Ok, here is what I did. Log both banks and look over them with trace view to see what cells are having issues with the bank to bank differences. In vac maps I leave it alone. Only open loop boost cells I worry about.

So, with mine bank 1 was a little bit more lean than bank 2. The way I think is the smartest thing to do instead of adding fuel to the lean back I pull fuel from the rich bank. That way is something fails the rich bank will only get more rich.

So I found the areas that the bank 2 was rich and I pulled fuel from all those injectors. So this would be injector 2,4,6 in the haltech. I leave 1,3,5 alone.

Here is a screen shot of my bank 2. Make sure you have cylinders 2,4,6 and 1,3,5 matching each other. If you need more help just send me an email and I will gladly help. You can send me your logs with the fuel map and I can help you make corrections.

 

Thanks so much for the help on this guys.

I cannot find a way to view Injector trims like you have. I can monitor Duty Cycle of each injector, but I cannot see a way to change the trim over different load points like you have.

In my navigator side menu I go from air temp correction right into the Ignition drop down, I do not have Injector trims showing. Looks like I have to do some more digging on the Haltech, or my Red Box isn't capable of doing this.

 

EDIT:

Figured it out, I was missing it completely. For future searchers:

Main Setup, Advanced, Trim tables, Enable.

Thanks again guys, I'm going to play with that and post back. Also, Matt at haltech is going to run a few more tests on the 350z and likely update/change the base map that is currently out. My AFR's were as much as 4.0 off right off the bat, hence this MAFS calibration fiasco. Almost there, though

 

i'm confused why you are using maf tables when it's so much easier to use MAP tables. No needing to calibrate anything since the internal sensor is already calibrated. It also doesn't have issues with airflow and turbulence around the maf since the maf isn't used. The map sensor also never gets dirty and gives false reads like a maf.

Not sure why he is changing a base map when it's only used for a start of a tune and in no way should be a final map.

 

Because his base map's calibrations are way off, at least when applied to my car they're way off.

I like the idea of MAF tuning a lot more, once all the calibrations and parameters for air/fuel are set, then a 1% change to air directly = 1% fuel change.

This means any future modifications basically sort themselves out. All changes in climate, temperature, altitude, and so forth are sorted out because the system is directly measuring actual airflow. So installing a cat-back system doesn't actually require tuning if you have a good Air/Fuel map already. Car simply measures the increase in air movement and modifies the charge mixtures, etc as it sees it.

I'm also not boosted yet, and MAP tuning is not the best for N/A.

The MAP method is purely calculated. A change to the exhaust/intake, etc will require a completely different tune because you're changing the calculated POTENTIAL air flow at different MAP readings and you need to re-model that calculation.

The Haltech is wicked at doing a bunch of this all by itself, and for high-power applications MAP tuning is better because there's not many MAF sensors that read that broad. For stock-->400 whp ranges the MAF does a great job.

 

eh, I guess I can somewhat see your point but I disagree on adding exhaust or whatnot and the car automatically knowing what to do because it is based on flow. Stock ecu uses maf and if you are using osiris tuning or just stock ecu and change exhaust, cams, intake, etc then the tune will not correct for that and a re-tune must be performed. So it will adjust to slight changes but it won't adjust to major changes to the system. If it did then nobody would need a re-tune on the stock ecu when they added exhaust and other things to their cars.

Also, the reason haltech uses a lot of parameters to set the IPW is due to the VE tuning. You an select IPW (injector pulse width) tuning and then if it's in a specific cell it will open that injector XX ms. So that means if you need a 3% change in fuel you just adjust it 3% up and it's a direct linear relationship. IPW tuning is very basic and doesn't just make up it's own thing like VE. The downfall to IPW is you lose some of fine tuning haltech does to accommodate for atmospheric changes and other small things.

After tuning with osiris I despise maf tuning.

 

For me right now the whole thing is still very theory based because I haven't got much tuning time in. MAF sensors are almost exclusively used in OEM's now because of the advantages, especially on N/A engines, with newer cars having widebands they literally can make large adjustments, they just have failsafes that don't allow them to. ie. max 5% change. A lack of widebands, and those failsafes are really the only thing stopping the engine from making much larger changes when airflow is increased.

With a good MAFS and widebands, and a proper tune to start with, a car with a larger (20-40%) fuel trim availability literally can make pretty large changes to it's 'tune' all by itself. Ideally you'll re-work and smooth out that tune to get teh most out of it, obviously, but they'll adjust quite a bit once the base airflow and fuel is properly modeled.

Now if you did have a failing sensor or leak occur, that 20-40% allowance could cause some problems, big ones ina boosted engine, but that's all part of the game no matter what you do.

 

Well, that correction is still present in the map based systems anyways so they can get just as many failures.

The stock ecu maf system has a 20% variance in correction. You can just hook up an obd2 monitor (innovate LM2) and watch the trims on a completely stock car.

In the boosted engine those swings won't matter because you wo'nt be in boost unless you are WOT or higher in TPS signal which would put the car in open loop so the a/f corrections will not be in effect. It doesn't use correction (closed loop) after a set TPS and load setting.

 

I think a combination of maf and map, and full time closed loop is ideal (e.g. GTR). Each has their strength and weakness.

 

None of our tuning solutiosn allow maf and map. You choose one or the other.

 

Ah cool thanks for that info.

I'm going to tinker with both. I really really like all the idea behind MAF tuning, in the end it just seems like a way better way to do things on a DD.

Now on a track car or high power built car I'd say MAP is better. But again, this is just from gobs of reading and research and an unbiased view. Most engineers agree with MAF based setups being superior, the only real downfall is systems with higher boost, and MAF sensor pricing/sensitivity. MAP sensors are much more reliable and much much cheaper systems.

 

Well, in essences with a stock based system a maf is superior to a map but when you have something like the haltech and all the extra additional adjustments then maf tuning really doesn't show any benefit. All of the temperature corrections, etc, that the maf system "accounts for" is negated when that is all included with a map based system on the haltech.

Stock to stock I would say a maf system can account for more variables but now that you are in haltech land with more than double the adjustments over a stock based system the smartest thing to do is use the easiest and that's a map system. Maf sensors get dirty, air turbulence can cause disruptions in areas of the map and cause you to have to make wild corrections on areas of the map. I'm assuming that's what is your issue now. Every car and every pipe is different so your turbulence is different than a 100% stock flow car which causes the maf to be off.

I always go with the simplest way. Being complex never gets you ahead and leaves room for things to go wrong. My way of trying to keep things as simple as possible for less to go wrong has gained me a 650hp car that drives like stock. If you are bored and want to waste time on the maf then by all means go for it but I think you will ultimately be disappointed and switch to map therefore causing a lot of headache and wasted time you could be enjoying your car or free time.

 

UTEC is essentially MAF for vacuum and MAP for boost. Not saying UTEC doesn't suck monkey ***** though.

 

I see what you're saying. i guess the thing that steered me away from MAP the most is that it's all calculated. And generally not as good for N/A or non-turbo use, as a generalization.

The Haltech seems to have far superior calculations and formulas built in that do self correction when MAP tuning, seems they spent almost all the attention on this portion opposed to the MAF tuning.

I can't disagree with you, and based on your help and advice I'm going to test run the MAP tuning and see how it goes. Matt @ haltech tells me the R&D is working on a better MAF base tune/calibration right now also, it'll be interesting to see what that does.

The thing with MAF is once it's calibrated properly it's GTG unless it fails, because like the MAP calibrations/formulas, everything is built in for corrections in the Haltech. And corrections for the MAF are masterfully simple in comparison to the MAP. Thing is, you, the tuner don't actually see how complex the calculations are for the MAP because with the Haltech it's pretty much all done for you in the background, but it IS almost completely calculated, and as such requires more tuning when changes are made than a MAF system does.

 

True, but that is more of 2 things working not 1 working together. OEM ecu is doing something and then the utec takes over. I was meaning something like 98-2002 camaros that use maf and speed density on their OEM ecu. They are together 1 unit integrated.

Well, the difficulty with the maf that you are having now is because it's not a stock airbox. Stock maf is setup for stock airbox. As soon as you change the intake piping length, diameter, etc then you have to recal your maf curve to fit the changes in airflow. It's just a nasty tuning method that requires a LOT of tuning around any turbulence disturbances that cause spikes or drops in maf voltage. That's the huge PITA with tuning osiris...all the time spent adjusting the maf voltage calibration.

All the corrections you are speaking of with the MAP tuning is based on VE tuning in the haltech. You can switch to IPW so the fuel cell will be directly the milliseconds of injector pulsewidth. Whatever cell you are in will generate that pulsewidth. No calculations for flow rate in the engine, displacement, etc. Then you can take the air temp and coolant temp calculations out by just setting those targets to 0. It can be made a simple as possible and as complex as possible.

I'm a little confused why you are hating the VE tuning calculations when in turn all those things you like about maf tuning (the adjustments based on atmosphere, etc) are the same thing that VE tuning is doing. So if you like that maf makes the adjustments for you then you would like VE map tuning because that's essentially the same thing going on.

As haltech describes in the attached screen shot. MAF and VE are both "theoretical" inputs and the ecu calculates what needs to be injected to get the proper a/f. Injection time is the only direct input and it runs on MAP. So if you want simple with no corrections you do MAP injection time. If you want the a/f to be calculated you can use MAF or you can use MAP VE. Essentially the only difference is the source from what they base their calculations: maf sensor or map sensor. Either sensor can be adjusted for as much or little resolution as you like in the haltech menus.

I'm just trying to help you understand so you don't waste time messing with something because some myth on the internet says that maf tuning is superior when you will ultimately switch over to MAP tuning due to FI later on. Start your tune with what you will always run and save yourself the trouble and headache.

Having tuned both types of systems with osiris and maf/map on haltech I would hands down run map tuning over maf even with a non-boosted car.

 

Thanks for taking the time to lay that out for me binder, you've been a great help man.

Again my resoning is based almost purely on theory/research, not first hand experience, and I really appreciate the first hand opinions from the guys whoo have dug into this and know the difference. I am not 'hating' on one way over another, purely made my decision to tune via MAF based on pretty much all my research pointing me in that direction. Most of the forum-based research seems to prefer MAF testing.

I Keep in mind, Haltech is primarily Holden/Aussie based tuning, that's the focus base for their decisions. And the Holden responds better to MAP tuning, hands down.

The MAF should be reading pretty good, only mods I have to intake is a Z tube and I removed the baffles/resonators. This will of course make a difference, but not as much as a SRI or something would, and certainly not to the degree I'm seeing. The only explainations are poor MAF calibration in the 350Z base map, or that I have a MAFS that is on it's way out the door?

I am going to look further into your post about MAF being calculated, because that is far from my impression of it. the MAP has a tuned calculated table, but the MAF doesn't, at least not with the Red Box

Either way it goes, you've convinced me without a doubt to give MAP tuning a try, and the next chance I get I'm going to tinker with it.

 

how would a pure-map setup compensate for moving between sea level and extreme altitude in an NA setup?

 

As you rise air pressure decreases therefore the sensor will read lower. Same as with an airplane.

So mine reads just slightly negative to 0 because the calibration for the sensor I use is set for sea level and I'm not at sea level. I could set it to zero where I'm at but it's tuned already so it will only throw off what cells I will be in so no need. This is different than ambient pressure readings as in a boost gauge that sets the power on with no pressure or vac as a 0 reading. It only knows zero as the environment then from there you add or subtract pressures from that to display your boost pressure differential. I haven't had any issues changing elevations with my setup but then again I'm not sure if only a couple thousand feet will be enough to make any significant difference in a tune when I run a/f corrections anyways.

 

^ Thanks

 

welcome.

Don't brush over the fact that I have no evidence that I have changed enough elevation to encounter any problems. It might still cause an issue but I just need a greater than a couple thousand feet of elevation change to make a difference.