post alky timing maps please
Originally Posted by C6C6CH3vo
All due respect
sir,
thats right , low boost is crappy, thats why I don't purposely run lower boost and advance timing in lower boost cells - my car is either WOT or grandma throttle so trying to eek performance when driving like grandma is not my objective.
sir,
thats right , low boost is crappy, thats why I don't purposely run lower boost and advance timing in lower boost cells - my car is either WOT or grandma throttle so trying to eek performance when driving like grandma is not my objective.
Originally Posted by C6C6CH3vo
The flat load timing keeps consistantancy with an inconsistant MAF and the MAF directly effects the ecu's interpretation of load. I tried the other smooth method I assume your refering, it just ended up knocking from sharp timing changes due to MAF peaks. My diverter valve is also solenoid controlled which makes this worse at peak, but thats a small price for the boost response.
Originally Posted by C6C6CH3vo
The reason it appears blocky on the RPM axis is due to the RPM scale. Look again at the RPM axis - the resolution is greater than the stock on which emphasises at low rpms. It's basically a result from, like I said before - 6* timing with methanol is my car's optimal timing, any more not nesessarily knocks - its just slower I've compared logs many times by overlaying RPM slopes to confirm this. When flame front is at it's fastest (12.5 AF + boost) you can easily find optimal timing and for my car optimal timing is 6* from 3500 rpm to 5000 rpm, whether 260% load, 280% load, or 290% load.
Originally Posted by C6C6CH3vo
My point here is this: Just because respected people make a statement about one thing it doesnt mean that it's the truth. Hell, half the people in our country believe global changes in weather are caused by us disgusting humans - climate change is just a fact of nature. God also created the fact that 12.5 AF is likely the fastest burn rate so why speed it up with timing then and slow it back down with fuel.
It's all a learning process for everyone and nobody really knows the best approach. Were stuck with a ECU engineered to run off 89octane by the consumer and there is no reason to be closed minded to different approaches just because it contradicts what Joe 10secEvo say's and believes
Most of all sir
who are you to determine which interpretation of tuning is right or wrong? Your obviously confused if your pushing 25* at 30 psi to increase burn rate, then slowing burn rate back down with fuel and in the meantime controlling knock with methanol and water - thats like using a lead wheelbarrel.
Good thing that F-16 you fly doesn't rely on your idea of fueling needs
Lets see some of your logs
It's all a learning process for everyone and nobody really knows the best approach. Were stuck with a ECU engineered to run off 89octane by the consumer and there is no reason to be closed minded to different approaches just because it contradicts what Joe 10secEvo say's and believes
Most of all sir
who are you to determine which interpretation of tuning is right or wrong? Your obviously confused if your pushing 25* at 30 psi to increase burn rate, then slowing burn rate back down with fuel and in the meantime controlling knock with methanol and water - thats like using a lead wheelbarrel.
Good thing that F-16 you fly doesn't rely on your idea of fueling needs
Lets see some of your logs
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
First let me point out I don't claim the methods I use are better than any others here, but I have spent a lot of time and energy (trial and error) trying to get the most out of my personal setup. I have done a little reading, a ton of experimenting and have totally changed my method in the process and am pretty darn close to having a stable tune with the stock ECU but most of my wife is fed up with the time I spend on this stupid car so time to just enjoy where it's at.
Now back to your question, read these 3 parts (I'm still on the 3rd
):
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html
Even though this one is includes NO2 alot, it's still good
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articl...ine/Detonation
I haven't read this one yet, but,
http://www.tuninglinx.com/
http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...ion_deeper.htm
If you don't have time then just read this one
http://innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php
Now back to your question, read these 3 parts (I'm still on the 3rd
):http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html
Even though this one is includes NO2 alot, it's still good
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articl...ine/Detonation
I haven't read this one yet, but,
http://www.tuninglinx.com/
http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...ion_deeper.htm
If you don't have time then just read this one
http://innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
well I think TTP was trying to tell you something about AFR but you just brushed it aside and since you obviously read what I said about sharing ideas wrong I don't really see a need to continue this any further..especially one who throws insults at the slightest suggestion that there maybe better ways to do things
I run a gt3071wg ..
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Maybe its just me, but I don't see how anything valid was brought into the conversation. The only thing they mentioned was that 6:1 was NOT an accurate representation. He was actually responding to a completely different person in the thread. Not even the author.
So I am not sure how anything was dismissed by C6.
Im not sure I understand how the A/F ratio is not accurate just because he is injecting Meth.
In the past two weeks I've spent about $200 on 110 leaded fuel. I'm lean towards the SMC IC bottle replacement rig. The only concern I have is that I road race the hell out of my car and would need to ensure 12:1 is safe for a constant 30 minutes of abuse.
AFR's
With what C6C6CH3vo said aside and I can't argue with what he said. I think most guys are running low to mid 11's. If the system fails you still have a margin of safety that way. I had the Red Evo at the Test & Tune day at Blackhawk on the 20th. Works for me.
Last edited by cfdfireman1; Apr 30, 2007 at 09:34 AM.
Or fix your fear and use a system with adequate failsafes to protect yourself while being able to actually tune for performance.
I'm not living in fear I simply do not know what the standard is. I run low to mid 11s on 93. What does simply adding alchy do to the tune? Does the wideband AFR even change or do you simply not see as much knock?
When looking at C6C6CH3vo's timing chart, it doesn't really seem all that aggressive when compared to a pump gas map. Gunzo's is almost identical to my 110 octane map.
When looking at C6C6CH3vo's timing chart, it doesn't really seem all that aggressive when compared to a pump gas map. Gunzo's is almost identical to my 110 octane map.