____  
 |  _ \ 
 | |_) |
 |  _ < 
 | |_) |
 |____/ 
        
        

 _____ 
|_   _|
  | |  
  | |  
 _| |_ 
 \___/ 
       
       

         
         
 #    #  
  #  #   
   ##    
  #  #   
 #    #  
         

 _____ 
|  _  |
| | | |
| | | |
\ \_/ /
 \___/ 
       
       

  _______ 
 |__   __|
    | |   
    | |   
    | |   
    |_|   
          
          

IMPORTANT: enter the case-INsensitive alphabetic (no numbers) code AND WRITE SOME SHORT summary of changes (below) if you are saving changes. (not required for previewing changes). Wiki-spamming is not tolerated, will be removed, so it does NOT even show up in history. Spammers go away now.


Visit Preferences to set your user name
Summary of change:
Installing vems to a Rover V8 n/a throttle body. Controlling this and other car´s may require a firmware update. Any strategy proposals are welcome The current set op on this car is Ms. They use a different way to control this type of “no inlet manifold type. While running 80 kmt. The map is 80 kpa. And tps. Is 0-2 % so map rices wary fast. Driving between rally stages (low power) it must use map as the target. While TPS rises above 15-20 % TPS should take over. Per´s ides Rallycar with ITB no turbo. Between stages with little throttle movement 0-1% the car must run MAP controlled in order to have good fuel economy between stages (only 40 L in tank). * these normally aspirated ITB engines are usually TPS mapped * why not TableSwitch to an economy MAP-based table if really needed ? * normally for ignadv,lambdatarget etc... TPS lookup used below MAP < nonve_kpalookup_minkpa; ** sounds like you need a REVERSE condition (TPS lookup used above MAP > nonve_kpalookup_minkpa threshold) As the MAP goes to near 100 and the TPS increases, the TPS table will smoothly take over. (TPS table values increases) ---- '''Proposal''' injector fuel pulsewidth = '''(VE1(RPM, MAP) + VE1(RPM, TPS))''' x Calculation of injector fuel where of course * MAP table 0...100 KPa load, RPM/MAP (table 12x12 or more) * TPS table 0...100%, RPM/TPS (table 12x12 or more) * Option to control table blending Having 2 VE tables (MAP based and TPS based) would allow the tuner to choose between MAP or TPS based mapping for any loadsite. Normally and currently high load (eg under boost, where MAP>110 kPa ) is MAP-based, and TPS is used when no-boost. How would it be '''used otherwise''' that justifies the extra complexity ? (not just software, but mostly mental load + help + documentation volume + misunderstanding + support) http://www.vems.hu/wiki/index.php?page=MembersPage%2FPerBoddum
Optional: Add document to category:
Wiki formatting: * is Bullet list ** Bullet list subentry ... '''Bold''', ---- is horizontal ruler, <code> preformatted text... </code> See wiki editing HELP for tables and other formatting tips and tricks.