Discussion
Oh the fun of setting the car up. one step forward, two steps back.
Could I have a show of hands on how long you drive the car for after resetting the adaptives before you have an adaptive map worth commenting on.
I have my car running better than ever before but find it totally impossible to dial out some patches of 20-30's amongst a sea of <10's.
I would find it really useful if some of you with remapping and without, especially after a service would post a screen of your adaptives with the comment of how long you'd driven the car after the service reset.
Cheers. (Oh will post mine in another thirty miles, which will likely be tuesday
Could I have a show of hands on how long you drive the car for after resetting the adaptives before you have an adaptive map worth commenting on.
I have my car running better than ever before but find it totally impossible to dial out some patches of 20-30's amongst a sea of <10's.
I would find it really useful if some of you with remapping and without, especially after a service would post a screen of your adaptives with the comment of how long you'd driven the car after the service reset.
Cheers. (Oh will post mine in another thirty miles, which will likely be tuesday
Julian64 said:
Oh the fun of setting the car up. one step forward, two steps back.
Could I have a show of hands on how long you drive the car for after resetting the adaptives before you have an adaptive map worth commenting on.
I have my car running better than ever before but find it totally impossible to dial out some patches of 20-30's amongst a sea of <10's.
I would find it really useful if some of you with remapping and without, especially after a service would post a screen of your adaptives with the comment of how long you'd driven the car after the service reset.
Cheers. (Oh will post mine in another thirty miles, which will likely be tuesday
Could I have a show of hands on how long you drive the car for after resetting the adaptives before you have an adaptive map worth commenting on.
I have my car running better than ever before but find it totally impossible to dial out some patches of 20-30's amongst a sea of <10's.
I would find it really useful if some of you with remapping and without, especially after a service would post a screen of your adaptives with the comment of how long you'd driven the car after the service reset.
Cheers. (Oh will post mine in another thirty miles, which will likely be tuesday
I've been faffing around with mine alot recently and its usually around 10 mins idling when fully warmed or around 5 or 6 miles if you're driving around (fully warmed).
Just my experience recently.
MB
I think we need a definitive thread on this as I think there is still a lot of mysticism regarding adaptives. I'll post these for everyone to shoot down.
All adaptives start out looking 0.4 or zero till the car has spent enough time stable at those revs to post an adaptive.
After five miles driving once the car was up to temp, large areas of my map had zeros in so I don't think I'm that lucky and think it likely the car just hadn't gotten around to posting.
I have areas of 30's next to 2-3's in the rev range which make little sense as the car can't be perfectly set up for one rev and then 500 rpm later be totally off, and then in the next 500rpm totally in sync again.
No one seems to know what the actual calculation for an adaptive is.
With 'patches' of high adaptives there is little that can be done to sort them with a standard car MBE.
Above 4000 rpm the adaptives have no meaning despite being recorded. Therefore the only point of balancing the adaptives is below 4000.
Adaptives will be different if the car is run under 'no load' conditions as opposed to actually driven.
The method of tuning individual inlet ports to improve your adaptives is:
a) drilling little holes in the screws that hold the butterflies on.
b) unscrewing the individual vacuum inlet balance screws on the inlet ports.
c) there is no method.
Even high adaptives are more important than low uneven ones.
All adaptives start out looking 0.4 or zero till the car has spent enough time stable at those revs to post an adaptive.
After five miles driving once the car was up to temp, large areas of my map had zeros in so I don't think I'm that lucky and think it likely the car just hadn't gotten around to posting.
I have areas of 30's next to 2-3's in the rev range which make little sense as the car can't be perfectly set up for one rev and then 500 rpm later be totally off, and then in the next 500rpm totally in sync again.
No one seems to know what the actual calculation for an adaptive is.
With 'patches' of high adaptives there is little that can be done to sort them with a standard car MBE.
Above 4000 rpm the adaptives have no meaning despite being recorded. Therefore the only point of balancing the adaptives is below 4000.
Adaptives will be different if the car is run under 'no load' conditions as opposed to actually driven.
The method of tuning individual inlet ports to improve your adaptives is:
a) drilling little holes in the screws that hold the butterflies on.
b) unscrewing the individual vacuum inlet balance screws on the inlet ports.
c) there is no method.
Even high adaptives are more important than low uneven ones.
Adjusting the individual inlets is done via a)
by checking the airflow with the meter and replacing the butterfly screws with ones that have holes drilled in them.
Joolz did mine during one of my visits to TCS. He got all of them wihin a gnats whisker except front offside that was 6 rather than 5 (I think its because of all the oil gunk so I really must get around to fitting the oil catch can!)
The idle was noticably smoother once the inlets were flowing the same.
It takes a few miles of driving to get the adaptives registering. It needs to be fairly steady driving since the adaptives are disabled under acceleration, over 4000rpm (as you said) and over throttle site 10 too. To get as many sites as possible to register needs steady driving in all the gears.
Not true that nothing can be done with the patches of high adaptives and an MBE. Joolz will merge the adaptives into the base map but only if he's happy that there is nothing untoward going on that might be throwing them out in the first place.
All the above is info I have picked up from Trackcar.
The high adaptives at particular sites may be because of pulses or some such in the inlets?
mufdady, the adpatives are a change to the base fuel map that the ECU calculates based on the amount of oxygen in the exhaust gases as detected by the lambda sensors.
copilot,
Getting adaptives of zero everywhere assumes that the base map is very close to the fuelling needed. It also assumes that all the engines are exactly the same and their fuelling requirements don't change as the engine wears.
So getting adaptives to zero is the ideal, but completely unachievable
Does it matter if the adaptives are positive or negative?
I don't think it does. If you happen to have the butterflies open wider than the car that the orignal mapping was done on then the adaptives will be positive to add more fuel to compensate for the increased air flow.
If they are more closed then the adpatives will be negative.
Either way the lambda control is getting the mixture close to the stoichiometric so the cats can do their job.
Removing the cats does affect the fuelling. Certainly the linked decats produced a flat spot on the 4.2s such that Joolz shipped a chip with altered fuelling to fix it.
The most important aspect of the setup is to get the two banks pulling the same amount of air (physically open the same) and reading the same on the TPots hence needing the same amount of fuel and hence having adatives that are the same - whether thats positive or negative probably doesn't matter.
Thats the route to smooth running at low throttle.
If the reading are very large everywhere then it may be that the TPot readings are significantly different to those that the originally mapped car was showing. In which case it may be worth DECREASING the TPot readings if the adaptives are very high so that the base map is pulling in more fuel.
This is because the low throttle sites up to about 4.0 and below 4000rpm actually decrease the injector time as the rpm increases above idle. So reducing the TPot reading should bring a lower site into play which puts more fuel in from the base map and hence should reduce the adaptives.
Presumably it needs more fuel low down because the low throttle opening pulls very little air and a lot of the fuel drops out or doesn't atomise.
Julian, point taken about whether or not a local indie can remap the chip
Its definitely a plus having someone not too far away who can do it
So does it matter if there are widely varying adaptives across the map?
Certainly on the 4.5 the base map is known to be pretty bad so we should expect variation in adaptives.
But the whole point of the adaptives is to get the fuelling close to the optimum so if they are reading high then the engine must need that amount of fuel.
Even if the ECU is showing an AFR fault its only because the adaptives have exceeded an arbitrary limit thats set (+ or - 37.5 degrees)
It may be that the engine does need that amount of fuel. (Although many sites at the limit is a classic symptom of the lambdas connected the wrong way round.)
I'd be more worried that the 4.5 map above 4,000rpm was just as bad as it is low down. Above 4k the adaptives have no effect so if the fuelling isn't optimal nothing can correct it except getting a remap.
Bear in mind also that the adaptives are primarily to give the cats the gas mixture they need.
If the cats have been removed then the target lambda could be changed to target a richer (and more powerful) mixture with gives more even running.
I think the best that can ever be achieved is: -
TPot readings the same or as close as possible
Adaptives the same or as close as possible
Adaptives as close to zero as possible across the whole range of readings in the map
copilot,
Getting adaptives of zero everywhere assumes that the base map is very close to the fuelling needed. It also assumes that all the engines are exactly the same and their fuelling requirements don't change as the engine wears.
So getting adaptives to zero is the ideal, but completely unachievable
Does it matter if the adaptives are positive or negative?
I don't think it does. If you happen to have the butterflies open wider than the car that the orignal mapping was done on then the adaptives will be positive to add more fuel to compensate for the increased air flow.
If they are more closed then the adpatives will be negative.
Either way the lambda control is getting the mixture close to the stoichiometric so the cats can do their job.
Removing the cats does affect the fuelling. Certainly the linked decats produced a flat spot on the 4.2s such that Joolz shipped a chip with altered fuelling to fix it.
The most important aspect of the setup is to get the two banks pulling the same amount of air (physically open the same) and reading the same on the TPots hence needing the same amount of fuel and hence having adatives that are the same - whether thats positive or negative probably doesn't matter.
Thats the route to smooth running at low throttle.
If the reading are very large everywhere then it may be that the TPot readings are significantly different to those that the originally mapped car was showing. In which case it may be worth DECREASING the TPot readings if the adaptives are very high so that the base map is pulling in more fuel.
This is because the low throttle sites up to about 4.0 and below 4000rpm actually decrease the injector time as the rpm increases above idle. So reducing the TPot reading should bring a lower site into play which puts more fuel in from the base map and hence should reduce the adaptives.
Presumably it needs more fuel low down because the low throttle opening pulls very little air and a lot of the fuel drops out or doesn't atomise.
Julian, point taken about whether or not a local indie can remap the chip
Its definitely a plus having someone not too far away who can do it
So does it matter if there are widely varying adaptives across the map?
Certainly on the 4.5 the base map is known to be pretty bad so we should expect variation in adaptives.
But the whole point of the adaptives is to get the fuelling close to the optimum so if they are reading high then the engine must need that amount of fuel.
Even if the ECU is showing an AFR fault its only because the adaptives have exceeded an arbitrary limit thats set (+ or - 37.5 degrees)
It may be that the engine does need that amount of fuel. (Although many sites at the limit is a classic symptom of the lambdas connected the wrong way round.)
I'd be more worried that the 4.5 map above 4,000rpm was just as bad as it is low down. Above 4k the adaptives have no effect so if the fuelling isn't optimal nothing can correct it except getting a remap.
Bear in mind also that the adaptives are primarily to give the cats the gas mixture they need.
If the cats have been removed then the target lambda could be changed to target a richer (and more powerful) mixture with gives more even running.
I think the best that can ever be achieved is: -
TPot readings the same or as close as possible
Adaptives the same or as close as possible
Adaptives as close to zero as possible across the whole range of readings in the map
Edited by mikesr on Tuesday 15th May 23:15
I agree completely having been tweeking and changing things non stop recently.
I have come to the conclusion that
1.) The throttle pot readings with both banks closed should be changed and adjusted to suit the car (age/mileage/etc). What I mean is that start at the lowest and see if it improves the running/adaptives. Then increase up the scale until a good running adaptive is reached. Currently my Tpots seem to offer good running and good adaptives when set to 14.1 on odds and 14.4 on evens.
2.) The adaptives change all the time and can be affected by many things. At the moment I am happy with them being both equal jumping from -10 to +5 roughly. I'm not saying this is perefect but it seems to promote good running and power delivery. Its all to do with how much time you have. I'm sure if I had a lot more time I'd probably tweek them a bit more and see if the variables can be taken even closer to the text book optimum.
As long as the car is running quite nicely then I'm reasonably happy'ish.
MB
I have come to the conclusion that
1.) The throttle pot readings with both banks closed should be changed and adjusted to suit the car (age/mileage/etc). What I mean is that start at the lowest and see if it improves the running/adaptives. Then increase up the scale until a good running adaptive is reached. Currently my Tpots seem to offer good running and good adaptives when set to 14.1 on odds and 14.4 on evens.
2.) The adaptives change all the time and can be affected by many things. At the moment I am happy with them being both equal jumping from -10 to +5 roughly. I'm not saying this is perefect but it seems to promote good running and power delivery. Its all to do with how much time you have. I'm sure if I had a lot more time I'd probably tweek them a bit more and see if the variables can be taken even closer to the text book optimum.
As long as the car is running quite nicely then I'm reasonably happy'ish.
MB
That's exactly the conclusion I had come to. It ticks over fine. Pulls cleanly and well. Adaptives are fine in most of the T-pot positions when RPM's are above 2500.
To acheive anything better than that, I'll need to replace the ECU/MAP and Induction pipes...and that can wait.
In the meantime, Just need to be rid of this rain.
(Looking forward To Le-Mans).
To acheive anything better than that, I'll need to replace the ECU/MAP and Induction pipes...and that can wait.
In the meantime, Just need to be rid of this rain.
(Looking forward To Le-Mans).
Steve_T said:
Julian - question for you. You the DB thread you have the linked decats. Do you have the alternative fueling chip supplied with them? - if not it might be a reason for your adaptives.
Steve.
Steve.
Nope My car is standard in every way apart from jools longer/thicker HT leads, and the linked decats, which were basically bought to give the car a better sound.
I am still trying to get my head round why removing the cats would have any effect on adaptives because the lambdas are before the cats, and therefore sample the data to feedback to the adaptives before the cat does any work or has any effect.
Maybe some backpressure effect, but thats a whole new can of worms.
Julian made a comment some time ago that the linked decats did require a fueling change iirc. It would make sense since there is now interaction between the banks where as standard there isn't. You probably need his fueling chip to remove the patch of high adaptives.
Steve.
Steve.
Edited by Steve_T on Thursday 17th May 10:08
The linked decats do change the fuelling requirements on the cerberas .. on the 4.5 they're so rich in the main area of fuelling change (around 1700rpm ) that there's no need to change the chip .. however i supply a chip for the 4.2 cerbera because it's nicely mapped and puts the adaptives towards the upper range of what the ecu is capable of trimming.
The fuelling requirement changes because there's a change of total airflow through the combustion chamber .. the linked pipes seem to create a very strong exhaust pulse at around 1700 rpm and lesser changes up the rev range.
Julian64 I think youre flogging a bit of a dead horse chasing the zero adaptive trim ideal .. the chip you have is a TVR generic map and not a very good one at that. Even if your engine and other breathing parts of the car were assembled and manufactured perfectly we know enough about the 4.5 fuelling now to say that you'd still not be able to achieve trim=0 across anything but small parts of the map.
The other thing is that you can clear the adaptives and go for a run and then do the same again and get two different spreadsheets of numbers. The narowband 3 wire sensors in the cerb aren't great at 1) reacting quickly to mixture change and 2) producing an accurate output relative to mixture. You should at least use a temperature-monitored 4 wire sensor or better still a proper accurate regularly calibrated wideband sensor.
It's an interesting excercise to try and make your car as good as possible, but you have an ecu capable of trimming to 37% rich or weak so it really doen't matter too much what the adaptives are (though i understand your desire to have it as close as possible).. a whole row of slightly minus numbers is what i usually work towards and when i merge the adptives into the base map when i remap cars I aim to leave the slightly rich parts as they are and only trim up the weak areas of map. therefore if you're looking at the adaptives on one of my remapped cars you should see generally a whole sea of slightly minus numbers, not zeros.
The fuelling requirement changes because there's a change of total airflow through the combustion chamber .. the linked pipes seem to create a very strong exhaust pulse at around 1700 rpm and lesser changes up the rev range.
Julian64 I think youre flogging a bit of a dead horse chasing the zero adaptive trim ideal .. the chip you have is a TVR generic map and not a very good one at that. Even if your engine and other breathing parts of the car were assembled and manufactured perfectly we know enough about the 4.5 fuelling now to say that you'd still not be able to achieve trim=0 across anything but small parts of the map.
The other thing is that you can clear the adaptives and go for a run and then do the same again and get two different spreadsheets of numbers. The narowband 3 wire sensors in the cerb aren't great at 1) reacting quickly to mixture change and 2) producing an accurate output relative to mixture. You should at least use a temperature-monitored 4 wire sensor or better still a proper accurate regularly calibrated wideband sensor.
It's an interesting excercise to try and make your car as good as possible, but you have an ecu capable of trimming to 37% rich or weak so it really doen't matter too much what the adaptives are (though i understand your desire to have it as close as possible).. a whole row of slightly minus numbers is what i usually work towards and when i merge the adptives into the base map when i remap cars I aim to leave the slightly rich parts as they are and only trim up the weak areas of map. therefore if you're looking at the adaptives on one of my remapped cars you should see generally a whole sea of slightly minus numbers, not zeros.
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff