Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I bought the innovate lm-1 kit to tune the afr with the datalogit.

It interfaces easily to one of the 0-5v analogue inputs and allows you to plot average afr for each load cell. Very easy to tune with.

I do the same with the tech edge...also too easy.

Hey BMX, hows the wrx catch can?

After finishing the current tank of fuel I was on I managed to travel 402km's on a full tank. This is a significant increase in fuel economy. The wideband tuning was done when my fuel tank was just over 1/2 used and the ODO was on approx 220km's when we had finished wideband tuning. I usually get approx 330km's to a full tank.

I will see how it goes next week as I have just filled up today. I expect around 450km's to a full tank which is a massive improvement.

Thanks to all of those who have offered help and assistance.

The PowerFC guide will be updated in the next few days to include the wideband on road tuning and how to do it.

Paul I reckon your problem lies somewhere else. The stock ECU and Powerfc should give about the same fuel consumption if you dont hamer it much. You wil be in closed loop most of the time - relying on 02 sensor reading.

Are you getting around 14.7AFR at idle and whenever car is in closed loop?

I was getting about 400-450km to a tank (about 11-12L/100km) without the powerfc tune. When stuck on the dyno the AFR went into the 9s at full throttle.

Since the tune I got about 460km to the tank (10.6L/100km) but I reckon if I stayed off the gas then I don't think there would be any difference in consumption. The timing down low doesn't give you much benefit in fuel economy. I think a wheel alignment might give you more if you have too much toe.

You should check your injector duty cycles and air flow voltage at say 60km/h, 70, 80 and 90 in 4th gear (on the flat) and compare them with others on here.

Maybe you just sit in bad traffic or have a lead foot!! hehehe

no i wasnt getting 14.7 under normal closed loop, the whole close loop imho is a bit of rip i think, it takes so long for the stocky 02 sensor to give anything useful to the ecu about the afr's almost not even worth having it on.

when ive done a full tank im gonna turn off 02 feedback.

with proplerly tuned afr's i dont think 02 feedback will do anything other than waste calculating power. ive never had good economy on the FC until now, when i tuned the INJ map with a wideband sensor. before then it was always average is 320/330/340. on a full tank of fwy i would get maybe 400 if i was lucky. never ever ever over.

stock ecu economy was ok ish, not super great. not over 400 thats for sure

i do mild spiritied driving some of the times but the majority is light load / cruise. my inj duties however around 1.8% 2.2% on light cruise

I just came back from Bendigo taking it easy and i got 390ks before the light comes on. I generally can push this out to 450 before i fill up (love running it on empty) Last tank 434ks. I was quite dissapointed with the open road cruising as i took it easy and was only gettting 100ks every quarter of a tank. When we tuned it we concentrated alot on fulll throttle but didnt do much on light throttle since upping the fuel pressure so i guess its guzzling on light throttle. Im smoothing out the part throttles Inj cycle to try and bring a little more effeciency into it. Even with the bigger turbo i think i could still get 500ks on a trip but might need a dyno to see my AFR's at light throttle.

Im experimenting at leaning it out a little on light throttle but its all guess work until i get a monitor. Remember i could only be adjusting it 1% here and there so its really not going to make much. I hope i dont lean it out too far.

about to upload my current tune data and .dat files and also got the datalogit afr chart in excel so i can spit out my afr's apparently based on what the pfc inj map values you are (so it claims anyway)

attached fuel inj compare against last tune and also fuel map and also datalogit tune .dat file. rename .txt to .dat and use it with datalogit if you wish

post-2054-1138879080.jpg

post-2054-1138879124.jpg

paulr33_193rwkw_widebandtuneup.txt

thanks Robo for pointing that out, something i clearly missed.

I managed to get 504k's to a full tank of all hwy driving on the weekend,

This week is city testing, so far 100k's on just under a 1/4 of a tank.

Will update those 3200rpm cells, should be 1.00 instead of 1.070

I was getting about 400-450km to a tank (about 11-12L/100km) without the powerfc tune.  When stuck on the dyno the AFR went into the 9s at full throttle. 

Since the tune I got about 460km to the tank (10.6L/100km) 

460km to the tank at 10.6L/100km would suggest that you have only a 48.76L fuel tank.

To properly work out fuel economy you need to start with a full tank, resest the trip meter drive how ever many Km's you want then refill tank to full and compare your actual Km's travelled to the amount of fuel you needed to fill it back up.

My around town fuel consumption for my PFC tuned 25t is 15L/100km which would be 433km's on a tank (65 litres) full to empty.

I did the fill up reset the trip, then fill up again to get those readings. Thats the only accurate way you can do it. Not everyone is going to run it dry..I ran it till almost E and got 460km - no doubt plenty left - yes I put in close to 49L. You probably will never run it down to less than 5L unles you really push it.

15L/100km is horrid. To be honest though I havent really done much heavy traffic driving - I guess mine would probably go to 12-13L/100km then. They are only a 2.5L engine. If u use boost a lot then expect bad consumption.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...