Just received cable, High knock and timing pull on stock map?
Aug 5, 2006, 06:20 AM
#31
Account Disabled
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the stock maps are so rich is for warranty purposes. The car has to be designed for a worse case scenerio. 87 octane and an extended highway pull. Another reason is to allow for variation in the MAF sensor calibration (although 9:1 on the stock maps is retarded). Last reason is even with the calculations done in the ecu, the car runs slightly leaner than what you put in the fuel maps. Maybe it evens out in high gears, I don't know.
The 1g's are the same way. The fuel maps go to 9:1 in the upper rpm's at high loads. The 1g's and 2g's also had a fuel cut feature so when you went over a certian load the car would fuel cut.
The earlier versions of the 4g63 just like more timing. You can still run them in the 12's with the mixture but you have to run more timing to make power. The EVO's seem to like less timing at the same a/f ratio which is a good thing.
So to answer your question, yes the newer version is better. You can even hear it in the sound of the two different motors at an event like the shootout. The evo is more "poppy". The DSM's are more "mellow".
The reason the cars run rich has everything to do with warranty and longevity issues. The 4g63 last extremly long as far as factory turbo motors go. Its common practice to run OEM motors rich (even n/a motors) for saftey purposes. You can't send a car out on a ragged tuen and expect it to last 10 yeras and 200K miles.
The 1g's are the same way. The fuel maps go to 9:1 in the upper rpm's at high loads. The 1g's and 2g's also had a fuel cut feature so when you went over a certian load the car would fuel cut.
The earlier versions of the 4g63 just like more timing. You can still run them in the 12's with the mixture but you have to run more timing to make power. The EVO's seem to like less timing at the same a/f ratio which is a good thing.
So to answer your question, yes the newer version is better. You can even hear it in the sound of the two different motors at an event like the shootout. The evo is more "poppy". The DSM's are more "mellow".
The reason the cars run rich has everything to do with warranty and longevity issues. The 4g63 last extremly long as far as factory turbo motors go. Its common practice to run OEM motors rich (even n/a motors) for saftey purposes. You can't send a car out on a ragged tuen and expect it to last 10 yeras and 200K miles.
Aug 5, 2006, 10:05 AM
#32
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nj1266
The timing log that I posted was for a stock ECU with stock boost with a TBE and drop-in filter. The 05 EVO has more aggressive timing than the 03-04 Evo. It comes like that from the factory. It is perefectly normal to see 21-22* at 7K on an 05. I think the 06 Evo is the same, but I am not sure.
When my car got tuned with the Xede the timing log from the OBD2 became meaningless. But I finally figured out a way to get to the real timing with help from Jorge T. Here is what the timing numbers look like before and after the Xede adjusts them...
When my car got tuned with the Xede the timing log from the OBD2 became meaningless. But I finally figured out a way to get to the real timing with help from Jorge T. Here is what the timing numbers look like before and after the Xede adjusts them...
Furthermore, the timing log you are posting is from a car equipped with a XEDE. Unless you have all 0's in the XEDE fuel table, your MAF readings are being modified by the XEDE in order to hit lower load percentages within your ECU maps, which is what is giving you more aggressive timing, which is then further modified by the XEDE timing values.
l8r)
Aug 5, 2006, 10:16 AM
#33
Originally Posted by Ludikraut
Please check your facts before posting. The '05 USDM Evo came with the same timing maps as the '03 USDM Evo.
Furthermore, the timing log you are posting is from a car equipped with a XEDE. Unless you have all 0's in the XEDE fuel table, your MAF readings are being modified by the XEDE in order to hit lower load percentages within your ECU maps, which is what is giving you more aggressive timing, which is then further modified by the XEDE timing values.
l8r)
Furthermore, the timing log you are posting is from a car equipped with a XEDE. Unless you have all 0's in the XEDE fuel table, your MAF readings are being modified by the XEDE in order to hit lower load percentages within your ECU maps, which is what is giving you more aggressive timing, which is then further modified by the XEDE timing values.
l8r)
Second, Alfred at tuning Tech told me that the 05 Evo had a slightly more aggressive timing map than the 03-04 Evo. If you go to Shiv's web site and download the TBE maps for the 03-04 vs. 05 EVO you will find that he pulls more timing on the 05 than on the 03-04. Maybe there is a reason besides aggressive timing (10.5 HS, etc...) that he does that, but check out for yourself. He even lists the 03-04 maps separately than the 05 maps.
Last edited by nj1266; Aug 5, 2006 at 10:20 AM.
Aug 5, 2006, 10:20 AM
#35
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
The timing maps are similar.. There are other slight differences that could result in more aggressive timing though, Something as simple as an aftermarket intake can lower your MAF reading which results in more aggressive timing..
Aug 5, 2006, 10:21 AM
#36
06's do not have anywhere near 22 degrees of timing at 7K...try 14 tops...and even then I got 12 counts of knock at 11.5 AF.
Every 03-04 I have done (started with a stock map and worked with it from there) is not compatible with the 05. I figured an VIII is an VIII right? I flashed an 05 with my 03 map and it WOULD NOT RUN. Copied and pasted all the files from the 03 to the 05 and then it was fine. There may have been other issues, but the 03 map hadnt ever fracked up before so I am not sure.
Every 03-04 I have done (started with a stock map and worked with it from there) is not compatible with the 05. I figured an VIII is an VIII right? I flashed an 05 with my 03 map and it WOULD NOT RUN. Copied and pasted all the files from the 03 to the 05 and then it was fine. There may have been other issues, but the 03 map hadnt ever fracked up before so I am not sure.
Aug 5, 2006, 10:25 AM
#37
the entire rom is not compatible.. The 05 ECU has no code for the Intercooler sprayer, and several other input/output registers were altered, The ECU's are more or less the same otherwise, but the wiring is slightly different and therefore would give you trouble. Therefore you can't take an 03 rom and put it on an 05 CAR, but you should be able to put an 03 ROM in an 05 ECU and put the 05 ECU into an 03 Car..
Aug 5, 2006, 11:02 AM
#38
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nj1266
First, the stock log came after I had REMOVED the Xede off my car and shipped it to have the overtemp protection issue fixed. So it is a STOCK log. No Xede=stock timing log. The only thing that might have messed with the timing is the TBE that I have.
Second, Alfred at tuning Tech told me that the 05 Evo had a slightly more aggressive timing map than the 03-04 Evo. If you go to Shiv's web site and download the TBE maps for the 03-04 vs. 05 EVO you will find that he pulls more timing on the 05 than on the 03-04. Maybe there is a reason besides aggressive timing (10.5 HS, etc...) that he does that, but check out for yourself. He even lists the 03-04 maps separately than the 05 maps.
Second, Alfred at tuning Tech told me that the 05 Evo had a slightly more aggressive timing map than the 03-04 Evo. If you go to Shiv's web site and download the TBE maps for the 03-04 vs. 05 EVO you will find that he pulls more timing on the 05 than on the 03-04. Maybe there is a reason besides aggressive timing (10.5 HS, etc...) that he does that, but check out for yourself. He even lists the 03-04 maps separately than the 05 maps.
If you take 5 minutes and pull up the timing maps of '03 - '05 ROMs, you will see that they really are identical ... regardless of what tuner a or b thinks or said.
I suspect that the differentiation between the '05 from the '03-'04 models has much more to do with the fact that the '05 runs a 10.5 hotside, which may also explain why the '05 fuel map was altered by Mitsubishi.
l8r)
Last edited by Ludikraut; Aug 5, 2006 at 01:43 PM.
Aug 5, 2006, 12:13 PM
#40
Originally Posted by Ludikraut
I was referring the log in the post I had referenced from you. The stock log you posted earlier is not very useful to the original poster, since the timing in your log would put your car into a Load range between 200 and 210. The log of the thread originator was hitting 240-260% load cells, so the timing really would not be comparable, nor should it be, given the layout of the stock maps.
If you take 5 minutes and pull up the timing maps of '03 - '05 ROMs, you will see that they really are identical ... regardless of what tuner a or b thinks or said.
I suspect that the differentiation between the '05 from the '03-'04 models has much more to do with the fact that the '05 runs a 10.5 hotside, which may also explain why the '05 fuel map was altered by Mitsubishi.
l8r)
If you take 5 minutes and pull up the timing maps of '03 - '05 ROMs, you will see that they really are identical ... regardless of what tuner a or b thinks or said.
I suspect that the differentiation between the '05 from the '03-'04 models has much more to do with the fact that the '05 runs a 10.5 hotside, which may also explain why the '05 fuel map was altered by Mitsubishi.
l8r)
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...2&postcount=10
This came from a stock ECU with no xede at all.
Fine, the 05 and 03 maps are the same. My mistake.
Aug 5, 2006, 02:26 PM
#42
Originally Posted by Ludikraut
I was referring to the log in the post I had referenced from you. The stock log you posted earlier is not very useful to the original poster, since the timing in your log would put your car into a Load range between 200 and 210. The log of the thread originator was hitting 240-260% load cells, so the timing really would not be comparable, nor should it be, given the layout of the stock maps.
If you take 5 minutes and pull up the timing maps of '03 - '05 ROMs, you will see that they really are identical ... regardless of what tuner a or b thinks or said.
I suspect that the differentiation between the '05 from the '03-'04 models has much more to do with the fact that the '05 runs a 10.5 hotside, which may also explain why the '05 fuel map was altered by Mitsubishi.
l8r)
If you take 5 minutes and pull up the timing maps of '03 - '05 ROMs, you will see that they really are identical ... regardless of what tuner a or b thinks or said.
I suspect that the differentiation between the '05 from the '03-'04 models has much more to do with the fact that the '05 runs a 10.5 hotside, which may also explain why the '05 fuel map was altered by Mitsubishi.
l8r)
But the stock timing on my car is in the first log I posted and it seems to hit 22* @ 7K rpm. That was the response to the original poster.
Hope that clears it up.
Aug 5, 2006, 02:34 PM
#43
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Secret Volcano Island
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a bone stock EVO 9 that just finished break in. Doing some second, third and fourth gear pulls I was seeing knock when I tipped in to wide open throttle. The knock sensor was showing a 1 or a 2. It seemed to mostly be in the 4000-5500 range, when I'd first floor the gas and go WOT. Is this normal? I'll post up my logs if needed.
Aug 5, 2006, 04:16 PM
#44
Account Disabled
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1-2 counts of knock is nothing. You'll drive yourself batty worrying about it. It mearly means the knock sensor is working and you won't feel any noticable power loss. ANy tip in or tip out situation usually presents knock. Same as smacking the rev limiter hard or free revving in neutral. Going onto the stutterbox to hard will cause it as well. Don't worry about it. All you need to to concern youself with is big knock that is repeatable in the same load cells for more than 3 pulls. Then you know it is most likley real and needs to be ironed out. Do pulls with plenty of cool off period for good data.
Aug 5, 2006, 05:28 PM
#45
Remember knock above 7 counts is where things need to begin to be analysed. I dont know how many looked at the thread, but in the logged 2 step thread I logged 8 counts of knock. So some of it is obviously misfire detection. I was on 115+ octane fuel at stock boost so there is no way it was actual knock. Unless it was rich knock, which starts me thinking about how older DSM 4G63's have the fine line of rich knock and good power. Dan?
