copying ecu tune to PCV

So I would like to run the tune PowerTripp posted for the R3T, but I have already done the triple K&N mod. My understanding is that this will cause things to run lean a bit. I have a PCV/AutoTune installed to cover that aspect of things with my current setup.

I figure that if I can copy the air/fuel data from TuneECU from PowerTripp's tune into the PCV air/fuel targets, that should keep things running as PowerTripp planned. Am I right in thinking this?

My problem pops up in that the data points in TuneECU don't match the data points in the PCV.

How do I copy the air/fuel table from TuneECU to the PCV??

Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!!

Here's the thing. When you fit a PCV-AT forget everything you know. The way it works is different to how a narrow band sensor ECU does.

Fit Hansos AFR targets into the PCV-AT. These were developed initially with Wayne Tripps input. And subsequently with masses of time.

I run the Version2 AFR targets in gears 1-4 and have the Version1 targets (which are marginally leaner) in 5th to keep consumption down a little when cruising Cruising being constant 140kmh ish.

Make sure you've altered the F->L switching values with TuneECU.

If you're NOT using the map per gear functiion of the PCV you're making a HUGE MISTAKE.

Once the PCV is in - ride 2 tankfuls - general riding fast and slow. Commit the PCV trims. Ride another 2 tanks - commit again.

Thereafter any changes should be minimal and the PCV will simply be adapting to enviromental changes. And there are days YOU WILL FEEL the PCV adapting to changes - especially if you get sudden weather temperature spikes.

If you make any changes to inlet/outlet etc - 2 tankfuls and commit.

Quote from Chris's post "Fit Hansos AFR targets into the PCV-AT. These were developed initially with Wayne Tripps input. And subsequently with masses of time."

As Chris put it so simply, Is how I developed Map AFR Map after talking to Wayne and plotting the common points but after a while I found that version 1 was a touch to lean causing my Ceramic Coated Headers to lose their finish due to running to hot so I set about adding a bit more fuel to cool things down but then I found that version 2 Not only did I get a cooler running motor I have actually achieved better Fuel economy as well, WTF I hear you say well recently I had my impressions confirmed while chatting with Neville Lush, he said it was due to the fact that I was making more torque with the slight increase in fuel so therefore better fuel economy follows.
I have as yet not bothered to activate the map per gear feature that Chris talks about will get a around to It" one of these days.
While running that TuneECU tune that Wayne Tripp gave you sorts the Ignition side of things the PCV + AT will look after the fuelling to suit your set up! that is the Beauty of the Auto Tune it reads what is happening in YOUR ENGINE, IN YOUR ENVIROMENT all the time
If You want try my AFR TABLE MAP send me a PM with your E-Mail.
Cheers
Hans
PS you can always use it as a Base To Create Your Own if it is not exactly what your after and I am always Keen to get feed back or even a copy of a modified version of mine if find a way to make a positive change

rash_powder said:

So I would like to run the tune PowerTripp posted for the R3T, but I have already done the triple K&N mod. My understanding is that this will cause things to run lean a bit. I have a PCV/AutoTune installed to cover that aspect of things with my current setup.

I figure that if I can copy the air/fuel data from TuneECU from PowerTripp's tune into the PCV air/fuel targets, that should keep things running as PowerTripp planned. Am I right in thinking this?

My problem pops up in that the data points in TuneECU don't match the data points in the PCV.

How do I copy the air/fuel table from TuneECU to the PCV??

Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!!

Click to expand...

In case you you are still thinking of doing this I can give version 1 which I created by doing a screen shot of one of Waynes TuneECU maps AFR tables and marked the common way points in a PCV Zero Map then following the AFR's in Wayne's table linked them up, .... this took some time and the end result was version 1
One thing to remember is that leaner is not always going to give better Fuel Economy as I pointed out in last post version 2 was to cool things down but resulted in an even smoother still power delivery and a bonus of better fuel usage

the only other way to get the right ratios when throttle percentage cells and the given rpm are not exact is the do it mathematically since you have cells above and below you can extrapolate the fuel ratio for the unknown cell. This of course will take a little time but works well.

warp9.9 said:

the only other way to get the right ratios when throttle percentage cells and the given rpm are not exact is the do it mathematically since you have cells above and below you can extrapolate the fuel ratio for the unknown cell. This of course will take a little time but works well.

Click to expand...

basically that is what I Did I marked the common waypoints and due to the fact the calibration is different between not mention upside down to each other and I used percentages to work the difference points between

I already have Hanso's version 2 in my PCV/AutoTune.

So if I am understanding things right, I can flash PowerTripp's ECU file into my ECU and just keep running Hanso's PCV/AutoTune file and be OK??

Thanks!!

rash_powder said:

So if I am understanding things right, I can flash PowerTripp's ECU file into my ECU and just keep running Hanso's PCV/AutoTune file and be OK??!

Click to expand...

You can actually put pretty much any tune you like in the stock ECU - The PCV-AT will override any signals sent to the injectors. So YES!.

hanso said:

I found that version 1 was a touch to lean causing my Ceramic Coated Headers to lose their finish due to running to hot so I set about adding a bit more fuel to cool things down but then I found that version 2 Not only did I get a cooler running motor I have actually achieved better Fuel economy as well,

WTF I hear you say well recently I had my impressions confirmed while chatting with Neville Lush, he said it was due to the fact that I was making more torque with the slight increase in fuel so therefore better fuel economy follows.

Click to expand...

Mmm - I could do with cooling my headers down a bit. I roasted my right knee (the leathers thankfully) yesterday. Left was more slow broiled from the oil tank.

Better consumption is a plus. - Just committed trims after two tanks at 120-150km/h with the new filter-plenum. Maybe I could V2 5th tomorrow whilst I'm fiddling about doing other stuff.

More torque means more tyre shredding though. Mmmmmmm.

How much better, Hans? - replacing the triple K&N's with the filter-plenum has returned me to 38mpg (7.5L/100kms) - it dropped to 8.5L/100 with K&N's. Was 7.5L using both plenums and a single Pipercross PK003F filter under-tank.

I'd love to get to 7L/100kms. That would give me a range on a tank that would be at when I'd need a "kidney/bladder/white-finger" stop anyway.

Trying to use percentage corrections from TuneECU in a PCV, or vice-versa does not work. The numbers mean different things in each. TuneECU/TuneBoy use mg of air/ms, while PC units use ms of on-time. Injectors vary in how quickly they open, as well.

Ladies and gents, other than at cruise, the AFR tables in TuneECU or TuneBoy mean nothing, as they are out of range for the narrow-band sensor. Please do not use these in auto-tune tables.

Concerning auto-tune, you MUST realize a few limitations of Lambda sensors before you set up a table. First is that pump fuel DOES NOT have a stoich ratio of 14.7 as most think. Even NTK and Bosch sensors are calibrated for a stoich ratio of 14.56, and this is not correct. Most pump fuels in the USA contain 9-10% ethanol, and many of these fuels have a stoich ratio of 14.1-14.2 for Lambda 1.0

Next you need to know the actual lag time involved in different gears for the gasses to reach the sensor and the sensor to display accurately. This can mean that under hard acceleration, the numbers in the AFR trim table (used in auto-tune software) can lag behind actual engine speeds by 1500-2000 rpm in top gear, and much more in lower gears.

This means that the trim function can be trying to alter fueling at 5000 rpm based on samples at 3000 rpm. This is VERY IMPORTANT to get correct.

And finally, you need to understand that each injector may flow within 1-2 percent at 100% duty-cycle. The ECU can only handle ~86% d-c before the drivers in the ECU will shut down to prevent them from burning up. However, under 40% d-c, variation between injectors can easily be 14%, and I have seen as much as 42% differences in some rockets.

You need to give the engine WHAT IS WANTS, NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT WANTS. This is why "auto-tune" is BS.

I hope this helps,
-Wayne