MAZDASPEED AccessTUNER Updates

[Cobb Tuning]

COBB Tuning is excited to announce another update of the MAZDASPEED AccessTUNER software, continuing to enhance features and functionality. This release includes several new tables that enhance tuning control, as well as addresses a few known bugs from previous releases. Read on to learn how COBB Tuning is working to keep the AccessPORT and AccessTUNER engine management solution at the forefront of MAZDASPEED tuning.

New Tables
These new tables give additional control of the ECU to both professional and enthusiast tuners.

Engine

• Volumetric Efficiency (VE)(BETA) - This table lets the user fine-tune the efficiency settings of the engine away from OEM volumetric efficiency defaults. Now changes in engine hardware, headwork and manifolds that alter the efficiency of the engine can be accounted for in fueling and load calculations.

Ignition

• Ign Global Max (BETA) - This table sets the maximum allowed ignition timing the ECU can attain.

Knock

• Knock Retard - Max Allowed Global (BETA) - Based on community requests, this new table sets the maximum amount of knock induced ignition retardation allowed by the ECU, based on RPM range. This will enable higher knock retard values for additional engine protection.

Wastegate

• WG Duty Baro Error Comp (Fine)(Load Based) - As another community request, this new table is the alternate to "Load Dynamics" and is referenced when "WG Duty Throttle Close Baro Threshold" is exceeded. Similar to "Boost Error Compensation”. This allows for true Load Tuning of the boost control system.

Tuning Guide
The tuning guide has been updated to version 2.11 to include updated table descriptions. Click here to download the new MAZDASPEED AccessTUNER Tuning Guide.

Bug Fixes
As with all complex software, bugs are discovered post release. These are the bug fixes addressed in this release:

• Removed extra toggle for "Use Abs. Load Target Table (Boost Control)".
  (2006-07 MS6, 07-09 MS3)
• Boost Based Gear compensation tables are shifted back to the correct location.
  (2009 MS3)
• Ignition tables now show correct increments to 2.00 Load.
  (2010-2012 MS3)
• Idle table fix - Added missing table row.
  (2010-2012 MS3)
• "Boost Baro Comp" now re-labeled as "WG Duty Throttle Close Baro Threshold (Load Based)" to reflect the properties of the table with Boost Throttle close table.
  (all)
• "Load Dynamics" now re-labeled as "WG Duty Load Dynamics (Fine) (Load Based)" to clarify toggle's influence on table. Table has been moved into the "WG Duty Dynamics" folder.
  (all)
• "WG Duty Boost Error Comp" now re-labeled as "(Fine) (Boost Based)" to clarify which tables are affected by toggle.
  (all)

Acquiring AccessTUNER Update
Existing AccessTUNER users can update their existing software to the latest version following these Step-By-Step Software Update Instructions. If you do not have AccessTUNER Race, fill out the AccessTUNER Race Request Form to receive a download link.

[BlueDmnSpeed]

will that idle table fix correct my idle issue. the lowest rpm in all the rows is 1000 on my map, but after warm up it idles ate 750 rpm
Edit: nevermind i got my answer when i updated and opened my map! thanks it's fixed!

[troubled81]

Ok since the VE is a new table i should be safe to ask this question.

FACTS
When i was building my motor i did some bowl work to the heads as they were ugly. I didn't flow the head so i have no measurable to aid in adjusting this table but i know with how fast the turbo spools now that it helped alot. When i did MAF cals i had the stage 2 +SF+TIH+IC and i was still having to add 7% to the lower half to clean out the LTFT's and i don't have an IC...

SO....

QUESTION
Do you have a suggestion on how to make adjustments to this table to help dial in the tune for a ported head?

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by troubled81 Ok since the VE is a new table i should be safe to ask this question. FACTS When i was building my motor i did some bowl work to the heads as they were ugly. I didn't flow the head so i have no measurable to aid in adjusting this table but i know with how fast the turbo spools now that it helped alot. When i did MAF cals i had the stage 2 +SF+TIH+IC and i was still having to add 7% to the lower half to clean out the LTFT's and i don't have an IC... SO.... QUESTION Do you have a suggestion on how to make adjustments to this table to help dial in the tune for a ported head?

If your MAF table is dialed in, figure out where which load/RPM range the headwork modified. If it is running lean in that one range, increase the VE to add more fuel. If it is rich (which means you've reduced the VE in that range), lower the VE to subtract fuel.

MAF Cal (Maps the intake calibration ) -> VE table to map load (normalizer for all ECU tables ) -> Calculated Load in ECU.

-David@COBB.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by David@COBB If your MAF table is dialed in, figure out where which load/RPM range the headwork modified. If it is running lean in that one range, increase the VE to add more fuel. If it is rich (which means you've reduced the VE in that range), lower the VE to subtract fuel. MAF Cal (Maps the intake calibration ) -> VE table to map load (normalizer for all ECU tables ) -> Calculated Load in ECU. -David@COBB.

If my MAF is "dialed in", how would I know if I'm lean/rich based off the VE table? LOL

With regards to say a turbo manifold, what kind of "signs" am I looking that shows a need to normalize? Specifically, how do I pin-point or calculate the VE difference based on a mod? It almost seems like what you're saying is that now, everyone should run a "perfect curve" for the MAF table and allow the VE table to make minute adjustments?

All of the Big HP cars in Toronto that I'm doing will have some sort of exhaust manifold...and there are 2 forged engines that I may be tuning.

I hope to get some sort of direct reply from you David...it almost seems like you only read American English...not CDN english? lol

[troubled81]

Originally Posted by David@COBB If your MAF table is dialed in, figure out where which load/RPM range the headwork modified. If it is running lean in that one range, increase the VE to add more fuel. If it is rich (which means you've reduced the VE in that range), lower the VE to subtract fuel. MAF Cal (Maps the intake calibration) -> VE table to map load (normalizer for all ECU tables) -> Calculated Load in ECU. -David@COBB.

Hi David,

Thank you for the time to answer the question.

So just to make sure I understand this correctly,

1) I do a maf CAL and verify that I am good on the fuel trims.
2) I do a pull and look for load@RPM points that needed (a short term) fuel trim +/- and make adjustments to said positions on the VE MAP to correct it.

If that is correct my last question is this,

Say I had a STFT of +5 with a load of 1.94 at 3500rpm. Would I multiply the .9261 by 1.05 and call it .9724?

Thank you,

John

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by troubled81 Hi David, Thank you for the time to answer the question. So just to make sure I understand this correctly, 1) I do a maf CAL and verify that I am good on the fuel trims. 2) I do a pull and look for load@RPM points that needed (a short term) fuel trim +/- and make adjustments to said positions on the VE MAP to correct it. If that is correct my last question is this, Say I had a STFT of +5 with a load of 1.94 at 3500rpm. Would I multiply the .9261 by 1.05 and call it .9724? Thank you, John

Yes, that's the correct idea. It's always better to up the VE first, and back down later, as having the AFR go rich is safer than it going lean.

-David@COBB

[hnda etr]

When are we getting the radiator fan control table back? Uh, and working... Lol


Sent from my iPhone using lame ass Tapatalk

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by hnda etr When are we getting the radiator fan control table back? Uh, and working... Lol Sent from my iPhone using lame ass Tapatalk

Unfortunately that control was released before I started working at Cobb, so I'm sure the fact that it didn't work and we had to remove it doesn't sit well with everybody.

As of right now, I'm making sure in the future that these things are well tested before they are released, which is why I'm taking the time to really iron out the fuel scaling before it ever hits public ATR.

The radiator tables are a nasty logical mess, and unlike the Subaru's which have easy limits to control, the Mazda ones have tons of flags that set other flags, the set off different branches of logic. It'll take some time to weave through all the mess and find where things are really being set. I'd like to give you an answer of when, but truthfully the controls will just have to be figured out in due time.

-David@COBB

[silvapain]

Just FYI, "WG Duty Load Error Comp. (Course)" should be "WG Duty Load Error Comp. (Coarse)".

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by silvapain Just FYI, "WG Duty Load Error Comp. (Course)" should be "WG Duty Load Error Comp. (Coarse)".

Homophones are a bitch sometimes...

[rfinkle2]

Thanks Cobb (specifically David), for the attention and effort you pay to the Mazdaspeeds.

[Fobio]

David, please elaborate on the logic and methodology needed to arrive at calculated values to adjust the VE table. Thanks.

[Nliiitend1]

Indeed. I caught myself typing "discreet" when I meant "discrete" just the other day...

[Etipp98]

Hey Guys, Been working out of town the past few months and just recently tried to update AP manager and AP Tuner. I was at 2.0.1.5, now with this 2.0.2.0 my AP will not connect to my manager. I tried uninstalling and re-installing 2.0.1.5, with no luck. Also tried re-installing drivers.. Should I still be on the beta for AP manager?

[greg08]

BEAUTIFUL

[Dmurray06]

Originally Posted by Cobb Tuning;1241254[* Idle table fix - Added missing table row. (2010-2012 MS3)

Sweet, David is the man!

[djuosnteisn]

Sounds useful.

[chuckms6]

i seem to be missing the toggle for load based control and the car behaves as if it is boost tuned without the box for boost based control checked. any reason why this would happen or how to remedy it?

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by chuckms6 i seem to be missing the toggle for load based control and the car behaves as if it is boost tuned without the box for boost based control checked. any reason why this would happen or how to remedy it?

It was a redundant old legacy control that didn't get erased when we moved to the new backend for ATR. The Boost tuning box does the correct change.

-David@COBB

[chuckms6]

Ok now I'm confused...so if I want to load tune do I check the boost based dynamics box or leave it empty? Do we still have the option to load tune?

tapatalkin to you

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by chuckms6 Ok now I'm confused...so if I want to load tune do I check the boost based dynamics box or leave it empty? Do we still have the option to load tune? tapatalkin to you

Uncheck the "Use Boost Based Dynamics" box to load tune.

-David@COBB

[hamptotl]

Useful indeed

[chuckms6]

Originally Posted by David@COBB Uncheck the "Use Boost Based Dynamics" box to load tune. -David@COBB

Ok thank you for clarifying. I didn't check when I first created the map with the update because I didn't think I need to but I believe the boost dynamics box is checked by default. I'll make sure the load tuning works when I get home

tapatalkin to you

[Fobio]

@rfinkle2

thanks for the idea you PM'd me to PM David@Cobb, and you suggestion that he may be more responsive by PM. Unfortunately, he is not. And he chooses to just answer the questions he likes to answer the way he likes to answers it.

Was he just a regular member here once? I don't think I have insulted his mother inadvertantly? Maybe being Chinese, he doesn't get that I'm also Chinese and that my screen name is a joke? So many reasons why ppl act the way they do...

Guess I'll go back to bugging Christian instead...

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by Fobio @rfinkle2 thanks for the idea you PM'd me to PM David@Cobb, and you suggestion that he may be more responsive by PM. Unfortunately, he is not. And he chooses to just answer the questions he likes to answer the way he likes to answers it. Was he just a regular member here once? I don't think I have insulted his mother inadvertantly? Maybe being Chinese, he doesn't get that I'm also Chinese and that my screen name is a joke? So many reasons why ppl act the way they do... Guess I'll go back to bugging Christian instead...

I'll be getting to my PM's later today. No need to fret about

-David@COBB

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by David@COBB I'll be getting to my PM's later today. No need to fret about -David@COBB

or you know, you could answer me here, so everyone can benefit from it...even if you call me out as a stupid question, right? I really don't need personalized service.

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by Fobio or you know, you could answer me here, so everyone can benefit from it...even if you call me out as a stupid question, right? I really don't need personalized service.

1) "If my MAF is "dialed in", how would I know if I'm lean/rich based off the VE table?"

- You can only try to see if you can induce it with the same load, and see both rich and lean in different conditions. The key here is looking for places that have specific fuel targets that aren't being met. If you notice that your car has trouble hitting targets in open loop but does in closed loop (or the other way around), you can increase VE to help meet those fueling demands in the Load x RPM point that it hits.

2) "With regards to say a turbo manifold, what kind of "signs" am I looking that shows a need to normalize? Specifically, how do I pin-point or calculate the VE difference based on a mod? It almost seems like what you're saying is that now, everyone should run a "perfect curve" for the MAF table and allow the VE table to make minute adjustments?"

-You'll most likely see the MAF operate good for one section of load, and then go lean/rich in other areas. The VE is one of the hardest things to tune without a real dyno. Other things like going lean/rich on spool is another sign, as you'll have a big spike of air that wasn't expected to flow after the MAF and it'll run rich.

Remember your car sees MAF first - and says this is the Mass of air coming into the engine. How efficient the engine is afterwards determines the actual air "inside" of the cylinders. That is what the VE represents. That's the whole point about headwork, etc.

If you want to test it, just run the manifold, see what load x RPM point its lean at, and raise the VE. No other way to do it than that.

-David@COBB

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Fobio @rfinkle2 thanks for the idea you PM'd me to PM David@Cobb, and you suggestion that he may be more responsive by PM. Unfortunately, he is not. And he chooses to just answer the questions he likes to answer the way he likes to answers it. Was he just a regular member here once? I don't think I have insulted his mother inadvertantly? Maybe being Chinese, he doesn't get that I'm also Chinese and that my screen name is a joke? So many reasons why ppl act the way they do... Guess I'll go back to bugging Christian instead...

It isn't that you are Chinese, it is that you are Canadian.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 It isn't that you are Chinese, it is that you are Canadian.

maybe David's holding out for some beaver shots before high-fiving me...lol...

[Fobio]

Thank you David, and from your previous answers, I suppose that using the STFT's to observe lean/rich, is the way to determine it? as opposed to using LTFT's?

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by Fobio Thank you David, and from your previous answers, I suppose that using the STFT's to observe lean/rich, is the way to determine it? as opposed to using LTFT's?

You could use LTFT's or STFT's. Use every piece of data you got to prove that your targets aren't being met. If your LTFT's settle but your STFT's are wacky going up, you know that the VE isn't being accurate to the Mass of air.

-David@COBB

[chuckms6]

I Resaved the map and made sure boost dynamics was unchecked and it's still behaving like a boost tuned map when installed on the car. I rolled back the update and it works fine with load dynamics selected...

tapatalkin to you

[hnda etr]

Originally Posted by Fobio @rfinkle2 thanks for the idea you PM'd me to PM David@Cobb, and you suggestion that he may be more responsive by PM. Unfortunately, he is not. And he chooses to just answer the questions he likes to answer the way he likes to answers it. Was he just a regular member here once? I don't think I have insulted his mother inadvertantly? Maybe being Chinese, he doesn't get that I'm also Chinese and that my screen name is a joke? So many reasons why ppl act the way they do... Guess I'll go back to bugging Christian instead...

He ignored my question too - and I'm half Chinese too!! I sense a pattern!

lol

Thanks for the help David... Now answer my question please!


Sent from my iPhone using lame ass Tapatalk

[Chimmike]

One more thing David...........any idea on fixing the connection loss when starting a log?
seems to be happening to me every day now.

[Celestspeed3]

Are you logging from the live data or the datalog in the monitoring menu. I find if I datalog from the live data view I loose connection. If I datalog from the datalog view it works fine 95% of the time.

[Chimmike]

Originally Posted by Celestspeed3 Are you logging from the live data or the datalog in the monitoring menu. I find if I datalog from the live data view I loose connection. If I datalog from the datalog view it works fine 95% of the time.

I always log from the live data portion. No reason there should be any difference.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by chimmike I always log from the live data portion. No reason there should be any difference.

He is asking you to try logging from the data log screen.

It does seem to work chimmike.

[Nataphen]

So, one thing that the VE table should help with is the spool lean out. We've been trying to fix that for a long time, so excellent work there. Even with typical bolt-ons, these cars will tend to do this. I've never noticed whether or not a stock car does this as well, but I should look into that. Thanks very much for this addition.

[Cobb Tuning]

Originally Posted by Nataphen So, one thing that the VE table should help with is the spool lean out. We've been trying to fix that for a long time, so excellent work there. Even with typical bolt-ons, these cars will tend to do this. I've never noticed whether or not a stock car does this as well, but I should look into that. Thanks very much for this addition.

If you think about it, anything non-stock (including bolt-ons) will slightly change the VE of the system, albeit smaller than headwork or engine block changes. So yes, use of that table can be used to fine tune the bolt ons to the level of the OEM parts.

-David@COBB