What wideband setup are you using and how is it set? LC1 0-5v?

Mark is the best one to answer that. Hopefully, he'll see this and let us know.

AEM UEGO 0-5v

thanks, Mark

Provided I have the settings for your wideband correct in my log viewer (AEM Linear) I would say you are lean pretty much across the board, and to the point of misfiring in the 2000-3000 RPM, 75-100KPA range, also looks like this lean condition may be masked partially by your current acceleration enrichment settings.

Your AFR is inversely mirroring your pulse width, which means your car is doing what the MS system is telling it to do, the problem is it is just not telling it to squirt the right amount of fuel so, tune, tune, tune.

The log file is pretty short, its hard to tell a lot from only 30 seconds of data and I would like to see more to really get a good idea but what I see is

1. Lean, like really LEAN

2. The lean condition is being compensated for by the accell enrichment which is probably going to be to much once the Ve table is set properly. Accell enrichment should be the last thing you tune and right now is just going to give confusing results, so you would be doing yourself a favor to just zero it out for now.

3. From the short bit at the end of the log that looks like you were idling, your idle vacuum is very poor (high 75-80KPA value) however you are also very LEAN there as well (15-17:1 AFR) Richen that up to the low 13's and I would not be surprised to see your vacuum increase at idle quite a bit, down to the 50kpa range at least I would guess (maybe more but I am not familiar with your cam to know). This should increase your throttle response and drivability a TON.

4. Your Ve values are seeming pretty high for how lean you are running. Are you sure you calculated your req fuel constant properly? You might want to think about scaling that before you do anything else.

5. Other than that, in the 30 seconds of data everything looks to be responding about as I would expect it to, MAP value responding properly to throttle position, pulse width being affected by Ve table and accell enrichment, and AFR then reflecting pulse width, low vacuum due to lean condition, everything seems to add up to me. It did not look like your throttle position sensor ever registered full open, but that may just be because you didnt hit the gas fully, looks like you never went over 50%.

I could send you a tweaked MSQ built from the log files that should fix that bit of the 2000-3000 range, but as the data was limited and you have a LOT of other changes that are going to happen to get to where you need to be, it might be better for you to adjust it yourself (also I don’t want to be liable should your engine explode)


-James

Just for fun I am going to give a play by play of what I see (or think I see) in a portion of this log.

Starting at around the 19127 sec area you see the RPM decline to the 2500ish problem area, engine looks to be in a state of overrun, throttle closed high manifold vacuum. Around 127.8, throttle is opened back up to 20%, this is where the hold at 2000-2500 rpm range starts, MAP jumps and holds in line with the throttle position as expected. Small lean spike to 15 AFR from opening the throttle (looks to be a bit of delay from the AFR reading) pulse width jumps due to accell enrichment and hitting a higher value on the Ve table and we look to be back at an acceptable AFR range around 128.6. Here is the important part though, @ 128.9 throttle is being increased slowly but apparently not fast enough to trigger accell enrichment so you see the accell enrichment decaying and with it the pulse width decreasing, this causes the AFR to skyrocket to lean misfire (19:1)territory. If you were just looking at the RPM, MAP and VE table this swinging AFR would not make sense, but looking at all the data in the log it does. @130.8 TP change is enough to trigger accell enrichment again, PW goes up, AFR swings back down to the 13's, again all despite being in pretty much the same part of the Ve table. @132.1 Accell enrichment decays again, AFR shoots back up, and here is where we get some more good data. RPM, throttle position and MAP now remain pretty constant until about 143sec with NO accell enrichment to get in the way so we can see how well the Ve table alone is fueling the engine. What we see now is the AFR jumping between lean(~17:1) and leaner(~18:1) as it bounces between the 80 and 88KPA rows on the Ve table, which have a pretty large value change for a somewhat small MAP change. Probably lean missfiring as well. Jump to 144, throttle closed, engine in overrun back down to idle speeds @147. Idle AFR and MAP both way to high, lowering one should fix the other, but as they are tied the table will need to be adjusted all the way down.

So again to summarize what has turned into a huge post, turn off your accell enrichment and tune the Ve table from there with it off. You are way to lean but with the amount of accell enrichment you are shooting currently, attempting to richen up the VE table would result in a rich misfire anytime you get on the gas. Think about it, the amount of gas your accell enrichment is adding is enough to swing your AFRs down 4-5 points, so with your current settings, if you map was tuned properly for a mid 13:1ish cruise AFR and you punched the gas you would be in the 8:1 range and fouling your plugs. Accell enrichment is the last part of the tuning process and should be disabled completely until you get to that point. In my experience, with how rich these engines like to run, and the fact we have increased the spark advance in the lower RPM range over stock, I find that you don’t need a whole lot of accell enrichment for decent performance.

Get a good tune on the Ve table first, eliminate all other variables until that is done otherwise you are just chasing your tail.

Thanks, James. I appreciate your help, but I didn't mean for you to stay up all night.

Jim

Very cool. Anytime Megasquirt is discussed the phrase "you'll end up learning how engines really run" is mentioned, but I don't think people give that much consideration. James is obviously way up the curve on this, but it's really worthwhile for anyone to understand the interrelationships of what's going on with an engine. There are parameters depending on other parametiers with layers of conditionals thrown in. Getting a feel for how it all fits together will help you tune carburetors and ignition in addition to what you learn about injection. An education and all good experience... especially after it's all together and running. Good one James. Thanks.

Great post James and DB!

No biggie I am sort of a night person, I typed that out while watching a movie and this sort of thing is fun to me so i guess you could say i was relaxing.

Really intrested to see what your impressions of the motor are once it is dialed in

Wow. Sounds like you are on the right path for sure.
When you get this tuned please send me your files! As our engines are so similar I may just be able to plug in your data and go.

I have zero doubt you will be able to tune the bucking out.
Zach

Probably the most educational thing I have ever done on a car. Also its why I didn't just want to tweak a tune and say "here try this", its a pretty layered process and you really need to understand how everything relates to move through it.

Its a fun process though!

Thanks, James. You asked the right question: Req_fuel OK?. No!

Fixed it. At Mark's suggestion I took out all of the acceleration enrichment and drove and tuned. You'll like the new VE table, 124 cells changed, average change 10, max change 24.

Did data logging until the laptop battery forced a shutdown. Fortunately, the log file was saved. It's attached. The log AFR is much lower than the AFR table for every AFR/MAP bin on the AFR table. I'm not sure what that means or what I should do about it.

There is still some hesitation. I'm hoping/guessing that some acceleration enrichment will help that. When the battery recharges, I will do that and report back.



https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p593bw6iyebgwjn/bANp3X25ic

Kick ass seabass! Looking forward to what your enrichment tables do when you add them back in.

Zach

Zach, I started a while ago with minimal PW additions over rates that Mark set up some time ago and small changes to TPSdot threshold%. The mild bucking at a little over 2000 rpm (cruise and light acceleration) persisted, so I increased the req_fuel a bit. It seems better now, but I don't have any more time today to fuss with it. With moderate to aggressive throttle, it seems to go well.

There's an autocross tomorrow, so I'll fiddle more on Sunday.

I have to do some work tomorrow morning where I will be in front of a computer for a long stretch of time, so I probably won't look at your new logs till then (and will probably have another huge post for you mentioning some other aspects that I left out of my last one to not complicate things.

but for now some things to think about...

Begin brain dump....

In theory, if you knew all the variables and operating characteristics of an engine you would be able to create a Megasquirt tune for it by hand without ever starting the engine. The reason we can't do this entirely on theory is because we do not know the volumetric efficiency of your (or any) specific engine. That is what the "fuel map" in megasquirt actually is, it is not really specifying an amount of fuel to inject but rather represents the volumetric efficiency of your engine at all its operating points. (this is why it is called the Ve map) What megasquirt then does is take Ve map of your engine and calculates it with the req_fuel value(and corrects for temp sensors) to determine how much fuel to inject.

req_fuel itself is a constant that represents the injector time in milliseconds required to get a stoich 14.7:1 burn at 100kPa manifold pressure 70deg F for your given cylinder displacement IF your engine pumped at 100% efficiency. As no naturally aspirated engine does pump with 100% efficiency (best guess for our engines is probably somewhere between 75-85%) what this means in terms of your Ve map is that IF you were tuning to achieve a 14.7:1 mixture at WOT the values in the upper portion of your Ve map would be in that same range of 75-85. We are more likely tuning to achieve around 12.5:1 at WOT so I would expect values in the upper portion of your map to be closer to the high 90's, maybe low 100's if everything else was set correctly. The fact that you were in the 17:1 range with Ve values already close to or over 100 is what prompted me to suggest adjusting your req_fuel to a properly CALCULATED value.

That all being said, the best way to initially set your req_fuel value is to calculate it, as unlike your Ve map, all the variables to determine req_fuel can be known ahead of time, you just need to know your engine displacement and injector flow rates at the pressure you are running them.

This is not to say that you can't make things work with an incorrect req_fuel value, it just means the numbers you are looking at won't make any sense from a theory standpoint. This is also why most people's Ve maps turn out to be completely useless to other people, because they were not setup using proper theory. A Ve map that has been setup using PROPER settings can be swapped to another persons car with the same engine configuration without re-tuning provided their settings are also correct for their car. It also allows for pretty simple injector swaps provided all correct values for both sets of injectors are known. This is more than just theory, I have done both.

So, back to your car, what you did when you changed the req_fuel was essentially richen your mixture across the board, where as you could have just adjusted your Ve map to richen the specific areas that were lean. Both ways work just fine, neither one is technically correct. IF you want to be correct in your theory, you basically need to go back to square 1 and set your req_fuel to a CALCULATED value and then tune your Ve map properly to that. The problem with that is you need to know your injector flow rate at the pressure you run them, and most published specs are at 3bar where as the 914 pressure regulator is usually set around 2 bar. Again, unless you are running them at published spec, the only way to be 100% correct would be to flow bench your setup as the flow characteristics of an injector might not be linear in relation to pressure.

This is all just food for thought/educational info and I will help you work through the tune no matter which way you want to do it, its just good to know this stuff so you can know what to expect.

What are your injector part numbers and what pressure are you running at? Maybe I can make a best guess on the req_fuel if I can find the specs.

...End brain dump

and if you were able to digest all that in one sitting then to you! Still just looking at the tip of the iceberg here.

thanks for the brain dump, James. It makes sense, and it's nice to get it all in one in one place, not in bits and pieces as is often found in manuals.

If Zach hasn't installed his injectors yet, maybe he can pull a number off of them. Mark will know more about them, too.

The injectors are 23 gph injectors at 36 psi. I'm running at 30 psi and expect to boost req_fuel and the enrichments to compensate. As long as I don't have pulsewidths that get too long, that should work. We're using an AFR of 13 yielding a req_fuel of 16.1..

Did an autocross and some freeway driving today. Now that I know a bit more, it's obvious that the engine is still running lean. Tomorrow.

The injectors are custom. There isn't a part number. The specs Jim posted are the ones from the supplier.

16.1 Req Fuel would be at the supplier spec of 23 lb/hr at 36.5psi. But since we're running at 30 psi, I speculate something around 20 lb/hr which IIRC comes out somewhere in the 28 range for Req Fuel. But check that math.

thanks, Mark. I don't know what the time window for the pulse widths is, but 28 seem to be a pretty big number, and with other enrichments, might get close to the limit.

Wouldn't it take that question out of the discussion if I increased the fuel pressure?

The req_fuel calculation should be made with a 14.7 AFR if you are burning gasoline, the actual calculator on the megasquirt manual page has this built in as a constant. If the injectors are indeed pushing 20lbs/hr then 16.5 would be the correct req_fuel. If flow were directly related to pressure then the math says they would be at 18.9lbs/hr which would put req_fuel at 17.4. At their full 23lb/hr req_fuel would be 14.3. This at least gives us a rough range of where the setting should be for these injectors, somewhere between 14.3 and 17.4 roughly.

I would say probably go with Marks assumption they are running around 20lbs and start out with a req_fuel of 16.5.

OK. Thanks, James

I just took a quick look over you latest log file and it looks like you are heading in the right direction, you can already see that the area in the table that you are running for various RPMs has alraedy started to move down slightly. What this means is that you need now need to tune these areas of your table as well as you were not previously using them.

A couple questions came to mind when looking this log over.

1. Have you verified your settings everywhere (ECU, tunerstudio, and megalogviewr) for your wideband O2 sensor are correct? The reason I ask is that you say you are seeing richer then your AFR targets in your logs while when i look at them i see you are still on the lean side. It may be that my settings are wrong for viewing your logs, but Mark said you are using the AEM setup. Newer versions of the AEM setup run as linear by default and i have my log view set with that assumption. If i change my settings to view it as nonlinear then i see the same thing as you where it looks rich. The default for the sensor should be linear though, so i suspect unless your sensor defaults were changed you may be looking at the wrong values for your AFR whle tuning (which would cause some big problems)

2. Is your throttle position sensor calibrated properly? I see at one point you ran the engine up over 5000 RPM but at no time to do i see the throttle position sensor register more then 60%

Also, any chance you could post your latest MSQ used with that log file? Really need to look at them together to see what is going on.

Thanks
-James

James, I will defer to Mark for the calibration questions.

The date stamp on the tune file is later than the date for the log file. I've updated the req_fuel so I'll retune and relog this morning.

James, here's the latest and greatest.



https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p593bw6iyebgwjn/bANp3X25ic

If you opened the files that I did this morning, please look again. they are changed.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p593bw6iyebgwjn/bANp3X25ic

Just took a quick look but, nice! Thats what I am talking about! This log is looking much better! The Ve table still has a couple spots that need to be massaged out but its just spots now rather then everywhere. Overall it doesent look like you are lean under load any more which is a very good thing. From what i see its a couple little problem spots and then just fine tunning from here.

Curious to know what your impressions of driving it are at his point? Is real life matching what i see in the logs?


Ill give it a more serious look when i get home tonight and detail what i see, but i am guesing you might even have it sorted before then.

I never hooked up the AEM to a computer and never changed anything. I suppose it would be worth verifying the settings.

The TPS can just be recalibrated using the menu option. It may have varied after the ECU swap.

Thanks, Mark. I'll do the TPS later today. I think I read that the AEM wideband doesn't need calibration. I just read a suggestion that if you unplug the sensor, you should get a reading of 14.7.

James. The car is much better. I may have introduced new and hopefuly a minor issue.

I dialed in some accelerator enrichment, similar to what had been entered originally. I don't know what the rates (%/second) mean, so what I've done is probably counterproductive. The effect is bucking every now and then at about 2000 rpm. The log 's with today's date shows it at 7779 seconds, and a few places further on. The tune is there, too.

Perhaps a short dissertation on Accelerator Enrichment would help those of us who are following this.

The other thing I've noticed but haven't done anything with is rough and lean running from cold start thru the time the WUE shuts off. Again, I'm not really sure I understand what the entries in the graph do, or what other things effect WUE. So, probably another lecture.

thanks again for your time.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p593bw6iyebgwjn/bANp3X25ic

I opened your msq and see that you are using TPS enrichment for AE. The lowest row is set at 7 %/sec. This basically means that any throttle movement is going to trigger AE and you will bog down rich. then you go to fuel cut and back into a cycle - hence your bucking problem.

Raise the value to at least 100 %/sec or some higher threshold to prevent it from kicking in unless you want it.

Now, James made the best comment above. Completely turn off your AE for now. yes, the car may hesitate slightly when you mash the throttle but you have to tune the VE table before adding AE. AE is only for smoothing throttle transitions, not for delivering fuel. With a properly tuned VE table, running speed density (MAP) based fuel loads you should need very little AE to compensate for throttle transitions.

What is AE? AE is the electronic equivalent to accelerator jets on carbs. They squirt a little fuel to help the engine compensate for the large rush of air when the throttle is opened. Generally the engine will quickly spike lean and then recover as the fuel delivery catches up. On carbs you have to wait for the vacuum to build and suck fuel up an emulsion tube and then spill over into the carb tract. On EFI, your injectors only get what fuel the computer tells them to squirt (as measured in timed pulse widths). the MAP signal changes nearly instantaneously and the fuel delivery will compensate, however, you may sometimes have too fast of air pressure change and you have to add a little extra fuel. This is what AE is for.

Once you have your VE table running well, then you can set the warmup enrichment (WUE). Once the car is started and while it is still cold you have to watch the temperature/enrichment curve. Add as much fuel as you need to keep the car running smooth at idle while warming up. The curve is not linear. If you are lean at certain temperatures, just add more % fuel enrichment only at those temperatures.

Glad you are starting to understand that the car must be tuned to run properly. Its really no different than bolting on a carb with the wrong jets - it will run like crap until fixed.

thanks for the explanations, Jamie. I know what's going on, but I don't know what the fixes mean or what their effect will be.

Either this is starting to make sense or I'm losing my mind.

Jim,

The %/sec is how fast the throttle opens. the time pulse that fills in the other column is the pulse width in ms that determines how much fuel is squirted. The faster you open the throttle, the more air dumps in, the more fuel you need to squirt to account for the extra air.

I usually have a maximum of 0.8 ms when you have maximum AE.

Usually, I do not run TPS acceleration but relay on MAP_dot AE. MAP_dot is the change in pressure similar to the $/sec its units are kPa/sec.

If you are using TunerStudio, you can open the AE Wizard. The graphs on the top will have a bouncing cursor showing TPS_dot or MAP_dot value. Make sure that the trigger value (lowest point on the graph) is above the "noise" value during normal running.

Then blip the thottle a few times. Try to be consistent and hit a value. Watch your AFR. Adjust the pw higher if you see large lean spikes. You are aiming to add fuel until the AFR stays constant for small, med, large and WOT type throttle blips.

Again, do this after your VE table is well tuned and you should not have much AE to add.

Doubt check (or just reset) the AFR calibration.

Sorry have not had much time to respond, developed a suspension issue with my autox car that I need to resolve before the first of the month.

On the AFR calibration, I am guessing we are good there, the last logs I checked out were making more sense. I suspect you may have just had a incorrect setting in your log viewer.

As for the Accel enrichment, I can't stress this enough, just turn it off for now. You don't need it and it is just going to get in the way of tuning the Ve table. Once your car is running great and you really want to FINE tune things then you can start slowing adding in some AE, for now though just turn it off and forget it exists.


Just keep tuning the Ve table for now, looks like you are still a bit lean just about everywhere down low especially in the 1800-2300 RPM bins, from what I see I would guess you are coughing pretty bad when getting back on the gas after decelerating into that area (this is an issue with your Ve table, not a lack of Accell Enrichment). Also looking pretty rich up top. I would say adjust your AFR targets to where you are not going richer then 12.5:1 anywhere, and then lean out your top end to match, that should get you some more power up there.

Any adjustment to your Ve table right now should be done with your engine fully warmed up. It is a lot easier to adjust your warm up settings once you are happy how your table is running. My process for adjusting the warm up settings is first to know at what AFR your car normally idles, then wait for a cold day and with your engine as cold as it gets, start it up and once your after start enrichment has finished go to the warmup wizard and adjust the % for your current temp bin until your are hitting your normal AFR. As the car slowly warms up keep adjusting the associated bins so your car stays at its normal idle AFR through the entire temp range. This should at least give you a good place to start and from there you can tweak it to your liking. This usually takes some time to get right as you really only get one shot a day at doing this.

For now though your focus should still be on the Ve table.

-James

Just took a quick look at the latest log and that issue at 7779 does not appear to be related to your accell enrichment change, in fact i would guess that it is not related to your tune at all. You may want to have Mark take a look at that one in person as i cant see all the symptoms for that problem in the logs, not sure if what i am looking at is the cause or just a symptom. If i was to guess I would say it could be electrical noise or a problem with your tach input signal, but there could be some external factor as well that i dont see in the logs.



-James

Can't think of anything that would cause that. I'd need to see something more repeatable to even begin to diagnose that.

I aggree, its a strange one. Without experenceing it in person I could not say for sure. From the logs it does not appear to be missfiring as the AFR is rock solid through the rough spot, but if the car is bucking then i would think that something is wrong with how the fuel is igniting, but again the AFR is not looking like anything is wrong with the burn during that time.

TACH is registering ~300-400RPM osicaliations within 5/100s of a sec which makes me think it is a signal/electrical/noise problem. This might be causing the spark to occur at the wrong time due to MS not knowing the correct engine speed, which then causes the bucking.

Could you describe the bucking more in detail? Is it just a couple jolts or is it sputtering the entire time the noise is occuring? Any popping out the intake or exhaust?

Also, been wondering this a while but keep forgeting to ask, where are you pulling your MAP signal from?


-James

MAP Sensor is on the inside of the fender, hose about 2 feet.

James, a bucking has been part of this installation from day 1. Earlier postings (perhaps from you) considered it 'noise'. In addition to the bucking, there seemed to be other problems that defied tuning correction.

Changes that were made over time seemed to help a little, sometimes only for a while. Ultimately, Mark bult a fully shielded harness and provided a new ECU.

It appeared that the new ECU took away all of the peripheral crap that was standing in the way of tuning the car. For the first time, changes in the 'tune' were reflected by changes in the way the engine ran.

I did autotune the other day and the buck seemed to be gone. Maybe I didn't drive in the range that it would show in. It hits at about 2000 rpm, sadly the engine speed that I use around town. I added back some enrichments and the bucking came back.

It's not consistent: sometimes I can get it to show at a steady rpm, sometimes on slight acceleration, sometimes not at all. Sometimes it's fairly violent, sometimes not so much. I really feel it at 2000 rpm but it's also sometimes apparent (much less violently) at higher rpm.

Over the next couple of days, I will drive the car and see what happens. I'll start by recalibrating the TPS and AFR. I'll strip out any EA and MUE that's there and I'll run autotune again.

Then I'll drive and log in the situations that bucking occurs.

VOODOO and black magic

I'll report back.

Let me clarify, for the MAP sensor, where are you hooking the vacuum hose on your intake?

Stock 2.0 location on the intake plenum.

Double Posted!

Alright, I am determined for you to get this sorted out!

After staring at your latest logs for a while, I can't explain exactly what is going on just based on the log files, but I am seeing a bit of a pattern related to the rapid RPM oscillations showing up occasionally around the 1800-2000 RPM range and specifically the events that proceed them.

Basically the conditions are just right that you are coming in to that really lean spot in your Ve table that I had previously mentioned right before applying part throttle every time. Opening the throttle like that while lean is enough to cause it to buck a bit. What I cannot explain is the RPM ripple that persists for a couple seconds after it. Not being able to feel for myself what the car is doing makes it that much harder to guess. That being said, as the proceeding events appear to be the same I think those should be sorted out before making any sort of a call on this one.

Long story short, sort out that lean spot in the Ve table in the lower 1800-2300 bins before doing anything else. If you notice those 2 columns have values down into the 20's while on either side of them you are up in the 30s and 40s. You may want to sort out that entire bottom row as well, I would suspect any value less than 40 anywhere on your table could be to lean.

Fix that and grab some more logs.

OK, after James' post about everything below 40 being lean, I decided to adjust all below 40 cells to 40. Boy, did that run bad.

Sadly, I saved over it and can't post it. But I ran auto tune again and did a data log. They are the "b" files in the Dropbox box. Then I reset to 40 and did a data log - the "c" files.

Tomorrow, I think I'll try to blend the VEs bit and raise the bins in the 2000 - 3000 range and see if things smooth out.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p593bw6iyebgwjn/bANp3X25ic

Slightly odd suggestion
Why not disconnect the tps and disable it as an input in the ecu?
I chased a really odd surge with my setup. Turns out a small section in the tps had worn and showed 100%. Would be similar to interference
I would second the disable AE as well (no tps would do this anyway) as it will only mess with your base tune
Cheers
Edwin

Yeah, 40 might have been to much of a jump there, especally in the overrun area, that was a guess based on your table. Best way to do it is to work them up slowly so you can see how your AFRs react. Ill take a look over your new logs tonight.

-James

I know it's at least slightly odd, Edwin. The bucking issue has plagued this installation since day 1, I think I'm grasping at straws.

I know how to disconnect the tps, but not how to disable it. AE is disabled.

A new twist. Last week, James (I think) noticed that the tps was reading something like 30% at 5000 rpm. I recalibrated it and now it reads 10%. After reviewing old logs, here's what I found. All at steady rpm

October 2012. 5000 rpm, 52% -- 2700 rpm, 22%

May 13. 2700, 16% and 23% -- 2800 rpm. 20%

Today. 3200 rpm, -0.7% -- 5100 rpm, 44%

I know there will be some variation based on load, but it seems to be low and erratic.

I'll have to get in touch with Mark to get the part #, but I'm about ready to run out and get another.

It should be set up to basically ignore the TPS for now. Those numbers should have zero affect on fuel. I'm happy to supply a replacement if it needs it, but for now just ignore it. Unplugging it may work, but I'm not 100% sure.

Yep. didn't change anything.

I'm rereading all of the info that I've received over the last couple weeks to make sure that I'm using all the advice that's been provide.

Another day.

I was looking back over the advice and comments from the last week or two and realized that one of James' suggestions had not been done. We got sidetracked retuning and trying to reconstruct the ve table.

James suggested adjusting VE to get rid of the lean spots around 2000 rpm. That's what I worked on today. I started out with a tune that didn't run too badly and added to the VE at the lean spots. 5 iterations later, still bucks and still doesn't run really well, but the table is a lot smoother. The adjustments eventually spread out oer much of the table.

So, will you please take a look at these files and tell me if I'm on the right track or have I overshot? Since the bucking hasn't decreased I'm wondering if there is something else going on, but I'm not sure what to look for.

Many thanks.

I hope the names of the files/folders are self explanatory

After looking at your file I would say you still have a noise problem, Look at your battery voltage its all over the place also your TPS is going negative when you let off the gas.

I havent even looked at any files, but enough people have reported strange values in the logs enough to convince me you have a noise problem.
Try drawing out your wiring diagram in detail.
pay close attention to where all of the sensors are grounded.

Consider running any sensor grounds to a common ground point close to the MS ECU with a dedicated wire (twisted pairs in certain cases).
Ground everything at that point and that point only.

It almost sounds like your ignition is causing the problem because it seems to happen at specific RPMs. The noise might line up with some sensor process in the MCU only at certain RPMs.

I chase these types of problems in advanced avionics and this screams noise issue coinciding with some rate based process in the Software. It is also the hardest to track down. If you had a friend with a Digital Storage oscilloscope, you could look at each individual signal while operating looking for the noise.

Stu