|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-05-2013, 09:11 PM | #1 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 309577
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Tune leaner than 14.7
Hi, is there any chance to tune the open loop maps,on a 2011 STI, leaner than 14.7?
Of course just in low loads,where from the factory it comes with 14.7. I would like to set for example 15 or 15.5 just to save fuel during daily driving at low speed. With Ecuflash I have seen that with the EVO is possible. Some of you guys has got a solution for this? Thanks
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
|
01-05-2013, 10:17 PM | #2 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 239072
Join Date: Feb 2010
Chapter/Region:
RMIC
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Vehicle:2005 WRX Wagon white |
Open loop only happens under high load. You def wouldn't want to do that. closed loop it would be possible but the mpg gains would be pretty negligible and probably cause unwanted heat.
|
01-06-2013, 08:46 AM | #3 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 309577
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
I've mapped in a way that it goes in open loop even in low loads under certain conditions.
Anyway do you know how to modify the closed loop maps in order to go leaner than 14.7 ? |
01-06-2013, 10:09 AM | #4 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 70395
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region:
MAIC
Location: Da-boonies,Va
|
Change the Closed loop AFR target.
|
01-06-2013, 11:38 AM | #5 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 194062
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region:
MAIC
Location: Camp Hill PA
Vehicle:2003 Impreza WRX PSM |
If your goal is fuel mileage why would you set it up to go open loop sooner? Closed loop will always be more efficient then open since its being constantly monitored and adjusted on the fly by the ecu
|
01-06-2013, 01:27 PM | #6 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 309577
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
|
01-06-2013, 01:31 PM | #7 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 309577
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Quote:
And now it gives less problems with fine learning knock corrections. Anyway basically in cruise it goes to closed loop quickly than with the oem map. |
|
01-06-2013, 01:37 PM | #8 | ||
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 268354
Join Date: Dec 2010
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Massachusetts
Vehicle:02 WRX 05 LGT Slow Automatics |
Quote:
Quote:
Of course its going to be smoother in maintaining AFR in OL, the factory system is designed to jump around a little, plus its always corecting itself up/down. |
||
01-08-2013, 09:48 AM | #9 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 239072
Join Date: Feb 2010
Chapter/Region:
RMIC
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Vehicle:2005 WRX Wagon white |
So I did a little digging around. The stock way of oscillating the afr actually is because it facilitates a chemical reaction in the cat. Putting it in open loop under low load is going to be fine just raise emmissions. Doesn't solve the original question though.... But I view it from the physics standpoint of conservation of energy. If you are running 14.7:1 you'll be using the full potential of your fuel, same with 15:1 or 16:1 anywhere above 14.7 and you will be maximizing fuel efficiency. Butttt that doesn't account for uncertainty in things like tip in enrichment... Might be worth it.
But yes to change closed loop afr its the 'closed loop fueling target.' Mine was in at 14.47 maybe that is the stock value. I changed it to 14.7 and the car seems to hang around 15.0 mostly. Still doing the oscillating down to 14.6 or so. Last edited by Jeffman44; 01-08-2013 at 09:56 AM. |
01-08-2013, 06:28 PM | #10 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 323379
Join Date: Jun 2012
Vehicle:1992 Trans Am |
|
01-08-2013, 06:33 PM | #11 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 309577
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Quote:
I just have 2 tables that looks similar to that one and they are compensation tables. But oem they have already many negative values...so I guess I just have to decrease more this values in order to get what I was searching for. Am I right? ...2011 Sti with 32bit ECU |
|
01-08-2013, 06:47 PM | #12 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 323379
Join Date: Jun 2012
Vehicle:1992 Trans Am |
Quote:
|
|
01-08-2013, 07:27 PM | #13 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 239072
Join Date: Feb 2010
Chapter/Region:
RMIC
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Vehicle:2005 WRX Wagon white |
Yea I have that exact table. 16 bit 05 wrx though...
|
01-11-2013, 09:19 AM | #14 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 309577
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Thank you
|
01-11-2013, 12:46 PM | #15 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 323908
Join Date: Jun 2012
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: Dayton Ohio
Vehicle:2013 BRZ ltd ISM |
To be clear. Clearing out the CL compensation (load and ECT) will make the car target 14.7 full time instead of the 14.2-.4 correct?
|
01-19-2013, 04:56 PM | #16 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 239072
Join Date: Feb 2010
Chapter/Region:
RMIC
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Vehicle:2005 WRX Wagon white |
Correct
|
01-19-2013, 11:03 PM | #17 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 191967
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Vehicle:2005 EVO VIII open source tuning subaru |
I don't think a 2012 sti rom has a cl target afr table, but it should have four "cl fueling target compensation" tables and you have to tweak those to get leaner afr than 14.7:1
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|