Meinolf

Hi, @Docc. Yes, 2 points (angle/voltage or angle/resistance) are sufficient to create the linear equation describing a straigt line. The http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/484669PF3CPF4C.jpg doesn't show values, so no reverse calculation is possible. @Martin. The drawing in the link is for the PF3C, for which the equations are known, and doesn't include voltage. The poster "Guest_Jeff in Ohio_*" mentioned that he also has a diagram for the PF4C. Does anybody know him? As the PF4C is used on HDs, the info needed might be available in the Harley community. Does anybody have contacts there and could ask the question? Cheers Meinolf

Hi, some advise that the (cheaper) PF4C can be used as replacement for the PF3C. To the best of my knowledge the curves are different, so it's not a drop-in replacement. The TPS lookup table in the BIN needs to be adapted. I'm happy to do so and publish it here, but need the characteristic curve equation of the PF4C for the purpose. I couldn't find anything in Google. If any of you has the means to measure angle and resistance (or voltage), then 4 datapoints would be sufficient to calculate the equations. 0°, 20°, 35° and max. ° would be enough. Of course getting the equation(s) would be even better. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, whatever the version will be after I'm satisfied. I've just switched to a ZT-2 datalogger and am checking against previous measurements with the LM-2. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, here http://www.endtuning.com/afr.html are answers to your questions re max. power / max. efficiency. Using the LC won't really help you in creating fuel tables which are in sync and spot on for a targeted mixture. Logging and analyzing the logged data is a prequisite. You'd need a LM-2 or ZT-2 for that purpose. As to your remarks to different air temperature and barometric pressure. Yes, the trim curves in the MG BINs, at least 15M/RC, are way off and do not correspond to the general gas equation. That's why those where the first trim tables I corrected in the BINs. Closed loop as such is not a bad approach. The problem(s) in real life arises out of the pecularities of the narrow band sensor and the hysteresis effects of any control system. The narrow band sensor is really an On/Off device - to lean or to rich. An better approach is to either disable the sensor in the 15RC (and use a BIN suited to the purpose) or move to the 15M entirely. The only difference is that I have a good understanding of the 15M and based BINs thereupon, the 15RC, which is using program code which differs significantly from that of the 15M, is still being analyzed. Send me a PM, if you want to use the 15M BIN I have developed. Btw, the BIN I sent to many of you during the last years is constantly being updated. Contact me if you are interested in the current version. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, no, you can't reprogram a 15M to the 15RC code. You could get the 15RC code into a 15M by physically changing the EEPROM. But this wouldn't work as the HW of the ECU is different and the 15M doesn't have the internal wiring needed for a O2 sensor. What you can do, however, is to use wideband controllers such as the LM-2 or ZT-2, which provide, based on the WBO2 sensor, the narrow band O2 sensor voltage as analog output and feed this into the 15RC sensor connector. But, you would then have the same input into the ECU as with the original narrow band. Nothing gained, except for additional HW and installation/configuration effort. What are you trying to achieve? Cheers Meinolf

Hi, this probably needs some more details. The 10μs pulse width are correct if the CO trim multiplier in the BIN, which can range from 0-200%, is set to 200%. At 100% a CO trim value of 1 corresponds to a injector pulse width change of 4.76μs. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Darryl, following the complete text of the message I send Marty. Does this clarify things? Cheers Meinolf Re CO trim. The values of CO trim influence the injector opening time, plus values increase and minus values decrease it. But, the changes are not specific to any breakpoint. They are applied across the board. Look at below sample calculation. At the top a base fuel map, then the base fuel map + 10 (CO trim), then the percentage changes of the resulting injection time. The result is a generic change. Now, the entire idea of improving the BIN is to get as many breakpoints to a desired AFR value on both cylinders. CO trim can’t effect this. My BINs are based on CO trim being zero. Using it nevertheless only serves the purpose of adapting a BIN tailor suited to my bike to one with a different setup. I recommend to set the trim to 0 and judge the drivability and economy on the road as you aren’t measuring and logging AFR. The CO trim value is not part of the BIN. The value is stored in the EEPROM in the ECU, and that’s not read or written with the Reader and Writer software. Beard wrote an additional program IAW15xEEPROMTool to read/write the EEPROM. While the CO trim can be set with GuzziDiag, using this tool is easier and faster. The engine doesn’t have to run and reach a minimum temperature. http://www.von-der-salierburg.de/download/GuzziDiag/IAW15xEEPROMTool_V0.04.zip http://www.von-der-salierburg.de/download/GuzziDiag/xdf/15M_EEPROM_V1.01.zip

Hi Chuck, same as everone else, I'd say. Send me an email or PM. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, you can't. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Docc, the CO trim value equals 10μs pulse width of the injector (if the CO trim factor is 1), which is added to the respective fuel map value at a given breakpoint. As the fuel map values typically increase with TPS opening and increasing rpm adding/subtracting a constant leads to different results of the influence the CO trim. The fuel map value equals 64μs pulse width, so an increase of one would prolong the injector pulse width by 0.156% (10/64). Translating this into AFR is a totally different game. The pulse width of an injector does not directly translate into AFR, as the current applied to the injector consists of ramp-up, steady, ramp-down and bouncing. During ramp-up the injector flows less at it's not fully opened. With the means at my disposal I couldn't calculate the influence. CO trim was the only method of changing the injection time prior to the development of Beard's GuzziDiag suite. With the capabilities now available CO trim is obsolete. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Darryl, I've corrected the trim tables for air pressure & temp and engine temperature. Based on this all fuel maps, acceleration map, main and idle ignition maps, ignition retardation following temp/pressure, cold start map and the like were changed based on the AFRs data logging produced and the target AFRs I'm using. Comparing BINs is not a straightforward comparison of one map versus another. So many factors influence the actual opening time of an injector, a value in the fuel map is but a starting point. It goes like: ((Fuel Map value x Fuel map value factor) + (CO trim value x CO trim value factor)) x trim factorairtemp x trim factorenginetemp x trim factorairpressure x trimfactorbatteryvoltage x trim factorn = injection time Cheers Meinolf

Hi Camn, just cosmetics, but already corrected. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Docc, the logging option logs data to a file, the graph option shows a graph. And Guzzidiag must be connected in both cases. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Docc, the table in my previous post was taken from Tunerpro, not Guzzidiag. Within Guzzidiag you see the graphs or create a log by selecting value logging in File -> Settings -> Extras. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, no difference between the two in regards to programmability. The 15M is better understood, though, and the XDF is much more comprehensive. I am enhancing the 15RC XDF based on my 15M XDF using the source code of both types, but this doesn't have a high priority, my bikes all use the 15M. The only difference in functionality between the M and RC is that the latter supports closed loop operation with a narrow band WBO. Which one is better of disabling anyway, so you could just drop in a 15M. It's a straight replacement Getting rid of the airbox is not good for anything except noise. And tuning the fuel maps in the low to medium load areas is going to be a nightmare. I would't do it. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, a) Have you checked and confirmed if the TPS is defective? With GuzziDiag you can perform a fast but very reliable check if something is amiss without touching the TPS itself. Select Diagram in the View section and slowly open and close the throttle. The resulting curve should be smooth and consistent with a knee at 30°, beginning where the TPS has a different resistance curve. b&c) The PF3C used by Ducati is the same one as on Guzzis. Going by the curve shown by Cycleworks this is the one you need. d) You can use any TPS which can be fastened to the throttle body. If it has a different curve then the TPS lookup table in the BIN has to be changed so that the voltage delivered by the TPS at all openings corresponds to the values in that table. Most of what needs to be known to understand the TPS operation was already explained here: http://archive.guzzitech.com/HD-TPS-Jeff_B.html Below picture shows the TPS lookup table from a 15M. The lower table is not part of the BIN, it's just a calculated table to show the voltages corresponding to degrees with a PF3C. Adapting the TPS lookup table to TPS with a different curve is quite simple. Use the curve formula of the TPS and calculate a table with corresponding degrees and voltage breakpoints. Change the values in the TPS lookup table accordingly and it's done. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Docc, here you go: http://www.von-der-salierburg.de/download/GuzziDiag/IAW15xEEPROMTool_V0.04.zip And here's the XDF: http://www.von-der-salierburg.de/download/GuzziDiag/xdf/15M_EEPROM_V1.01.zip Cheers Meinolf

Hi Docc, a faster and much more convenient way to set CO trim is using the EEPROM writer/loader from Beard. No need to start the engine and bring it up to heat, also avoids the need to clear the stored errors first. Program and XDF are on Beard's page. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, the tach is driven by a square wave signal from the ECU, pin3 on the 15M & RC. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, it's about blueprinting the engine. I have yet to see a Guzzi engine where the actual and indicated TDC are identical. Offsets are typically in the range of 1-2°, but I have also seen 4°. That might sound like a minor deviation, but setting the timing right is probably the cheapest and most noticeable tune-up available. And if you are doing it anyway then setting the camshaft wheel so that the lift of the exhaust valve and opening of the intake valve are coinciding at 3° before TDC is the recommended value. I remember that L.Apfelbeck even recommended values of up to 15° for engines with ram rods. I wouldn't modify the dowel plug in the camshaft, but instead drill either a single hole at the necessary offset into the camshaft wheel or bore another 4 holes with 72° degrees offset. That would give you the option to offset the timing by +11.4/-7.6, +3.8/-15.2, +15.2/-3.8, +7.6/-11.4 degrees respectively. On models with ECU (the picture in my previous post is a LM3) I would only correct the timing to factory specs or a slight advance. I don't know where in the ECU code the ignition and injection timing is calculated. Changing the value to more than the 3° before TDC can be compensated for the ignition values by adding the value to the ignition tables, but I don't know where this can be done to the injection values. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, the most accurate, and easiest, method to check the TDC mark is using a cylinder stopper and a degree wheel. You don't need a dial indicator for that purpose. Fasten the degree wheel to the rotor and screw the stopper into the spark plug hole. Gently turn CW until the cylinder is stopped and note the degree. Turn CCW until stopped and note the degree. Add the 2 values and divide by 2, that's the TDC. I fabricated a stopper from a spark plug by drilling it through, cutting a thread into the hole and inserting a screw rounded off at the end. Take care not to interfere with the valves. If you want to check the timing of the camshaft, you ideally use two indicators fastened so that you can measure valve lift while turning the camshaft with 0mm valve play set. Take measurements every 2° of crankshaft, note down the valve lifts and determine the point of intersection. That's the one where the two curves intersect in the next picture. https://db.tt/UitlzOqp The best value is intersection 3° (crankshaft) before TDC. If the measured value is off a new hole needs to be bored into the camshaft wheel. Here's a picture of the setup. https://db.tt/gAp4wpUC Cheers Meinolf

Hi, What does this mean? re-read my earlier post. The mechanical synchronization with closed throttle is done with both idle stop screws, with open throttle it's done with the white screw on the connecting rod. The 15M/15RC doesn't have this functionality. Later ECUs do. The ECU can neither sense if an adjustment of TPS has been made nor can it be told. It reads the voltage coming from the TPS and uses the according breakpoints in the maps. Assume that, if you have backfiring at constant throttle opening, the engine is running much to lean due to lean map values or a leak on the intake side. If it backfires while closing the throttle, you might have a leak in the exhaust as well. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Roy, let me answer in the same sequence. 1. CO and Lambda are equivalent. See the chart here for the values: http://www.mad-d.ch/attachments/063_Umrechung%20Lambda.pdf . So you might go after a CO value of 5.00 using the CO tester or a Lambda value of 0.86 or an AFR of 12.63 using the WBO2, it's all the same. 2. Here it get's a bit more sophisticated. Mixture is one part of the equation, ignition the other. The speed at which the mixture starts burning depends on the AFR. A lean mixture ignites slower than a rich mixture, so the ignition should be changed following the mixture. Normally one wouldn't have the means to determine the best ignition timing in his home workshop or garage, so this part of the equation should be disregarded. Focusing only on the mixture it's really depending on what your targets are. The V11 and Jackal idle well at Lambda up to 0.96-0.97. Anything leaner requires engines which are specifically designed for a >1.0 Lambda ratio and employ very sophisticated technologies. Guzzis aren't. For all intents and purposes any mixture up to 0.97 Lambda is ok, personally I've set 0.92. Some more details here: http://www.cartechbooks.com/media/wysiwyg/9_12.jpg 3. See 1. 4. Well, here in Germany a CO tester is cheaper than a WBO2 sensor and logger. But, the latter one is more versatile. For example in measuring both cylinders and synchronizing the mixture, the ECU has 2 fuel maps, one for each cylinder. And getting these synched gives a real boost plus lower vibrations. 5. Yes. Like we did with the old-style carburetted engines and the idle mixture screws. Adjust CO values upwards until the rpm drops, adjust CO downwards until the rpm drops, select the CO value in the midst. That would be 0.86 or close to it. Cheers Meinolf

Hi Gentlemen, looking at above comments makes me wonder if the destination is the same for all... The targets (achievable with this procedure) are: 1) Baseline the TPS and the BIN 2) Remove any mechanical play at idle and the with the throttle open 3) Achieve a stable idle at the desired rpm using the 2 influencing factors at your disposal The steps neccessary to achieve above targets are: 1) Set the TPS to 156mV with the throttle valves fully closed. No more voltage measurements are neccessary after this has been done 2) Sync the cylinders using left and right throttle stop screws with the throttle closed. Sync the cylinders with the throttle opened. It doesn't matter how much opened, as long as the mechanical play is taken out of the equation. 3) Set the desired idle using both bypass screws and both idle stop screws. It doesn't matter (there is no defined target value) how much the bypass screws are opened. It doesn't matter (there is no defined target value) how much the two idle stop screws are turned in. What are the results: 1) The ECU receives the voltage from the TPS (which it translates into degrees of throttle opening) which directs it to use the proper values in the diversity of maps using the TPS setting. These are the fuel maps, the ignition map and a diversity of correction tables 2) The mechanical play of all mechanical parts is taken out of the equation and cylinders are synchronized to work at throttle openings which provide identical power (which is indicated by the same pressure as measured with the sync tool). Less vibrations also. 3) A stable idle at the desired speed. Which factors influence 3): The 2 factors which influence this are air passing through the throttle body and the amount of injected fuel, (Ignition time also does, but that's a separate topic) Air is influenced by throttle opening and bypass opening. Fuel injected is based on fuel map values and setting of CO trim. The relationship of air and fuel is AFR. The best power is at an AFR of 12.64, which means the engine turns over fastest with this mixture. If the engine turns to slow at idle, it can be to lean or to rich. If it's to lean, add more fuel by changing the CO trim. A better way is to change the fuel map value, as this does not influence the mixture at other TPS/rpm points. But you need a WBO2 or a CO tester to measure this. If it's to rich, add more air or decrease fuel. Adding more air is achieved by throttle opening and bypass screws, decreasing fuel by changing the CO trim (and/or fuel map values) If above doesn't result in a stable idle, there's either a fault somewhere (TPS, either of the temperature and barometric sensors, injectors, ....) or the fuel map values are not suited to the specific engine. If you have the inclination, time and required equipment also change the correction tables for air and engine temperature and barometric pressure. The original ones are flawed. This would ensure that the idle remains stable regardless of ambient conditions. Cheers Meinolf

Right