SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
#1
03-27-2008, 10:52 AM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Indiana. (Louisville KY Metro Area)
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
Specific question is if I set 13.2 in all the AFR Tables and tune with the VE Tables to get 14.2 everywhere...when I move the AFR tables up or down will the actual AFR still move proportionately?
[/align] [/align] Reason: the AFR table for 100 MAP in the 05 M.Y. Calsgoes no leaner than 13.2. I'll want to make wholesale changes up and down in AFR for R&D purposes...ie using the AFR Table in lieu of changing the VE Tables. I will need leaner than 13.2 actual at 100 MAP.[/align]
[/align] [/align] Reason: the AFR table for 100 MAP in the 05 M.Y. Calsgoes no leaner than 13.2. I'll want to make wholesale changes up and down in AFR for R&D purposes...ie using the AFR Table in lieu of changing the VE Tables. I will need leaner than 13.2 actual at 100 MAP.[/align]
#3
03-27-2008, 06:10 PM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Indiana. (Louisville KY Metro Area)
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
Yes, understand that part. Am going to do initial calibration (AFR's F&R) with VE Tables.
It's the afterward wholesale movement of AFR's up and down for R&D testing purposes.
Some knowledge shared elsewhere mentioned the SERT/ECM relationship is more linear than was given credit. This will likely work...a 13.2 Table number representing 14.2 actual. Will know tomorrow as it will be tried.
Was just looking for someone with first hand experience with this situation before trying this out.
It's the afterward wholesale movement of AFR's up and down for R&D testing purposes.
Some knowledge shared elsewhere mentioned the SERT/ECM relationship is more linear than was given credit. This will likely work...a 13.2 Table number representing 14.2 actual. Will know tomorrow as it will be tried.
Was just looking for someone with first hand experience with this situation before trying this out.
#4
03-29-2008, 10:46 PM
RE: SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
If you set the AFR at 13.2 thats what your asking the ECM to give you.....if your asking for 13.2 why settle for a 14.2 target. Set your target at 13.2 and then all your AFR tables will be true to what they say they are when you set Reference back to the original afr table.
#5
03-30-2008, 05:35 AM
Road Master
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Manningtree, England
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
ORIGINAL: HerkoBagger
Yes, understand that part. Am going to do initial calibration (AFR's F&R) with VE Tables.
It's the afterward wholesale movement of AFR's up and down for R&D testing purposes.
Some knowledge shared elsewhere mentioned the SERT/ECM relationship is more linear than was given credit. This will likely work...a 13.2 Table number representing 14.2 actual. Will know tomorrow as it will be tried.
Was just looking for someone with first hand experience with this situation before trying this out.
Yes, understand that part. Am going to do initial calibration (AFR's F&R) with VE Tables.
It's the afterward wholesale movement of AFR's up and down for R&D testing purposes.
Some knowledge shared elsewhere mentioned the SERT/ECM relationship is more linear than was given credit. This will likely work...a 13.2 Table number representing 14.2 actual. Will know tomorrow as it will be tried.
Was just looking for someone with first hand experience with this situation before trying this out.
#6
03-30-2008, 08:02 AM
#7
04-03-2008, 08:53 PM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Indiana. (Louisville KY Metro Area)
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
Doc 1...why you ask?
Because the cals for 2005's M.Y. go no leaner than 13.2 in the AFR table in the operational areas that I need to go leaner.
BTW...to all...it did work work well. Set 13.2 in all AFR Table cells...and cal'd all areas to 14.2 actual.
Then in lieu of shifting the gm/sec rating etc...I can now set say 12.5 and get right at an actual 13.5.
Made for easier experimenting of best AFR for best power.
Doc...I know you're the tuning guru...but as some updated head TC head prep technology (Squish Grooves...not new technology but recently being incorporated "again" on TC heads) continues to prove beneficial on Twin Cams...you too may have the need to offset your cell number/actual AFR by 1.0 or so. Try it sometime. But who am I...
FWIW...making 1.15 TQ per cu in purposely tuning with 89 octane at 10.50 static CR/ 9.65 dynamic CR...with NO ping. Also...this engine likes 14.1 (fourteen point one) for best power at WOT.
The grooves work. The 13.2/14.2 offset works.
Herko
Because the cals for 2005's M.Y. go no leaner than 13.2 in the AFR table in the operational areas that I need to go leaner.
BTW...to all...it did work work well. Set 13.2 in all AFR Table cells...and cal'd all areas to 14.2 actual.
Then in lieu of shifting the gm/sec rating etc...I can now set say 12.5 and get right at an actual 13.5.
Made for easier experimenting of best AFR for best power.
Doc...I know you're the tuning guru...but as some updated head TC head prep technology (Squish Grooves...not new technology but recently being incorporated "again" on TC heads) continues to prove beneficial on Twin Cams...you too may have the need to offset your cell number/actual AFR by 1.0 or so. Try it sometime. But who am I...
FWIW...making 1.15 TQ per cu in purposely tuning with 89 octane at 10.50 static CR/ 9.65 dynamic CR...with NO ping. Also...this engine likes 14.1 (fourteen point one) for best power at WOT.
The grooves work. The 13.2/14.2 offset works.
Herko
Trending Topics
#8
04-03-2008, 09:42 PM
#9
04-03-2008, 09:59 PM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southern Indiana. (Louisville KY Metro Area)
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
Yes, tuning the WOT area is the easy part.
It's all the part throttle area(s) tuning that takes the most time but makes for the best tune. The offset AFR table worked great for tuning the part throttle areas too. Just sayin'
Afterall, part throttle is where we ride the most...yes?
#10
04-04-2008, 02:06 AM
Road Master
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Manningtree, England
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: SERT Aficionados...Will it remain proportional?
ORIGINAL: HerkoBagger
Doc 1...why you ask?
Because the cals for 2005's M.Y. go no leaner than 13.2 in the AFR table in the operational areas that I need to go leaner.
BTW...to all...it did work work well. Set 13.2 in all AFR Table cells...and cal'd all areas to 14.2 actual.
Then in lieu of shifting the gm/sec rating etc...I can now set say 12.5 and get right at an actual 13.5.
Made for easier experimenting of best AFR for best power.
Doc...I know you're the tuning guru...but as some updated head TC head prep technology (Squish Grooves...not new technology but recently being incorporated "again" on TC heads) continues to prove beneficial on Twin Cams...you too may have the need to offset your cell number/actual AFR by 1.0 or so. Try it sometime. But who am I...
FWIW...making 1.15 TQ per cu in purposely tuning with 89 octane at 10.50 static CR/ 9.65 dynamic CR...with NO ping. Also...this engine likes 14.1 (fourteen point one) for best power at WOT.
The grooves work. The 13.2/14.2 offset works.
Herko
Doc 1...why you ask?
Because the cals for 2005's M.Y. go no leaner than 13.2 in the AFR table in the operational areas that I need to go leaner.
BTW...to all...it did work work well. Set 13.2 in all AFR Table cells...and cal'd all areas to 14.2 actual.
Then in lieu of shifting the gm/sec rating etc...I can now set say 12.5 and get right at an actual 13.5.
Made for easier experimenting of best AFR for best power.
Doc...I know you're the tuning guru...but as some updated head TC head prep technology (Squish Grooves...not new technology but recently being incorporated "again" on TC heads) continues to prove beneficial on Twin Cams...you too may have the need to offset your cell number/actual AFR by 1.0 or so. Try it sometime. But who am I...
FWIW...making 1.15 TQ per cu in purposely tuning with 89 octane at 10.50 static CR/ 9.65 dynamic CR...with NO ping. Also...this engine likes 14.1 (fourteen point one) for best power at WOT.
The grooves work. The 13.2/14.2 offset works.
Herko
Stock my RK ran too hot for me and I wanted it a little richer. Following advice on the forum I aimed for around 14.1 : 1 which seems to have reduced the heat considerably and I still get reasonable mpg. This was acheived primarily by increasing the CLB tables to maintain the closed loop use of the O2 sensors. I then did offset the VE by a maximum of 2 points in a few areas to reduce the knock sensor activity. It all seems to have worked fine.