Forum » General Tuning Discussion » Target AFR map vs what is possible in Hondata s300 v3

Target AFR map vs what is possible in Hondata s300 v3

General Tuning Discussion

Forum Posts

Courses

Blog

Tech Articles

Discuss all things tuning in this section. News, products, problems and results. 

= Resolved threads

Page 1
Author
48 Views

I am working on a target AFR map in my Hondata s300 v3. The challenge seems that Hondata is not very robust in what you can do with your target map.

Attached are 2 screenshots. One is their default map which I suppose we can call their suggested map. Their support which respond quickly aren't too big on elaborating on things don't have a lot to say other than that's their suggested values. Furthermore the rows and columns come along with the basemaps they provide for various configurations. It seems fairly well accepted with Hondata that the path of least resistance is to go with one of their base tunes which comes along with these seemingly arbitrary rows and columns. I've decided to stick with those rather than start everything fresh with clean increments of 500 rpm or 20 kpa or whatever. I figure there must be a good reason for some of the choices they've made and most people seem to follow this pattern. The other map attached (called Modified) is what I came up with.

The best I can do with targets is have a max of 3 different zones and only by load not by RPM. I know I want to transition to .90 in the rightmost 2 columns and I know I want 1.00 in the idle and cruise columns.

The question is given their odd/arbitrary reference columns which column (or how many kpa) do I make the transition from 1.00 to the middle value? And furthermore what middle value would you suggest? In the map I came up with I went with the first transition column to be column #7 simply because that is the same column they used for transition. For the middle value I came up with .92 simply because that was the value they were "suggesting" at that point. I think it would be a smoother transition if the middle value were .95 but since the original values are branded "suggested" it gives me cause to wonder if there's a good reason why they came up with .92 in those same zones. Maybe it's a Honda thing? I don't mind the richer .92 vs .95 in those zones because richer is always safer but I don't know the cost of the more dramatic transition from 1.00 to .92 vs .95.

If I had more flexibility in setting up the table I would certainly take advantage of that but these are the options I have. Of course I can make my own table on a piece of paper and ignore theirs (and I may have to for some of the columns) but is nice if what is available in the software can be good enough because it makes using the software a lot more convenient as it does have some nice features in this regard worth taking advantage of.

A few other notes: I'm naturally aspirated and I'm running a b18c1 with mild cams (slightly more aggressive than stock Type-R cams and mainly on the high cam/vtec lobe) with something a little over 10:1 cr (wish I knew how much the machine shop milled off, all I know for now is that the head and block were milled).

Thoughts anyone?

Attached Files

The Hondata is really just providing live access / tuning of the OEM Honda ECU.

I suspect most of the starting maps are just the OEM maps and breakpoints. The chosen breakpoints are likely necessary for some emissions test procedures, or fuel economy tests.

I've seen many Hondas produce maximum power with 0.92 Lambda.