Set AFR or raise VE for Power Vision with Target Tune??
#1
Set AFR or raise VE for Power Vision with Target Tune??
Logged some minor knock retard events on some area of my map according to MegalogviewerHD. I prefer to add a bit more fuel on the problem area and re test before resorting to timing reduction of the knocking area.
The question is, when using Target Tune should I add some VE to the area where I want to add fuel or just simply change the target AFR/lambda on the knocking area?
I understand that adding VE is the way to go for basic narrow band version of AT when you want to add more fuel to certain area VS Target Tune which is working in different way by using VE just for basic calculation accuracy (less correction by WB sensors if the VE are spot on) with the actual AFR/Lambda fully rellying on WB sensors feedback (full closed loop) therefore adding VE on Target Tune strategy will not add any actual fuel.
So with Target Tune I will need to just change the target AFR/Lambda instead of adding VE to the knocking areas?
Am I assuming correct?
The question is, when using Target Tune should I add some VE to the area where I want to add fuel or just simply change the target AFR/lambda on the knocking area?
I understand that adding VE is the way to go for basic narrow band version of AT when you want to add more fuel to certain area VS Target Tune which is working in different way by using VE just for basic calculation accuracy (less correction by WB sensors if the VE are spot on) with the actual AFR/Lambda fully rellying on WB sensors feedback (full closed loop) therefore adding VE on Target Tune strategy will not add any actual fuel.
So with Target Tune I will need to just change the target AFR/Lambda instead of adding VE to the knocking areas?
Am I assuming correct?
Last edited by uwiik; 06-16-2018 at 03:11 AM.
#2
Volumetric efficiency?
Is not the size of the lung the size of the lung? (and that metric that fills it? )
Unless I am out in the park here to change the VE is not like adding a gadget, or I would be right out there in the shop right now!
If you are running lean then you have to fatten it up.
Is not the size of the lung the size of the lung? (and that metric that fills it? )
Unless I am out in the park here to change the VE is not like adding a gadget, or I would be right out there in the shop right now!
If you are running lean then you have to fatten it up.
#3
Volumetric efficiency?
Is not the size of the lung the size of the lung? (and that metric that fills it? )
Unless I am out in the park here to change the VE is not like adding a gadget, or I would be right out there in the shop right now!
If you are running lean then you have to fatten it up.
Is not the size of the lung the size of the lung? (and that metric that fills it? )
Unless I am out in the park here to change the VE is not like adding a gadget, or I would be right out there in the shop right now!
If you are running lean then you have to fatten it up.
#4
#5
I understand that adding VE is the way to go for basic narrow band version of AT when you want to add more fuel to certain area VS Target Tune which is working in different way by using VE just for basic calculation accuracy (less correction by WB sensors if the VE are spot on) with the actual AFR/Lambda fully rellying on WB sensors feedback (full closed loop) therefore adding VE on Target Tune strategy will not add any actual fuel.
So with Target Tune I will need to just change the target AFR/Lambda instead of adding VE to the knocking areas?
Am I assuming correct?
Let's keep this simple. If you want to run an area richer. You target a richer AFR in that area.
The following 2 users liked this post by hrdtail78:
GROOVY1975 (02-13-2024),
Ronbo1 (11-14-2019)
#6
Target tune works the exacted way as narrow band sensors. Dyno jet or Fuel Moto did not change anything in the calibration no matter what has been said. They are both going to center trims around the target AFR. So, if you want to add fuel. It needs to be done with target. Adding in VE is fighting the ECM if that area of the VE table is going to be ran in closed loop.
Let's keep this simple. If you want to run an area richer. You target a richer AFR in that area.
Let's keep this simple. If you want to run an area richer. You target a richer AFR in that area.
#7
If you just added to the VE table, and didn't change the corresponding a/f ratio table, when you auto tune, (or when riding with target tune) it will try to correct to the a/f ratio that is set in the table. You could always disable the closed loop in winpv, and see what it does on the log by just raising the VE table.
My experience on MY bike with target tune is that it always seems to be on the rich side of the target ratio. When I tuned the WOT, I had to disable closed loop and manually set the VE tables to get a flat line.
I would also comment that with it just pulling that small amount (less than one degree) of timing, environment, weather, wind, hills, can be the difference in it pulling or not pulling timing between rides. I'd probably just pull half what your logs show and retest. There is just no way it's possible to notice a degree or two of timing when riding at part throttle.
My experience on MY bike with target tune is that it always seems to be on the rich side of the target ratio. When I tuned the WOT, I had to disable closed loop and manually set the VE tables to get a flat line.
I would also comment that with it just pulling that small amount (less than one degree) of timing, environment, weather, wind, hills, can be the difference in it pulling or not pulling timing between rides. I'd probably just pull half what your logs show and retest. There is just no way it's possible to notice a degree or two of timing when riding at part throttle.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post