Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

Please Take a look, Conservative timing map for my IX. I plan on adding a little more advance but want to keep it safe. This is basically the stock timing map with a few adjustments. I'm taking it slow. These are on 93oct. Please offer input. Like what is an acceptable amount of timing for 11.1:1 at redline? Peak torque? This is my first time tuning the Evo. Attached are logs of my current map with super boost spikes that I would like to fix.





and running this mivec map that I found in here, I think it's a derivative on the JDM mivec map




My next timing map version is going to look something like this... with some fuel added in a few areas.




EvoScanDataLog_2007.02.16_07.31.00.zip

jcsbanks

Here are my maps for my IX on V-power which is similar I believe to 93 PON:

http://john824.fotopic.net/p36885454.html

This in the "10.2" areas runs about 11.5 mid, 11.2 at the top end, but it is a JDM IX ECU which may explain the differences.

On the equivalent to US 93 PON, the timing map above on my IX with 3" decat exhaust (factory O2 housing for now), intercooler pipes, turbo inlet pipe, modified airbox, Walbro pump, AFRs as above, supports 25 PSI peak, 24 PSI held to 5000, 22 PSI at 6000, 20 PSI at 7000 with knock sums always under 3.

You will note the flattening of the timing in the 100-200 area to get rid of lift off det.

Looking at your maps, they are indeed conservative. Your AFR is rich on the second gear in your pull (5th?) You might reduce this effect by not making the AFR table richer as load increases. I think you might well find a fair bit more timing.

I would smoothen your fuel map at 2500-3000 RPM and 140-160 load.

Ralph

iTrader: (19)

jcsbanks I noticed you have pretty high timing in the late RPM 220 load cell. Do you fall into that load cell when doing a pull? What is your max timing/rpm you've seen on that pump gas (93)?

Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

Do you have lean spool disabled?

jcsbanks

I have lean spool enabled in the 2000-7500 RPM range.

I've tried a variety of boost levels to make sure it doesn't knock right up to the 7606 limiter (I leave it stock in sympathy to my rods). I haven't particularly noted the maximum timing in degrees at 7500, usually I change at 7000-7200 since I have enough boost to mean that I drop in again around my power plateau.

electricevo

How does the JDM mivec map feel? Im thinking about doing it.

Does it change any other variables worth noting? (Fuel, timing, etc)

Thanks

electricevo

I just changed my mivec map to the one you were running and i noticed significant improvements. Thanks for posting it up.

Ph3n1x

iTrader: (12)

You have room to play from the 4-6k range.

burgers22

Hi

How, why did you decide on the fuel map. I have seen some logs that might need a map a bit like that, but would be interested in your reasons. BTW I'm not saying it's wrong for your car as you've not posted your logs, but it would be interesting to see those as well.

MB

Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

Was this post directed to JCSBANKS or me? I guess you might be talking about him and I wondered about his fuel map too he has the non-boost areas of the map very rich in the high load / low rpm range but I dont know why. I wouldnt think any car should be operating up there so maybe it doesnt matter that much.


I did post logs.. look below the screenshots There is a link. Basically I just richened the stock map to get to 11.1 and get rid of knock (my car knocked some on the stock map with my minor mods) and then did some interpolations to help the transition areas a little bit. Also I richened as load increases for safety purposes (the stock map is like this too) but I'm considering flattenening it out a bit to keep from going too rich. Really this is my first attempt at tuning my car that's why I wanted some feedback. If something doesnt look right or if you think I should try some other things please provide feedback, that was exactly what I was after.

gunzo

iTrader: (2)

you may want to consider changing the load band 160-300 from 5000-5500rpms to 19.2 and from 6000rpms (same loadbands) to 9.6

Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

I guess that makes sense. I havent changed that mivec map at all... just using it as I found it.. I had read an earlier post where a stock IX made + 20hp on just this mivec map alone, of course I dont have a dyno to substantiate that but the car feels strong. I might change it next map revision and see if I can tell a difference. I'm working on advancing my timing right now, I've been comparing to an older custom tune that I had and I've shaved a full second from 3K - 6K in a 3rd gear pull if EvoScan's Log seconds are accurate, either way I've shaved about 25% off even if the field is not time accurate.

burgers22

Hi Mr Evo IX

No I missed the logs. Doh!

I can see now why your fuel map is like it is, based on the logs. The car seems to be having trouble hitting it's target AFRs. At the point the boost spikes to 280, the AFRs drop to 12.2 I'm just wondering if there is something else coming into play here. Maybe a fuel dilivery problem, leaking intake or an exhaust throwing off the AFRs.

MB

jcsbanks

The fuel map is standard FQ360 up to the 9.6 and 10.2 areas which are leaner than standard. I can hit 25 PSI at 2500 RPM and at that point it runs about 12:1 and lean spool is from 2000 RPM on this model. Some JDM models are rumoured to have dropped exhaust valves from the standard lean mapping especially when modified with exhausts and boost controllers. The UK FQ models fatten up this area, and whilst it looks dramatic it seems good for torque and for running good timing.

The map is fat in the intermediate load areas, but again that is standard for the FQ360, and I still run small POSITIVE fuel trims and get excellent gas mileage. This may be because I've increased the open loop thresholds just slightly too.

jcsbanks

Standard 360 fuel map.

The 360 runs intercooler and turbo inlet pipes, 2.5" downpipe, 2.5" high flow cat, 2.5-2.75-2.5" exhaust, and upgraded fuel pump.