# Higher altitude issues with MS1 tune on 16V ITB



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Hey all you MS gurus!

Had a friend affiliated with a group of well-known MS tuners here in the NW work with me on tuning my 2L 16V ITB Golf. All has worked pretty well (Thanks Guys!) - however, I'm having quite large issues with higher altitude sputtering, bucking and running super lean - as in making no power to go up the mountain roads. I've looked at the tune and added EGO corrections for Control Step size (2) and Controller Authorization (12%). Previously these were "0" on both - oops. I know I can turn EGO correction on in the Lambda settings (Lambda Sensor targets), and then use the VE Table for the AFR Target table. However, I wasn't clear on editing this table so tried a bit with the default AFR table, but with no change, I turned that setting off again.

The problem I'm seeing is at anything over 2000ft, the map will not read above 54kph and the fueling on my AFR (AEM UEGO) is literally off-the-gauge, lean when trying to put any throttle beyond about halfway. I was running the laptop while driving yesterday so I could run a few Datalogs of the issue. I even tried adding a few more bits of fuel to the VE Table in that RPM area - around 2500-3000 - but no change. 

Are there any suggestions or anything I can do to get the car running better over the mountain? I can't be stuck to just sea-level driving! 

I have the datalogs and all the deets, if any of the gurus are interested. Thanks all!


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

Sucks that you are having this problem too. I don't go to the mountains very often so it's hard to keep testing things to see if they solved the issue but I don't want to be stuck at ground level either. 

You might have better luck trying them out and reporting back. Hopefully it's an easy fix. :thumbup:


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

What code version and what chip(1 or 2) and as I asked in the other thread s/d or alpha/n?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Code Version: MS/Extra HR_10

Chip: B&G Green board w MC928CP32CPE 3K085 (or nearest I can tell) - which is chip #2, I believe.

Speed Density (totally forgot to add that in the first post, would've helped)

Thanks! :thumbup:


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

2.2 or 3.0 board and MS1 or MS 2 chip?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

B&G "Green" board that says V2.2. The processor says MSV30, if that helps.


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

OK, v2.2 board and MS1 chip.(should've known the chip as HR code is MS1)

I would think you'd want to run ITB's on alpha-n, what map spread do you have?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ps2375 said:


> OK, v2.2 board and MS1 chip.(should've known the chip as HR code is MS1)
> 
> I would think you'd want to run ITB's on alpha-n, what map spread do you have?


I'm not sure on what you mean by "Map Spread", as I'm not familiar with that terminology, but I'm guessing you mean how the "map" (map sensor) is spread out over the VE Table. To answer that question, its quite narrow, in that my car seems to run best at 50kph and over. I've included a couple screen shots of the 3D and Cell table:



















If I had a good AlphaN tune, I might have a go to see how it works. I just thought since I could get a good MAP signal, I'd go for that. I'm definitely open to suggestions though!


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

The "map spread" was my mistake, but you figured it out.

Try here:http://spitfireefi.com/ and look in the downloads section. There should be a decent starting place there.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ps2375 said:


> The "map spread" was my mistake, but you figured it out.
> 
> Try here:http://spitfireefi.com/ and look in the downloads section. There should be a decent starting place there.


Yep, I've checked those out before, but as I'm running HR_10 code, to use the Map for a 2L 16V, would mean reformatting the ECU (and not being able to return to the tune I'm running now). None seem to be running an AlphaN either. ?


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

Yup, your correct, no ITB msq's there. I have seen some on MSRuns forum that are alpha-n. I would think that if your tune is decent and not too far off, the ECU should be able to compensate for altitude. I would check it to ensure that it is where it needs to be and then try it at altitude again. With the EGO correction on, that can cover for weaknesses in the base tune and then at altitude maybe have trouble compensating. (This is purely speculation based upon how it should work.)


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

I know my tune is good and I have tried turning it off then starting it back up when at altitude with no luck.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

frechem said:


> I know my tune is good and I have tried turning it off then starting it back up when at altitude with no luck.


Same here! The tune in my car was based on his tune, with some modifications for my weakster, stockie on ITB's.  So, I'm not sure if the altitude is affecting the "map reading" or if there is a weird problem with the HR code for the EGO compensation (as we both have that in common).

I'm tempted to update the HR_10 Code as I was told by SpitfireEFI that its a "branch" that is not really supported anymore - and thus is a wild child. But, Dear LORD is that a lot of work to re-import the tables and settings to be sure it will work "close" to the same. 

More input?


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> I'm tempted to update the HR_10 Code as I was told by SplitfireEFI that its a "branch" that is not really supported anymore - and thus is a wild child. But, Dear LORD is that a lot of work to re-import the tables and settings to be sure it will work "close" to the same.
> 
> More input?


Same here. However, I don't really want to go through all the work and re-do all the tables and settings to try and get back to where I am currently at. 

The last time I updated I was stranded on top of a mountain for several hours trying to figure things out. No bueno.


----------



## psychobandito (Sep 10, 2009)

Didn't read the whole post, but if you use alpha-n, you can use barometric correction.


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

psychobandito said:


> Didn't read the whole post, but if you use alpha-n, you can use barometric correction.


This is true as it frees up the on-board map sensor for this duty at all times instead of just checking baro at startup.

Another thing I would check is plug gap, I recently was having some drive-ablilty issues and thought it was my tune/corn fuel, it turned out to be my spark plugs had worn to gap that was causing misfires at certain loads and was also worse with e10 gas. Just a thought.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ps2375 said:


> This is true as it frees up the on-board map sensor for this duty at all times instead of just checking baro at startup.


^ Interesting, I did not know that! Still, it seems that there are people running S/D all over who don't seem to be experiencing this extreme hindrance at altitude. I suppose I could create another tune using the same tables, only as an AlphaN, and see if that works. I know my TPS is dialed as its factory original on these ITBs. Hmm.



ps2375 said:


> Another thing I would check is plug gap, I recently was having some drive-ablilty issues and thought it was my tune/corn fuel, it turned out to be my spark plugs had worn to gap that was causing misfires at certain loads and was also worse with e10 gas. Just a thought.


My Spark plugs have about 500 miles on them, so I wouldn't think this would cause this strong of an issue.


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

What settings do you have in the table named "Lambda AFR Settings"? That is another place to run off the VE table or use the AFR targets. And what does your AFR target table look like?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Can you post an MSQ and a datalog? 

Generally on MS1 I wouldn't do Speed-Density unless it's really small throttles and stock cams. If your lower kpa range is 50+ you are bound for Alpha-N anyway. MS2/3 can do some neat blending but on MS1 it's really hard to get a good tune (meeting AFR target at all loads) on SD alone with throttles on a car that makes power. 

If you have a manifold and you have altitude problems, there's something else going on beyond the issues that one would have with ITBs.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Can you post an MSQ and a datalog?
> 
> Generally on MS1 I wouldn't do Speed-Density unless it's really small throttles and stock cams. If your lower kpa range is 50+ you are bound for Alpha-N anyway. MS2/3 can do some neat blending but on MS1 it's really hard to get a good tune (meeting AFR target at all loads) on SD alone with throttles on a car that makes power.
> 
> If you have a manifold and you have altitude problems, there's something else going on beyond the issues that one would have with ITBs.


 Interesting, I didn't know that MS1 was that limited, although I should have expected that fact. I have 45mm and stock cams, but will be adding cams later, so this is great to know. Although, disheartening as I REALLY do not want to start over.  

MSQ 

Log1 

Log2 

Log3 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking at tune,you have lots if IGN adv, too much if you go by what has been and is currently discussed.http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5772827-Ms1-tuning And how are your AFR Target tables setup, when I tried loading the msq into my TS, they had a mismatch and never came through. How is your msq configured, this could point to why you are not getting altitude adjustments,, 

You shouldn't need 20* of timing to idle, you should be able to back that down and add some air.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Ignition looks fine to me other then 50% fixed duty and running inverted output. For a stock VW ignition module, LED triggered that should be set to non-inverted. You will have to re-sync your timing most likely. Also, I don't remember the Rotary menu being there either but that could be memory related! 

Baro correction is set to OFF and you arent' using the AFR tables at all. Not sure if the ego switch point matches your WB02 either. You might want to use more controller authority.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Ignition looks fine to me other then 50% fixed duty and running inverted output. For a stock VW ignition module, LED triggered that should be set to non-inverted. You will have to re-sync your timing most likely. Also, I don't remember the Rotary menu being there either but that could be memory related!
> 
> Baro correction is set to OFF and you arent' using the AFR tables at all. Not sure if the ego switch point matches your WB02 either. You might want to use more controller authority.


 You are correct, Sir. I just now set my tune back to the original tune that SpitfireEFI had created (meaning, the Controller Step and Authority were 0 - which I thought was the original problem). Then, last week I set it to 2 and 12 (respectively). There was a definite discrepancy between what TunerStudio was reading and my AFRs on the AEM UEGO while driving (TS was reading about 3 points richer - ie: 11:1 when AEM was 14:1). 

Ignition Module: I'm actually using an MSD 6A (new digital style) so 50%, fixed duty, inverted would be correct, yes? 

I did not use an AFR table as I wasn't sure how to set that up correctly (MS documents show that its merely an estimated table). AS well, I'm not sure if the switch point matches correctly or not - any ideas what it would be for an AEM UEGO controller? (I do not have that manual in front of me to confirm). 

Hope that helps! I think we're getting closer, Mike!


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

If you are not using an AFR Target table, why would to expect it to run correctly at anything other than the altitude it was tuned at? And how is it supposed to run/tune properly with that kind of mismatch between the wideband and what the ECU thinks it sees?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ps2375 said:


> If you are not using an AFR Target table, why would to expect it to run correctly at anything other than the altitude it was tuned at? And how is it supposed to run/tune properly with that kind of mismatch between the wideband and what the ECU thinks it sees?


 I did the driving, the tuning was done by a professional, and he may not have known I'd be driving over the mountains.  He did mention the Lambda AFR Setting area after I mentioned the initial failure to make it over the pass. And as I stated, I do not understand how to correct/modify the AFR table based on the VE table. I did turn it on while I was driving - yet as they are estimates, it did not change the issue. I see the AFR table is reading in a nomenclature synonymous with a system that was in the AEM manual (I'm assuming voltage) - I had not researched on how to actually switch it to AFR. The AEM and MS read perfectly in sync when not at elevation (probably due to there being no Step or Authority set for the controller) - and only after I set those, did the discrepancy start - probably due to both those settings and the elevation. 

I do appreciate the input, and figure that area to be incorrectly set, but I'm assuming Frechem is probably in the same boat and he MAY have that AFR table set to be used to correct. Any suggestions on how to create that AFR Table?


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

The afr's that MS see's is solely based upon what it is being told by the wideband controller, doesn't matter if correction is on or not. How they are the same at base altitude and not at altitude makes no sense as again MS sees what it's told. I have seen slight diff between MS and the controller, but that is at all times and is generally due to grounds, if all the settings are correct in MS. 

And most "professionals" will know that altitude will make a difference. That is part of the reason O2 sensors are used for.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

I'll definitely have a look to see if something was changed between the AEM controller and which Wideband the MS is set to (as there are a few choices for that controller. It wasn't until after those changes that the AFR seemed to read differently, however, I'll also have a look at the grounds to see if there is something going on at those two areas on the car (I set those to the book, and like I said, the controller and MS were nearly right on before). 

So, verdict: 

1) Turn On the Lambda AFR Settings to enable use of the AFR table, based on the VE table 

2) Edit the AFR Table - is there a way to change it to AFR instead of voltage? I will set this based on targets from the RPM's/KPH VE Table, correct? I'm not sure I understand how to "estimate" these AFR's unless I'm going off of memory from driving at sea level. 

3) Continue to use Step:2 and Authority:12 

4) Check EGO switch point is correct for my Controller (also in AEM manual, I expect) 

4) Check to be sure the the Controller and MS are set correctly to each other as well as the grounds for each are good. 

Does that look about correct? 

Again, anyone want to take a look a the MSQ and modify a good starting point for my AFR Table. At least then I can have a visual of what should work.  

Thanks all!


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

Dubrunner said:


> I'll definitely have a look to see if something was changed between the AEM controller and which Wideband the MS is set to (as there are a few choices for that controller. It wasn't until after those changes that the AFR seemed to read differently, however, I'll also have a look at the grounds to see if there is something going on at those two areas on the car (I set those to the book, and like I said, the controller and MS were nearly right on before).
> 
> So, verdict:
> 
> ...


 That is what I'd do. Not sure on #2 as I'm not sure how your code is set up. You could have it generate a new table set the way you need it.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

If you are going to use the AFR table you need to make the AEM and the MS read the same number, period. If you are seeing it in volts, you most likely have the wrong one selected, there are a few AEM choices make sure the output matches what your controller reads. 

As long as you are using the correct settings in TS it should work as long as there isn't a big ground offset between the AEM and the MS. On many installs I see the WB02 grounded somewhere other then a good ground (side of engine/head) and that causes issues. If the AEM has a separate O2 signal ground, tying that right into the MS ground pin is a good idea.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> If you are going to use the AFR table you need to make the AEM and the MS read the same number, period. If you are seeing it in volts, you most likely have the wrong one selected, there are a few AEM choices make sure the output matches what your controller reads.


 ^ Yep, that makes perfect sense. I'll double-check that the correct AEM output is set for my controller (AEM 30-4100). In MS, I have it set for - 

AEM UEGO(Legacy) Controller AEM-30-30-230X 

The other choice is 
AEM UEGO/Linear AEM-30-42XX 

I have the AEM gauge set to (PO) which is default AFR values displayed. As its not linear, that 1st selection should be correct. 

I'm 99% sure it was correct before the last tuning session as things were reading nearly the same between the controller and the MS. It was only when I was up in altitude that I noticed the gauge and the MS reading differently (which is weird to me). To confirm, I'm seeing the AFR Table in VOLTS (or so it looks) when setting the Lambda AFR Settings to use that particular table: 










So, in order to more easily set this table up, it would be nice to use AFR. Am I missing something in my settings? 



need_a_VR6 said:


> As long as you are using the correct settings in TS it should work as long as there isn't a big ground offset between the AEM and the MS. On many installs I see the WB02 grounded somewhere other then a good ground (side of engine/head) and that causes issues. If the AEM has a separate O2 signal ground, tying that right into the MS ground pin is a good idea.


 ^ I have my AEM grounded to one of the MS grounds I have going directly to the battery (about 4 ft) - which is the ground it uses for both O2 and gauge - (which is inside away from vibrations and the elements) - so that should be good. Again, initially before the last tune, they read the same. So, when I get back to the car (which is still at sea level in Portland), I can check that again. 

Otherwise, I need a to figure out a good table to get this thing on track to being solved. :thumbup:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

That controller is 0-5v=10-20 afr which is a totally different option. The old aems were non linear hence the volt display. Change your setting and verify that its working correctly.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

I was doing some research here and found that I may have that set incorrectly. I went back and checked my old Project (before the last tuning session), BINGO, the settings for that were indeed the LINEAR option. So, looks like I'll be changing the settings in this new Project and verifying that they read the same (or close) this time. I think my tuner might have switched it in the last tune, to read in AFR and not volts. There is a note in the Project Properties description - "This is for a different AFR reading - now read AFR and not VOLTS". Of course, I don't know what has been changed. 

So, I have no idea if he changed the .ini files to work with that option. I saved a copy of the tune and then switched to the project to "AEM UEGO/Linear AEM-30-42XX" option, however the AFR table was still in volts. So, not sure what to do next. :what:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You will have to reload an old tune and export an afr table and then import it into your current tune.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> You will have to reload an old tune and export an afr table and then import it into your current tune.


 Do you mean re-load the old tune on the MS on the car itself, and then export the table 

or 

Open up the old project and export the AFR table. Then, close old project, open current project (with incorrect EGO settings that have been changed) and then import that table into the new project? 

I tried the later way and the AFR table came in the same way. Also, in the old project (with correct EGO controller), allowing the Lambda Settings to use the AFR table results in an AFR table in volts as well. I'm not sure what is going on or if I should just open a new project, import the fuel/spark tables, starting from scratch. Cripes, I might as well do Alpha-N then! :banghead:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You can just do it all offline. Just open an old tune that had afr not in volts, export that using the little green arrow in tha afr table. Open current tune and import that one back in.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Ah okay, so that is the problem. The old tune is showing the AFR table in volts as well (when I engage it). I have the correct EGO setting (linear) on the old tune and still the AFR table shows in volts. 

Hmm, that means something needs to be changed somewhere deeper in the settings to get those to work correctly. OR, I guestimate with the AEM conversion chart in front of me for voltage and change/edit those in the new tune to match the AFR measurement I need.  

Man, this is difficult! 

I guess if it was easy, everyone would do it.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I have an itb tune on msruns, dow load it and export the table from that.

Afr will show in volts always if you had ever had a non-supported wb in project settings. Just change yhe project and import an afr table thats in afr and you are good to go.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I have an itb tune on msruns, dow load it and export the table from that.
> 
> Afr will show in volts always if you had ever had a non-supported wb in project settings. Just change yhe project and import an afr table thats in afr and you are good to go.


 Awesome man, thank you! I'll take a look and see what kinda table you got going on there.  

However, researching most of last night, I found that NO AFR table was going to show in AFR's on my Project unless I dug deeper in the projectCfg file. This was because of the way the AEM was setup as default in TS and MegaTune. I recommend anyone using an AEM 30-4100 or 4200, to follow the link below if they are having the same trouble: 

http://www.miataturbo.net/megasquirt-18/using-afr-instead-volts-aem-wideband-afr-target-table-28005/ 

I use TS, so I had to fumble around a bit from the above link, but found where I needed to change the above parameters: 

1) Go to your TunerStudioProject Folder. Mine was under my My Documents folder on my PC 
2) Locate the Project you're working in > choose the projectCfg file 
3) You'll see the mainController file 
4) Once you have that open in NotePad or a text editor - you can then follow the steps in the above link to get your AEM to run AFR. 

Looking in the mainController file, I found clearly that my AEM was set to read in VOLTS for the Target AFR table in the list here: 

_page = 7 ; TARGET AFR table 1 BINS FOR VE 1 (First find which sensor used)_ 

I made the highlighted changes (in red) and "voila", when I opened my Target AFR table, it was all zeros, but I was able to enter AFR's in there. OH happy day! 

Now, I cannot vouch for the lower or last part of the instructions as I could not locate a "lambdasensors.ini" file. So, we'll see how things go. 

*need_a_VR6* - I'll try searching around for your AFR table and see about importing that and then set my Step and Controller Authority, and see what happens. I now have the car here at 3600ft, so I can start testing and seeing how it goes. Right now the car idles at about 600rpm when warm, which is about 360 lower than normal. So, obviously something in the elevation is affecting it. I'll report back as soon as I have a chance to import the new table and settings on the MS itself. 

Thanks!


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I have an itb tune on msruns, dow load it and export the table from that.


 I must have tried 20 times to search for your name and for an ITB tune, but with the search literally being a piece of poop and showing (Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.) - I started banging my head. :banghead: 

Have any idea where I might find in that mess they call a search function?


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

Go to the MSruns.com forum, for VW and look on second page, look for Paul_VR6


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Excellent, thanks man! 

I snagged this one as it's pretty damn close to my specs ----> 

And this one as it was ITB (even though it looked to be 8V) -----> 

Next up - lets see if I can't see some differences at this altitude. Closer and close, guys, thank you much.  

If this doesn't work, I "may" try the AlphaN route.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Email me at kandpperformance at gmail dot com and I can send it.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Sent - thank you, Sir!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I sent the afr table. You will want to rescale the load axis to work with your tps or map range.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

> I sent the afr table. You will want to rescale the load axis to work with your tps or map range.


 Roger that - I received it and loaded it up into my .msq as it was. I'll look more closely at the MAP range to see that its scaling correctly. It looked pretty close to start. 

I then loaded the new map (with new EGO settings) to the MS and the AFR's are reading accurately between the gauge and MS now. The car started a bit harder than before, looked super rich and the idle was quite low. Took a bit of pedal work, but I was able to get it past its 15 second warmup then received a steady, albeit low, idle. I'm wondering if I need to adjust the idle bolt for this elevation or if there is a way I can get that to sit better. Could be the Target AFR table as well. It seems quite inconvenient to need to adjust the idle for elevation, but such may be the nature of ITB's (I would think not). 

Otherwise, I need to take it for a spin and see how the EGO correction and Target AFR table is affecting the higher altitude driving. Fingers crossed I have less bucking and sputtering.  

I'll report back later. Thanks again everyone!


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Went for a drive today and it sure didn't want idle more than 700 (even warmed up). The idle is set to 960rpm at idle at sea level, so I'm not sure what is going on there. 

I have this wicked, half-3/5 part throttle leanness happening (which caused bucking and hesitation before at altitude). Its continued to do this although not as bad now that EGO Correct is on. It affects the acceleration up hills and to get up to speed on straights - bucking, hesitating, etc - like either it retards the timing hugely, or is just WAY too lean in that area. If I let off the throttle part way or push quickly down on the gas to accelerate (basically modulate the throttle), the AFR's go richer and I can then accelerate, until the pedal reaches a certain point or around 3000rpm. Almost like a clogged fuel filter effect. I looked at the VE and AFR tables and they sure seem to be giving enough fuel at those RPM and Map points. I didn't get a log, but will go out again and record one. Either my msq sucks or something else is going on. 

Here is my msq as of now: 

CurrentTune7302012.msq 

I've double-checked the timing in the MSQ, and will have to try the timing light procedure again, but I'm positive I'm where I need to be. I'm starting an Alpha-N tune offline now to see how difficult that is to put together.


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

I don't remember if you have TS, but if you do, set the VE Analyze to "Easy" drive it, then go thru each setting and see what it does and how it drives. I'll bet it'll help. Don't be afraid of the #'s it generates, unless it goes too far rich or lean, then you have something else going on. 

And if you don't have a licensed copy, get it, it's well worth it.:thumbup:


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Yep, I'm using TS and a full copy with VE Analyzer is on the way. Hopefully, that will get me set a bit. That is, AFTER I replace the gasket between the water pump and housing (gah), just started to drip yesterday - I've only driven the car 500 miles since assembly!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Can you take a log with that exact tune once you get mechanicals back in order?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Absolutely! I'd love for you to have a look at the logs and what the heck is going on in the middle range there. I'm hoping that you find some good stuff in Frechem's tune as well so that maybe we can all learn a bit more on how to dial in MS1, Speed Density, and ITB's at altitude! 

PS: Waterpump has been ordered as well as more coolant (I'm not looking forward to replacing most of my brand new coolant, either)


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> (I'm not looking forward to replacing most of my brand new coolant, either)


 Just catch it in a clean container and reuse it. No need to thow it out and use new stuff.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

So I tweaked his file to match his actual map range, should help a bit.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

frechem said:


> Just catch it in a clean container and reuse it. No need to thow it out and use new stuff.


 Ha ha - that's actually what I did yesterday. Now I just have to burp the system as having no expansion tank can be a little finicky. Hopefully, I can run it around and get a decent log file! 



> need_a_VR6
> So I tweaked his file to match his actual map range, should help a bit.


 ^ Paul, did you mean you tweaked Frechem's file or did you mess with mine on dropbox? If you did tweak mine, I'll still run a log of the original file first, so we can have a good run on where the "issue" may be.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Freechems, I need a good log of yours before I do anything with yours.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Aaaaand we're back..

After finding out that my crank sprocket had a nearly sheared Woodruff key AND the end of the crank needed a bit of filing for the new sprocket - I finally had everything back together. So, took the car out for two Datalogging runs (ran like poo when trying to smash the gas to 3K rpm - sputtering and bogging) but slowly accelerating would get be a bit farther in the RPM range to get up a hill, until still sputtering and bucking again. 

Two Datalogs below:

1

2

Paul, hopefully you can take a peek and see what in the heck is going on! I've also relinked my map in my email to you.

Thank you sir!


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Ah shoot, forgot it was Labor Day weekend! No wonder no one was around! (yes, I must be in the garage too much)


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Just bumping this because it seems to be a real pain in the butt! 

Going to try to save my existing map as another name, then use the copied map and see if TS's autotune can do anything. Pacific Waterland is the last show in Portland and I haven't had the car there since it went under the knife. 

Pic for fun:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I didn't see the log links until now. Shoot me your msq (or host it), also what WB02 you're using.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I didn't see the log links until now. Shoot me your msq (or host it), also what WB02 you're using.


^ As always, uber fast. I sent the details and my dropbox files. Thank you Sir!


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

Car looks great. Let's get a motor shot.


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

frechem said:


> Car looks great. Let's get a motor shot.


this :thumbup:


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Thanks fellas. I'll get those very soon! I made a custom air box for the ITB's with a panel filter on the bottom so it all looks clean, but won't have time to fit this week.  

I'm waiting for Paul opcorn: to have a look at my map to see how this whole "high-altitude" issue is panning out. I only have a couple days left until I make the 180 mile trip - so fingers crossed I get this somewhat squashed by then. I am working day and night to get it to Pacific Waterland this weekend. But, it only runs SUPER well under 2400ft - DOH! To get there I have to drive at 3500ft, then over the pass at 4800 - THEN, its down hill and I could coast.. haha...er... :what:


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

It seems like the only way to correct the altitude issue is to run a second map sensor.


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

frechem said:


> It seems like the only way to correct the altitude issue is to run a second map sensor.


 the mapdad setup isnt really all that much cost wise. did that end up working on your car?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Sorry I'm slow, working alot last few weeks. I'll try and boot up the comp tonight and check some logs out.:wave:


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Hey no problemo! I know you have a lot going on and you're doing ME a favor just for looking at it! I very much appreciate it, Paul! If the possibility is there to fix it - I'll be SUPER HAPPY!


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> the mapdad setup isnt really all that much cost wise. did that end up working on your car?


 I haven't had it done but it looks like I will have to. I will have to research it some more to find out what all is involved.


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

simple as can be, just remove your old map sensor and replace with the mapdad board. run one jumper wire and recal the sensor values in MS and youre done :thumbup:


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> simple as can be, just remove your old map sensor and replace with the mapdad board. run one jumper wire and recal the sensor values in MS and youre done :thumbup:


 OK sounds simple enough. Is there a link for this?


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

frechem said:


> OK sounds simple enough. Is there a link for this?


 http://www.diyautotune.com/catalog/mapdaddy-bar-map-sensor-with-barometric-correction-p-117.html 

:beer:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

If you switch to alpha n like I tell you all to do you can use the main map for baro


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

need_a_VR6 said:


> If you switch to alpha n like I tell you all to do you can use the main map for baro


 That was suggested back on page 1.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> If you switch to alpha n like I tell you all to do you can use the main map for baro


 "I'm your Huckleberry" - I don't mind trying an AlphaN map.  

I think my fear is that I'll change this over to alphaN and then have a hard time getting it dialed in time to drive 180 miles (safely)! Can I still run AlphaN with the HR10 code? (seems I can, even though that version is a bastard-child anyway). I suppose I can export my fuel and spark map, than create a new Tune for AlphaN, then import those tables -yes? Its worth a shot as I don't really have a choice under the time crunch.  

The MapDaddy looks pretty good for $65 bones, not a whole lot of soldering and it seems pretty easy (just need the .22uf capacitor for MS1). I just don't have the time resources at this point. 

opcorn:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Map daddy comes w the cap. 

Just save the tune, switch the load in engine constants and in the project, rescale the load axis to useful tps % and go out and tune it.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Map daddy comes w the cap.
> 
> Just save the tune, switch the load in engine constants and in the project, rescale the load axis to useful tps % and go out and tune it.


 I've built many cars and weird projects, but definitely am not a SEM tuner.  I'm assuming you're talking about rescaling the VE table load axis to use TPS instead of Map. I'll get it all setup and see if it runs now.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

I may also peruse MSRUNS to see if you might have a good starting point for AlphaN.  

With all those setting changed, now the load axis reads TPS, but its in ADC (wtf?). Any idea on how to get the % on there? Maybe I have to go deeper into the config settings?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Just change the bins live, move the throttle see where it goes and put bins where it makes sense.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Regretfully, I have thrown in the towel to make it to this show.  

No worries on your end, Paul. If the current tune just isn't going to work, then the only option is the MapDaddy or AlphaN. Working on it last night, I didn't have time to finish the AlphaN tune with live TPS inputs to the bins and test drive it. I would have to leave tomorrow afternoon. 

Anyway, I'll keep plugging away at it and see what luck comes in the next day. I do appreciate all the help and advice!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Honestly crank ego to 50% and go for it.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Honestly crank ego to 50% and go for it.


 Say what now? 

Crank the EGO "controller authority" or "step size" to 50% - :laugh: ? 

I hadn't tried that, but I can!. My Target AFR table is kinda estimated, but with 50% correction, I don't think it'd matter.. haha!


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

Authority, leave the step size at a reasonable amount.


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> My Target AFR table is kinda estimated, but with 50% correction, I don't think it'd matter.. haha!


 definitely wont with that much authority! 

whatever you can do to get it closer beforehand would help, but if you take it easy on the drive over it oughta be fine...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Yep you can even get slick and leave autotune all the whole time and watch the tune change as you go.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> definitely wont with that much authority!
> 
> whatever you can do to get it closer beforehand would help, but if you take it easy on the drive over it oughta be fine...


 The problem wasn't taking it easy, but that the car wouldn't rev past 3K without bucking and hesitating, so I'd shift down or feather the gas to keep up momentum up the hills. But, at less than 20mph, it was just dangerous to be on the roads. Of course, that was before having the EGO correction on with the target AFR table. I suppose a drive with Autotune the whole way would do the trick. I wonder if I was able to get rough TPS load measures for the VE table and let Autotune have its way, if that would yield better results as well? :screwy:


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

*Update >*

Hey all,

Just thought I'd update this thread. I purchased and installed the MapDaddy on Tuesday, triple-checked the continuity in my solder joints, and installed the ECU yesterday.

Result:

Followed the changes on the DIY site (per my HR10 code), all seemed to be fine. Prayed and then cranked it over. Engine started and idled crappy (as it usually does without an ISV on ITB's). Let it warm up and gave it a few revs > bounced off of full lean each time from idle. Well, this wasn't encouraging. I decided to check all the settings in the tune while it idled. Put it in reverse and it bogged like a mofo with any load. Could get it to move, giving it some revs in first and taking off > bogged again until it got some momentum. I noted there HAD to be something off. Pulled it back in the driveway.

Went through the project settings in TS (TunerStudio) and YEP, for some reason, the MPXH6400A – MPXH6400 – 400 kPa change did not hold in the Project itself, it was still reading the old sensor. Quickly changed that and reset the MS.

Turned the key on and a comparative chart came up with 15 differences. Apparently, the new Map sensor decided it wanted to change a few things. Namely, the map range in the y-axis of the tables and a few other parts that I never had selected anyway (given my setup). After nervously sitting there for a few minutes, I accepted the changes.

Started the car, surprisingly it idled better, didn't lean out when I revved it - so that was fixed! YEAH. Now to test drive. Running through 1st gear up and once into 3Krpm under slight load - bogging and lean - AGAIN! I continued my drive and each time, there was a dead spot around that range and there wasn't quite the power it had at sea level. Otherwise, I actually could get up the hill and to speed, if I didn't "smash" on the throttle too hard in that RPM range.

Verdict:

It runs slightly better, but not enough to justify the $70 (so far).  Now, I may be missing something in the setup (or screwed it up by accepting the project changes) or need to update the Map range in those tables, but it *should* have been working better than this. I'm about ready to just say "screw it" and go AlphaN.. or put it on Autotune and let it go. I'm going to go out and make a new log with this setup and maybe post it here for the guru's to peruse. Otherwise any suggestions from those who have used the MapDaddy?


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

maybe its already come up, but how are you sampling the MAP?

i ran into an issue recently dynoing this car









that led us to add a welding tip into the map signal line (this is after using the existing toyota MAP sampling manifold that sort of blends all 4 cylinders through small-ish orifices already)
he was getting enough MAP noise at high rpms to jump all over the map and cause stumbles in those areas.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> maybe its already come up, but how are you sampling the MAP?
> 
> i ran into an issue recently dynoing this car
> 
> ...


I've actually watched the updates of that car on the SpitfireEFI site. Ethan actually setup this tune while I was in Portland in early June and the car would seriously rip. I'm supposed to send him pictures for the site, but haven't gotten the damn running issue sorted! So, I'm not sure why, in altitude, I'm having such a hard time when I've been chipping at all the ways to remedy it. 

I sample the Map signal off of the vacuum line going to the brake booster IE: four nipples - four equal length pieces of vacuum tubing - to four 1/8 nipples in a 12x1" diameter steel pipe (vacuum storage) - that then has a 5/8" tube going to the brake booster. About 8" before the brake booster, I have the Map signal T'd in. Its basically the same principle as Frechem's. At sea level, I didn't seem to have any issue in that rev area. 

What size welding tip did you use?


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> What size welding tip did you use?


I used a .035" tip about .250" in length.


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> I've actually watched the updates of that car on the SpitfireEFI site. Ethan actually setup this tune while I was in Portland in early June and the car would seriously rip. I'm supposed to send him pictures for the site, but haven't gotten the damn running issue sorted! So, I'm not sure why, in altitude, I'm having such a hard time when I've been chipping at all the ways to remedy it.
> 
> I sample the Map signal off of the vacuum line going to the brake booster IE: four nipples - four equal length pieces of vacuum tubing - to four 1/8 nipples in a 12x1" diameter steel pipe (vacuum storage) - that then has a 5/8" tube going to the brake booster. About 8" before the brake booster, I have the Map signal T'd in. Its basically the same principle as Frechem's. At sea level, I didn't seem to have any issue in that rev area.
> 
> What size welding tip did you use?


awesome, yeah i seem to remember ethan calling about a tune on an itb 16v. definitely send some pics over when you get it sorted :beer:

the tip we used was either 35 or 38.... whatever the dyno guy tossed us when we said we wanted to try it. i forget exactly but either will be sure to give you smoother results than what youre seeing.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

frechem said:


> I used a .035" tip about .250" in length.


Thank your sir, I'll see if I can track one down!



ValveCoverGasket said:


> awesome, yeah i seem to remember ethan calling about a tune on an itb 16v. definitely send some pics over when you get it sorted
> 
> the tip we used was either 35 or 38.... whatever the dyno guy tossed us when we said we wanted to try it. i forget exactly but either will be sure to give you smoother results than what youre seeing.


^ Yeah, I'm working on getting her all cleaned up from the dust its been subject to in the garage, then hopefully I can get some good shots. Ethan did a bang-up job, just wish I would have known about this altitude poop before, so I could have installed the MapDaddy and sorted this out! I'll try the welding tip as it can't hurt!

Thanks again for the insight, fellas!


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Wow, this .035 welding tip is quite larger than I thought - like 1/4" in diameter! Not sure how this will go into a vacuum line, but maybe I can build some sort of reducer for it or shave it down. Looks like it might fit in the 5/16" hose to the booster, but this should probably be isolated in the direct Map line. ???

*** Nevermind - looks like it will fit perfectly (with some force) right after the T from the brake booster to the Map. Unless, I should put it right near the map sensor itself (inside the car)?? Not sure if this will solve the problem, but fingers crossed it helps.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

It can go anywhere in the map line. I have turned them down befpre but I usually just use force!


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> It can go anywhere in the map line. I have turned them down befpre but I usually just use force!



 I ended up forcing it inline in a inconspicuous spot, with little hassle.

1st) Checked that baro gauge and Map gauge in TS matched (to be sure the Map Daddy and sensor were working correctly) - ignition key on - engine off. They were within 1 point. 

2nd) Started car. Right off the bat I noticed the car idled differently and it was running a whole point richer than usual - odd I thought. Let is warm up a bit then gave it some revs - hmm, no dipping into the lean area - this is promising.

3) Took it our for a spin and noticed right away up to 3000 was good, into 2nd gear. Happily, I pushed the gas down to rapidly go up the hill into 3rd. As soon as I reached a certain load (again at just about 3500) - bogging and hesitation, and bouncing of the bottom of lean. DAMNIT!

I was able to get around better at this altitude, getting up to speed without going super lean, but not being able to put a moderate load on the engine in the 3000-3500 rpm region, really made it slow. Every time I would slowing accelerate and then mash it for load, the car would buck and hesitate.

Now I'm beginning to think its the map. However, it worked perfect at Sea Level, so I really have not idea. Next mission is to make some logs and then see if the VE Analyzer/autotune can help. Otherwise, I can't seem to wrap my head around why the issue with the hesitation and bogging under moderate-heavy load.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You did enable realtime baro in the software.. right?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Basic Settings > Engine Constants 1 > Barometric Correction - ON..... yep!

More settings > Barometric Correction > Constant Baro Correction set to - Extra Map fitted to X7 ..... yep!

I double and triple checked the settings to be sure. Unless there is something I missed or maybe a way I can check its working, I'm not sure where else to look.


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

*FV-QR*

I just installed my mapdaddy and I am having the same issues. The car runs like butt.

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

Tune, settings or just go Alpha-n.


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

ps2375 said:


> Tune, settings or just go Alpha-n.


OK would you mind looking at my msq and log for me then?

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/29118310/map_daddy-tweaked.msq

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/29118310/datalog201212291211.xls


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

I'm no expert, but when I pull out that laptop, I'll try and remember to look at your tune. But with the little time I spent tuning our 16V ITB motor, alpha-n definitely seemed more easily tuned.


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

frechem said:


> OK would you mind looking at my msq and log for me then?
> 
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/29118310/map_daddy-tweaked.msq
> 
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/29118310/datalog201212291211.xls


If this car is not boosted, VE and Spark tables need to be rescaled for no more than 100Kpa. And the msq came up configured fr a narrowband O2 sensor, if that is the case, get a wideband.


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

ps2375 said:


> If this car is not boosted, VE and Spark tables need to be rescaled for no more than 100Kpa. And the msq came up configured fr a narrowband O2 sensor, if that is the case, get a wideband.


OK I did change the VE and Spark range to coincide with my MAP reading of 100 with the key on. They did range from 100-45 but I thought that if the kpa was at 100 then the range should be rescaled accordingly. 

Also, I do have a wideband and I thought I was set for that. I will have to go in and correct that.

*Edit* I am seeing it set up for a wideband. Where are you seeing it set for a narrowband?


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

I opened the msq file in TS and that is what it came up with. Could just be a TS error.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Just bumping this up for Mike and I. 

This has been a frustrating endeavor and as I told Mike, I'm actually messing with creating an AlphaN tune based on my original map that ran well at 2500ft and under. The problem is, its a b*tch to switch Projects back and forth. I really wish there was a provision to swap projects without having to reformat it all each time. At the moment, I'm trying to have different projects open on two different laptops so I can compare when building the AlphaN tune. :screwy:


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

Screenshots of the project you're trying to mimic is the easiest way I've found.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> Screenshots of the project you're trying to mimic is the easiest way I've found.


Yep, that is what I've been doing. I'm a bit anal retentive though and fear screwing stuff up, so I've been systematically taking a screenshot of each section (already did the VE and Spark tables) and/or writing each down as I go.

Again, the Autotune has made some improvements, but it still has that dead spot at about 3300rpm and moderate throttle.... it can't seem to make a map signal over 84kpa.... like it plateaus and stalls out.

I also noticed that if I hold the gas down in nuetral, say at a steady rpm... 1200rpm for example. My foot doesn't move, neither does the TPS, but the rpm will fluctuate in a "hunting manner" and the AFR's are not steady, again fluctuating from 13.7 to 16.7/17 and back. Like its hunting to find the correct AFR. I can replicate it while driving too. Say I'm at 2500 in 3rd on a flat area, hold throttle and the AFR's will fluctuate and not stay steady - again, like its hunting. Now, I don't know if that is the EGO correction freaking out, but I have it set way low. 

AlphaN, you are looking like a welcome remedy. :facepalm:

If it wasn't so hard to switch back and forth, I'd just try it and see what happens - :thumbup:


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

when its hunting with steady inputs like that whats the EGO correction doing? and can you see it moving up/down some slope on the fuel map?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> when its hunting with steady inputs like that whats the EGO correction doing? and can you see it moving up/down some slope on the fuel map?


If you're asking if the ECU bounces between some (few) cells when viewing the VE table at that point - yes, it totally does. I've watched it do this in and out of Autotune as well. I can't say exactly what the EGO correction is doing (not sure where I'd look), but I've seen it bounce around in the AFR table for EGO correction, as well. I remember dialing the correction back to nothing (meaning off) and it still did this. It was doing this before I installed the MapDaddy (although it seemed much worse - bucking and sputtering while driving). This is also before I had an AFR table and EGO correction working too - again much worse. 

I can say though, when I had the car at 2500ft (before all this madness), its never did this. So, its definitely something with the altitude. I've tried to run through all the mechanical possibilities, but again, I'd assume they would have affected the car at low altitudes.

Still waiting to see what Mike is doing too - funny thing is we are both running HR-10 code and I can't help but wonder about that. :sly:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I just sent him an alpha-n msq to try out.


----------



## ValveCoverGasket (Mar 20, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> If you're asking if the ECU bounces between some (few) cells when viewing the VE table at that point - yes, it totally does. I've watched it do this in and out of Autotune as well.


and the map reading is steady as well - i know you said the tps was...


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

ValveCoverGasket said:


> and the map reading is steady as well - i know you said the tps was...


Indeed it is, and does seem to be a bit richer and more solid with the welding rod in the end.



need_a_VR6 said:


> I just sent him an alpha-n msq to try out.


Might you have time to send it to me, Sir? :wave:

I'd love to have a look and see how it works. I have sent you an email as well.

Thanks guys for all the help!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I tweak yours, send pls.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

@Frechem - Any word if AlphaN has worked for you? I sent Paul my MSQ to see if his magic can show some changes on my end. Hoping to see some good results!


----------



## frechem (Oct 19, 2002)

Dubrunner said:


> @Frechem - Any word if AlphaN has worked for you? I sent Paul my MSQ to see if his magic can show some changes on my end. Hoping to see some good results!


Not yet. I loaded and the car did fire up but it was REAL rough. I managed to make a little log for Paul so I am waiting to get a new tweaked msq.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Well, at least it fired! 

Keep us posted, I'm hoping mine doesn't turn out too badly either as I've heard horror stories of irregular TPS signals having a hayday with AlphaN tunes. I guess it can't be any worse than a weird Map signal reading and not working at altitude. :screwy:

Thanks AGAIN to Paul and the other masters!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Sent Mike another tweak, we'll see. Lots of TPS range though... :laugh:


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

> need_a_VR6
> Sent Mike another tweak, we'll see. Lots of TPS range though...


Awesome - I'm interested to see how it goes! I hope mine is not as complicated, Paul, as I have quite a TPS range on mine too..


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Yours is quite a bit smaller... I had an issue with yours, did you get my email?


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

> need_a_VR6
> Yours is quite a bit smaller... I had an issue with yours, did you get my email?


Actually, no email in my box! I checked the Spam too, just in case. Could you try sending it again? 
Thank you Sir!


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Paul,

Interesting discovery I stumbled upon last night after thinking about your comments for my low TPS range - 18L - 169H. It looks like many people are having problems with Toyota TPS signals and this could be what I'm seeing for such a small range. Would make it quite difficult to tune for AlphaN like that, I imagine. I've heard that grounding the TPS directly to the MS ground (on the engine to the ECU) and then grounding all others in (IAT, CLT, Hall etc) on their own ground, is the way to go. Mine all go to the same spot on the head, but in two separate ring connectors. The TPS is on one ring connector and the MS is on another connector with a harness ground, but they all "touch" each other. Could this be sending interference and causing the low range? OR, might this be in the adjustment of the TPS sensor itself? I checked the values against the TPS manufacture manual when setting it up initially and it seemed okay. However, it "could" be worn out enough that its just not giving the amount of volts needed. ??


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Check the actual voltage at the tps pin with it open and closed. Also make sure you get a good 5v at the supply as well.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Check the actual voltage at the tps pin with it open and closed. Also make sure you get a good 5v at the supply as well.


So, I had some time to check a few things.

First, as an obsessive person, I redid the grounds and physically made the TPS and Hall grounds connect directly to the MS ground wire with a new ring terminal. I don't think it changed anything, but I fixed a few things with the wiring cover that were nagging me anyway.

Next, I tested the voltage, with key on, to see if I received 5 volts at the TPS. Yep, a solid 5v. I have not tested the wide open or closed voltage, however, as I moved to the TPS OEM resistance settings.

I tested the TPS positioning with my multimeter and the book, to be sure it was in spec. Admittedly, the Designer in me took over when completing the hidden wiring over two years ago, in light of keeping the engine looking, smooth. In this way, the awkward angle of the Toyota TPS would just not do (it actually points to the sky and the plug is on the top, showing the wires). So, I turned it 180˚ seeing that it sat close to the same. I tested the resistance output and it seemed to be "just" in the range at WOT. Even though I had the car running before the below build, this is very well illustrated below:

*Pictures and thread courtesy of *VWn00b* - (I can remove them if he likes)

Thread of his build

In particular, his TPS discussion toward the bottom of the page



















So, you can see how the TPS fits upside down, but needs to be in slight tension to fit the holes. This seems to be all fine and dandy as MS will just be sure the sweep is 0-100 when calibrated. I measured the resistance at 1.5 kohms at WOT, "just in the holes" as in that pic. However, this is not in the accepted range according to the Toyota book as the range should be between (1.8-11.5 kohms) at WOT. AND, there is only one direction of adjustment as being flipped, its set at the very end of the holes (as in the above pic), so I can't let off tension and keep it mounted. 

Now it get's interesting. I decided to flip the TPS over to its OEM position to see what I could measure - essentially, flipped vertically and centered in the holes. I then measured WOT at nearly 4 kohms between the same terminals (for WOT) - which puts it directly in the WOT range for Toyota. AND, this is quite a bit more range for the sweeper to show resistance, than in the other direction. So, there does seem to be a possibility of a problem turning the TPS upside down. Would this cause the small ADC range in MS or not, that is the question. ? My gut tells me it would and that I'll need to extend my TPS wires to test if MS gives me a larger range.

Again, I never had problems with stumbling or hesitation at sudden, moderate-hard 3/4 throttle before I brought the car to higher altitudes, so if my TPS was somehow not reading a full range, I don't see why I'd have hesitation/bucking at higher altitudes now (logic would say). I was using Map and RPM anyway. BUT, the fact that NeedaVR6 noticed such low ADC ranges (18closed -169WOT) when trying to revamp my tune to AlphaN, I'm thinking there is an obvious correlation between having the TPS flipped and the low resistance readings at WOT. But, is that enough to cause issues with a Map and RPM tune? Its definitely doesn't bode well for an AlphaN tune.  

Input?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm running GSX-R throttles on my1.8 16v..

TP ADC 49 at idle, 208 WOT, I don't think low ADC range is a big problem, but it is very important to have always the same ADC reading at certain throttle position, specialy at idle and small throttle openings.


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

> *[email protected]*
> I'm running GSX-R throttles on my1.8 16v..
> 
> TP ADC 49 at idle, 208 WOT, I don't think low ADC range is a big problem, but it is very important to have always the same ADC reading at certain throttle position, specialy at idle and small throttle openings.


Are you running AlphaN or using MAP in your tune? Having a larger range for AlphaN would seem to produce a smoother tune as axis are limited by the number of cells... ?

So, I may put the TPS back upside down and run tests for voltage at closed and WOT, to see what those read and if its consistent in the TunerStudio. If I can get away with it being upside down and preserving the look, that would be great. However, if I need the higher range and a longer sweep of the potentiometer, I may need to mount the TPS normally.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm running alpha-N.

159 TP ADC between idle and wot is enough, as 1 ADC = 0,5° on throttle.

smoothnes is limited by 12x12 table, you can have more TP ADC resolution, but MS interpolates lineary from VE table...


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> I'm running alpha-N.
> 
> 159 TP ADC between idle and wot is enough, as 1 ADC = 0,5° on throttle.


^ Yep, this is nearly my range as well (151 ADC), so not too much difference, at least not enough to be causing issues.



> smoothnes is limited by 12x12 table, you can have more TP ADC resolution, but MS interpolates lineary from VE table...


^ This is what I was getting at when mentioning the limited 12 cells per axis. But really, 12x12 is all it has to work with, so I guess I'll put it back to the way it was and recalibrate.

I'll see if *need_a_VR6* can send me a few details on the trouble he had with converting my MAP tune to AlphaN. 

Interesting stuff, even if a bit annoying as all I'd really like is it to work well wherever I drive. :thumbup:


----------



## Dubrunner (Nov 8, 2000)

Just a bit of an update here. I put the TPS upside down again (as above) and left it "just" in the holes. I then measured voltage from closed to wide open throttle.

Closed - .35volts
WOT - 3.74 volts (and she would give no more).

Now, doing a little research, the most a TPS will output is about 4.5-4.8 volts. So, I'm not sure if I'm in the ballpark or not. It does seem to advance in voltage rather smoothly when moved through the range. So, I'm thinking my TPS is okay, albeit a lower ADC range as I'm not even over 200. I may try calibrating to see if there is any difference now that I shuffled things.

*need_a_VR6* - Paul, if you have time, have a look at your email and let me know where you had trouble with converting my tune to AlphaN and I will look at other aspects. Until then, I'm not sure which direction to go. Thanks!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Its in my inbox staring at me. I will try and convert it in the morning.


----------

