[MrsJones]

From day 1, on any WOT pull, the logs have displayed LAMBSE at .804 consistently. LOAD% is regularly reporting in the mid 140's under these conditions also. Being NA with low compression (8.7-9.0:1) I'm not overly concerned about the load number, but still, it's there.

I feel real sure I'm missing something in the tune that can/will alter both conditions. I'd like to see the load numbers drop off some but am more interested in being able to change the LAMBSE numbers to reflect something in the 12.5 AFR range. Being able to do this will be necessary for dialing in the tune with the WB. I'm simply lost as to what to adjust other than 1307. Please advise...

Here is my tune and a data log to review to whoever may be interested to help me out here.

[MrsJones]

I can see that a number of people have checked out my tune and datalog information. I really could use some advise/direction on where to continue the adjustment process.

Perhaps there is thread covering this but I have yet to find it. If anyone can point me to a link covering this I would be grateful for that also.

Thanks,

Larry

[SOAB_465]

I'm not sure about the A9L, but on the newer ECUs the 1307 is alternate base fuel. I do all my power enrichment in FN1362.

[cgrey8]

A9L doesn't have FN1362.
It optionally has FN1360 if you get hacked/modified bin which helps with fuel control.

[MrsJones]

Thanks for the reply but as cgrey8 said, I don't have FN1362 to work with.

A have been working with FN1307 for various adjustments for cold start to include early CL idle operations. I know that I can change some of the cells for high load conditions at the appropriate ECT levels. However, my logs already don't agree with the existing settings. That's where my confusion is coming from. Commanded OL WOT LAMBSE should be in the existing commanded .844 range but I'm only dataloging .804, and it's consistently that way. Consequently I'm reluctant to make any changes until I understand why these numbers don't agree. I suspect that a high LOAD% condition (145%) may be causing a richer than necessary mixture.

I just finished the install of a WB but don't have it set up to datalog in BE just yet. All the software is there and including the appropriate wiring but haven't set it up.

Thanks anyway,

Larry

[Paulie]

LAMBSE is reading .804 because FN1307 is being multiplied by FN303. Set all values in FN303 to 1 and LAMBSE will read the value in FN1307.
Your load and load% values are high because the maf transfer function airflow is too high. You cannot dial in the maf transfer function above about 2.5 volts without a wideband. Also the maf curve needs to be a curve. Yours has peaks and valleys at the lower values and needs to be smoothed.

[MrsJones]

Thanks Paulie.

I just finished the install of a WB and have already smoothed most of the lower end of my MAF curve. More logging is in the works.

Also, I just started working with a different version of GUFB that doesn't have the "FN" numbers associated with anything I have looked for, so far. The Search Dialog screen is present but can't find any of the references in alpha/numeric. I think I saw, some time ago, a document with those numbers and a description of their functions but can't remember where. Even the PID description boxes, in the lower right corner, doesn't have references of associated tables, scalers, etc. So, I'm on the hunt!

Thanks anyway,

Larry

[Paulie]

FN303 is WOT fuel multiplier vs RPM

[bad86capri]

Larry, i would encourage you to head over to efidynotuning.com and read Michael's write-ups on dialing in maf curve and load. Theres also a ton of info on his site about tuning in general. It helped me tremendously when i first got started. and it still helps me when i get stumped on something.

[bad86capri]

But as far as the load% numbers being high, if im not mistaken, if your load% is 1.40 then that means that your load curve is off by 40% and you need to make the correction in the load curve. Load% should be 1.00 +/- a couple percent throughout the WOT pull. Load should only really affect timing and not fuel. Someone correct me if im wrong on that.

[JuiceSC]

Took a stab at your tune bud. I applied a lot I have learned in the last month or so on taming idle. (putting my 91 up for sale, and that pushed me to finally fix my idle after 20 years!!)

This tune should run as good as yours, but it is going to need some tweaking.

Do you have actual data for your injectors? This is very important.
Do you have a flow sheet for your MAF? Not as important.
Make sure it is safe to make a wot pull, and tell me what the Wideband was reading and what was commanded LAMBDA. This needs to be set first with injector data and maf. Don't worry about idle or startup at this time.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, thank you for your help.

I will take a look at it and give it a try.

Since the WB install I've done some free rev logging and made some changes in the lower areas of my curve using the WB data. This process has helped a lot in smoothing the curve with more to come I'm sure. The TFS stage 2 cam seems to make it more difficult in the idle region.

Thanks again,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

I hope you got my last revision, as I just uploaded it as you grabbed it.

Check cranking injector pw, if it has been changed from stock, you got the last version.
If not, download it again.

My quick method of setting WOT AFR is: go full throttle at 2500 rpms long enough to get a WB reading. No need to rev it out at first. Again, to get that where it needs to be, injector data needs to be correct first, than you can tweak the maf over 2.5volts. Goal is to get the WB match your commanded lambda, not what you want WOT AFR to be. That is in the base fuel table, and stock for you at 12.3 is fine for now.

Idle is a mutha to get dialed in. Dont get frustrated, it is going to take time.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, that's really interesting!

I'm anxious to give it try, probably tomorrow. I will provide some feedback. You are a couple steps ahead of me as I see some areas where I was about to make similar changes. Hard to pull a trigger in areas you don't understand.

So you know, I converted my 9 point MAF cal to 30 points and compared it to the PRO-M 30 as listed in EA. It seemed to match near perfect. Also, all the curves, PRO-M, mine, and yours are very optimistic when it comes to the upper end of the curve as I don't think my combo will aspirate more than ~42 lbs as it's set up currently with mostly stock induction pieces. I assume you have seen one of my logs with a WOT pull. That's what I base this statement on.

Thanks again,

Larry

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, apparently I got the most current revision.

I best as I can tell the cranking pw has been changed. I've worked this area and it seems like my engine likes it a tad richer to crank. It just starts quicker with a little more fuel. Doesn't matter at the moment, I'm gonna' try it like you have set up and hope to be surprised. I have feeling that some of the other adjustments will play in this arena also.

Currently, I have a logging issue that makes it impossible to log this particular area. I'm missing the first 4 seconds or so. I'm trying to work out the problem. I made another thread regarding this issue.

If you like, we could take this offline, up to you.

Thanks again,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

I have not viewed your logs. I use the Tweecer stuff for logging.

Dont worry about the startup, it is meaningless at this stage of tuning. Right now, you want to make changes based on a fully warmed up engine ONLY. Even if you have to keep it running with the pedal while warming up.

Believe it or not, once I dialed in my setup, startup now works fine with stock-ish values.

Ps: I see you changed some startup adders, we will probably put those back to near stock once fueling is dialed in.

[JuiceSC]

Looked at your logs, and read all your other posts.

Those are chrysler 30s rated at 50 psi, are effectively roughly 23s at 39psi FP. Lots of unknowns that need to be figured out by trial and error. Also, 23's are too small for your combo IMO. 30's are even border line adequate.

So, Decision time before you invest more time into tuning: Buy injectors or raise fuel pressure. I would NOT raise pressure unless you have put in a bigger fuel pump. Don't go too big on fuel pump, 190 feeds my combo just fine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To confirm the above, I put together a test tune for YOUR injectors,30lb MAF calibration, and stock fuel pressure @39. This is where I would start if this was my combo.

Injector_test.zip

(24.37 KiB) Downloaded 1624 times

Keep the rpm's under 3500~4000. No more than half throttle, only trying to gather info with this tune.
Looking to see what LAMBSE, KAMRF is doing at normal operating temp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ps:You mentioned in one of your posts about adjusting the TPS idle volts. Do NOT set this to .95v, you can end up with high idle issues. Anywhere between .5v - .8v is good. TPS adjustment on these cars is an internet myth.

[cgrey8]

I think the TPS adjustment myth came from DIY mechanic books like Chilton & Haynes. I had the Haynes for my 89 Ranger and recall it making mention about "adjusting" the TPS sensor.

[JuiceSC]

I think the TPS adjustment myth came from DIY mechanic books like Chilton & Haynes. I had the Haynes for my 89 Ranger and recall it making mention about "adjusting" the TPS sensor.

Folks thought that by getting the TPS as close as they can to open throttle break point, they gained throttle response. I even bought into this! lol Guess this was before we had access to the code and a way to modify it. If Ford thought an adjustment maybe needed in the field, the TPS would have been adjustable and not require any drilling. But you already knew this cgrey8.

TO not highjack this,
Larry, we will dial those in later! MAF & Injectors FIRST.

[cgrey8]

I remember my stepfather often complaining about how incomplete Chilton/Haynes were as compared to the official manufacturer shop manuals. But they couldn't be as verbose as that. They were trying to cover all the options of a model vehicle, across multiple years. And for generic things like how the seat mechanism works or how to replace a door lock, that was probably sufficient.

But when you got into the specifics of how the engine was setup when there were subtle changes to each engine offering and the engine displacement actually changed from year to year, you just simply couldn't cover everything in those manuals. The Ford Ranger from 83-97 had a 2.3L, 2.8L, 2.9L, 3.0L, and 4.0L. The vehicle went from EEC-IV to EEC-V. Some variants were SD, others were MAF in the same year for the same engine. Some had EGRs for California emissions compliance, others didn't. Etc etc....

Back then if you intended to do more than just general maintenance like change the water pump or starter, you really needed the shop manual for your year/model. But now with the Internet, so much of this info is available on Youtube, you can do MOST everything you need even if the info is enough to discourage you from doing it yourself.

For example one video I watched just this week, a mechanic (at a dealership) was doing warranty work on 2 vehicles where the front main bearing burned out and spun due to no lubrication. Both vehicles, low mileage, same problem. To get the engine out required dismantling the entire front of the truck. The video showed a massive array of body and engine bay parts all around the vehicle. If seeing that wasn't discouragement enough, the mechanic said once put back together, there are multiple systems that have to be reinitialized using special dealer software before the engine will even attempt to crank. No way you are figuring all that out with a Haynes Manual.

[JuiceSC]

I remember having to jack the body off the frame 2 inches or more on a late 80's early 90s ranger to pull the manual trans out. lol Tunnel/firewall flange in the way. OEM's don't design stuff to be worked on easy. lol

[MrsJones]

I thought I would try to update everyone who has been kind enough to offer suggestions to better my tune.

Paulie, thanks for the definition of FN303, however, I went back to using a .BIN file rather than the .BEB version. Everything fell back into place. I DID make that adjustment and it worked as advertised, as you will see.

JuiceSC, I really appreciate your input in particular. I found several areas in the tune you provided that peaked my interest. Using your suggestions while keeping in mind the particulars of my combo, the overall tune has progressed remarkably. Some of the idle adjustments didn't work as expected so in those areas I put it back to where it was. I followed Decifia's method of setting the idle and dataloging the air for NUBASE and that whole group. Also, afterwards my TPS ended up at .98 when the smoke cleared. I haven't experienced any issues with that as the ISC hovers in the 34 to 36 area on a regular basis at closed throttle idle. Overall, I'm fairly satisfied with my idle, about 85%.

As you noted, I DO have an injector problem! If you looked in my tune, I have set the HS and LS to the same values. Believe it or not, the engine really liked raising the HS up a little, particularly at WOT. Having the WB installed has offered a huge piece to the puzzle. I have a screen shot from a datalog from Tuesday that you may find interesting, I know I did. I offer this pic since, it seems, you can't review a log. I parked the cursor at the location where LOADX peaked, which is down 30%, and included the other numbers to the left. BTW, this was a third gear pull from ~2500-5000.

I have downloaded your current offering and can hardly wait to attempt to correct this injector issue! I thought about raising the FP since, in the original application, they were ran at is 50 psi. Thought process was that if Chrysler rated them that way, why would I not follow suite? I have a 255 Walbro in the tank. The screenshot and the most recent datalog logs have showed the PW, INJDCY and LOADX have calmed down quite a bit. These improvements I attribute to the use of the WB error percentage, without a doubt.

I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember but Chilton used to publish HUGE manuals to cover DIY auto repairs that were pretty good. Most were year model specific. I never liked the Haynes manuals personally. Like Chris said, you really needed to be able to read between the lines in most of them. Everytime I purchased one I was usually disappointed that what I really needed wasn't in the "book".

Thanks to everyone,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Glad you are making progress!

Old enough? hehehe, I am retired.

Don't run my injector test tune at 50psi FP without changing injector slopes to 30.

[MrsJones]

Old enough? hehehe, I am retired.

Yeah.... me too! I just completed my 77th trip around the sun and I'm here to verify that it looks the same all around it.

I got that, about the injector slopes. I would put it back to where I had it.

I haven't looked at the tune you provided yet. I just returned from a follow up with Cardiologist. The audacity of him telling me I'm fine when I know better! ;>)

I did gather another log to go over and will have other questions, I'm sure.

Update later and thanks again,

Larry

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, I cleared the KAM's this morning and loaded the tune you provided. As I expected, it didn't like it! Startup resulted in a lot of swinging around. As it warmed up, it settled down some with LAMBSE in the .850 range, WB showing .782 at the same point. This was the norm before leaving the driveway. It finally switched to CL after ~6 minutes. While steady at 53 MPH, LAMBSE reported 1.2999, KAMRF 1.000, WB .966 and shortly afterwards switch back to OL and stayed there back to the house.

While trying to gather some WOT data, since it was in OL anyway, here's some numbers:
N-3741
MPH-79.7
TP-4.78
LAMBSE-.84375
KAMRF-1.00
AFR-.666
AFR_Error-.7897
MAF-39.155
VMAF-3.820
ECT-184
PW-23.22
INJDC-72.418
LOADX-160.43

I'm including the log. Maybe you can find someone to translate it for you.

JuiceSCtune1 2024_Feb_18_11-16-17.7z

(1002.67 KiB) Downloaded 1538 times

[JuiceSC]

Was this the startup/injector test tune? and at what fuel pressure?

[MrsJones]

Yes and at 40 psi.

[JuiceSC]

Injecotr_test2.zip

(24.37 KiB) Downloaded 1579 times

Ok, Don't change fuel pressure. Try that one. Based on the info, that should be much better.

[MrsJones]

I got it. I'll give it a try, perhaps later today.

Thanks again,

Larry

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC,

It dawned on me that perhaps I should ask YOU what information from the logs you need to see. I just took a shot at some numbers that I thought would be of value. I can do screen shots of various areas of interest if it will help.

Let me know,

Larry