BETA F/IC6 Software version 3.06; TPS fuel map, 17,000 RPM maps, accel pump emulation:

http://forum.aempower.com/forum/inde...c,26303.0.html

AEM has also released updated installation instructions for the FIC/6 & 8 here (bottom of page):

http://forum.aempower.com/forum/inde...c,25388.0.html

The accel pump feature sounds like it might help to eliminate any lean hesitation or stumble when first floored but I have doubts about tuning the entire fuel map off the TPS instead of the MAP sensor.

Anyway, it's worth a look.

 

nice mang...I heard 3.06 was out but i thought that just added a fix for those having issues with data logging with the fic. could be wrong though.

thanks for posting that!!!

 

I read in some magazine that people can get a better tune off the tps, but they have to know what they are doing and it takes much longer to dial in.

 

well tunning off of tps and boost comp maps is a different story..

The fic software is so behind its disgusting! As always aem's trailing behind!

Guess its step forward... or a step into future problems!

Emanage>fic

 

3.05 fixes the long-standing internal data logging issues, Beta 3.06 does that and adds some new functionality. Da nada. I hope this helps someone.


Considering how laggy the FIC is to respond to it's map sensor, maybe this is the best way to tune the FIC? What I seem to be finding with the FIC is that it looks a lot better on paper than it actually works in application.

A good piggy would use abrupt TPS change to activate the accel pump emulation and still use the map sensor. But we're not talking about a good piggy, are we?

On a related note, I've re-wired my $500 PnP harness for the umpteenth time, bought a $150 oscilloscope and am ready to begin troubleshooting the FIC's inability to pass an uncorrupted crank position sensor signal to the ECU.


BTW, a while back I thought I had a leaking fuel injector because my engine flooded with the ignition on if I didn't start the engine right away. Removing the FIC solved the issue and I can't replicate it. The engine also starts much quicker, idles better and if I could only alter the oe ECU's target afr, fuel and ign tables, would run far better. To the FIC's credit, the O2 signal skewing does work pretty well for CL tuning.

 

TPS tuning on a DBW car > pressure tuning.

 

crap i got soo much on my plate right now on testing things out on the fic...cant wait to get to this one

 

Don't mean to get too off topic, but if tuning off of TPS how would the fi/c know if your running boost etc? I mean you can floor it and TPS will be voltage xxx but that doesn't mean boost has kicked in yet?

 

Thanks Don. TPS tuning seems like a great way to get rid of the lean hesitation I get on WOT but how about the rest of the range? I've got the same question Gompka has about the relationship between TP and MAP. If it's always constant, great, but if not, how far off might TPS tuning get?

BTW, has anyone tried tuning a FI engine with FIC off TPS yet? I installed the software/firmware but my FIC isn't even installed due to unresolved CPS issues and crappy weather.

 

TPS tuning and MAP tuning are different animals all together. I will give an example...

1) Cruising on the highway at 65mph running 35kpa @ 10% throttle. Crack the throttle to 15% to make a quick pass, cylinder pressure increases may be to 40-45kpa. Fuel is delivered via a corresponding cell based upon load from the MAP sensor. Not all load values are equal. Speed is the only other real variable that determines the difference between cruising the at 65mph and doing this vs cruising at 30mph. They may reference the same cells on your map because the "load" is the same. The only difference is speed. Hence, in a 3D representation, it's callled Speed Density. This is where O2 feedback comes into play to help pull the fuel delivery in line on lower engine speeds. We all know cruising at 65mph requires more fuel than 30mph.

2) Cruising on the highway at 65mph running 35kpa @ 10% throttle. Crack the throttle to 15% to make a quick pass now you have a different enrichment delivery. This is based upon throttle change. The downside to this is that 10% throttle like in the first example could have a different effect.

Now running from the same scenario, let's punch the throttle, but not enter boost. Say from 10% to 60%. It references the fuel delivery off of the cells, but say you have a small turbo and it makes a boat load of boost quick, this way will be fine for you. If you have a decent sized turbocharger on the other hand, you may not get into boost from a 30mph roll, but from a 60 doing the same thing, you may rocket to 15 PSI. So this form of tuning has it's draw backs as well and will use some O2 feedback as well.

A hybrid system of the two would be ideal IMO

 

Thank you Paul. That's good info and makes me think that TPS tuning is worth a shot, for me anyway. With or without the FIC, my biggest tune problem is caused by boost coming on too quickly. The ECU and MAP tuned FIC both react too slowly and I get a lean hesitation on initial WOT. Adding fuel to the FIC O2 and fuel maps just prior to boost helps a lot. When the weather improves and if I can resolve my FIC CPS issues, I may give it a shot.

I agree 100% on the TPS/MAP hybrid idea. TPS for quick response and fuel enrichment on initial WOT and MAP for open loop.