ajg193 Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 Other problem is a stinking hot exhaust manifold right under/next to the intake manifold. Without a heat shield. I don't have enough room by the chassis rail to space the exhaust out any further from the head - do phenolic gaskets even cope with exhaust at all? Heat soak with the engine off is almost a problem with my setup, I aim for idle to be 13.5ish:1 under normal conditions as if the engine is sitting for like 15 minutes and then turned back on it will idle at like 15:1 (it idles reasonably well up to about 15.5:1) for a few minutes or you drive a hundred metres or so to pull the heat back out of the manifold. This is even with the CLT correction factors, so it's probably a mixture of injector/fuel heat soak and the possibility that the hot exhaust causes the intake to be hotter than CLT. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 Oh god I forgot about non cross flow haha. Definitely worst case scenario! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 I've spent some time digging through the source code, looks like they are actually including VE in the flow calculation, it's just that TunerStudio misrepresents it. Another issue I noticed is that the EGO control routine seems to have some sort of a bug, where under certain conditions it does not actually aim at the correct AFR. Ie at 1200 rpm and 30 kPa, it is set to 14.7, but the EGO routine is trying to pull it to like 13.5. I have no idea why and can't figure it out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 /* This math is the derivative of the ideal PID equation: * output = bias + ((P*error) + (I*errorsum) - (D*derivative)), but with * P and D only using PV and not the error (or setpoint) to help avoid * overshoot once properly tuned */ deriv = PV - (PVarray[0]<<1) + PVarray[1]; Kp = ((long)(PV - PVarray[0]) * flash4.egoKP); Ki = ((egoerr * (long)flash4.egoKI * (long)looptime) / 7812L); Kd = ((deriv * (long)flash4.egoKD*781) / (long)looptime); PVarray[1] = PVarray[0]; PVarray[0] = PV; *egostep = (long)((Kp - Ki + Kd)) / (PID_scale_factor); Turns out that MS doesn't use Kp to correct the AFR based on error, just based on how much the value is changing? Recommended routine is to tune integral term and then adjust the proportional and derivative terms later. Supposedly a "Type C" PID control algorithm and more stable than the basic "Type A".. I'm gonna have to do some learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 You need quite a fast wideband for EGO to work at idle, orrrr have some filtering/smoothing on the ECU side. As the gas speed/volume past the sensor is quite low it can be laggy. Otherwise it gets into a bit of a loop of under/over correcting something that's already happened too long ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 This is my go-to vid for when I forget how PID works, best explanation I've come across, so good! Start at that time point first half of video is about making the machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted August 29, 2021 Share Posted August 29, 2021 The proportional term on megasquirt doesn't actually work like in that video though. Instead of being P = Kp*Error, it is P = Kp*(currentError -lastError) Basically, with megasquirt, Kp doesn't really do anything on its own and requires one of the other terms to act on the system and initiate the changes. I've gotten it to respond well enough again by setting integral, then adding proportional to speed up response and then going back and forth between the two to balance it out. I have stayed away from derivative gain for now. Kp=30,Ki=10 are the values that give a reasonable response on my setup. Probably around the same as the values I would have had in it before I decided that historic me was stupid and current me could do a better job of turning knobs. In all the other PID systems I have set up/made in the past I used the traditional algorithm that allows setting of proportional first and then fine tuning the offset out with integral and then damping it all with derivative. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 If anyone is wanting to build an EFI system there is a whole load of high quality, ruggedised EFI gear for sale from martin jetpacks right now: https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/search?member_listing=326563&bof=9qt4vnAL&page=3 All $1 res 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 To avoid cluttering @Roman yaris thread, here are the graphs that @kpr asked for regarding heat transfer into air in runners Runner length is defined as distance between intake valve and plenum/open air in this situation Runner temperature is assumed to vary along the length of the runner, split into three equal length sections being 35 deg at inlet, 70 deg in the mid section and coolant temperature at the head end. If you give me measurements at points along your runner I can feed that data into the model to give you a prediction. Airbox temperature is assumed to be 20 deg. Here is temperature gain along runner for mass flow rate through that runner, with varying runner length. Runner diameter is 28 mm: Here is changing diameter, holding runner length constant at 650 mm: For reference, the maximum flow rate on this graph corresponds to about 15 hp per cylinder, so you're probably only getting a 10 degree gain at most with your 4AGE at full power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Here is for a 4 cylinder engine with 200 mm long runners: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 So just to test this, those parameters, a delta T of 50K means you've got a steady state heat flux of ~500W? Is my maths right? would you really get that much thermal transfer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 I'm using heat capacity of the air as 1008 J/(kgK) A bit of maths for my 4K with 650 mm long runners Assuming temperature gain of 48 K at mass flow rate of 0.0018 kg/s (basically idling) -> 48K*1008J/(kgK)*0.0018kg/s =88 W per cylinder Assuming 36 K gain at mass flow rate of 0.019 kg/s (full tilt for a 4K) -> 690 W per cylinder That's a lot of heat input, I guess the runners would cool down under sustained load. But then again, the amount of heat being fired off the exhaust headers right next to the intake would probably offset the cooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpr Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Nice, I assume your calculations take into account, there is only airflow in the runner part of the time, rather than constant flow? Possible to punch some numbers, showing temp gains vs a range runner temperatures. for following: 50mm runner diameter 400mm length 50hp per cylinder 20 deg ambient Also 70 deg runner temp is some sweet bbq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Have you ever put your hands on EFI 4K runners? You could easily cook a steak. Even with the carb manifold I have successfully cooked garlic bread Here is for 50 mm diameter, 400 mm length and 20 deg ambient, coolant 90 deg Runner temp distribution is IAT+1/3(temp), temp, max(CLT, CLT-1/3(temp)) along length, equally split. Quote runnerT = 30 30 90 runnerT = 33.333 40.000 90.000 runnerT = 36.667 50.000 90.000 runnerT = 40 60 90 runnerT = 43.333 70.000 90.000 runnerT = 46.667 80.000 90.000 runnerT = 50 90 90 runnerT = 53.333 100.000 90.000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 And yep, only accounting for flow on 1/4 of cycle edit: Looking through my model and trying to produce a temp gain vs runner temp for given hp could be a bit difficult as the mass flow calculation it uses takes into account changes in density as function of temperature but I just provide VE, MAP and RPM. If I fix VE and MAP and use RPM to try get a mass flow rate that relates to a power output, the power output is a function of runner temperature and pushes stuff all around. Easier if you just cut a vertical line on the graph above at your desired power output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpr Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 if looking at the 30 deg line, assuming 10deg gain is from the port temp? so ignoring the port temp. going from 30deg pipe to 100deg pipe would be about 10 deg gain in temp. going by some crappy calculator i found, that 10deg change in temp would be about 2.8kw if engine was making about 150kw. so yeah cooling the pipe from 100degrees to 30degrees 2.8kw. well actually would be less because some of that 400mm runner is the port cant do anything about. so call it 2kw at a guess. so in my case i may have made the intake 30deg colder but not the whole length of it. so maybe .5kw gain at most. i'll take it... if i could be assed i would test it on the dyno. but dont have an intake i want to heat up with a gas torch right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 In reference to the start of this discussion, which was my car heat soaking (or at least, the IAT sensor heat soaking) at the drags. It's a very simple thing to replicate. Because I can just go for a drive with lots of airflow, do a full throttle run. Then leave the car to sit idling for a significant period until the IAT gets high again (with IAT sensor set to observational only, not changing tune) Then do another full throttle run straight away. Then monitor the percentage of difference in Lambda value of the two runs, and the two idle speed conditions. This will show what the "Real" heat soak value is at each end of the spectrum. Thinking about things a little more though. Since my motor has very high compression, I think it's likely that the heat of compression is probably considerable. So the IAT being 20 or 35 deg probably doesnt make too much difference. From a knock perspective, perhaps IAT isnt that relevant. If that is the case, then it's just adjusting the fuel trim by a % that's needed, based on observational result. Calculations are good for giving a starting point, but observation gives you the sum of all variables, some of which you cant calculate for. From my drag runs, with goal AFR of 12.8:1. In the third gear runs I was just slightly richer of this target. In the first gear runs with heat soaked IAT sensor, I was sitting around 13.2:1 So a definite indicator that the air coming in was cooler than IAT was reporting, so skewing the airmass result. TL;DR: Unplug IAT next time hahaha 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpr Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 Yeah so basically insignificant. I stand by my half track burnout making your car faster statement. After many years of playing with stuff. If you need big compensation your setup sucks mechanically, your car is on fire or you have a efi 4k 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 I have all three of those. Great combination for fuel economy though. Getting 5.5-6 L/100km around town with current configuration 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muncie Posted January 9, 2022 Share Posted January 9, 2022 Injector placement question, with my turbo Holden/buick l67 build I still have l67 heads which have a injector boss milled into them right above the inlet valve. I will be running a standard Ecotec inlet manifold which also has Injector bosses in the intake about 70mm further back up the port so one set needs to be blocked off (probably with Welch plugs). Would there be any advantages one over the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.