![\"XLR](\"http:\/\/caddyinfo.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/09\/XLR-Tune-6F-Mixed-Maf.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe red line is Tune 6B.\u00a0 The ONLY difference between Tune 6B and Tune 6F is 4200-5200 rpm.\u00a0 So the fact that Tune 6F comes to 4000 RPM 13 whp behind is a mystery (different days, different conditions, etc).\u00a0 From 4200-5200 Tune 6E does well enough, but missing the tuned-in VVT hump at 5500 rpm.\u00a0 Tune 6B does better from 6000+ rpm (but they are exactly the same out there!)<\/p>\n
This graph shows the narrow band trend for AFR for Tune 6F in blue, 6B in red.\u00a0 I think the blue is much flatter, which was the goal for the test.\u00a0 I included the MAF frequencies in yellow so I could easily relate the various regions to the way the MAF calibration works in the tuning tables.\u00a0 Something odd happens to the air flow at 5200 rpm or so on both.<\/p>\n Again, the AFR is commanded flat from 4000-6800 RPM so I am calibrating the MAF to drive the blue line flat across the graph (ignoring the noise in the line).<\/p>\n Hptuners result showing max calculated HP for conditions for 6F.<\/p>\n Similar data for Tune 6B at max hp for that run.<\/p>\n In summary, good that the MAF calibration changes drove a more consistent AFR.\u00a0 Again, not sure why I am seeing large day to day changes, except of course different days, different conditions, etc.\u00a0 Perhaps every test needs to be Run Tune A, stop, recalibrate, Run Tune B, then compare.\u00a0 That way they are on the same day, more or less similar conditions, etc.\u00a0\u00a0 Virtual Dyno does try to correct for baro and temp, but still seeing some variances creep into the tests.<\/p>\n UPDATE<\/p>\n After consideration, I believe part of the variability I am seeing is that Virtual Dyno corrects for baro and temp but not for humidity\/dewpoint.\u00a0\u00a0 46% humidity (like today here) can double the dyno correction factor vs dry air.<\/p>\n I plan to return to a process of using a calculator to correct for altitude, dewpoint, and humidity to arrive at absolute pressure and temperature for dry air, then put those values into Virtual Dyno for each run.\u00a0 That will eliminate another source of variation.<\/p>\n UPDATE 2:<\/p>\n After some comparisons I see that if I put in adjusted pressure in dry air and test temp (as opposed to dry air temp) then I get almost the same multiplier as suggested by the dyno adjustment, within 0.1%<\/p>\n So this is my new plan on how to input baro and temp for Virtual Dyno.\u00a0 This still leaves Tune 6F below the prior runs, but I will get more samples and see if this one was an outlier or we learn more.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today’s Tune 6F uses the High Baro MAF calibration from 6B except from 4200-5200 rpm, where it pulls the air fuel ratio slightly (2%) richer.\u00a0 What I hoped to see is a very flat air fuel ratio in the NBO2s, … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n