EFIDynoTuning Forum

Yes, but how much richer or leaner? That statement does not help solve the equation in order to give a final AFR / Lambda number, so a person knows what AFR to expect from the calculations. We can log it for AFR delta, but that still doesn't enable us to validate or use the equation in a meaningful way, if the formula can't be interpreted.

I have the full CBAZA documentation which includes the info you posted. It does not offer a solution that is understandable like the other two equations directly above and below that equation in the document do. I guess no one else whom has viewed this post understands it because no one has offered an explanation that indicates what the adjustment subtracted from stoich is for a given, negative BIAS_G/PTPAMP.


FOR NO BIAS |BIAS_G/PTPAMP| = 0


The limit cycle has full jumpback on both sides of stoichiometry and uses
symmetric pulsewidth ramp rates.



FOR SMALL BIAS 0 < |BIAS_G/PTPAMP| <= 0.171573 (0.171573 = 3 - SQRT(8))


The limit cycle has a partial jumpback on one side of stoichiometry to
achieve biasing and uses symmetric pulsewidth ramp rates.



FOR LARGE BIAS 0.171573 < |BIAS_G/PTPAMP| <= 0.45


The limit cycle has no jumpback on one side of stoichiometry and uses
asymmetric pulsewidth ramp rates to achieve biasing.

Trying to make sense of this formula / equation. Would someone please spell it out for me?

Formula:

FOR SMALL BIAS 0 < |BIAS_G/PTPAMP| <= 0.171573 (0.171573 = 3 - SQRT(8))

Equation in my case: (I think)

|-.0840 / .0332| <= 0.171573 (0.171573 = 3 - SQRT(8))

Thanks

Thank You!

Hi, is FN336 used as a subtractor / adder to FN1315 or is it an input of actual end of pulse, crank degree value at chosen temperatures?

Thanks folks. The percentage change in MAF curve does correlate fairy close to the load shift in this case.

Looking more into a few iterations of my tune with the difference tool, I did make a small change in the top of the MAF transfer curve along with the other things mentioned above.

Thanks. So just give it the manifold volume it likes on tip in? Not sure yet why the peak load at all RPM changed. Other than manifold volume, I was playing with injector timing in a reasonable range, but large swings. 4.38 manifold volume revs like a champ with this engine.

Hi, it appears that changing the Intake Manifold Volume value from 4.38 to 4.5 made me have to increase FN035 values. Peak load was 96 vs 92. Has anyone experienced this?

What else does this setting alter?

I read a post where it was said to be a global multiplier and recommended to leave this stock or always use a value of 4. What is the most recent recommendation?

decipha wrote: ↑2022 Jun 30, 19:05
open up the histogram you want and set it to average

History Average or Running Average? How do those two differ?