ECUFlash dyno results!
Jun 26, 2006, 04:43 AM
#16
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In da streetz
Posts: 3,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
Its amazing isn't it? For me it was an overlooked setting that I never even thought to alter.. However the limited testing I did was inconclusive but others have had success with it.
Jun 26, 2006, 04:52 AM
#17
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In da streetz
Posts: 3,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andenbre
it would probebly be closer to 30 psi
when I hit 1.3 bar I am near 220 load on my ignition maps
and its 14.7 psi = 1 bar = 200 kpa = approx 200% load before the ecm modifys the load % with other calculations
when I hit 1.3 bar I am near 220 load on my ignition maps
and its 14.7 psi = 1 bar = 200 kpa = approx 200% load before the ecm modifys the load % with other calculations
Jun 26, 2006, 06:30 AM
#18
I've stuck so far to just making offsets to my timing in problem areas (across all four of my high octane timing maps) where there has been detonation at sensible AFR at the boost level I want to run. It seems to have worked. However, because I'm running a IX then my scaling already goes to 300, and because it is a JDM ECU the timing is already about 3 degrees advanced from the US maps.
I still don't believe in flattening whole areas to static timing in blocks, I think it is bad tuning. You lose out at lower boost levels (as well as increasing EGTs) and you'll probably det if you have serious overboost. I know we don't know where the ECU is accessing yet, but why not increment or decrement blocks and keep the overall progression/safety/smoothness? The factory maps show us a steady reduction of timing of about 2-3 degrees per 20% load change on boost IIRC. There are good reasons to continue this trend as I have mentioned.
I think the load calculation (based on lots of other airflow meter based ECUs and making airflow meter simulators to convert to speed density) will be virtually entirely a calcuation based on the airflow signal from the MAF calibration table divided by RPM. You can use manifold absolute pressure as a guide with maybe 100% representing the onset of boost perhaps, but only in a limited part of the map. Unless there is a volumetric efficiency map that then tries to get the load zones to be equivalent to a boost level (which I seriously doubt, and I've not found anything like it) then you'd expect to be acccessing lower load zones for the same boost as the revs rise. This is a reason to be careful of your advance in the 6000-7000 range as this is a hotspot on my and some other Evo engines I gather, and the dropping load will already be advancing the ignition for your flat boost level, or even more for dropping boost level (double effect), this is really one to watch with a bigger turbo as the VE will be higher up there and there is then a risk of detonation.
I still don't believe in flattening whole areas to static timing in blocks, I think it is bad tuning. You lose out at lower boost levels (as well as increasing EGTs) and you'll probably det if you have serious overboost. I know we don't know where the ECU is accessing yet, but why not increment or decrement blocks and keep the overall progression/safety/smoothness? The factory maps show us a steady reduction of timing of about 2-3 degrees per 20% load change on boost IIRC. There are good reasons to continue this trend as I have mentioned.
I think the load calculation (based on lots of other airflow meter based ECUs and making airflow meter simulators to convert to speed density) will be virtually entirely a calcuation based on the airflow signal from the MAF calibration table divided by RPM. You can use manifold absolute pressure as a guide with maybe 100% representing the onset of boost perhaps, but only in a limited part of the map. Unless there is a volumetric efficiency map that then tries to get the load zones to be equivalent to a boost level (which I seriously doubt, and I've not found anything like it) then you'd expect to be acccessing lower load zones for the same boost as the revs rise. This is a reason to be careful of your advance in the 6000-7000 range as this is a hotspot on my and some other Evo engines I gather, and the dropping load will already be advancing the ignition for your flat boost level, or even more for dropping boost level (double effect), this is really one to watch with a bigger turbo as the VE will be higher up there and there is then a risk of detonation.
Last edited by jcsbanks; Jun 26, 2006 at 06:33 AM.
Jun 26, 2006, 07:15 AM
#19
Originally Posted by AlwaysinBoost
that wasn't a remark at you, please don't take it that way... it was a general observation.
Jun 26, 2006, 07:17 AM
#20
Originally Posted by AlwaysinBoost
I don't think 300 on the load section = 30psi; at least on my car it doesn't. I was hitting @ 1.45 bar (21psi) on the dyno and making changes to the 240-260 load sections. Those changes were deffinatley having an effect on the dyno readings.
I didn't quote the quote you had.. But I can address it..
Calculated load is not a direct measure of boost level, its a measure of engine load, and its affected by several things, Volumetric Efficiency, Boost Level, RPM, Intake, MAF reading, etc..
The resulting load is what you see for that number.. Therefore its possible to see higher load at lower boost levels at lower RPM, than you might at higher RPM with Higher Boost, in fact it happens pretty frequently that your load cells are typically higher at lower RPM where you get Peak Torque (where the engine is loaded much higher than at higher speeds) etc..
Jun 26, 2006, 07:56 AM
#21
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm running about the same mods as AlwaysIn and I do for a fact hit over 280 load in the 3k-3.5k range. Thanks to the advice on the forum last week i rescalled my maps up to 300 and it works like a champ. Prior to re scaling, i though I was having timing pulled due to detonation, but it turns out I was just off the scale.
Congrats on your results man, that rocks. What AFR's were you targetting? Especially during spoolup and at peak torque?
Congrats on your results man, that rocks. What AFR's were you targetting? Especially during spoolup and at peak torque?
Jun 26, 2006, 09:23 AM
#22
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: chicago area
Posts: 906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andenbre
good job. imo its not about the peak but the wide usable powerband increases that give you the best tune
Jun 26, 2006, 09:57 AM
#23
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In da streetz
Posts: 3,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcsbanks
I've stuck so far to just making offsets to my timing in problem areas (across all four of my high octane timing maps) where there has been detonation at sensible AFR at the boost level I want to run. It seems to have worked. However, because I'm running a IX then my scaling already goes to 300, and because it is a JDM ECU the timing is already about 3 degrees advanced from the US maps.
I still don't believe in flattening whole areas to static timing in blocks, I think it is bad tuning. You lose out at lower boost levels (as well as increasing EGTs) and you'll probably det if you have serious overboost. I know we don't know where the ECU is accessing yet, but why not increment or decrement blocks and keep the overall progression/safety/smoothness? The factory maps show us a steady reduction of timing of about 2-3 degrees per 20% load change on boost IIRC. There are good reasons to continue this trend as I have mentioned.
I think the load calculation (based on lots of other airflow meter based ECUs and making airflow meter simulators to convert to speed density) will be virtually entirely a calcuation based on the airflow signal from the MAF calibration table divided by RPM. You can use manifold absolute pressure as a guide with maybe 100% representing the onset of boost perhaps, but only in a limited part of the map. Unless there is a volumetric efficiency map that then tries to get the load zones to be equivalent to a boost level (which I seriously doubt, and I've not found anything like it) then you'd expect to be acccessing lower load zones for the same boost as the revs rise. This is a reason to be careful of your advance in the 6000-7000 range as this is a hotspot on my and some other Evo engines I gather, and the dropping load will already be advancing the ignition for your flat boost level, or even more for dropping boost level (double effect), this is really one to watch with a bigger turbo as the VE will be higher up there and there is then a risk of detonation.
I still don't believe in flattening whole areas to static timing in blocks, I think it is bad tuning. You lose out at lower boost levels (as well as increasing EGTs) and you'll probably det if you have serious overboost. I know we don't know where the ECU is accessing yet, but why not increment or decrement blocks and keep the overall progression/safety/smoothness? The factory maps show us a steady reduction of timing of about 2-3 degrees per 20% load change on boost IIRC. There are good reasons to continue this trend as I have mentioned.
I think the load calculation (based on lots of other airflow meter based ECUs and making airflow meter simulators to convert to speed density) will be virtually entirely a calcuation based on the airflow signal from the MAF calibration table divided by RPM. You can use manifold absolute pressure as a guide with maybe 100% representing the onset of boost perhaps, but only in a limited part of the map. Unless there is a volumetric efficiency map that then tries to get the load zones to be equivalent to a boost level (which I seriously doubt, and I've not found anything like it) then you'd expect to be acccessing lower load zones for the same boost as the revs rise. This is a reason to be careful of your advance in the 6000-7000 range as this is a hotspot on my and some other Evo engines I gather, and the dropping load will already be advancing the ignition for your flat boost level, or even more for dropping boost level (double effect), this is really one to watch with a bigger turbo as the VE will be higher up there and there is then a risk of detonation.
Jun 26, 2006, 10:00 AM
#24
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In da streetz
Posts: 3,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_VIII
I'm running about the same mods as AlwaysIn and I do for a fact hit over 280 load in the 3k-3.5k range. Thanks to the advice on the forum last week i rescalled my maps up to 300 and it works like a champ. Prior to re scaling, i though I was having timing pulled due to detonation, but it turns out I was just off the scale.
Congrats on your results man, that rocks. What AFR's were you targetting? Especially during spoolup and at peak torque?
Congrats on your results man, that rocks. What AFR's were you targetting? Especially during spoolup and at peak torque?
Still no graphs from the dyno yet... hopefully they will get mailed today sometime.
Jun 26, 2006, 10:15 AM
#25
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In da streetz
Posts: 3,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good timing
dyno sheets just came in the mail... below is just a quick snapshot of the first and last pull. I was a little off on the numbers I listed in my first post but the results are still there none the less.
needs some smoothing out for sure as the setting on the winPEP software is on 5.
Questions and comments are welcome...
needs some smoothing out for sure as the setting on the winPEP software is on 5.
Questions and comments are welcome...
Jun 26, 2006, 10:31 AM
#26
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd gear or 4th gear pulls???? I'm running around 11.2-11.5 in 3rd which gets me 10.6-11.0 or so in 4th.
From looking at the graph, I would guess there is a stepped change in either timing or fuel at around 4200 rpm's looks like the tourque curve heads south kinda sharply at that point.
I have a few of those spots to work out on my map, esp with the fuel map where it is a little tough to figure out what cell the values are being pulled from.
Looks real good man!
From looking at the graph, I would guess there is a stepped change in either timing or fuel at around 4200 rpm's looks like the tourque curve heads south kinda sharply at that point.
I have a few of those spots to work out on my map, esp with the fuel map where it is a little tough to figure out what cell the values are being pulled from.
Looks real good man!
Jun 26, 2006, 10:35 AM
#27
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vboy425
how do you scale the map to 300 ?? can someone help ?
Graph from first page for reference
I love this stuff. Good work on the tuning
Jun 26, 2006, 11:21 AM
#28
Originally Posted by Stew
You can actually edit the axis on your load% vs RPM map. Notice on the graph posted on page 1 that the load% of 20 has been removed. He removed the 20% load column, shifted the rest to the left and added 300% at the end. Typically, as far as I take it, the trick is to find the column with the smoothest transitions from the one before it to the one after it. For example, if your timing is linear for all/most RPM from 10 to 20 to 30, removing 20 would have little to no effect since the ECU would scale the value between 10 and 30 to almost exactly what you previously had in column 20. This allows your map to contain higher values for those situations where the ECU calculates load higher than you have mapped out, and mysteriously pull your timing killing your TQ.
Graph from first page for reference
I love this stuff. Good work on the tuning
Graph from first page for reference
I love this stuff. Good work on the tuning
Jun 26, 2006, 04:29 PM
#29
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In da streetz
Posts: 3,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_VIII
3rd gear or 4th gear pulls???? I'm running around 11.2-11.5 in 3rd which gets me 10.6-11.0 or so in 4th.
From looking at the graph, I would guess there is a stepped change in either timing or fuel at around 4200 rpm's looks like the tourque curve heads south kinda sharply at that point.
I have a few of those spots to work out on my map, esp with the fuel map where it is a little tough to figure out what cell the values are being pulled from.
Looks real good man!
From looking at the graph, I would guess there is a stepped change in either timing or fuel at around 4200 rpm's looks like the tourque curve heads south kinda sharply at that point.
I have a few of those spots to work out on my map, esp with the fuel map where it is a little tough to figure out what cell the values are being pulled from.
Looks real good man!
I can't wait to get back to the track and see the improvements in my MPH.
Thanks everyone for all the complements.
