Idle afr issues and knowledge needed

[bgbmxer]

88 lancer 2.2 5 speed. Forged bottom end stock head, 2 piece intake, super 60 turbo,2.5" straight thru exhaust, 3bar map +40s on a socketed smec with ostrich.

My issue is idle tuning mainly. I have many questions but mainly i need the car to idle richer ideally. At 14.7/15ish it idles rough and also pops here and there (not baro). I have tried adjusting the fuel from map baseline. I have messed with the pumping efficiency. But no matter what changes I make it seems as tho the computer will always revert back to the 14.7 afr. It idles way better at low 14afr to higher 13s with no popping or carrying on. The spark scatter seems to be varying the fuel/timing and raising the afr but it could also be other things I don't under or know about. I have been disconnecting the battery after every change to the tune as I'm told to clear the adaptives. Is this necessary? Do I need to change multiple tables to get the afr where I'd like it?

[cordes]

You'll need to adjust the target idle AFR, or it will keep chasing the 14:7 fluctuation it's setup for. I've found that if I'm not within the window it can adjust for, then it will run horribly at low vac/idle until I get the fuel dialed in there. Either too rich or too lean will cause that in my experience, though it's always a case of my base cal being too lean after my modifications.

Have you set the pumping efficiency table by comparing your anticipated AFR to the actual AFR by dragging the brakes and taking a reading once it settles down? Once you have that set right, you can adjust the fuel part throttle table. I really think you'll be chasing your tail by seeing that low of an AFR unless there is something up with your instrumentation.

I've been working on this with my Lancer Shelby quite a bit this summer. I think I'm on my 6th or so revision and it's running very well now. My injectors don't flow exactly what the drop down in the injector scaling section suggested, so balancing the pumping table with the fuel baseline from map, and fuel part throttle tables has been a little more of a journey than in the past. I think what I have is super close, but we'll see the next time I drive the car.

[bgbmxer]

You'll need to adjust the target idle AFR, or it will keep chasing the 14:7 fluctuation it's setup for. I've found that if I'm not within the window it can adjust for, then it will run horribly at low vac/idle until I get the fuel dialed in there. Either too rich or too lean will cause that in my experience, though it's always a case of my base cal being too lean after my modifications.

Have you set the pumping efficiency table by comparing your anticipated AFR to the actual AFR by dragging the brakes and taking a reading once it settles down? Once you have that set right, you can adjust the fuel part throttle table. I really think you'll be chasing your tail by seeing that low of an AFR unless there is something up with your instrumentation.

I've been working on this with my Lancer Shelby quite a bit this summer. I think I'm on my 6th or so revision and it's running very well now. My injectors don't flow exactly what the drop down in the injector scaling section suggested, so balancing the pumping table with the fuel baseline from map, and fuel part throttle tables has been a little more of a journey than in the past. I think what I have is super close, but we'll see the next time I drive the car.

How and where is the target afr adjusted? I have done a ton of pulls with the car under boost and adjusted the pumping efficiency till it was rock solid 11.5.

[cordes]

Pretty sure that's the O2 controller stuff. There was some discussion years ago in which I seem to remember Frank and Bucar making the oscillation smaller so that it was right at a target AFR while in part throttle. That was a decade or more ago I bet. I'm sure it's been discussed since, and I think there is an outline for how everything works in the .asm file comments. It's been a long time since I looked into any of this though.

[bgbmxer]

Pretty sure that's the O2 controller stuff. There was some discussion years ago in which I seem to remember Frank and Bucar making the oscillation smaller so that it was right at a target AFR while in part throttle. That was a decade or more ago I bet. I'm sure it's been discussed since, and I think there is an outline for how everything works in the .asm file comments. It's been a long time since I looked into any of this though.

Where are the asm file comments your referencing?

[cordes]

Where are the asm file comments your referencing?

It's in with all the folder you downloaded with the cal files. It'll be the .asm file which you can open with a text program. I looked in there on TSMEC, but couldn't seem to find the format for everything like I remembered. However, that seems to be the primary and secondary ramps section of MPTune. I would try a search on here to see if you can track down the older discussions regarding this.

[bgbmxer]

Yea reading everything I can but I'm over my head on alot of it. I don't know what to adjust on the 02 controller to richen it up slightly. Adjusting the pumping efficiency didn't make a difference. Adjusting the basefuel from map does but then at a certain point it goes off the deep end

[bgbmxer]

Yea reading everything I can but I'm over my head on alot of it. I don't know what to adjust on the 02 controller to richen it up slightly. Adjusting the pumping efficiency didn't make a difference. Adjusting the basefuel from map does but then at a certain point it goes off the deep end.

- - - Updated - - -

And my searching on here didn't produce anything that explains what to change on the 02 controller in which to richen idle up. Maybe I'm doing something wrong who knows

[cordes]

I generally search with google and do the "site:turbo-mopar.com" thing at the end. It is much better than the site's search engine.

[bgbmxer]

Bump. Still have yet to figure out what to change so that the computer doesn’t automatically target 14.7 afr at idle and part throttle. Does anyone have more information on what to adjust? Can anyone elaborate on the kick tables so that a newb can understand?

[cordes]

I've searched for it, but to no avail. I think the key is finding the discussion between Frank, and Bucar regarding the adjustment of the cells in the .asm file. That's how you can fine tune what the computer shoots for AFR wise during idle/cruise conditions.

[Shadow]

Bump. Still have yet to figure out what to change so that the computer doesn’t automatically target 14.7 afr at idle and part throttle. Does anyone have more information on what to adjust? Can anyone elaborate on the kick tables so that a newb can understand?

Just curious what cam etc you’re running to need this kind of manual correction.

We all know the S60 SMEC ignored o2 feedback for improved idle with the S60 cam, so that cal may be a good place to start

[bgbmxer]

Just curious what cam etc you’re running to need this kind of manual correction.

We all know the S60 SMEC ignored o2 feedback for improved idle with the S60 cam, so that cal may be a good place to start

one car is a stock cam and basically stock t2 top end. Other r5 cam lots of porting. Ignoring feedback isn’t my goal tho. I’d like to be able to tell it to target say 13.5 at part throttle and closer to 13.8 to 14.0 at idle. I have used nb2wb and the car idles better and also drives better when I put an offset in and lie to the stock computer. But I shouldn’t have to do that and when the wideband fails that’s a whole other issue. There has to be a way to tell the computer to target something other than 14.7. Just seems no one knows how to properly do it or that information has gotten lost.

- - - Updated - - -

I've searched for it, but to no avail. I think the key is finding the discussion between Frank, and Bucar regarding the adjustment of the cells in the .asm file. That's how you can fine tune what the computer shoots for AFR wise during idle/cruise conditions.

I believe I have found that discussion but it didn’t really delve into what exactly to adjust. It explained about the kicks somewhat but not in any detail to know which ones and or which way to adjust them either. If I have time I might just have to poke and hope but would be awesome if someone had more info to help

[jpcturbo]

I have used nb2wb and the car idles better and also drives better when I put an offset in and lie to the stock computer. But I shouldn’t have to do that and when the wideband fails that’s a whole other issue. There has to be a way to tell the computer to target something other than 14.7. Just seems no one knows how to properly do it or that information has gotten lost.

What if the stock O2 fails? It would be same deal as the wideband failing.
The reason nobody knows how to do it is in 2 parts. One, nobody has had to do it. Second the 14.7:1 AFR target is hardcoded. Rob L. was able to get around that with WB2NB feature. Kicks just adjust how much to add/remove fuel to reach 14.7.
You could try adding to the Injector Offset table as it affects idle more than anything else.
I don't see any need with your build for idle and cruise to need more fuel. Lots of people with similar combinations over the decades that idle/drive with stoich target. Don't compensate with added fuel if something is off there. Double check the MAP and cam/ignition timing. If you have a G head, maybe it just needs a bunch more timing.

Jeff

[bgbmxer]

What if the stock O2 fails? It would be same deal as the wideband failing.
The reason nobody knows how to do it is in 2 parts. One, nobody has had to do it. Second the 14.7:1 AFR target is hardcoded. Rob L. was able to get around that with WB2NB feature. Kicks just adjust how much to add/remove fuel to reach 14.7.
You could try adding to the Injector Offset table as it affects idle more than anything else.
I don't see any need with your build for idle and cruise to need more fuel. Lots of people with similar combinations over the decades that idle/drive with stoich target. Don't compensate with added fuel if something is off there. Double check the MAP and cam/ignition timing. If you have a G head, maybe it just needs a bunch more timing.

Jeff

you can adjust all kinds of things and the computer will take idle back to 14.7. I didn’t know it was hard coded but that makes sense and is unfortunate. Also LM doesn’t have the wb2nb so that doesn’t help
me currently with the one car. Point is that while using the nb2wb and programming an offset and making idle and part throttle richer makes it run better. I played with timing in the computer and physical ignition timing is on as well. The point is with the ethanol in fuels now stoich isn’t quite 14.7 anymore as well. Not a huge issue but I’m picky and was hoping for a better way to do than the wb2nb.

[jpcturbo]

The point is with the ethanol in fuels now stoich isn’t quite 14.7 anymore as well. Not a huge issue but I’m picky and was hoping for a better way to do than the wb2nb.

Is the high octane fuel in your area more than 10% ethanol? i.e. E10? That's a good point, if the local fuel has a ton of ethanol, then having an global afr adjustment may be useful.
I'll take a look at what can be done. But if you experiment with the Injector Offset table, let me know if that helps or not.

WB2NB on an LM is very hard to do due to how the raw O2 signal is processed. But this is how I adjusted the LM asm file to work with *my* wideband. http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/sh...=1#post1153292

Jeff

[bgbmxer]

Is the high octane fuel in your area more than 10% ethanol? i.e. E10? That's a good point, if the local fuel has a ton of ethanol, then having an global afr adjustment may be useful.
I'll take a look at what can be done. But if you experiment with the Injector Offset table, let me know if that helps or not.

WB2NB on an LM is very hard to do due to how the raw O2 signal is processed. But this is how I adjusted the LM asm file to work with *my* wideband. http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/sh...=1#post1153292

Jeff

I believe it’s minimum of 10% these days. I plan on going standalone on the one car just to run e85 on it because it’s so plentiful here.

looked at your posts in that tread. Code might as well be a different language to me unfortunately. Did it work how you intended?