Well my car is sponsored and tuned by Buschur Racing so I give them all (& the rest of my sponsors) the glory of all the accompishments I may accomplish.

I am just in this hobby becuase I like Evos (no - I love Evos) and I enjoy trying to make my own Evo as fast as I can. At this point, I am really not out to prove anything to anyone. I am really only pursuing this, (I think illness is the best way to describe it) becuase its something that I enjoy doing. I was tuning my own evo back when I was featured in Modified Magazine and I was still tuning it when it was on the Cover of Turbo Magazine and tearing up the race tracks all over the east coast as a daily driver.

At some point when I was taking the leap to the 900 whp plus catagory I felt that since I had zero experience tuning 900 whp DSM's and since my good friend Mr. Buschur did . . . . why not let him help me?

Its a huge honor for me to have had Mr. Buschur tune my evo, but in reality it was actually rather easy for him to do it as I am still just running the base map out of the black Buschur Race car. I thought it was kind of cool when my first pass with the "base tune" from that car gave me a 9,7 in the 1/4 mile. I figured that tune was working fairly well so I was not planning to adjust it. Its hard to improve upon perfection, I would expect nothing less from Mr. Buschur who is one of the best DSM experts you can find.

Anyway - I have to go back out and do more work on the race car - break time is over.

 

Hahaha I knew that was coming I swear. Anyways we all know what Mr. Buschur can do lets see what Mr Al can do lol, since you say negative comments about EFIxMr's tuning abilities and try to clown him regarding his methods, which seem to be fine since the car in question does not seem to be knocking or blowing up. Anyways back on topic.

 

If you have phantom knock then I'm assuming that the ECU would then pull down the octane value or equivalent to start being influenced more by the low octane map. However, I can't see why it wouldn't still pull timing if the maps were set the same. The dyno plots show WOT only, if the phantom knock occurred at part throttle and pulled the octane number down, then having the low and high maps similar/same would prevent much of an effect.

 

DYnoflash Al, you really have added nothing to this post but drama. My suggestion to you is that unless you have something useful to add to the topic at hand there is no need for you to waste your time posting. Nobody really cares about what you learned in Japan as to why the stock ECU does 'this' or 'that'. We are trying to educate our selfs by sharing information while you on the other hand are contributing ZERO.

 

Thanks for your suggestion

However, lets not forget this thread was started by one of my cusetomers seeking tech answers

If you read back to the first 5 pages I was posting a lot of tech info on this subject

The topic did not start to drift until other parties chiomed in with false information

Al (on way to race)

 

So just to put the issue of "if the ecu can pull timing when the ignition maps are the same" to bed:

ECU+ log of 4th gear pull. Both timing maps and fuel maps are the same:


Here are the timing maps:


And here is a csv if anyone wants to take a closer look:
csv file of run


You will notice that most of the run the knock sensor voltage is right around 1v, when the voltage spikes up to near 2.5v the ecu pulls out about 3* of timing. Both fuel and timing maps are the same. This is not ecu+ pulling the timing, it is set to pull 5* at 2.5v and add 5% fuel, the voltage never reached 2.5 in this or any other run that evening.

RPM, Boost, IPW, IDC, MAS, Deg, Knock, Speed, AFR

6422, 15.2, 14.9, 80, 1579, 14, 0.95, 101, 10.69
6431, 15.6, 14.8 79, 1599, 14, 0.95, 100, 10.80
6435, 15.3, 14.9 79, 1559, 14, 1.01, 103, 10.69
6437, 15.2, 15.0, 80, 1567, 14, 0.92, 108, 10.66
6453, 15.6, 15.0, 81, 1571, 11, 2.41, 102, 10.68
6464, 15.6, 15.0, 80, 1587, 11, 2.32, 104, 10.76
6464, 15.0, 15.0, 80, 1611, 11, 2.24, 103, 10.63
6488, 15.4, 15.1, 81, 1587, 11, 2.15, 105, 10.69
6493, 15.2, 15.1, 81, 1595, 11, 2.07, 108, 10.49
6493, 15.2, 15.1, 81, 1587, 11, 1.99, 108, 10.63
6522, 15.4, 15.0, 81, 1579, 11, 1.90, 104, 10.63
6515, 15.4, 15.0, 81, 1587, 11, 1.82, 103, 10.63


Now, If this is real knock or not I don't know but I do know the ecu pulled the timing in response to the knock voltage spike even with both maps the same.

 

THANK YOU - this is great data

This data which shows the ecu pulling timing in response to knock voltage (engine noise) clearly shows that the ecu can pull timing no matter how you set the two timing maps

As an aside - THIS IS how you test the theory - not by lookingh at dyno sheets which do not show if timing is being pulled (which is what we are specifically testing )

Thanks agsin

 

Al makes mental note - call Monday and order ECU +

 

The ECU+ is fantastic for logging.. makes life easy with the plug and play harness.. takes all of a few minutes to install it and get comprehensive logging..

BTW PM Me a good E-mail addy, I have something for you to try out..

 

Well, I knew that timing could be pulled with both maps being the same. I posted this pages ago. But, we are just trying to figure out exactly what EFIxMR is seeing. He did, however believe that timing couldn't be pulled with the maps the same, so this is great data to back the point, nonetheless.

mad_VIII or anyone else with ECU+ for that matter -

Does ECU+ log mass airflow by any chance? I'm talking about airflow in values like lb/min, g/s, etc?

If it does, I would love to have some csv files of knock-free and knock containing pulls, of the mass airflow (from ECU+) and RPM and knock counts (form EvoScan) along with screenshots or your timing maps.

I think I can create a very accurate load forumla and find out exactly how much timing the ECU pulls due to varying amounts of knock. I have a few threories, but I need some logs with mass airflow in them.


Thanks,
Eric

 

I think ECU+ only logs MAF frequency.. HOWEVER, I started another thread which had the MAF to Airflow conversion values that are almost identical to our cars...

 

I personally feel that the knock counts are more of a calculated value that take into account IATs, coolant temps, engine noise, load, etc. With my personal Evo, I will see 1-2 counts in various places for short periods of time and 99% of the time, there's no associated timing pull.

I also feel that all these people out here tuning for zero knock counts aren't quite sure what they are looking at. Modern engines are built and designed to run on the verge of knock and have systems in place which keep that balance in check as its a constantly moving target.

Its not really related, but I have experience tuning ME 7.X in all the old 1.8T 2.7T VAG vehicles and with that system, you want the timing maps such that the ECU is always pulling about 3 deg across all cylinders....anything less is not aggressive enough and power/consistancy suffers.

 

On my tune for 98 RON which presently runs a knock free 25 PSI peak, 23.5 PSI held through the midrange and 20 PSI at redline and mids 11s:1 AFR, along with +1 degree over the JDM stock map except at 6500 RPM, it shows knock sums of 1 and 2 here and there even if I add 10% methanol to the fuel tank. It does not appear to pull timing for these, and it does appear to increase the octane value over just a few minutes even if I program it lower. That and the fact that stock cars are running similar knock sums makes me believe it is happy, and since I'm not knocking and it quickly pegs to an octane value of 255, I should be considering more timing.

 

Well, good to know that the stock ecu still has some level of knock protection with the maps flattened.

However, the role of the twin maps is still unclear.

 

mad_VIII, do you have the ECU+ log file I can download and look at? thanks!