happened?

Any of the stuff I PM'd you help?

[manelscout4life]

I haven't driven the car enough to actually try it out but I will post up results when I get a chance.

[Dano]

Well I have been working on suspension stuff the past week or so but have had a little time do some more tweaking on the boost comp stuff.

I have the bog removed from 1st and 3rd gears and things work really well BUT, 2nd gear is another story. Even though 1-2 share a comp table they give totally different results on the street.

2nd falls flat, stumbles, lags and takes about 2x the peddle input to reach same power as 1st.

Looking back, if you don't alter 1-2nd Comp A table you get no compensation in 2nd, so perhaps I'll try different, higher values in the A table so see if it makes any difference.

If not, my conclusion and method will be to go back to APP translation for power control in 1-3rd gears. It worked flawlessly and I see no downside over Boost Comp.

[m4tic]

quicky... has anyone tried throttle pos based CL exit rather than load? i find myself dipping down into richer OL AFRs (11.8) with moderate pedal input.

would it hurt to switch over to something like CL max @ 70% throttle (raise all my CL max load tables real high) .. or should i just raise my CL max load tables to, say, 1.6..

[SJP0tato]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj quicky... has anyone tried throttle pos based CL exit rather than load? i find myself dipping down into richer OL AFRs (11.8) with moderate pedal input. would it hurt to switch over to something like CL max @ 70% throttle (raise all my CL max load tables real high) .. or should i just raise my CL max load tables to, say, 1.6..

I was thinking about that too: Being based solely on throttle position would mean you could get into some potentially high load situations (say you're at 60% throttle, but 4-5 psi) and have the ecu still be in CL. Not entirely desirable, IMHO.

I did some testing a few months back to see how much load I was hitting during my normal morning commute at part-throttle (just normal traffic/driving, no WOT). I wish I'd have written down my results, but I thought I remembered most of my "normal" driving not going much above 1.30 or so load. Obviously this depends a lot on how spirited the driver is, if you find 1.25 too low for your daily driving maybe try doing some long-term logging during a normal drive with no WOT (going to the store/work/etc), and see how high your load values get.
Once you've got that baseline, set your CL max tables to a value slightly higher.

Hopefully that would keep you in CL for normal commuting purposes, but kick into OL once things get more spirited.

[Frequentflyer]

It's also going to depend on temperature. In the winter, you're going to hit higher loads at lower throttle settings, so I would stay load based with the OL/CL transition and just tweak your fuel tables abit leaner or raise the load a bit higher.

[Dano]

^^^^^^

This!

Excellent point in that your load values go up as temps drop and thus you might want to tweak them for a winter map.

I started out with my CL exit at 1.1 in the summer and found it was too low so went to 1.25 and I like it there. It seems to work find in all temps for my setup.

Bmorris you have an MS6 so your load will be higher all the time anyway and so my 1.25 CL exit value will probably be too low for you to drive comfortably daily. I personally don't like throttle input having its hand in CL exit and so would just suggest you bump your load point up and AFR targets up to match until you get the feel you are looking for.

BTW you did interpolate your AFR targets around your CL exit? I start at my CL exit and IP up about 6 rows. This should slowly richen up AFR around your CL exit but if you didn't IP you would be at something like 13.8 in one instance then 11.8 in the next. This would cause hesitation and other undesirable results.

Boost Comp:

I have given up on Boost Comp as a means to control power in the lower gears. It is just too inconstant and the car sometimes falls flat on its face.

1-2 gears act totally different no mater how you tweak the A & B tables and even 3rd is hard to dial in perfectly so you don't have hesitation sometimes. I briefly spoke with Dustin yesterday about this and he has worked on a couple of local cars there and has had the same results.

I am back on APP Translation which works flawlessly.

[BlueStreak]

With repsect to APP settings, is 100% considered WOT or is it 75% like the throttle position?

[Dano]

AFAIK 100 is 100 as far as pedal position. My APP values are posted near the beginning of this thread but what I do is keep it OTS until around 50 so that between shifts doesn't feel strange, then level it off and never reach 100. My total APP value for 1-2 will only be 45 and for 3rd 50.

So with the pedal on the floor the ECU only translates 1/2 of it to the DBW table input.

[m4tic]

yes my fuel tables are smoothed around CL exit, I also adjusted them up to an rpm column higher in my part throttle fuel tables.. did we figure out if one of the exit delay tables controls OL back to CL delay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fjames]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 AFAIK 100 is 100 as far as pedal position. My APP values are posted near the beginning of this thread but what I do is keep it OTS until around 50 so that between shifts doesn't feel strange, then level it off and never reach 100. My total APP value for 1-2 will only be 45 and for 3rd 50. So with the pedal on the floor the ECU only translates 1/2 of it to the DBW table input.

I tried the APP idea for 1/2 when you first mentioned it and have been using it since then. I just make a nice pretty curve that ends at 75, works fine for the stock turbo for me. I like having the full range of the table, instead of flat-lining it early. Anyhow, great idea - on the stocker the way I have it, the pedal just feels normal, but ultimate torque is limited in a way you don't relate to as an artificially diminished output. Oh, for reference, I'm boost tuning with the 75 row at 16 psi (max of 18.25 at the 87.5 row.)


On another note, maybe it was just the perfect day or something, but with my CL/OL setup, I was seeing it drop out right as boost came on the other day. I was fun to watch, it was so perfectly synched. I've been running the same setup for more than a year at least with no issues. 60 throttle, Max load reduced by .5 throughout the meat of the table (for a max of 1.37 on a 08 ms3) and all fuel tables the same (just copy/paste.)

[Dano]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj yes my fuel tables are smoothed around CL exit, I also adjusted them up to an rpm column higher in my part throttle fuel tables.. did we figure out if one of the exit delay tables controls OL back to CL delay? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have not but I typically don't have issues going back into CL inadvertently.

Originally Posted by fjames I tried the APP idea for 1/2 when you first mentioned it and have been using it since then. I just make a nice pretty curve that ends at 75, works fine for the stock turbo for me. I like having the full range of the table, instead of flat-lining it early. Anyhow, great idea - on the stocker the way I have it, the pedal just feels normal, but ultimate torque is limited in a way you don't relate to as an artificially diminished output. Oh, for reference, I'm boost tuning with the 75 row at 16 psi (max of 18.25 at the 87.5 row.) On another note, maybe it was just the perfect day or something, but with my CL/OL setup, I was seeing it drop out right as boost came on the other day. I was fun to watch, it was so perfectly synched. I've been running the same setup for more than a year at least with no issues. 60 throttle, Max load reduced by .5 throughout the meat of the table (for a max of 1.37 on a 08 ms3) and all fuel tables the same (just copy/paste.)

Yes I do like how easy it is to apply controlled power with the modified APP tables.

Here is my 1-2 gear table for example. I like to keep it close to OTS until around 50% APP. I may need to reduce it a bit more though but I'll wait for warmer weather first.

[m4tic]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 I have not but I typically don't have issues going back into CL inadvertently.

this is related to my previous question about afrs going from a coasting 29.9 then drop down to 13.8 when barely on the pedal and slowly climbing to 14.8 afr...

is this from a OL back to CL delay?
or is there some tip in enrichment going on? i dont know about this one, i mean im barely on the gas just to maintain the already slowed cruise speed... but this was sort of an issue in my legacy gt... i dulled low/cruising throttle inputs to lessen tip-in enrichment and netted some nice mpg's... i have a cell pic of my trip meter showing 29mpg avg lol...

[SJP0tato]

I've got my first attempt at a boost based tune tested out today, things feel much smoother, and the results are much less cryptic than load based tuning. I'm actually getting 99% of what I expected which is a huge change/improvement over the "old" method of tuning.

I have a question: What's the point of "tuning" the WG Duty Cycles table? I left mine stock, and I'm getting the (value x 2) + 10ish that everyone seems to come up with (which is limiting me for now until I bump it up). Why not just max out the table with 45's all the way across? Doesn't it make more sense to allow the boost dynamics table to handle the increase/decrease of WG Duty cycle, rather than arbitrarily limit it using the WGDC table?

From reading the thread it sounds like a lot of people are using it to control boost spikes in "trouble" areas, would it be better to adjust the boost dynamics table to tune out those problems? Relying on the WGDC table seems very static, where something that works in one climate won't work at all in another.

[fjames]

Originally Posted by SJP0tato From reading the thread it sounds like a lot of people are using it to control boost spikes in "trouble" areas, would it be better to adjust the boost dynamics table to tune out those problems? Relying on the WGDC table seems very static, where something that works in one climate won't work at all in another.

I think a lot of people fooling with WGDC and whatever are running non-standard boost systems, whether the turbo or control system or both. So they're trying anything they can to make it all work.

For a stock turbo and control system, I think you're exactly right. If you're starting with an ots map, I'd just leave it (WGDC) and do all you can with boost/load dynamics, that's where the real authority is. You can fine tune with WGDC later if need be.

[m4tic]

another question, ign max a/b tables, has anyone gimped these and actually capped low/high throttle ign tables?

[Dano]

Originally Posted by SJP0tato I've got my first attempt at a boost based tune tested out today, things feel much smoother, and the results are much less cryptic than load based tuning. I'm actually getting 99% of what I expected which is a huge change/improvement over the "old" method of tuning. I have a question: What's the point of "tuning" the WG Duty Cycles table? I left mine stock, and I'm getting the (value x 2) + 10ish that everyone seems to come up with (which is limiting me for now until I bump it up). Why not just max out the table with 45's all the way across? Doesn't it make more sense to allow the boost dynamics table to handle the increase/decrease of WG Duty cycle, rather than arbitrarily limit it using the WGDC table? From reading the thread it sounds like a lot of people are using it to control boost spikes in "trouble" areas, would it be better to adjust the boost dynamics table to tune out those problems? Relying on the WGDC table seems very static, where something that works in one climate won't work at all in another.

Yes WGDC tuning to reduce spikes can be a moving target and I would use Boost Dynamics first. The trouble I found was that if you had more WGDC than necessary to reach target boost and went over target, when BD kicked in to cut DC, too much boost was lost.

For my ATP28/Grimspeed EBC setup it was better to have too little DC available and have BD add DC.

On that note, if you are running a boost controller like and Perrin or Grimmspeed in block mode you will def need to drastically lower WGDC table values as it is much faster reacting and needs much less DC to reach target.

Originally Posted by bmorrisj another question, ign max a/b tables, has anyone gimped these and actually capped low/high throttle ign tables?

It is necessary to modify them upwards to achieve higher ign advance...not sure why you would want to lower them. I just copied my HT/OL ign advance over the limiter tables. You have to skip down a few rows before you paste as the tables have differing load axis.

[SJP0tato]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 Yes WGDC tuning to reduce spikes can be a moving target and I would use Boost Dynamics first. The trouble I found was that if you had more WGDC than necessary to reach target boost and went over target, when BD kicked in to cut DC, too much boost was lost. For my ATP28/Grimspeed EBC setup it was better to have too little DC available and have BD add DC.

I know it carries danger, but can you lessen the upper curve of your BD table to give a more gradual release of boost?

The way I'm thinking out what happens is the ecu has a sample rate for boost (whatever it may be), so it gets snapshot reports of what boost is at. I don't think it's smart enough to do any 1st/2nd derivative calculation (rate of change, or the change in the rate of change), so it can only see a single sample at a time. So let's say you're at WOT, it's building boost, and it sees:
-0.1psi, 0.3psi, 0.8psi, 3psi, 10psi, 24psi
Let's say you're targeting 19psi (for whatever reason, just as an example). From our point of view, it's easy to tell boost is building exponentially quickly, but to the ecu it just says "fine, fine, fine, fine, fine, woah too much" and moves its BD lookup from -9 to the +5 value, and gets -30 (or whatever's programmed). So the wastegate slams open and dumps a ton of potential energy dropping boost well below the targeted 19psi.

This leads to my initial guess that maybe the upper values are too high, maybe tailoring down the BD values in the +3 through +7 would be helpful in bleeding off overboost vs a huge dump of pressure. Or maybe a tailoring downwards of the values from -7 through -3 (either way makes the transition more gradual). Of course the consequences for incorrect values are fairly serious, and it's easy for me to speak in theory here, you guys with big turbos and non-oem boost control are the ones who have much to risk.

[Dano]

you would be surprised at how fast reacting the ECU is at reading the MAP sensor values.

With that said, you would only want to alter the +1 and + 3 values at most as you never over shoot target boost by more than that anyway...well unless something else is wrong.

The OEM BD table has too much authority as is anyway so lessening the amount of correction, carefully, is a good thing, even if all your hardware is OEM. Of course if you do this your WGDC table values will need to be much closer to correct than in OEM trim.

[fjames]

No matter what my setup, if I went from 10->24 psi in one step, I'd be altering my BT table lol. If the rest of the system is working right, the ecu does a pretty good job of following the basic tables seems to me. Get that right first.

[SJP0tato]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 you would be surprised at how fast reacting the ECU is at reading the MAP sensor values. With that said, you would only want to alter the +1 and + 3 values at most as you never over shoot target boost by more than that anyway...well unless something else is wrong. The OEM BD table has too much authority as is anyway so lessening the amount of correction, carefully, is a good thing, even if all your hardware is OEM. Of course if you do this your WGDC table values will need to be much closer to correct than in OEM trim.

That's good to know it's faster than I was assuming/fearing.

What if very briefly it is hitting/using the +5 value, maybe faster than gets caught in the log files? That would explain the over-expected boost loss. I'm mostly brainstorming/grasping at straws as to a reason why you guys run into this issue for better understanding on my side. Using the WG Duty Cycles table as a limit feels wrong somehow.

[m4tic]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 It is necessary to modify them upwards to achieve higher ign advance...not sure why you would want to lower them. I just copied my HT/OL ign advance over the limiter tables. You have to skip down a few rows before you paste as the tables have differing load axis.

i was wondering if its related to random cruise no-load kr.. does it actually limit the low/hi ign tables or it a max for the ecu to advance timing while cruising...

lately, ill be driving on the fwy, just regular driving... ill get a 5.9kr blip, .35 (decay rate) is subtracted until it gets to zero and it never does it again for the drive.... it seems to happen only once every drive..

Time	RPM	KR	CL	throt	AFR	DI PSI	PSI	IGN ADV	WGA
154.65	2892	0	51.35	13.65	14.55	1525.74	-5.68	46	0.5
155.14	2895	0	50.96	13.26	14.7	1538.8	-5.68	47	0.41
155.59	2891	0	49.39	13.65	14.41	1488.03	-5.68	47.5	0.4
156.07	2895	0	50.18	13.65	14.55	1528.64	-5.68	46.5	0.43
156.54	2891	0	49.78	14.04	14.55	1508.34	-5.11	45.5	0.48
156.97	2892	0	54.88	14.43	14.55	1609.86	-5.03	36.5	0.4
157.44	2896	0	55.66	14.43	14.55	1609.86	-5.03	35.5	0.39
157.87	2895	0	54.49	14.04	14.55	1580.86	-5.32	39.5	0.45
158.33	2895	0	53.7	13.65	14.55	1582.31	-5.61	40.5	0.45
158.78	2895	0	50.96	13.26	14.7	1511.24	-6.04	47	0.37
159.24	2894	0	47.43	13.26	14.55	1461.93	-6.33	48.5	0.45
159.73	2895	0	44.69	12.48	14.55	1396.66	-6.76	50.5	0.44
160.18	2886	1.75	40.77	11.7	14.7	1315.45	-7.04	58.5	0.45
160.64	2888	4.2	40.77	11.7	14.7	1315.45	-7.19	55.5	0.36
161.12	2883	5.95	39.98	11.7	14.55	1295.14	-6.83	34	0.43
161.61	2880	5.6	43.51	13.26	14.55	1424.22	-6.11	42.5	0.48
162.06	2876	5.6	47.04	13.65	14.55	1466.28	-6.04	42.5	0.45
162.53	2876	5.25	47.82	13.26	14.55	1479.33	-5.9	43	0.39
162.98	2872	4.9	47.04	13.26	14.41	1486.58	-5.68	43.5	0.38
163.45	2878	4.55	49.78	13.26	14.85	1476.43	-5.82	43	0.49
163.91	2874	4.55	49.78	13.65	14.55	1518.49	-5.82	42.5	0.5
164.36	2879	4.2	50.18	13.65	14.55	1528.64	-5.11	43	0.42
164.83	2879	3.85	54.88	14.43	14.55	1599.71	-5.03	33.5	0.4
165.27	2884	3.85	54.49	14.04	14.55	1585.21	-5.25	34.5	0.49
165.76	2882	3.5	54.49	14.43	14.7	1592.46	-5.11	32	0.45
166.21	2885	3.15	55.66	14.43	14.55	1595.36	-5.25	32	0.38
166.67	2886	2.8	55.66	14.43	14.7	1612.76	-5.11	32	0.42
167.12	2886	2.8	55.27	14.43	14.55	1617.11	-5.11	33	0.49
167.57	2885	2.45	54.88	14.04	14.7	1609.86	-5.18	34.5	0.43
167.98	2891	2.1	54.1	14.04	14.7	1595.36	-5.25	37	0.37
168.45	2891	2.1	53.31	14.04	14.7	1560.55	-5.32	38	0.45
168.87	2888	1.75	53.7	14.04	14.55	1570.7	-5.25	39	0.48
169.29	2888	1.4	53.31	13.65	14.7	1575.05	-5.54	40.5	0.44
169.74	2890	1.4	51.35	13.65	14.55	1521.39	-5.39	44	0.42
170.18	2886	1.05	53.31	14.82	14.41	1605.51	-4.53	35	0.49
170.61	2882	0.7	66.64	15.6	14.41	1689.63	-4.03	30	0.42
171.08	2880	0.35	71.34	15.6	14.7	1699.78	-2.88	21	0.38
171.55	2890	0.35	81.14	16.38	14.55	1686.73	-2.81	17.5	0.46
172.01	2883	0	81.54	17.16	14.41	1686.73	-1.38	16	0.45
172.49	2895	0	89.77	16.77	14.41	1686.73	-0.3	15	0.42
172.96	2903	0	106.62	20.28	13.67	1664.97	0.27	7	0
173.4	2924	0	103.88	17.55	14.41	1666.42	-1.38	9.5	0
173.87	2912	0	89.77	16.38	14.26	1704.13	-2.67	15	0.49
174.34	2927	0	78.01	15.99	14.41	1666.42	-3.17	20	0.41
174.82	2929	0	75.26	15.99	14.55	1672.23	-1.73	21.5	0.39
175.27	2938	0	97.22	17.94	14.26	1666.42	-1.73	10	0.45

[Dano]

I may be repeating something you are aware of but PT kr is inconsequential. It is just the ECU attempting to find MBT [Maximum Best Torque] for fuel economy. It advances timing until it seek KR then pulls back. There is very little pressure on the rods at that point [relatively speaking compared to WOT] so it isn't an issue.

I personally suspect it stores this learned value [amount of advance needed per RPM/Load point to achieve KR] short-term somewhere and is why it typically only happens once per key cycle.

Think about it. you can fill up with lower octane one day, then higher another day, AMB temps change, etc. etc. The ECU always wants to find MBT and there is no reason to push it every time you mash on the pedal. It finds it once per key cycle and that is sufficient to maintain the best fuel economy/emissions.

This is just a guess on my part and could be totally wrong but it sounds logical and I also only see one instance of high PT KR per key cycle.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by SJP0tato That's good to know it's faster than I was assuming/fearing. What if very briefly it is hitting/using the +5 value, maybe faster than gets caught in the log files? That would explain the over-expected boost loss. I'm mostly brainstorming/grasping at straws as to a reason why you guys run into this issue for better understanding on my side. Using the WG Duty Cycles table as a limit feels wrong somehow.

I doubt you would ever see a 5PSI over run unless something was wrong and at that point a limiter table should be doing the correcting, no?

[m4tic]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 I may be repeating something you are aware of but PT kr is inconsequential. It is just the ECU attempting to find MBT [Maximum Best Torque] for fuel economy. It advances timing until it seek KR then pulls back. There is very little pressure on the rods at that point [relatively speaking compared to WOT] so it isn't an issue. I personally suspect it stores this learned value [amount of advance needed per RPM/Load point to achieve KR] short-term somewhere and is why it typically only happens once per key cycle. Think about it. you can fill up with lower octane one day, then higher another day, AMB temps change, etc. etc. The ECU always wants to find MBT and there is no reason to push it every time you mash on the pedal. It finds it once per key cycle and that is sufficient to maintain the best fuel economy/emissions. This is just a guess on my part and could be totally wrong but it sounds logical and I also only see one instance of high PT KR per key cycle.

well i already knew all that :p i was just asking inside the scope of the ATR table usage

[Dano]

I thought so but can't keep up LOL

I don't think I would want to spend all the time logging and testing to try an prevent the ECU from pushing the advance limit in PT operation.

[m4tic]

other than that my car is running awesome... there are a couple other things i want to try, like fudge with slightly less boost (cooler BATs) with slight leaner wot afrs; like step up to low 12afr

[Frequentflyer]

I'm afraid going much above 11.8 afr just heats our poor little stock turbo up more than it does on its own already, raising boost temps.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj other than that my car is running awesome... there are a couple other things i want to try, like fudge with slightly less boost (cooler BATs) with slight leaner wot afrs; like step up to low 12afr

I saw marginal gains on the dyno between 11.8 and 12.2 AFR with my GT28. IIRC about 10Whp.

My 350WHP run was with 12.2 AFR and 14* total advance.

So for a dyno run it may be worth it but not DD IMO

If my WMI quits at 11.8, no big deal but at 12.2 more of a deal. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[m4tic]

well then, ill just wait for a GT30

[Dano]

If I didn't already have a turbo I would be looking at a BW EFR fo sho.

[SJP0tato]

Originally Posted by Frequentflyer I'm afraid going much above 11.8 afr just heats our poor little stock turbo up more than it does on its own already, raising boost temps.

Have you had a chance to play with an EGT gauge to see the results?

I know some cars richer means hotter exhaust temps (unburned fuel from the power stoke gets burned during the exhaust stroke), and others leaner makes for hotter temps (more overall power causes higher temps).

I've been wanting to get an EGT hooked up for awhile to see what the MS platform does.

[m4tic]

i was thinking the same thing... what if 11.8 is still rich with unburned fuel... BMWs run 12-13 afr dont they? (i know i know, diff engine)

[Dano]

BMW DI > Mazda DI

[m4tic]

true...

okok... can we zero out this ign low octane reduction table..

our database is offline at work for a server move...so im bored

[Frequentflyer]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj true... okok... can we zero out this ign low octane reduction table.. our database is offline at work for a server move...so im bored

Personally, I wouldn't Fuck with that table.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj true... okok... can we zero out this ign low octane reduction table.. our database is offline at work for a server move...so im bored

Sure we can...I don't plan to though...

[SJP0tato]

Originally Posted by bmorrisj true... okok... can we zero out this ign low octane reduction table.. our database is offline at work for a server move...so im bored

I'm too afraid of the station/truck pulling a "Hey, we're out of 91... let's just use 87, it's the same thing & people are too stupid to know any better anyways" trick.

Years ago on another forum a guy religiously monitored knock and found that situation had happened. I remember him saying he got into an argument with the gas station owner on returning the tank of fuel he'd purchased.

[SJP0tato]

Something I hadn't noticed that's interesting to those of us in hot climates: The Ign BAT vs ECT Comp tables indicate increasing timing with higher BATs, from 0 at 68-BAT way up to 5+ at 212-BAT.

I'm guessing this must be an emissions related thing, because when my BATs go up in the summertime my KR definitely goes up as well. Increasing the ignition timing during all of this seems like it would only serve to worsen this situation.

If it warms up any more here I might play with this some to see if it helps cut back the KR at higher temps.