Load capped at 160

[Nosrok]

I'm having issues with load going over 160. I increased the boost ceiling, using a rescaled map to 1.4 which should be about 27 psi but even when it was at 1.28 I was having the same issue.

What could I have missed?

Background info:
- Flex fuel tune, load targets set using load target per gear. 93 is mainly a daily tune, e85 was the party tune. Interpolation set to e60 max since that's where my lpfp starts to run out of flow up top.

Mods: Vargas GC 2.0, 3.5 bar map sensor, scaled using the 3 breakpoint table, double shotgun, bucketless 450, vrsf 7.5 hd, catless downpipes, 135i ijeos

 

[Jeffman]

Best to post a log. Datazap or using the Interactive Datalogs here on Spoolstreet, please.

 

[RSL]

I'm having issues with load going over 160. I increased the boost ceiling, using a rescaled map to 1.4 which should be about 27 psi but even when it was at 1.28 I was having the same issue.

What could I have missed?

Load by gear. If it's set, I'll assume you didn't start this tune and you might want to keep some reasonably safe limiter in place until you get a handle on it. If load by gear is set, you might end up with more than you expect after removing it if load/BLM are jacked and ceiling is raised.

 

[Nosrok]

Best to post a log. Datazap or using the Interactive Datalogs here on Spoolstreet, please.

Hide legend Reset zoom

 

[Nosrok]

Load by gear. If it's set, I'll assume you didn't start this tune and you might want to keep some reasonably safe limiter in place until you get a handle on it. If load by gear is set, you might end up with more than you expect after removing it if load/BLM are jacked and ceiling is raised.

I started with an oem ijeos bin and converted that to flex fuel. I have been using load target per gear and left 1.28 boost ceiling for safety reasons. Now that I wanted to play with a little more boost I'm running into a wall.
Can't tell if it's a map I forgot to scale or a ceiling/adder I haven't adjusted.

Updated 1st post with a little more info

 

[Jeffman]

I may be running into the same wall as you. I’m also self-tuned FlexFuel...curious if it’s something to do with the FlexFuel...?

 

[Nosrok]

@Jeffman are you manual?

 

[Jeffman]

@Jeffman are you manual?

Nope. 6HP21 AT

 

[RSL]

I haven't messed with FF, so not sure if there are any specific issues with it.

As far as the log/map go, PID isn't doing much for 3-5psi error below target, which is most likely what's keeping load actual down. Either get PID pushing more for that error size (and make sure ceiling gives room) or push up on base. Using primarily base and little PID is my preference, but may not be feasible on FF if boost needs to move up and down frequently by changing target only with no WGDC base offsets to go with it.

 

[Nosrok]

I targeted 200 load at one point just to see what would happen and had the same results, load would stay generally in the same range.


I assumed the load to torque table was an automatic transmission table but now I'm wondering if that's what causeing the capping effect. Because torque displayed appears to be very similar to the number in the L2T table

 

[RSL]

Torque actual wouldn't stop it. Boost target is tied to load request and boost is tied to load actual. If load generally stayed in the same area for 200 req, boost should have too. It would also mean even with larger error from target, PID still didn't do much.

Move boost up and load will follow. You're far below boost target and need to add WGDC. I saw the FF XDF has a blend for WGDC adder.

Are you on FF map now or just running a flat map to test with? If you're not FF right now, make adjustments in the main table. If you're on FF, I assume changes need to be directly in the blend table instead.

 

[Nosrok]

Yes I'm running FF now. Gotcha I'll test that out. Thanks

 

[Jeffman]

Torque actual wouldn't stop it. Boost target is tied to load request and boost is tied to load actual. If load generally stayed in the same area for 200 req, boost should have too. It would also mean even with larger error from target, PID still didn't do much.

Move boost up and load will follow. You're far below boost target and need to add WGDC. I saw the FF XDF has a blend for WGDC adder.

Are you on FF map now or just running a flat map to test with? If you're not FF right now, make adjustments in the main table. If you're on FF, I assume changes need to be directly in the blend table instead.

FYI: The FlexFuel XDF provides all the main tables you need for gasoline (e.g., 93 oct E10) and basic tables for (IIRC) AFR targets, Spool, Timing, and Load Target for E85 (or whatever you define as max ethanol for the interpolation), along with the interpolation curve to use as a function of percent ethanol that is monitored by the FlexFuel module.

I set mine up last year based on aggressive 93 octane and E60 bins I made for myself, but really have not had the chance to explore any detailed tuning with it. Hopefully soon!

 

[RSL]

FYI: The FlexFuel XDF provides all the main tables you need for gasoline (e.g., 93 oct E10) and basic tables for (IIRC) AFR targets, Spool, Timing, and Load Target for E85 (or whatever you define as max ethanol for the interpolation), along with the interpolation curve to use as a function of percent ethanol that is monitored by the FlexFuel module.

I set mine up last year based on aggressive 93 octane and E60 bins I made for myself, but really have not had the chance to explore any detailed tuning with it. Hopefully soon!

That was the first time I even glanced at the FF XDF. AFAIK, it takes a base/minimum tune and then uses the blend factors to increase things to the high E tune values from there, correct? I specifically just looked to see what they had for WGDC, but it's a slick setup. If I used E85 at all, I'd be all over it.

 

[Jeffman]

That was the first time I even glanced at the FF XDF. AFAIK, it takes a base/minimum tune and then uses the blend factors to increase things to the high E tune values from there, correct? I specifically just looked to see what they had for WGDC, but it's a slick setup. If I used E85 at all, I'd be all over it.

You sir are correct.

 

[P33P33]

I have sort of similar issue in a car I'm tuning. Boost is on target but load actual is much lower than load request. It's basically between 175-180. From the log can be seen that boost target is also pretty flat during WOT which might be the problem here. Maybe I'm hitting some limiter. Requested load can be anything above 175-180 but the actual load just stays there.
https://datazap.me/u/iceeura/log-1563995853?log=0&data=3-5-14-15-21
https://datazap.me/u/iceeura/log-1563996652?log=0&data=3-4-6-21&solo=5

Some info of the car:
Z4is DCT, ije0s_is
n20tmap with the generic 3-cell map conversion values. Boost ceilng is 1.28 because DCT.
In my calculations 24psi boost target is only like 15psi converted back to stock numbers so it's not hitting the 18,5psi boost limit (1.05 bar).
I believe @RSL had some bad experience couple years ago with ije0s_is. Any insight in this matter? And sorry if I'm hijacking the thread!

 

[RSL]

My biggest issue was mostly the ceiling problem/shifts. I had specifically switched to IJ for "race code" in ATR back then, which obviously didn't work with DCT and switched back to IN shortly after. When MBoost came out in MHD, same exact problem. I never scaled IJ.

If boost mean is close/on target, load actual isn't going much/any higher. Boost is essentially limiting how high load actual will go at that point, so you'd want to make adjustments to how load and boost relate. Scaling throws a ratio in there, in addition to anything else in the tune that effects load/boost relationship.

Boost target is flatlined for much of it in those logs. It could definitely be sitting on the ceiling limit, but target/actual can also stay pretty flat using only up to midrange of a big scale, so it's hard to tell. Might lower load, raise ceiling and work back up to see if it continues higher without the low ceiling in place.

 

[Nosrok]

I haven't messed with FF, so not sure if there are any specific issues with it.

As far as the log/map go, PID isn't doing much for 3-5psi error below target, which is most likely what's keeping load actual down. Either get PID pushing more for that error size (and make sure ceiling gives room) or push up on base. Using primarily base and little PID is my preference, but may not be feasible on FF if boost needs to move up and down frequently by changing target only with no WGDC base offsets to go with it.

You were spot on. I have been tweaking wgdc tables. It's much better now. Thanks for the help.