Experienced Haltech but New to UpRev

windex

I figured I'd just do a new log and attach. Still no modifications.

Attached Files

cipher log.txt (16.6 KB, 37 views)

Unclemeaty

Looks pretty much similar to mine. Perhaps my elevation may be a little higher than you, or maybe I need to change my stock air filters, because you have several hundred more RPMs worth of the MAF sensor at maximum. Thats assuming our sensors are equal, but you could be making more power than I in stock form.

I've only really just started evaluating changes to make with maps, but...

AT YOUR OWN RISK!

1.

10.2:1 is pretty rich indeed. You may consider tuning this number at your own risk. 12.5:1 is about the leanest at WOT I've seen posted around here.

2.

Your scheduled fuel injected is about ~21.5. I could suggest looking at your ignition map while real time tuning (RTT) in Cipher to see if it is running off the map. Adjustment for this is under FUEL. The stock number is 19.92ish. You could raise that to 21-22.

Your timing looks pretty good at ~27 BTDC. I dont know what the limits are to this yet which is why I'm thinking of making a knock sensor amplifier.

xsnapshot

Ive been doing some searching and I can't seem to find a consensus. Do the stock wideband sensors read the same as aftermarket widebands? Have you been having good luck with the stocks sensors? It seems crazy that Nissan would program in air fuel ratios as rich as 11.0:1 at WOT. Although I guess Subaru programs in ratio's as rich as 9.8:1 on some turbo models. (nuts huh?)

Unclemeaty

The stock Fuel Target map I feel has more than a few problems with it. First of all, the axis scale runs very high: up to 26.7. The scale is adjustable like most of the other maps, I felt leaving the scale alone for this one was just fine. In stock form, the ECU targets 14.7:1 AF at WOT until ~3600 rpm. I can see at cruising, but at WOT, 14.7:1 is a little lean likely for fuel economy purposes. I'm starting to fuel this down a bit richer and can actually tell my lower RPM pulls seem be strengthening below 4000 rpm. Also reflective of the fuel target map, the ignition timing map at WOT below 3500 RPM may be conservative for efficiency as well.

I'm sure Nissan did all this for emissions, fuel economy, and a less touchy throttle. In modifying the areas of fuel targets and consumption maps I can already tell improvement in high throttle operation below 4000 RPMs.

Unclemeaty

I'd say its as acurate as a manufactored sensor can be. I'm sure Nissan wanted to keep it very safe as well as environmentally healthy. Here is what the stock fuel target map tries to push for.



The ECU only runs down the map at at ~20 BFS at WOT.

xsnapshot

An interesting thread
Osiris ROM files - General Tuning Questions - MY350Z.COM Forums

Kind of weird how the tables are setup in my opinion. Good call on richening it up down low though. That fueling table looks weird though. Seems like having the last two BFS cells so close together kind of defeats the opportunity for increased resolution.

How do you like the user-interface meaty? Compared to the haltech?

Unclemeaty

Wow you are right I didnt even notice that... This is why having a few eyes look at these things is very important. All the other charts are basically linear. I'll have to look into that chart a little deeper now. I'll probably lower the second to last column heading down to about ~23. This table is supposedly just a guide though so I also raised the fuel in the main consumption maps.

UpRev is pretty good. Of course there are dozens of features lacking, like a full standalone can have multiple conditional input and output settings, finer resolution on injectors, better fulfillment of all parameters, and much better real-time tuning with a standalone. Sometimes its a little annoying having to alwas reflash the ECU with UpRev. UpRev to me feels like a standalone but really could use more work to come fully to that point. What it does right now is likely enough for any application however so it really is a nice mod/tool. It is easier to use than Haltech, which was the toughest Standalone I had experiance with. Haltech e6k had about 16 different fuel maps, each at every 500 rpm. it was hard to use because it was DOS based and didnt have the ability to spread maps out onto a '3d' chart. UpRev is actually very similar in difficulty to Microtech standalones which were probably my personal favorite in the RX7 world.

Unclemeaty

Heres the documentation and link from UpRev on how to make a head-phone human detectable knock sensor. The diagram is insanely easy to follow and the device even operates in stereo feeding input from Bank 1 and 2 knock sensors.

http://www.uprev.com/documentation/K...n%20Device.pdf

I going to build something like this using my Radioshack Mini Amplifier since I've alreay got it and a boat load of electronics. The mini amp also has headphone out in case I want to complete it into what UpRev posted in the above link, but the downside is I can only monitor one sensor bank at a time. The upside is this mini-amp has an incredible gain for a very high amplitude. This RS mini-amp is test equipment compared to the FIIO 5 posted in upRev. I'd think it might work better than the FIIO 5.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2062620

xsnapshot

So today I was reading how the Nismo is rated at a higher power level than the base Z. Given the re calibrated ECU and exhaust work done this makes sense.

What I'm wondering is, if there really was ECU tweaking done, then can we see what these changes were with uprev? And do any of these changes involve changed VVEL parameters? Considering that Nissan themselves says the electronics have been tweaked, its safe to say something must be different.

Comparing the Nismo vs base
Situation 1: No changes can be found in Uprev, meaning hidden tables or changes in VVEL yielding the power. If it is the VVEL that's helping make this power, then that is good news and bad news. Bad news that we can't modify it yet, good news that changing the VVEL DOES make power.

Situation 2: Changes are found in Uprev. These could help us understand where the base 370z could be altered with respect to the ECU to best make gains. Professional tuners probably already know this from sheer volume of tuning, but it's unlikely they will spill the details as that is there intellectual property. Mainly I'm curious how they accounted for the higher volumetric efficiency with respect to ignition advance. Fueling is easier to get right IMO.

Unclemeaty

Folks,

Before installing the RadioShack Mini-amp, I took it apart and put a 10uF capacitor in-line with the input's center. This removes the MiniAmp from interfering with the Engine's sensor, as itself being such a simplt electronic can be known to produce it's own variances on the input terminals. Installing the CAP places a buffer between the ECU and the Mini-Amp.

The response from the Mini-Amp is exceptional. I can hear all sorts of engine noise from the valve-train to the shifter. The mini-amp sounds like a mild diesel engine when amplified all the way; at idle. it is very clear and clean (my valves seem to be very quiet and well adjusted matter of fact.) The noise coming from it's internal speaker is just about enough, but headphones are recommended for better loudness and clarity. The Mini-amp's gain is enough volume to blow your ears out using headphones so be carefull.

The sound of ping/detonation can be heard in the form of what I can describe as a "tweety bird", up around 10,000hz. The noise is in-audible just from listening to the engine, but the sensor/mini-amp surely picks it up out of any other sound.

I began performing my first few runs at road tuning with a help of a friend who drove while I worked the maps using Cipher real-time tuning. With A/F focusing at about 12.6:1... One thing is for sure, the timing maps do have some headroom. At RPMs greater than 6000, I heard pinging with the timing Low Det maps set close to 70. The max I was able to put the timing at WOT was about 67 from 6-7500 which created a condition of 27 degrees BTDC. From 5-6000 the timing_low_det map was able to be more advanced, where I left the settings at +-70 and heard NO Pinging. I didnt further advance beyond about 71-72 at this point in this area just because I didnt care to as already the values I'd changed would have made about a 3-7 degree timing difference.

The biggest areas of improvement were in the 2-3000 rpm range during this last seating. Likely because I'd already been messaging the timing and fuel maps at high RPM under my own datalogs and pulls. I immediately noticed that at +-3000 rpm at WOT, the A/F was running far too lean. With the fuel_target set to 13.2 in this area, I actually logged the ECU/engine hitting 15:1 at about +-3,000 RPM signifying a lean condition. The RS Mini-amp also "tweeted" (sounds of pinging). This can be likely blamed and attributed to Nissan and Emissions concerns, EPA and MPG. I raised the calculated load maps from ~19.7 to ~20.1 in the 2500-4000 area and then ran about 3-4 test pulls each in 2nd and 3rd gear and got the A/F where I wanted them (about <13.5:1 from 2500-4000 rpm). I had to make several point adjustments in the main consumption maps, but no more than about 2-3 points in changes. The car feel very good at WOT in this area now, whereas before it was way too lean for my liking (15:1), pinging, and not 100% smooth. Its smooth now.

In all, I'm very happy with my street tune. My butt-dyno approves too as it can feel the best difference in the 2-4000 area. Combined with log-tuning from the past week or so I believe the car is running stronger than ever. I'm gonna let this map settle so the ECU can learn just a bit before I go to the Dyno this coming Thursday for the benchmark of my tuning rewards.

Unclemeaty

After giving the car about ~50 miles or so to settle and re-learn itself, I have to say that the ~3000 rpm area feels great but still might need a little work. Its strong and smooth at WOT, but lower throttle the engine still has a slight hesitance. Its still better than before today's earlier tune, but I think i should give it just a little bit more tuning seat time. Specifically partial throttles between 2000 and 4000 RPMs is where I think it may be running just a tad lean for ecconomy. In this area, I want to see ~14.5:1 up to half throttle, ~14.0:1 from half to 3/4 throttle, and then ~13.75 at WOT from. The lean limit for this will be at 2000 rpm, and I want about .25 richer than 2000rpm at 4000rpm. That should make ~13.5 at 75% throttle at 4,000 rpm. ~13.2 at 100% throttle at 4000 rpm also.


*Warning - A lot of these figures are basically just my personal preference. Dont go and blow yo motor!

serturbo

Good info. Can't wait to see your results. What were your pre-tune dyno numbers?

Unclemeaty

Here is my frist-ever dyno done in STOCK form. The dyno is a DynoJet, and is about 12 years old. I call it the "happy" dyno as I always leave there with a smile with all my cars

The delta difference is where I'm going to be very keen and interested in knowing, seeing as this dyno sheet is a lot of power in stock form from what most people post.

This dyno had SAE correction enabled. The pull was done on 12/02/2010.

Stock Dyno Results:

Unclemeaty

This morning I did several half and 3/4 throttle pulls from 2-4000 RPMs and was able to determine several small spots needing tuning attention; mainly lean (15:1) spots and mild 'efficiency' pings. I got most throttle possitions above 1/3 throttle at this point to be smooth and around 14.3:1 at the leanest condition. 14:1 average. It feels better; again.

Every time I spend time tuning this engine, it only gets better. Though I expect partial throttle to not be shown on the next dyno sheet, I do have to say the car is a LOT tougher in the ~3000 rpm area, and all areas of thr RPM range feel better.


I might be persuaded to post some of my tuning maps as guides on this thread... I want to have proof with a dynosheet first though. PM me if you want to trade any maps.

Unclemeaty

I found out two great things tonight. One of which I must place my forehead firmly against the palm of my hand while grinning stupidly. My air-filters are original equipment with original miles on them; they need to be replaced... but instead of pumping any money into replacement filters, my intention is to get a full CAI. Tonight when I checked my stock filters, I found 2 large brown leaves stuck in front of one filter, and one larger brown leave stuck in front of the other! The engine actually sucked them up into the airbox where the stock filters had them likely blocking airflow. I have not much idea how long they were sitting there for... Am glad I found them, but now I gotta do a few more high-RPM pulls to see if my latest street tune is still acurate. I feel like a dummy!!! Yet I'm happy I might get more outa this motor in stock form. I'm thinking even if the leaves were closing off 5% of the possible airflow then there would be a positive result to come from their removal.

The second thing I noticed is really very important. While running hard, the Radio Shack Mini-Amp will 'tweet' when there is pinging, but if it only tweets for the briefest of moments its sort of tough to discern. When there is pinging present, I notice the Cipher trace on the timing maps takes a 1 block step to the left. My best resolve is the ECU is more in tune with itself than I am with the Mini-Amp, for even the slightest degree is noticed by the ECU and not through the amp. Although this could be because I'm only monitoring knock from bank 1, the engine is retarding both scheduled fuel, ignition, and probably throttle to some degree as well. I was able to stabilize the timing trace by adding 1-2 ticks of fuel, and subtracting 1 point of the Timing_Low_Det map. From 6500-7500 RPM my engine likes ~67-68 on the timing maps and 12.3:1 AFR. That gives me +-27 degrees of timing advance.

So, if you are road tuning, it is very important if you see the timing trace step left while running her up, this is likely indicative of engine ping and the ECU is pulling back.