post alky timing maps please
Thread Starter
Account Disabled
iTrader: (28)
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
From: ft. walton beach, FLORIDA
post alky timing maps please
just started tuning my alky and would just like to see what kind of timing everyone else is running.....post logs also...thanks...
Thats strange that you knock if any richer, I wonder if its real of just some other noise the sensor is picking up, Seeing as meth itself likes to run something like 6:1. Timing also seems conservative, are you running 6 deg at peak torque?
With it much leaner with optimal timing it is virtually knock free and faster.
I usually don't run 13:1 A:F (like the log on the right) but logged several runs that lean while I was experiementing with MAF smoothing values.
Believe me, richer for me is more knock prone
6:1 is not an AFR representation as displayed on a wideband.
Trending Topics
I used to run 10* peak , 23* redline, sometimes car would knock, sometimes not.
With it much leaner with optimal timing it is virtually knock free and faster.
I usually don't run 13:1 A:F (like the log on the right) but logged several runs that lean while I was experiementing with MAF smoothing values.
Believe me, richer for me is more knock prone
With it much leaner with optimal timing it is virtually knock free and faster.
I usually don't run 13:1 A:F (like the log on the right) but logged several runs that lean while I was experiementing with MAF smoothing values.
Believe me, richer for me is more knock prone
That 6* "blocked" area is the optimal timing my car runs for that area. I know this from about 1000 logs with same car. If I need to run 6* at X rpm and load for about 0.8 seconds, then its 6*. Not 10, 6, 3, 0, 3, 6 in the same second
Need to pay closer attention to the IPW where it's rich and where it's too lean. Ah, now see (difference of about 2ms)? That right there, not to mention 14.7 at idle, is a good indication my WB is right on target
As far as timing, not sure what logic you can provide for your assumption, but got any?
Need to pay closer attention to the IPW where it's rich and where it's too lean. Ah, now see (difference of about 2ms)? That right there, not to mention 14.7 at idle, is a good indication my WB is right on target
As far as timing, not sure what logic you can provide for your assumption, but got any?
Last edited by C6C6CH3vo; Apr 22, 2007 at 05:54 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 129
Likes: 1
From: Dunedin New Zealand
[QUOTE=C6C6CH3vo;4241525]That 6* "blocked" area is the optimal timing my car runs for that area. I know this from about 1000 logs with same car. If I need to run 6* at X rpm and load for about 0.8 seconds, then its 6*. Not 10, 6, 3, 0, 3, 6 in the same second
I agree- some tuners ideas for blocked timing arent good, but after ALOT of logging I found that I was able to run more average timing through peak torque using a little block timing. After that my map looks more normal.
I agree- some tuners ideas for blocked timing arent good, but after ALOT of logging I found that I was able to run more average timing through peak torque using a little block timing. After that my map looks more normal.
[QUOTE=monsta;4243436]
That's the wrong interpretation of tuning .. you block the area because you do not know which cell the timing is in or do not know how the median is calculated .. So you block the adjacent cells so that you get the timing you want ..
Also if you tune by blocks, you are essentially running the car at 1 optimum boost only and any other level boost is crappy ..
BTW - not ****ting on you or what .. to each his own .. but there are ways .. and there are other ways .. some better than others ..
C6C6CH3vo - Aren't you running a little low on timing for a meth tune??
Even up to 30psi .. I'm running 24-25 degrees of timing ..
I think this is a good thread by the OP .. as slowly more people are getting into water or meth injection as power adders .. we get some ideas of how these things affect the overall tune.. everyone is right now just guessing about timing/boost/AFRs that seems to work best for their own situation..
That 6* "blocked" area is the optimal timing my car runs for that area. I know this from about 1000 logs with same car. If I need to run 6* at X rpm and load for about 0.8 seconds, then its 6*. Not 10, 6, 3, 0, 3, 6 in the same second
I agree- some tuners ideas for blocked timing arent good, but after ALOT of logging I found that I was able to run more average timing through peak torque using a little block timing. After that my map looks more normal.
I agree- some tuners ideas for blocked timing arent good, but after ALOT of logging I found that I was able to run more average timing through peak torque using a little block timing. After that my map looks more normal.
Also if you tune by blocks, you are essentially running the car at 1 optimum boost only and any other level boost is crappy ..
BTW - not ****ting on you or what .. to each his own .. but there are ways .. and there are other ways .. some better than others ..
C6C6CH3vo - Aren't you running a little low on timing for a meth tune??
Even up to 30psi .. I'm running 24-25 degrees of timing ..
I think this is a good thread by the OP .. as slowly more people are getting into water or meth injection as power adders .. we get some ideas of how these things affect the overall tune.. everyone is right now just guessing about timing/boost/AFRs that seems to work best for their own situation..
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.
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.
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.
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 F-16s don't rely on fueling input
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.
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.
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.
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 F-16s don't rely on fueling input
Last edited by C6C6CH3vo; Apr 26, 2007 at 07:05 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 logsWhat sort of confuses me is the fact that you are running for the most part a static form of fuel. Regardless if it is 100 or 89 octane fuel the rate at which it will completely burn thru should stay the same.
Now if your infering that your charge density and atomization characteristics are high, then I can understand the reason why your flame speed would increase across the bore. That would explain the "optimal timing" of 6*.
I am very interested to here from you.
Thanks in advance
I've read many of your posts here on this forum for some time now. I must say that this one was the most interesting so far. In many respects I agree with you on many of your points. My only real question for you is about the comment you made regarding "burn rate". Could you explain to me a bit further what you mean by this. More importantly how you came to the conclusion that burn rate changes with more or less fuel. Or with more or less timing.
What sort of confuses me is the fact that you are running for the most part a static form of fuel. Regardless if it is 100 or 89 octane fuel the rate at which it will completely burn thru should stay the same.
Now if your infering that your charge density and atomization characteristics are high, then I can understand the reason why your flame speed would increase across the bore. That would explain the "optimal timing" of 6*.
I am very interested to here from you.
Thanks in advance
What sort of confuses me is the fact that you are running for the most part a static form of fuel. Regardless if it is 100 or 89 octane fuel the rate at which it will completely burn thru should stay the same.
Now if your infering that your charge density and atomization characteristics are high, then I can understand the reason why your flame speed would increase across the bore. That would explain the "optimal timing" of 6*.
I am very interested to here from you.
Thanks in advance
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