Hey Scott,

Any particular reason for the choice in the "69" number signature of you tunes?

 

Maybe it was his lacrosse number in college ...

 

maybe its the number of horsepower he expects to gain from tune to tune ?

or maybe its an old jestr ttp favorite move ? lol

im kidding im kidding ....

whatever the 69 is for, it sure does work. Im only able to put 34.5 in that square

 

Nope.

But I did recently make some small changes to the map. I'll post it up tomorrow.

 

Isn't it correct to say it doesn't matter what number is fed to the coils from the ecu's map, so long as the peak psi (not from knock) of the combustion hit's when the crank is at about 20* on the power stroke, regardless of RPM and load?

Too many factors effect the time from when the spark light's, to when the first flame starts, the flame speed and I think theres another FF that happens too. The condition of the coils, even the gap plays a role in the spark ignition lag that will have an effect on where the actual timing really lights combustion.

Timing map values, bah

 

I think it's more like 15. But there's no way to control that..

 

There's no way to control it directly, but there are plenty of ways to control it indirectly (A/F ratio, boost, ignition timing).

 

14* ATDC

 

You may have to do a full refresh to get the updated image (CONTROL + F5)

But here's my current map, 93oct only, 25psi:

 

^^ What AFR at peak torque?

 

During spool it's 12.0 to 12.5 and then 11.8 ish at peak torque... going to 11.5 the rest of the powerband

 

shameless,

I still don't really understand why you are rescaling the RPM so much in the 3k to 5k region if you are possibly only running 1* difference in that whole power band.

Also, I don't see why you added so much load resolution when you have a sea of 6's and 7's in the areas where load changes the most quickly.

This map and the earlier look like you are just doing it because you can.

In my honest opinion, you would be better off with the higher resolution 5500 and up.

 

+1

 

Fair enough just curious.

 

You're probably right... that's just the way I initially setup the scale, so I may try rescaling and see what I come up with. The load resolution has worked well... I always hated having to tune for spots like 210, 230, 250, 270... having increments of 10 after 200 has helped.

I will try rescaling RPM for more high RPM resolution though