Consider this:

If your 600 mBar / 3K RPM fuel value is 1% high and your 500 and 700 mBar / 3K RPM fuel values are both 1% low, then the technique defined in this thread will cause your 600 mBar / 3K RPM fuel value to become 2% high since FPM will interpolate the suggested fuel change for that cell to be -1% instead of the needed +1%.

 

I decided to start fresh from the tuned profile and copy over some of the timing adjustment that I know will work and give me the extra power. Besides tuning the wot fuel first I plan on trying this out to see how much closer it gets me to the correct fuel.

 

When I used this approach, and applied the suggested changes to the upper load levels (per the trend), my WOT fuel wound up being very close. It just took a couple WOT pulls to fine tune columns 9 and 10 to get it perfect.

 

it has been 13 months since the last post of this thread, however, the partial throttle tuning technique demonstrated by gernby throughout this thread is important IMHO.

today i experienced the first version of gernby's method for 300 & 500mBar zones. although the method is successful, i missed target vacuum zones by gernby's target throttle plate values, reaching ~250mBar and ~450mBar respectively. and vacuum (or say negative pressure) levels rather fluctuated.

in order to reach target vacuum levels (300&500 then 400&600 and so on) you should continuously update target throttle plate table. since the table is disabled in live mode, stop-table update-upload calibration-go process is time consuming. so i will experience the second method.

gernby, did you increase your target zone levels from 375-540-740mBar to 400-600-800mBar in order to cross check? if you did, any improvements over the first run?

i think your technique generates as many accurate AFR data as possible, given any RPM&MAP level; so that FPM offers the best adjustment value at lambda overlay.

if any standard drive datalog's fuel adjustment suggestions were %100 successful; i'd drive (i.e. generate partial throttle data) the S freely, datalog as much as i could; and then apply the adjustments. thru that way, partial throttle tuning would be just like WOT tuning, would be very easy. however, it seems that standard datalog suggestion is inadequate for successful partial throttle tuning.

these are my thoughts, i am not %100 sure of them. what are your comments?

 

I no longer try creating "steps" like I did in the first post. I just create a ramping throttle map that gives a max MAP of about 900 mBar, IIRC. It makes it easy to drive around in 1 session in a parking lot until you hit every cell several times and the suggested fuel adjustments show a clear pattern. I still believe it's important to start with the the stock map or one of the canned calibrations.



Here are the table values in CSV format, which should be easy to convert back to cell format in Excel, then copy / paste into FPM.

0,0.120833333,0.379166667,0.975,1.4625,1.9625,2.92 5,3.9,4.8875,5.854166667,10,10,10,10,10
0,0.175,0.570833333,1.470833333,2.225,2.970833333, 4.445833333,5.925,7.416666667,8.891666667,13.55416 667,13.55416667,13.55416667,13.55416667,13.5541666 7
0,0.241666667,0.7625,1.983333333,2.979166667,3.983 333333,5.9625,7.945833333,9.954166667,11.92916667, 17.1125,17.1125,17.1125,17.1125,17.1125
0,0.3,0.9625,2.4875,3.741666667,5,7.483333333,9.97 0833333,12.47916667,14.9625,20.66666667,20.6666666 7,20.66666667,20.66666667,20.66666667
0,0.3625,1.15,2.9875,4.5,6.008333333,9,11.9875,15. 0125,18,24.22083333,24.22083333,24.22083333,24.220 83333,24.22083333
0,0.420833333,1.35,3.4875,5.258333333,7.025,10.520 83333,14.00833333,17.54583333,21.03333333,27.77916 667,27.77916667,27.77916667,27.77916667,27.7791666 7
0,0.479166667,1.545833333,3.995833333,6.0125,8.037 5,12.0375,16.03333333,20.07083333,24.0625,31.33333 333,31.33333333,31.33333333,31.33333333,31.3333333 3
0,0.520833333,1.683333333,4.370833333,6.583333333, 8.791666667,13.15416667,17.525,21.94583333,26.3166 6667,34.8875,34.8875,34.8875,34.8875,34.8875
0,0.5875,1.875,4.858333333,7.316666667,9.770833333 ,14.62916667,19.4875,24.4,29.25833333,38.44583333, 38.44583333,38.44583333,38.44583333,38.44583333
0,0.679166667,1.970833333,5.1,7.6875,10.26666667,1 5.37083333,20.47916667,25.6375,30.74166667,42,42,4 2,42,42
0,0.8,2.329166667,6.033333333,9.095833333,12.15416 667,18.1875,24.225,30.33333333,36.37083333,48.5208 3333,48.52083333,48.52083333,48.52083333,48.520833 33
0,0.925,2.691666667,6.975,10.49583333,14.02916667, 20.99583333,27.96666667,35.025,41.99583333,56.0166 6667,56.01666667,56.01666667,56.01666667,56.016666 67
0,1.05,3.05,7.9,11.90416667,15.9,23.8125,31.7125,3 9.7125,47.625,63.525,63.525,63.525,63.525,63.525
0,1.166666667,3.408333333,8.841666667,13.31666667, 17.78333333,26.62083333,35.4625,44.4125,53.2458333 3,71.03333333,71.03333333,71.03333333,71.03333333, 71.03333333
0,1.3,3.766666667,9.775,14.71666667,19.6625,29.433 33333,39.20833333,49.1,58.87083333,78.5375,78.5375 ,78.5375,78.5375,78.5375

 

gernby, thanks for the table, i tried to paste the values and it worked like charm. now i should go generate the datalog.

what do you think about the below;

 

thx gernby!!!

Gennady

 

Gernby, thank you for your work on this.

Over the weekend I tuned my Fuel low table by utilizing your TPlate Normal table. It worked really well by allowing me to focus the samples for a given RPM and MAP. Once the observed corrections were within 2% I put the untouched TPlate Normal table back in. I found a number of targets needed further tuning.

The extremities (< 2000 RPM, < 205 mBar, and > 742 mBar) have been hard to determine a trend, but the common areas are now looking decent. At this point my Fuel low table is relatively smooth for the highly sampled areas but there are some spikes. I have seen trends where a single cell might ask for +3% while all the surrounding cells show -1%. Since the cells are interpolated by the ECU, how is this possible? Adding the spike or valley seems to resolve the issue but the table looks erratic afterwards.

Once we gain a relatively stable Fuel low table up to ~742 mBar, and a Fuel high table good at 884 and 968, how do we ensure the higher MAP values in Fuel low and the lower values in Fuel high are blending well? I haven't touched anything in Fuel high below the 884 mBar column. My VTEC engagement is down to 3650, however my MAP WOT determination pressure is unchanged, leaving the me lost as to when the Fuel low is active versus the Fuel high versus VTEC. Let alone, how do I tune for the transitions between them.

 

This is such an old thread, I would actually need to read it again to answer your questions. However, now that I'm in the eTuning business, it really would be best for me to delete the post entirely.

 

I've been working through part throttle tuning on the street, finally.

Here are the approaches I've followed so far, and my thoughts:
1) Used Hondata Autotune. Autotune impulsively offers fuel changes, regardless of conditions. Logging a drive will saturate the Fuel Change table, however it will include all transitional fuel calculations and lead to an erradic fuel table.
2) Used Gernby's slow ramp-rate DBW table (post #25). The results are also subject to transitional conditions corrupting the suggested fuel changes. With what I learned in the 3-zone tuning, this table may be viable through careful throttle isolation.
3) Used Gernby's 3-zone tuning. This provides a broad TPS plateau to eliminate transitional conditions. The Fuel Change table will be primarily composed of accurate fuel changes for a given MAP/RPM point.

Here are some notes for Fuel low tuning:
Isolate the Fuel low tuning by raising VTEC change-over to above 6000
Adjust Lambda Overlay to a Min Throttle (%) of 1, and # Samples to 10
Ideally, don't log a drive. Instead, log a focused attempt to accelerate at a constant throttle position from < 2000 RPM to > 6000 RPM. Any throttle engagement between those ranges may introduce accel/decel encrichments.
If the suggested fuel changes look odd, focus on that zone and it will likely smooth out.
After applying suggested fuel changes, smooth the spikes and valleys. Fuel targets may still be correct even after smoothing.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Live tuning can be used while logging, but you must revisit Live tuned areas in order to update fuel suggestions.

I thought I reached a pretty solid Fuel low table, but after driving a day with my normal calibration, then refilling my fuel tank, switching back to my PT tuning calibration, and experiencing an accompanying 20*F decrease in ambient temperature, I'm now back above 3% fueling changes in some areas but still <1% in other areas. I'm going to monitor Fuel low for the next few days to see if this is a new trend. Anybody experienced swings in fueling changes from day to day or with gas changes?

I plan to switch to Fuel high table tuning by dropping VTEC change-over to below 3500 and capping max MAP to 600, 800, 1000 and I'll update the thread with my findings.