Maybe you can better explain your definition of a 'Lambda Error' and how it applies to tuning.
Eventually, you will utilizing a BEN to compare the tunes PCM setting against your Wideband. That is what most of us are relating to.
Why 'Lambda Error'?
Maybe you can better explain your definition of a 'Lambda Error' and how it applies to tuning.
Eventually, you will utilizing a BEN to compare the tunes PCM setting against your Wideband. That is what most of us are relating to.
Why 'Lambda Error'?
We are probably talking about the same thing. I call it my Lambda error chart. I wrote a simple pid that compares my wbo2 against my commanded a/f and it gives me a lambda number. So with my Lambda 1.00 set at 14.22. So if my WBO2 is saying say 13.8 and my commanded is 14.22 then my lambda error or correction which ever you prefer is .97, so when I am calibrating my VE table, I can multiply my entire scanner data right into my VE table and it fixes it in one shot no matter what my commanded A/F is. So when I go into PE, my lambda error or correction is still the same.
I would rather import all of it by lambda, it would be cleaner, however this is what I believe Mr. Prick was talking about. I am setting my lambda as 1.00 in the tune {B3671}as 14.22, but now I see my meter has a 1.00 as 14.57 and I do not know how to change that. So if I just import the voltage into A.F it corrects itself because the WB is just reporting A/F, it does not know what lambda 1.00 is. Hopefully I have not run him off, I would like to know if this can be changed in the meter. That would make things easy.
I think that is what they are getting at. It is very hard if not impossible to make those kind of changes in the actual wideband.Originally Posted by J.Abbott
I always thought the way to 'cheat' is just to make B3671 match the wideband..but I am sure it would just create a more complex problem in PE and other calculations.
I am sure you have not ran him off. It is not an easy concept to grasp. You would think the wideband software would allow more customization..
I understand what he saying, if I can get the lambda on my meter to match what I would like then it would work they way everyone described. But it works the way I have the pid written now unless my meter is using lambda to give AFR. If that is the case then I have an issue I need to get solved. I am going to look into this further now. It started off as a PID not working which I got fixed, but now I feel like a new meter may be in my future.
Mr. Prick,
I am sorry I am over thinking what you are saying about the meter and lambda. It always knows lambda because it is reading air content. I guess my only issue with tuning it by lambda only is that although it is 100% correct for the fuel that is in the car at that time, it might not be for the 5 tanks of fuel later. By my using lambda error or (have/want) by using the afr and what I set as stoich, the PCM is correct to where I am setting stoich even though that might be a percentage or two off at that particular time. However I am using my stoich based on the fact that I really don't know the alcohol content of each tank or different brands of fuel, they just say up to 10% ethonal, so I base my stoich off of that scale. I agree with you that lambda is dead on, but that changes with the fuels, I think my way covers the long term avg vs. what it is doing right now. Hope that explains what I am talking about better then before.
Thanks
Justin
CL: lambda will be 1.00 at stoich for any of: gasoline, E10, E85.
PE: lambda will be 0.87 during PE for any of: gasoline, E10, E85.
i.e. regardless of fuel, stoich is always lambda=1.00 and PE is always lambda=0.87 (for NA no boost).
If you're using the wideband to correct VE and/or MAF tables:
the correction factor is: commanded_EQR * wb_lambda
i.e forget about commanded AFR {GM.AFR} and log commanded EQR {GM.EQIVRATIO} instead.
Mr. Abbott:
I think you may have the definitions of Lamba and AFR reversed.
As tough as it is I think you have to move away from AFR as a fueling concept. I only use it now as a reference. Problem is that AFR may work for a particular PCM/Fuel, but it leaves you unable to adapt your thinking to other platforms/fuels.
For two weeks I ran my tune and calibrated my wideband to read just EQ. Two weeks later I ran both EQ and AFR. Then I got how bogus talking AFR in scientific circles can be.
I applaud your efforts to make a calculated pid that works for you. I might force myself however to adhere to the Lamda/EQ concept. Especially in this forum. Many different PCM's, fuels, and countries.
Just a thought..
Respectfully..
I'm not sure what the EQR pid is for E38/E67.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote