Does anyone have a Tuned gt30r MIVEC map?? ill paypal money for it.

 

are you really using lambda to monitor your Afr? I hope not. But yes, Mivec will effect the AFR and boost. I would use 28.8* until your boost peaks(3000-3500rpms/above 200load), then maybe taper off? I cant really say, since I dont know your mods/specs.. Mivec takes alot of time to properly test and develop a solid map.

 

What is wrong with using lambda to monitor your fueling?

 

pull up your maps you want to shoot. then hit the "print screen" button to the right of the backspace button. Then open up paint, and hit paste, then save as a .jpg

 

Lambda, as in using a narrowband 02 sensor? Narrowband 02 sensors become less accurate as the 02 sensor is used more. They are inconsistent and inaccurate..

Unless your using a wideband 02 sensor..

 

Lambda is not a narrowband reading. Lambda is what a wideband sensor natively reads in. AFR is a calculation off lambda

1.000 lambda = 14.70 AFR (for normal gas)

Also a narrowband sensor becomes less accurate the further off stoic voltage it is, not the more it is used.

 

lol....

 

LMAO!! Ha

 

Did it increase performance as well? Was your testing accurate? Were there other variables that could have caused the leaner AFR?

Tuning engines is about finding optimal values for your engine. There are too many variables to tell someone exactly where they will make optimal power. The practical aspect of tuning the MIVEC map is not unlike tuning an ignition map. But it's important to understand what effect advancing and retarding the cams has at different loads / rpms.

 

FYI, I'm going to be dyno tuning my personal car on Monday on a Mustang Dyno with Brian Crower 280's, and I will take as much time as needed to dial in MIVEC.

I plan on initially making a run with the entire VVT map blocked at 0, and then repeat for 9.6, 19.2, and 28.8. Based on those 4 runs, I'll try to devise a single effective map.

This is on an FP Green @ 29psi on 50/50 Meth. The car previously made 350whp on this dyno and trapped 120mph on stock cams and no meth.

 

Good luck with the BC 280's, I had a horrible experience with them but it could have just been that set. Do you have an exhaust gear?

 

No, I do not.

 

I should have said 0.5 AFR leaner. It went from 12.5 to 13.0 AFR (wideband), boosting only at 1 bar held. Same conditions, same boost, same fuel and timing, only changes were the mivec. Perhaps HKS cams like 24* and possibly 28.8* is too much advance for those cams. I do find it drives better at 24*, feels like less strain on the engine if that makes sense. I have no dyno proof of making more power but if it went lean that has to be a good thing.

Any ideas from the Mivec Guru's?

 

The BC 280s don't like the excess MIVEC on the low end ... I couldn't run more than 25º without pegging the knock sensor at 36. I think the centerline is a bit different than stock ... i'm not big on cams and specs but these were definitely off somewhere..

I'm playing with some BC 280s again this weekend and I'll post results if anything good happens. No dyno though ... just road tuning.

 

Some of the same issues I had, although I didn't get crazy knock from them. They are for sure ground off. The car had the BC 272's before and it lost 40whp up top from stock!

The BC 280's made about the same power as stock cams on this Evo 9. I tried everything under the sun Mivec wise. Even 0 and full advance.

I really think these cams need to be degreed and have an exhaust gear to even work worth beans.