Let me give that another try... I just had this "great response" all typed out and there was a technical error with the forum...
Yes that is exactly what you should do. That is assuming you are tuning with stock narrow band sensors. (When I tune with the wide band sensors, I set the AFR table to 13.0 across the board.) I would not be concerned with the upper KPAs or higher RPMs but all the lower ranges should be tuned. The attached file "tuning AFR NB.JPG" shows what a normal AFR table set for narrow band tuning would look like. Setting the VE values correctly for as many cells as possible is the foundation for building a good tune. Even if you change to another AFR value later, setting the cell to 14.6 and getting the VEs spot on is essential.

Glad to show you what my AFR Tables look like. For Open loop, "AFR Open Loop.JPG" shows what I am currently running. When I run Closed loop, I would use one like AFR Closed Loop.JPG" attached. ***One word of caution - well tuned maps are made up of multiple tables that work well together. Just copying this AFR table into a map will not solve all problems. This works well for my configuration and all other tables and is a good example but not the "fix-all" for everything. I think you know that but wanted to say it in case someone else happens across this post. ***

 

[QUOTE=JustDennis;9867791]You definitely need to cover a larger area of the map. Look at the notes at the end of the PV Tuning Basics document I put together for some suggestions on how to ride during tuning. You can access it by clicking the link in my signature.

I would extend closed loop to at least 3750 RPM to do tuning. The timing should be fine in that area. Actually, I will just post the tuning suggestions here to make it easier. The rest of the doc is worth reading though.


Thanks JustDennis. I did use your instructions which saved me a lot of headaches, but I didnt pay a lot of attention to the tunning suggestions. I pretty much punched in the 319245 code and went dataloging. One thing I didnt do was disabel PE AE DE. I wasnt sure if it was necassary. Will this help me hit more cells? Looks like I am going to have to dig in to it a bit more...

 

Changing those values will not help you hit more cells, it just removes some of the factors that could skew the values. It isn't a big deal either way but if I am going to the trouble of doing a good tuning run, I want the best data possible. Sounds like you are well on your way.

 

Thank you! Nice to see an example of how others are setting AFR.
Here is a pic of what I was doing right before my ABS failed. Bike is in the shop and have not had a chance to mess with PV since this pic.
But you can see where I am at anyway. ( the 13.5 AFR in the 20 and 30 KPa columns was my attempt at curing my decel popping ) . Only popping left is 3rd gear decel at 1800 rpm, working on it!

 

My WB PVV file was way off from what I had been getting from PV Tune. I reported the results and sent them the original tune plus PVV file.

BTW, for those doing beta testing, FW 1094 is now available.

 

The fairing-mounted odometer will probably be fast by about half that of the speedometer at its original calibration, or at least is on my bike. The speedo was originally 4% fast and odometer 1½-2% compared to my GPS. Now the speedo is correct and the odometer remains unchanged, so I'm figuring my distance traveled parameter on that. Right now it looks like the beta FW calibration is a bit low, so I will probably up it a bit next fill-up. The Fuel Used parameter is still high even though I set it to 1.0 from 1.12, so I'll have to engage in more calibration over the next few tankfuls.

 

How are you keeping current on updates? Getting a notice of some sort?

 

Well, I've had a different result. Two summers ago I tested 13.5 vs. 14.6 with my old PCV-AT, toggling between the two on the fly. At a fairly constant 55mph the difference was 7° in ET (FCHT) displayed with an LCD-200, allowing plenty of time for temperatures to set in. I didn't measure at lower speeds like idle, which may be more of a difference. I couldn't tell any difference in performance either.

About a month or two ago I mislabeled my normal (leaner) tune (14.5 at cruise) and had to run 13.0 across-the-board on a long ride in about 80° weather. On that ride I didn't notice any change in power (part-throttle response), ET, or OT that what I would normally see--but gas mileage was 6mpg lower. The next day I took another long ride in weather that was 10° warmer and noticed only that mileage had changed, even though ET and OT were very slightly higher because of the warmer ambient temps. I have a richer tune on the PV for emergencies but haven't used it yet, and run 14.5 at cruise in open-loop. I rarely see EITMS kick in, which is set for 290° ET, and while moving I'm seeing 225-235° in current 90°+ weather.

Keep in mind that I'm running 14.5 only up to 85KPA and 4500 rpm and tapering down to 13.0 at 100 KPA:

85 KPA = 14.0
90 KPA = 13.5
100 KPA = 13.0

So, performance above the cruise range is about as good as I could expect. Adding more fuel to the cruise range shouldn't help WOT at all and could only impact part-throttle response, but I can't feel it if there is any improvement.

I'm certainly not disputing your results, but mine are different for whatever reason. It'd be interesting to know why. Anyone else have any tests results to share?

 

Thanks, so are you saying that the PV trip A miles are more accurate, or trip A on the speedo? Thanks again.

TedMan

 

Im gonna try a richer open loop map (maybe 14.2 for starters). But first I want to extend my closed loop so that I can get my ve's right. Up to 4500 rpm and 90 kpa it is all 14.6 and 14.5's. I read in youre tutorial that 4 degrees of timing should be pulled when extending closed loop. But is that really necessary if im only changing a 14.5 to a 14.6? I very rarely ride above 4500 rpm, which is the range I assume youre referring`to as needing to have timing retarted. Afr's above 4500 on my map are 13.5, 13.0, and 12.5. 4 degrees of timing would suffice for these ranges? Thanx for the advice man.
And if the richer mix dosent do anything for temps or performance, it at least gave me the motivation to get all my ve's right, and im not out anything. Ive already done several tuning runs and got my 14.6 ve's incredibly close. Youre advice is greatly appreciated.