Dano's Boost Tuning 101 + Cool Stuff

[Dano]

if its part throttle KR it can be completely ignored...just the ECU trying to adjust timing to find MBT.

[XLT_66]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 if its part throttle KR it can be completely ignored...just the ECU trying to adjust timing to find MBT.

Yeah, I only see it during the very lightest amount of throttle input. Like just enough gas to go from maintaining a speed to where I'm then very slowly gaining speed.

Pedal position maybe 3%-5% past what it takes to maintain speed.

It'll just sit there at like >3 KR, up to 5.5 or so..for what seems like AGES (like 3-5 seconds)...

[Dano]

no worries mate and totally expected...actually if you gave it a lil more throttle the KR would prob disappear instantly...just the way the ECU self tunes.

[cld12pk2go]

Finally got a good pull in now that the snow melted (of course freezing rain is coming overnight)...



So far so good.

293 g/s isn't too bad for the puny K04 since it translates to 38.8 lbs/min...

[m4tic]

i upped my cl max load and fuel tables to 1.25 and i got a nice jump in mpg... win win... normally my tank would be on E with the light on...but im at the 1/4 tank marker

[Dano]

what is this "mpg" that you speak of.....

I am WOT all the time so mine is like 19 FML

I started out at 1.1 CL exit then went to 1.25 and did notice a drivability improvement for sure.

Speaking of drivability, we have noticed smoother throttle response with the pressure based tuning method and/or bumping up CL exit. Well, txting with Dustin the other night that improvement may also be had on a Load tune by adjusting ABS load targets in the lower TPS rows.

I actually never touched those values and only bumped up the 68 and up rows to ensure TRL xgear tbls were used. If you look at them, they command like 1.7 load at 55TPS...that's why you get the on/off feeling on a load tune I guess.

One day when I get my tune completed...hahahahahahahah...

hahahahahaah

....um ok...I may go back and try load targeting and see what's what with the ABS tbl.

[amoosenamedhank]

I have also noticed that I would never run below 1.25 on my CL max load table again.

Can anyone explain to me a little more what exactly the DBW tables do? I noticed Dano mentioned to change the 80 values to 100... but I don't fully understand the purpose of these tables.

[Dano]

DBW opens up the throttle blade a bit more...from like 65-68TPS on OTS maps to 77TPS if you change the 80 values in the A and C table to like 90 or 100.

I have mine set to 100. hope it doesn't fry the TB...LOL

[cld12pk2go]

Could yall please define the "drivablility improvement" obtained by going from 1.1 to 1.25 transition points?

I ask because I have no symptoms of any drivability issues at 1.10.

One thing I have done is to alter my OL timing such that it is much closer to the CL values since the standard OL/CL are vastly different. I am not sure if others have mimicked this. The net result of these changes are significantly reduced timing in the OL maps from 1500-2500 RPMs.

[Dano]

For me just smoother application of power as the pedal is mashed. Your map is probably just more refined in that area so you don't notice it as much. Me, I never finish a map and fine tune the PT areas...well not yet but damnit I WILL finish this one.

your lower timing values may be a contributor as well and or you may have had lower load targets in the ABS load table in the lower TPS values than OTS?

I just took the OTS tables, and bumped the higher TPS values and left the lower ones. That made for an off/on feeling when modulating the pedal. I.e. 50TPS was 100% power.

It seems that smoother power application is more inherent in the boost tuning method since it is based off of TPS and RPM.

this is just a guess on my part

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 For me just smoother application of power as the pedal is mashed. Your map is probably just more refined in that area so you don't notice it as much. Me, I never finish a map and fine tune the PT areas...well not yet but damnit I WILL finish this one. your lower timing values may be a contributor as well and or you may have had lower load targets in the ABS load table in the lower TPS values than OTS? I just took the OTS tables, and bumped the higher TPS values and left the lower ones. That made for an off/on feeling when modulating the pedal. I.e. 50TPS was 100% power. It seems that smoother power application is more inherent in the boost tuning method since it is based off of TPS and RPM.

Here is my current map for comparison...

[Dano]

hum...your ABS load targets are actually higher than mine were...lemme look at timing...

looks like your OL timing around the 1.13 up to 1.25 and 1500-2500, for the most part has less timing.

One that stands out and a few others around that area.

yours 1.19/2K=-3.50
mine 1.19/2k=-1.20

so in that area you are about 2* less than me

so maybe it is just timing and not ABS targets.

[Fobio]

I'll share what I can at the moment...

A properly boost-based tuned car with a linear boost control system, will require next to ZERO tuning of WGDC. Unfortunately, I can not benefit from this as yet due to my hardware config, but knowing this and that this works in the most taxing environments within 1 lap gives me new found faith in the "smartness" of the ECU...

Anyway...I'm messing around with wgdc still....but knowing the results of the logic involved, I feel more confident in tuning my WGDC for this hardware config to perfect boost control for my car. POINT: Boost based tuning will let your ECU find the ideal WGDC. Period. For me, this eliminates one variable.

Also, we all know boost based tuning opens the door up to more efficient BT (big turbo) tuning...I'm now just trying to wrap my head around this tho.

RE: 1.10 vs 1.25...my car knocked a bit more...and felt rough. And yes, my discussion with majesticbluento also lead to him suggesting timing to be why it might have knocked more, since perhaps the car can't react fast enough to the advanced timing that has not been correspondingly adjusted. 1.25 is better for me.

[Dano]

When you say zero WGDC tuning required can I assume you mean AFTER the initial setup?

I think, with a BT setup especially, if you get WGDC dialed in correctly along with BD that your statement is 100% true. I am hoping mine is done but will have to wait for summer to know for sure. It has handled 40* temp rise with no real issue so we'll see.

With my setup, my issue is more over run than anything else so I rely on the under run side of BD to do the work. Boost just drops too sharply in any over run condition to make me happy

[Fobio]

from what I understand, this prolly works a lot better for configurations that are Cobb tested...and at this point, it's only a 3-port EBCS with stock WGA. At the end of the day, WGDC *MAY* still need to be tuned, but from my understanding, you can ideally set a particular WGDC cycle (like 10 across, to keep it primed) and go for a romp...within prolly 2 - 3 pulls WOT pulls, the ECu will figure out the ideal WGDC to run to achieve your target boost.

whether this is currently implemented yet in the current OTS maps, I can not say.

[Dano]

Yes that may hold true with the authority BD has in OTS maps. Christians suggested BD table is much more restricted but still may work.

[Fobio]

I also believe that mythical multiplier value is really just different diaphrams acting differently, regarding the difference between commanded WGDC vs. logged WGDC. I'm making leaps of logic here, and I really don't even know what the WGA diaphram looks like but everyone seeing a different correlation, and confirming that there's no mathematical multiplier at work, it's safe to say that the effect is mechanical.

[Frequentflyer]

On the subject of timing and CL/OL transition. I think it's safe to say that "screwing around" with the CL/OL transition can possibly be making us run in an area of the "high throttle" ignition tables at what I'd consider part throttle (it doesn't take much to get 1.1 load) where we haven't given much attention and where Mazda intended us to still be in CL. Most of us have had no problems changing fuel tables around, but hesitate with timing.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by Frequentflyer On the subject of timing and CL/OL transition. I think it's safe to say that "screwing around" with the CL/OL transition can possibly be making us run in an area of the "high throttle" ignition tables at what I'd consider part throttle (it doesn't take much to get 1.1 load) where we haven't given much attention and where Mazda intended us to still be in CL. Most of us have had no problems changing fuel tables around, but hesitate with timing.

ultimately, it's in an area of the power curve that really shouldn't matter...so adjusting timing in that area has diminishing returns.

"the process", I believe, begins with finding each engine's parameters, starting with MAF and on thru timing and fueling, assuming you don't have a wacked out boost control...anyway, from that, ideal plots can be laid out for smooth going. and therefore, you don't really have to spend time tuning part throttle response. a street tune is really where you spend more time fine tuning the streetability of the car under part throttle, but most of us go for a 4th gear WOT pull and tune from there, myself included...

[cld12pk2go]

In my opinion, if you want to drop the transition point way below what the stock tune calls for, then you need to adjust the timing in the OL maps to more closely mimic the CL maps at low RPMs (much lower timing) to avoid KR.

With BT's that don't spool before 3000 RPMs, then this is a moot point; but if you are running 1.8 load at 2000 RPMs, then it can be a very big deal (over 3° timing difference).

[Fobio]

here are my dyno pulls for before and after comparison.

before...my own tune...much laboured through load based tuning...





and after, by Brian and Christian w/ boost based tuning...





I'm happy to say I wasn't far off in getting most out of the car power wise, but now it's delivered much more smoothly. it's winter so I'm running ITV-22's right now, not racing ...and my car can really use a new turbo...

[Frequentflyer]

Just by looking at some logs I did today while it was "warm" (40's instead of the low 30's), I think the IAT compensation for the WGDC's has to be higher than what we're using. I'm assuming 1.00 means no change and 1.01 means it'll add 1% to whatever is in the WGDC table? For example. 1.01 x 20 is 20.2. .2 change in the WGDC's is not going to do much, if anything at all.

[SJP0tato]

Great info here, I finally took the time to read the thread from start to finish. I'm planning on setting up my tune to run on boost based control soon.

Something I haven't seen anyone mention yet: The two toggles Cobb gave in the "Advanced/Toggles" page are "Use Abs. Load Target Table" and "Use Boost Based Dynamics" both of which have (Boost Control) after them. Are you guys checking just the Boost Dynamics one, or both?

It seems more like the first is just a simplified way to tune by load (rather than using all the overlapping limiting tables), but it seems weird they both have "Boost Control" in parens after them. It also seems like they'd be exclusive of one another, but it appears you can enable both at the same time...

Probably a stupid q, but I haven't seen it brought up anyplace & figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

[Frequentflyer]

You want to check Boost Based Dynamics, not Load Target Table.

[Dano]

Use one or the other. Yes they both control boost but one directly and the other via load.

The alt load toggle disables some load tbls but I don't remember which ones.

Iirc it allows you to use trl gear tbls without having to alter abs load tbls. But I am not 100% on that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frequentflyer]

One of my latest logs. I've pretty much come to an end with the boost tuning. The car runs strong. I did notice on a log today while it was almost 50 degrees that my WGDC's peaked up into the high 70's by redline, so from what I've been seeing, the difference in WGDC's between OAT's in the high 20's/low 30's vs. near 50 is significant. I'm happy with 288g/s though with my mods.

[manelscout4life]

log looks great!
can you upload the map?

[Dano]

yes the boost curve looks very smooth and AFRs are spot on.

now get to work on that timing. 6.5* at 6K...c'mon that should be 10* without WMI and 13 with

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Frequentflyer Just by looking at some logs I did today while it was "warm" (40's instead of the low 30's), I think the IAT compensation for the WGDC's has to be higher than what we're using. I'm assuming 1.00 means no change and 1.01 means it'll add 1% to whatever is in the WGDC table? For example. 1.01 x 20 is 20.2. .2 change in the WGDC's is not going to do much, if anything at all.

yes I would think 1.00 = no alteration, 1.01= 1% 1.02 = 2% etc. Not sure exactly how that mulitplier gets applied to the table but it may not be a face value.

[djuosnteisn]

Any progress on gear based boost control?

[Dano]

man i wish!!

work has me hammered then if not, its snow or freezing rain...can't remember the last time I even had ATR open...LOL

I haven't forgotten about it and will give it another go but 2nd gear comp table didn't appear to work the last go around.

I'll neuter both the A and B tables this time but I doubt it'll make a difference. It looks like the A table is what the ECU uses for normal operation which I already tested.

hey that top mount setup sure is bada$$ brotha!

[djuosnteisn]

Thanks man. Still some bugs to work out on the setup lol, but hopefully it'll be ready for prime-time in the very near future.

I think i'm gonna use boost based on a local this coming weekend. I'll play around with the gear adjustments as well and let you know what i find.

[Dano]

hey, being the first to do something doesn't come easy...LOL

you'll have a boost based tune done in like 30 minutes with a 1/2 dozen pulls

and yes pls post up your findings on boost comp results here. I just don't understand why the 1-2nd gear A table would work in 1st gear but not 2nd ...WTF

I would guess the 3rd gear table would work but then you are good in 1st and 3rd gears but screwed in 2nd. I'd rather do it with APP if it isn't going to work in 1-3rd gears.

[djuosnteisn]

Yeah, i'll try it both ways. We'll get a solid boost tune setup, then command like half boost in all gears for giggles, and see which ones work and which do not. Then i'll look for other ways to get it done, probably APP lol.

[Dano]

Ok just set boost comp 1-2 a & b tbls to .75 and it is now limiting in 2nd gear

Changed only 3rd a tbl and boost is limited

So idk why 2nd needed the b tbl set


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djuosnteisn]

Perfect. We have win. Thanks Dano!

[Fobio]

good ish guys!

[Dano]

Weather permitting, I will do some more work on this soon. I need to put my APP back to OTS and then start the process of fine tuning the comp tables.

For this test I just set the tables to .75 between 2250 and 5K. In the real world you would probably want to ramp down [boost up] the compensation as the wheels get moving in the upper RPMs

Around 5200 I broke traction as the ECU was interpolating between the 5K .75 and 5.5k 1.00 values.

short story is they will work

IDK why 2nd gear needs the B table. Maybe I had a bad flash or something. I will try reverting the 1-2 gear B table back to OTS and give it a try again.

[Haltech]

Thanks Dano for the thread.. i will grant you gearhead status because of it...

Thread sticked but moved to the new section for Boost Tuning.

[Dano]

shit!

thanks for the recognition and promotion boss!!

and for moving the thread and sticky...what a day!

guess I have to make the boost comp stuff work now....