Power Commander 5 and Auto Tune Info

I

imjus2blac

New member
The Auto Tune will only adjust within the percentage you have the max trim adjustment set. For setups that we have a specific map developed for I would expect the fuel trims to be within 5%, which is what we have seen from real world testing here (assuming users are using the same AFR targets as when we developed the original map)
 
Are you referring to the "max enrichment" and "max enleanment"? That is adjustable and the default is 20% for each, which represents the maximum trims the PCV will allow. I have mine set for 20% max enrichment, 35% max enleanment, as I am going quite a bit leaner than Jamie's map in the cruise range. After a long ride today I'm seeing quite a few double-digit negative numbers, which I expected, mostly less than 15%. If you haven't messed with the map like I have, using Jamie's base map you won't see more than
 
Our maps have a cruise range AFR target of 13.8:1 which for most users will provide an excellent combination of cooling, performance, and fuel mileage which is typically in the low-mid 40's. For users looking for maximum MPG over performance and cooling, you can target a leaner AFR however for targets leaner than 14.2:1 I recommend using the map switch with the richer map as the base map.
 
We need a clarification from Jamie on this. I thought the max-trim settings specified the maximum trim that can be used, not the maximum per session. IOW, I have some -10's and even higher in the cruise range, as expected, and if I set the "max enleanment" to "5" it would limit the trim to -5%, which would not give me the AFR's I've specified in the target AFR table.

I'm using a different strategy here. I'm keeping Jamie's richer base map in place and letting AT trim to my target AFR's. That way I can use the switch and revert to the base map when needed for addition cooling. Therefore I won't be using the "apply trims" selection unless I want to create a lean base map for some purpose, although I don't know why I would do this. The switch is a powerful feature and I think everyone should consider implementing it.
 
Also note when using the Auto Tune we have developed several very good AFR tables and can supply a unique map/AFR table based on your individual requirements such as special fuel mileage concerns, performance, or maximum cooling.
 
I haven't found that leaning the cruise range affects performance, just gives perhaps a bit less part-throttle response, for me barely perceptible. OTOH if you do hole-shots you might not want to lean it like I have. Since base map you provided with the PCV is untouched above 40% TP I get the WOT performance the bike is capable of.
 
The max fuel trim is simply the maximum fuel change you are specifying above and beyond the base map. This is absolute, not per session.

Correct, if you are changing your target AFR quite a ways off of the original AFR targets your base map was developed for, and do not state a trim % value large enough you may not have a large enough window of adjustment for your demanded AFR. 20 % is usually plenty and this is also used to provide a safety margin.
 
I guess my strategy has been somewhat close to what I found that some Thundermax guys were doing...while I was doing research a while back.

My theory is this... if the basemap is extremely close to perfect, then the quicker the autotune can adjust for slight differences and do it's job. So, if I never "accept" the trims then the basemap never gets closer to perfection...only the offsets get better (up to a point). If I have an issue with the AT modules then I would be back to the original basemap that really could use a little adjustment. On the other hand if I do "accept" the trims then they modify the basemap permanently. So if I have a problem with AT later on, the basemap would be closer and more useable.

I have saved Jamie's basemap on my laptop and made another two copies of it to play around with. One is the power map which is nothing more than me saving all the trims, therfore modifying the basemap for my bike with the autotune. The second copy, I am going to experiment with leaner AFR's in the cruise range. The result of this should be increased fuel milage with nice power when above 3000. I will also svae the trims for this map.

I spoke to Chris at Power Commander today. He called to ask how things were going with the AT. I asked him about the map switching function. What he says is that once the trims are accepted and saved to the basemap that you can...if you want to...disconnect the AT from the PCV and then use a map switch to change out from 2 different basemaps on the fly. He says this should be fully functional now...just not with the autotune hooked to the PCV.

So, I am going to try it once I'm done trimming both maps and see what happens. This way I would have two fully trimmed maps. One (the leaner one) for normal driving with a good mix of power, cooling, and fuel economy. AND, the second basemap would also be fully trimmed but would be a better cooling map with more power in the cruise range, but not as good on gas. I would still be able to simply plug in the AT system and run in closed loop making trim adjustments to one map at a time if I ever need any changes in the future.

By the way, so far my Power Map is giving me around 40 MPG. So I am really looking forward to playing with the AFR's a bit to see what kind of improvement I can get from 14.2 vice 13.8 AFR in the cruise range. Right now I am not running an oil cooler on my 103" so I won't go any higher than 14.2 in cruise right now. But next winter (when I get back from deployment) I will install an oil cooler and possibly go a bit leaner in the MPG map.

Any thoughts from anyone on this theory?
 
Yes, the base map would be closer requiring less trimming, but I can't see why it'd be more usable unless you abandoned AT altogether. The AT function trims very quickly. I saw meaningful trim values after only a short ride after first installing the AT kit, so I don't think trimming further from the base map is a real issue.



Well, first I don't see a reason to ever disconnect AT. If you create two base maps, one for cooling and another for mileage, and disconnect AT you will not have the functionality of AT to auto-tune on the fly. You'll basically have a PCV with no AT and two accurate base maps. This is a good setup, but you'd be losing the on-the-fly tunability of AT.

Instead, why not approach it like this: Use your rich map as the base, then apply your leaner target AFR's to achieve better mileage. The AT mode will be your default that you will run in most of the time. When the going gets hot, like stop-and-go summer traffic, switch to the rich base map. This way you still essentially have two maps to choose from, one of them being AT and the other the base map with no AT.

I will not "accept trims" after auto-tuning Jamie's target AFR's from his base map, as I wouldn't see running it except when oil temperature rises above acceptable limits. What I might do is "apply trims" and create a lean base map based on my tweaked target AFR's. I'm not sure when I would use it except if AT failed and I needed to go back the the PCV alone. The switch would still work to toggle between the two base maps.

This system auto-tunes much faster and with greater tolerances than the T'Max did, based on testimonials I've read from T'Max owners. T'Max apparently had a problem auto-tuning where the base map was very different from the targets, and that is why they recommended starting with a very close base map. The PCV-AT apparently doesn't have this limitation and can easily and quickly tune from a base map and target AFR's that are widely apart. Jamie even told me I wouldn't have any trouble using his old very rich map I originally got with his trick baffle kit sold before Jackpots came on the scene. I'll probably just use his newer map that came with the PCV.



Good idea, and I think 14.2:1 is a safe AFR that should bump mileage noticeably. I would guess you'd be in the lower- to mid-40's at 55mph with little or no stop-and-go.
 
Back
Top