I'm getting ready to install the PCV on my 696 with the auto-tune module. I've got Termi slip-ons with stock air filter and ecu. I've done some work on my cars and bike before and the installation instructions seem pretty straightforward. I've never messed with ignition and fuel delivery stuff before so I'm not sure what to expect if things don't go as planned. I think I have everything I need to get it done myself. But I'm looking for some advice from people who have installed one on their bike. Is this easy enough to install myself or should I be looking to get it installed at a shop?
Well, went ahead and did the install today. PCV went on fine. However, it took a bit longer than expected. The instructions were very easy. Getting into the injectors, though, was a adventure. I'm 6'3" and my hands aren't quite the best to work in that small of spaces. So it took a long time trying to get into the bike to make the changes. They didn't make it easy to get into anything on that bike. I just put the PCV on by itself today. I ran out of time to get the auto-tune set up but that'll be a job for the weekend. It should be a lot quicker now that I now what needs to come off to get into the bike.
I missed your original post or I would have gave you some advice on the PCV install...obviously you didn't need it [thumbsup]
Please post up your before and after impressions with the Autotune after you get it installed. I'll be intalling on this spring and am very interested in the install proceedure and what you think of the Autotune overall.
thanks! [beer]
I missed your original post too or I would've chipped in also.
Did you find my thread on PCV + Autotune? >> http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=42213.msg762855#msg762855 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=42213.msg762855#msg762855)
Which Autotune model are you planning to fit?
Have you had your ECU reflashed to delete stock closed loop?
Unfortunately no.... I searched the board and some other boards too for some information but I totally missed that thread. Which is a little disappointing since I already ordered the AT-200 and there was plenty of good information that I could have used. There I go figuring that the dynojet website would know which one would actually work on my bike. I haven't gotten my ecu flashed yet either. I was thinking about it after I got the box that it seemed a little odd that I had to disconnect 2 02 sensors and there was only one included to replace them.
I'm not sure just yet where I want to go with this just yet. Right now I've got the PCV installed and it's running much better with the dynojet map, mostly because of the 02 optimizers. I'd like to have the auto-tune attached because I like the concept, but I'm not looking forward to having to add a couple hundred dollars more for it to work. I'll need to think about how to convince the wife that I need to buy more parts now. :-[
Yup, PCV + o2 optimisers do a pretty good job in reality. IMO going that far is 90% of all the improvement you're ever gonna get.
Going to the trouble of flashing the ECU to delete stock closed loop so you can dump the o2 optimisers - which are nothing more than Dynojet's workaround for otherwise being unable to map in the closed loop - would be the next level. But dont make the mistake of disregarding the effectiveness of the optimisers. Workaround they may be, but a very satisfactory workaround they are in my experience.
I guess what I'm saying is this: If you're happy with how your 696 now runs with a nicely mapped PCV + optimisers, stopping right there would IMO be perfectly sensible. Going further will bring further improvement, but dont expect anything of the magnitude that you've already gained. From here on its nice, but incremental.
So anyway, that said, if like me you're determined to go down the Autotune path...... FWIW here's how I see your options:
1) Run with the single probe AT-200 you already own. You'd need to install it in addition to the stock lambdas someplace where the exhaust output from both cylinders is collected (I guess the "Y" section is the obvious place). Shortcomings with this option are these: AT-200's single probe is sampling the combined output from both cylinders and so can create only one set of trims to be applied to both cylinders equally. To me this is a little like having one foot in a bucket of boiling water and your other foot frozen in a bucket of ice - on average you could be said to be comfortable ;). Also with the stock o2s still functioning your Autotune will only be effective in open loop, above 4500rpm (or is it 5500rpm on a 696 I dont remember exactly....??). Below 4500 (or whatever it actually is) you'd still be relying on the optimisers.
2) Have your ECU reflashed to eliminate the stock closed loop, remove the stock o2 sensors, blank off the holes and then fit your AT-200 as above. This allows Autotune/PCV to manage fuelling throughout the entire rev range, but still leaves you with a single probe sampling the combined output from both cylinders etc etc.
3) Exchange your AT-200 for an AT-100 (its confusing that AT-200 = single o2 sensor, but AT-100 = dual o2 sensors). I guess it depends where you bought it...... Maybe worth giving Chris Kelly a call at Dynojet in Vegas? He seems like a pretty understanding and very helpful kinda guy.
Let us know how you go [thumbsup].
I guess one question I have in response is how much difference is there in the 2 cylinders mapping. Have you checked the difference between the table values on your cylinders using the auto-tune'd maps? If the difference is not very big then having the 1 wide band sensor may not be that big of an issue. Sure it would always be better with 2 but how much of an improvement would it be. Also how much different is the auto-tune setup from the pre-made maps? I know it'll change based on AFR values that are user defined, but is there a way to make an apples to apples comparison by finding the regular PCV AFR value and see how much different than the auto-tune results for the same values?
Also do we know if the stock ecu has the same mapping for both cylinders or does it differentiate. I would think that if it has 2 02 sensors then it would be reading for 2 different mapping values. Looking at the dynojet maps is a little confusing too. The stock exhaust map has different values for each cylinder and they appear quite different in several spots, but the 2 Termi slip on maps only have a single map for both cylinders. I'm not sure how to interpret that.
Right now I'm with you on thinking the AT-100 would be the optimal route, but it would be nice to see what the different increments in performance gain are between each of the different options you mentioned.
Quote from: slim_grizzy on January 20, 2011, 03:29:26 PMit would be nice to see what the different increments in performance gain are between each of the different options you mentioned.
[speculation]At some point the performance gain is almost nil... but the ridability (smoothness) improves greatly.[/speculation]
I would include ridability as a part of performance. Obviously with a 696 I'm not expecting to get a superbike, but it would be interesting to see what kind of differences are actually there in order to make a decision about how each route would affect overall performance. But that's kinda where I'm at. I think you're probably right but I'd rather not speculate if I don't really have to. If there's nothing noticeable in the riding experience there isn't too much reason to do anything more. But if it does have some benefit that's enjoyable while riding then it might be worth the hassle and headache to finish the work.
Quote from: slim_grizzy on January 20, 2011, 03:29:26 PM
I guess one question I have in response is how much difference is there in the 2 cylinders mapping. Have you checked the difference between the table values on your cylinders using the auto-tune'd maps?
I use identical AFR tables for both cylinders, but the trimmed PCV mapping is substantially different between the 2 cylinders, suggesting that to maintain the desired AFRs somewhat different fuelling is required by each cylinder. If you were not to run Autotune, but instead put your PCV'd 696 on a Dyno the ideal setup is to create "advanced" mapping - meaning that they do individual dyno runs for each cylinder, creating a different map for each cylinder.
Quote from: slim_grizzy on January 20, 2011, 03:29:26 PMAlso how much different is the auto-tune setup from the pre-made maps?
Look at it this way: If you're running with an "off the peg" downloaded map from Dynojet, made for 696 with the same exhaust/ECU etc as you're actually running... then this is gonna be pretty close. If you want to tailor it exactly to your bike then custom made mapping on a Dyno will do that. But both of these options are fixed whereas Autotune is dynamic, constantly varying the fuelling on the fly. So, how different is it? Depends. Sometimes a little, other times significantly.
Quote from: slim_grizzy on January 20, 2011, 03:29:26 PMLooking at the dynojet maps is a little confusing too. The stock exhaust map has different values for each cylinder and they appear quite different in several spots, but the 2 Termi slip on maps only have a single map for both cylinders. I'm not sure how to interpret that.
My interpretation is that the stock mapping is "advanced" and the termi slip on mapping is "basic".
IMO its probably better to map each cylinder independently. How much better? Now that's a good question.....
Quote from: slim_grizzy on January 20, 2011, 09:27:25 PM
I would include ridability as a part of performance...... If there's nothing noticeable in the riding experience there isn't too much reason to do anything more. But if it does have some benefit that's enjoyable while riding then it might be worth the hassle and headache to finish the work.
Like I said at the get-go, with a nicely mapped PCV + optimisers I imagine you will have noticed a considerable improvement in "rideability". Anything else you do to refine this further will be not nearly as dramatic an improvement.
Well, update to the install now that I've finally gotten a few good days to ride the bike. I've noticed that I'm getting some issues with the fueling when cruising below 5k for a little while. The check engine light comes on and it starts getting a little jerky. Rev it out and everything clears out. Seems like it doesnt like running on slightly open throttle. I'm guessing this is due to the optimizers fighting the ecu in the closed loop area. I havent had time to mess with the auto-tune yet, but I'm planning to just go with the flashed ecu to disable the 02 sensors and at-100 route. I want to get it finished soon so I can take a trip with it to the Hill Country in March. So if anyone needs an unused AT-200, I can part with it for a good price. ;) [bang]
So after looking around a little longer, it seems that dynojet has added a new product for the non-harley twins, AT-300. Not sure how exactly it differs from the AT-100, but it appears to be a dual channel solution for the bike metric twins.
So you have the PCV and its optimizers fitted - no Autotune as yet - right? And below 5k you're getting the CEL coming on and "jerkiness"?? Something's not right. There should be no "fighting" between optimizers and ECU. All the optimizers do is cause the stock o2s to report a leaner state than is actually the case to fool the ECU into sending a little more fuel to get rid of that stock low end hesitation.
Couple of things which you might wanna check:
1) Are you
certain the optimizers are fitted correctly? (they're cylinder specific - front optimizer MUST be fitted to front cyl injector and rear-to-rear).
2) Your PCV mapping should have zero values throughout the closed loop area, check that there's nothing other than "0" input below the open loop threshold.
3) Double check the spliced wire into the TPS wire.
Quote from: slim_grizzy on February 19, 2011, 09:37:47 PM
So after looking around a little longer, it seems that dynojet has added a new product for the non-harley twins, AT-300. Not sure how exactly it differs from the AT-100, but it appears to be a dual channel solution for the bike metric twins.
AT-300 is identical to the Harley-specific AT-100 except that AT-300 is "generic", so it comes without the Harley loom plug. I turned my AT-100 into AT-300 with a pair of wire-cutters ;).
I checked the dynojet maps on my computer. They all have 6's from 1750 to 5500 rpm and 2-20% throttle. I'll switch those to 0 and see how that helps.
I'm pretty sure the o2 optimizers are on correct, but I'll double check in the morning. Regarding the TPS, I've seen mention of people needing to reset it, would this require a TPS reset too?
cycle your key on/off three times I'm pretty certain is the way to reset the Siemens ECUs
Had some time today to mess with the bike, but had no luck getting it sorted out. Tried changing the maps to 0 in the closed loop area as well as trying different maps for the various setups. Still had the CEL coming on and problems around 3k rpm or so. I reinstalled the optimizers to make sure they were in the correct place too. I'm not sure how to check if the wire splice is good or not. We'll see, I may just take it in to the shop and have them do all the work to install the auto-tune + flash the ecu and get it sorted right. While it doesn't really affect performance in the "fun" areas of the map, the lights bug me. :)