If you were to compare two similar motors with and without a turbo, or with two levels of boost, you would see the differences in timing more clearly..

As the engine spins faster, you need to increase the timing in order to allow the combustion to create pressure in time to transfer enough of its energy (expanding gases) to the piston's downstroke. Timing and Fuel are interelated, since the leaner you run, the less fuel there is to completely burn, and therefore the less timing you can run.. So it becomes a bit of a balance on several levels since this also affects exhaust gas temps which can melt parts too.

The difference is, on a normally aspirated motor of a similar design, you may find the timing to be significantly higher than with a turbocharger..

Old school MSD boxes designed for supercharging have something called a boost timing retard, since the base timing and advance timing are all vacuum/counterweight, and mechanically controlled, so when you hit boost, you need to remove a bit of timing from it.. Comparing different turbocharged variations on the same type of car makes it not as obvious about the timing, but I've seen 32 degrees of timing used on normally aspirated engines.. Cylinder pressure is what your aiming for, you want to produce a burn where the cylinder pressure is building just after top dead center, most of the time, as you increase the effective compression ratio (Boost) you have to give it more time to create a burn that will produce the best power. There's a little more to it since AFR's aren't 100% about getting a complete burn, but providing a method of also absorbing excess heat hence why you run rich..

 

good stuff. Looks like he's making real progress. I sure hope he releases the software in the near future.

 

Yea on naturally aspirated I see that on hondas all the time, they love timing, but regarding boost vs timing on same octane gas rule of thumb from every tuner I have seen or spoken with is more boost less timing for street cars and I have seen a screen shot of the timing map in question and he has much more aggresive timing than I do and boosts 2psi more. No big deal not like he blew up, I am just saying why would he get more timing if he is boosting more, not like it was a custom tune. No big deal though

 

I disagree. There is no excuse for laziness! Duping the map creates a potential failure point that could cost someone their car. The stock maps are even safer, yet you see that they differ the maps, so this is just a stupid thing to think.

 

my maps are the same too

 

Lol calm down, I definetly agree with you, but its not like malibu made the flash.

 

No, but malibu is a lot smarter then that. I am a little disappointed in him. Crazy Malibu! Whoops, off topic, sorry!

 

Posted some ECU+ logs in my EcuFlash thread if you all want to see what the ECU+ logs look like:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...0&postcount=13

 

I really hate the overlapped view. The individual logs are so much cleaner.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I chose to keep my personal opinion to myself. I haven't heard of any blown engines as a direct result of a through the mail flash.

 

They are cleaner but they loose so much resolution. I really like the way the zeitronix integrates with the knock buffer.

 

I used to do the individual view, but when using the knock buffer, its a lot better in overlap mode.

 

looks like evoscan is coming along pretty good....we might actually have a decent logger in a few weeks. Then I can actually make some changes with ecuflash, right now my cable just sits...well I did raise my idle rpms this weekend, about all I can do at this point that is safe

 

is evo scan ecuflash logger?

 

yea hopefully the evo scan is a good program. i am putting on hold buying the pocketlogger stuff until i can see what the evoscan can do, since i own the cable openport 1.3m already.

Carlo