Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Engine/Tuning
Vp ms109
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wile2k" data-source="post: 14899001" data-attributes="member: 75530"><p>So back to the post Rip referenced in the OP. </p><p></p><p>I'm still at a loss on where this would cause a problem on our cars (why would a tank of MS109 "make it run lean")? We tune for lambda, the WBO2 sees lambda, and we command lambda in the tune, right?</p><p></p><p>Back to Riptide's example... If his tuner is commanding .78 lambda on his E10 tune he will be running 10.99 AFR on E10. Say he then puts in a full tank of MS109 it is still going to command .78 lambda which now equates to 10.452 AFR. Even if he throws in a full tank of E85, it is going to command .78 lambda on that, so now running about 7.68 AFR (assuming his fuel system can keep up). All of those are close to the AFR required for those fuels (maybe not perfectly optimal but also not dangerous). I can see a problem on older technology where we would set fueling statically, but with the Coyote, WBO2 sensors, and closed loop fueling, why would this cause him to be "lean"?</p><p></p><p>One area that I need clarification on is why do we have a parameter to set a reference stoichiometric in the tune (in my case set to 14.08)? The only reason I can see for that is if the ECU was to output (or use) a calculated AFR it would need to know the fuel stoich to calculate off of based on WBO2 lambda reading. What am I missing there? Maybe this is where I go astray but I'm just can't put my finger on it.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for the interesting discussion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wile2k, post: 14899001, member: 75530"] So back to the post Rip referenced in the OP. I'm still at a loss on where this would cause a problem on our cars (why would a tank of MS109 "make it run lean")? We tune for lambda, the WBO2 sees lambda, and we command lambda in the tune, right? Back to Riptide's example... If his tuner is commanding .78 lambda on his E10 tune he will be running 10.99 AFR on E10. Say he then puts in a full tank of MS109 it is still going to command .78 lambda which now equates to 10.452 AFR. Even if he throws in a full tank of E85, it is going to command .78 lambda on that, so now running about 7.68 AFR (assuming his fuel system can keep up). All of those are close to the AFR required for those fuels (maybe not perfectly optimal but also not dangerous). I can see a problem on older technology where we would set fueling statically, but with the Coyote, WBO2 sensors, and closed loop fueling, why would this cause him to be "lean"? One area that I need clarification on is why do we have a parameter to set a reference stoichiometric in the tune (in my case set to 14.08)? The only reason I can see for that is if the ECU was to output (or use) a calculated AFR it would need to know the fuel stoich to calculate off of based on WBO2 lambda reading. What am I missing there? Maybe this is where I go astray but I'm just can't put my finger on it. Thanks for the interesting discussion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Engine/Tuning
Vp ms109
Top