ECMlink What causes noisy airflow in the upper RPM band to redline?

[ist dwa]

Smooth with a the AEM 5 bar silver

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Smooth with a the AEM 5 bar silver

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

And temperature compensated! - yeah - I like the one AEM sells. I think for my turbos I'll be better off with the 50psi version. Same thing: https://www.zeitronix.com/installation/mapinstallation.shtml

 

[Justin DuBois]

For this pull, I only change the DA targets from 10's to 11 - Notice what I mean by "Calibrated". With one change - I ask for 11, I get 11. Its not perfect, and I'll dial it in from here with these 11 targets, and then the real tuning can begin. (real tuning - meaning - the search for power by adjusting timing and AFR targets for this fuel)

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

E25 is responding well to 11's , and I see the knock sensor is starting to wake up. The instability in the 6-7K range is still there. I've got a better MAP sensor on order, and I'll try playing with the WG to see if that has an impact. Can't really say the AFR change has any impact on the boost stability.

 

[Stapl3]

your boost est and real boost are off

You and I have been through this, specfically post 46 in that thread. I know you 'wrote the book', but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Justin is using SD. Boostest with SD is not a measurement to look at. If you adjust the SD table to get BoostEst to agree with the logged MAP sensor, you'll end up with a VE table that has 100% in each cell. Boostest while using SD is just telling you what you have in SD. It's redundant. If you want BoostEst to equal actual boost using SD, just put all the cells from 5k+ to 100, which according to your method would make it a perfect calibration, yet ironically something you couldn't even figure out how to stumble and do based on the table you posted in the thread I linked.

You called me a troll spreading misinformation, yet here we are 11 months later with you posting misinformation.

 

[ist dwa]

E25 is responding well to 11's, and I see the knock sensor is starting to wake up. The instability in the 6-7K range is still there. I've got a better MAP sensor on order, and I'll try playing with the WG to see if that has an impact. Can't really say the AFR change has any impact on the boost stability.

Yeah, you are getting it. Like I said changing the DA would change the A/F itself and the log proved that. Lower timing to around 12 A WOT, I always start real low and work up. Change your A/F DA up to 12.2 across the board. You are probably going to have to take some global out.

"If you adjust the SD table to get BoostEst to agree with the logged MAP sensor, you'll end up with a VE table that has 100% in each cell. "

Wrong, show me one log alive that does that, mine match and I don't have 100 in a single cell EVA, never eva. Look I am not going to argue with you. I am helping this dude, you can tune your car any ways you want.

 

[Justin DuBois]

This dude appreciates your feedback, and I am considering what each of you are suggesting. What I'm seeing are your different ways of using this "tool" to achieve a result.

ist dwa - I don't think you see the value in the VE map that I'm building. (and thats ok) You value Boost and BoostEst alignment - and I think you prefer that because your banking on the idea that the Airflow numbers will be accurate if you do. I'm not sure what value that is outside of some HP calculations.

When I look back to the results I had before the fuel pump upgrade, I see that the map I'm building now is filling out similar to what I had before - but with much more consistent results.

I'm going to keep working towards AFR alignment - in the hopes that - when I start hunting for max power during the tuning phase, I can pick and choose an AFR target at will and the VE map won't change once calibrated. (theory)

 

[Stapl3]

Wrong

Perfect. This is exactly what I expected out of self proclaimed doctor turbo, who literally wrote the book on tuning dsms, said you were sick of always being right when it came to a morrison manifold cracking, posted MAGA shit that was deleted, posted how Alex Jones was always right. This is perfectly on brand. You are always right man, you're incapable of being wrong. Everyone and anything that doesn't fit your narrative is wrong.

show me one log alive that does that, mine match and I don't have 100 in a single cell EVA, never eva

Didn't you do exactly this with a value of 99? Yes, you did. https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/t...nual-calculations-right.542558/post-153875174 Very hypocritical.

And yes I know you don't have 100 in any cell because you don't understand how it works. You couldn't even do that yourself as your table posted in the link I shared before, post #39, has your values oddly stoned at 99 rather than 100. You couldn't even fu*king figure it out then which is shown in your post #19 where they don't fu*king line up!

Let's do it like this:

"Actually, using BoostEst with SD is a little strange anyway. BoostEst is calculated from airflow which is calculated (when running SD) from manifold pressure. So you really can't get much useful information comparing BoostEst to measured Boost when running SD. It's just going to tell you what you have defined in your SD VE table. But you already know that."
-twdorris

"BoostEst is a crude calculation that assumes 100% VE. If you try to adjust the SD table to get BoostEst to agree with the logged MAP sensor, you'll end up with a VE table that has 100% in each cell. Not what you want. BoostEst is essentially useless when running SD."
-dmertz

So by you typing "wrong", means you're not telling me I'm wrong, rather Tom and Dave are wrong. You know, the creators of ECMLink. The fingers that typed the two quotes above are the fingers that came up with BoostEst out of thin air; out of nothing. You are saying they are wrong? Are you serious with yourself?

At the end of the day this community is relatively small, and the people that are capable of writing the book on tuning with DSMLink and critiquing it is even smaller. I could talk about this all day and I'd love to. I'd love to talk with you at the SO next year over this kinda stuff. But no. You're too high up posting "wrong", "If you want to read my tuning book it's on the link forums, it isn't hard to find." as if that's the bible because you typed some shit, "you are a TROLL spreading misinformation", " you are jealous", "Dude learn about DSMLink and tuning, for now you just look like a clown". Yeah, I am going to argue with you as I see you are hypocritical at it's highest order. I have proven you wrong now twice in two threads on BoostEst using direct statements from the people that invented BoostEst and you cannot swallow the pill. You're embarrassing yourself. Keep posting, we're ALL watching.

 

[ist dwa]

I'll play. Curious minds want to know, if the Boost est and real boost should not match, what should they be? Please post a log of what a proper SD table should be at WOT.

 

[Stapl3]

They'd be values not worth looking at on either side of peak VE at max effort.
The only use of BoostEst while using SD is to look at it during peak VE and say, yep, these values match up while others are as well. And they would match up because the value used at that time should be 100, something you 'never eva' did.

Stop asking for a log when you've yet to post one. You need to validate what I say with a datalog anyways?

 

[CrackedDSM]

Just commenting with how my mind is blown that he is Dr. Turbo.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Popcorn

 

[JG63]

Tune Off!!!!

(Tune Battle Instead of a “Dance off”)

 

[habitatguy187]

Just commenting with how my mind is blown that he is Dr. Turbo.

Still the prettiest build thread of all time

 

[Justin DuBois]

In this attempt, I have set the WG tables to minimum boost, by closing the solenoid all the time, so that the boost pressure will open the WG asap. The instability in boost is still present in the upper RPM range. Next I will use a different sensor. Looks like the minimum boost I can hold at redline is closer to 17psi. I might as well use 17 as my low boost setting.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[DSMPT]

In this attempt, I have set the WG tables to minimum boost, by closing the solenoid all the time, so that the boost pressure will open the WG asap. The instability in boost is still present in the upper RPM range. Next I will use a different sensor. Looks like the minimum boost I can hold at redline is closer to 17psi. I might as well use 17 as my low boost setting.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You should try to turn off the boost control in ECMLink and bypass the solenoid first, run directly with the wastegate spring pressure to narrow down. Does this up/down happen even by free revving up in neutral?

 

[Justin DuBois]

You should try to turn off the boost control in ECMLink and bypass the solenoid first, run directly with the wastegate spring pressure to narrow down. Does this up/down happen even by free revving up in neutral?

Heh heh - I know what you mean - remove the solenoid and boost pill from the system. If I “turn off” boost control checkbox with this setup, It will result in “MAXIMUM BOOST”

I’ll see if I can wrestle a new hose in there - I just didn’t want to cut the zip ties tonight.

To be honest, I’ve never free revved to that high for any length of time.

A new 50psi sensor is supposed to arrive today (according to UPS)

 

[DSMPT]

Heh heh - I know what you mean - remove the solenoid and boost pill from the system. If I “turn off” boost control checkbox with this setup, It will result in “MAXIMUM BOOST”

No no. You are confused. The result would be opposite. You will have the minimum boost pressure if you remove the solenoid by directly applying the boost pressure to the wastegate and/or turn off the boost control. The boost controller is one way, ONLY to raise the boost from the min pressure. Turn off the boost controller means you will have the wastegate spring pressure work directly.

 

[Justin DuBois]

No no. You are confused. The result would be opposite. You will have the minimum boost pressure if you remove the solenoid by directly applying the boost pressure to the wastegate and/or turn off the boost control. The boost controller is one way, ONLY to raise the boost from the min pressure. Turn off the boost controller means you will have the wastegate spring pressure work directly.

Uuh, check yourself. Yes a direct hose from WG to boost source will give minimum.

But - turning boost control off in ECM Link leaves the solenoid open, (no volts)

Open solenoid = Max Boost

 

[DSMPT]

Bypassing the solenoid would result the min boost. Usually turn off the controller (cut the power to solenoid) also make the boost min, not max (otherwise it's too risky. If something happens in the circuit while you are boosting, you will damage the engine). I have been asking you to do is run without the boost control whatever turn off the controller or bypassing the solenoid to run, because in this way the boost curve wouldn't be affected by any failure from the boost control setup or a bad solenoid and would be the smoothest. Maybe make the spool a bit slower but if the issue is caused by the boost control setup or solenoid, at least you would see some difference.

Open solenoid = Max Boost

This is depending on your solenoid and hosing. I thought you are running a 16g with a actuator wastegate. If your hosing is just the simple one for the actuator wastegate, then turn off the boost controller would usually give you the min boost.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Bypassing the solenoid would result the min boost.

Correct - it does

This is depending on your solenoid and hosing. I thought you are running a 16g with a actuator wastegate. If your hosing is just the simple one for the actuator wastegate, then turn off the boost controller would usually give you the min boost.

I do have a 16G, and I am using the internal WG flapper with the typical TD05H WG actuator. The solenoid I have is the factory 2G solenoid, and believe it - it fails fast, not fails safe. It surprised the hell out of me when I figured this out.

 

[DSMPT]

Correct - it does

I do have a 16G, and I am using the internal WG flapper with the typical TD05H WG actuator. The solenoid I have is the factory 2G solenoid, and believe it - it fails fast, not fails safe. It surprised the hell out of me when I figured this out.

I see. I was assuming you have 3 port simple solenoid. But that's not what I was talking about. What I have been asking you is what would happens if you run the wastegate spring pressure? doesn't matter the method by bypassing or turning off the controller. Not by changing the solenoid duty cycle in software.

 

[Stapl3]

Just commenting with how my mind is blown that he is Dr. Turbo.

In more mind-blowing news, I am now Prof. Turbo.

 

[DSMPT]

@Justin DuBois This is why I wanted to see the boost curve without the boost controller. A screenshot from your last log. It is overshooting to 18 psi and dropping to 14 psi and the line is not that smooth yet. This means you don't still have the boost control properly for some reason. This often happens when you have too agressive solenoid control.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Justin DuBois]

@Justin DuBois This is why I wanted to see the boost curve without the boost controller. A screenshot from your last log. It is overshooting to 18 psi and dropping to 14 psi and the line is not that smooth yet. This means you don't still have the boost control properly for some reason. This often happens when you have too agressive solenoid control.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Yeah - I totally have that - boost spike i call it. I'm opening the WG aggressively after 9psi to tame it, and then closing it down to build boost level again after. - trying anyway

 

[DSMPT]

boost spike i call it

Yeah I knew most of people in the States call it as spike. But I forgot that while writing and wrote as how we call it in Japan .