Ya the AFR is being monitored via the ECU method which i think sucks.. as you can see its no where near as quick responding / accurate as the serial to usb direct link method to the gauge.

It has GSC S2 cams. Yes street pull. This is about normal for spool on these size cams and a fp black with a 2.3L i was getting 33 by 3700rpm last year when i was really trying to tune for max spool speed. ( on e85 though). This cars got mivec though. its a evo 9.

Ya its not conservative uptop though. Thanks man.




=======

thanks for sharing snafufx !

 

I think logging through the ECU is great. Mine shows variation a whole lot better than that, but yet that is exactly how AFRMAP looks like for me. I have had great success with both LC-1 and UEGO logging through the ECU.

 

Wow Congrats that look like fun exalent numbers I'm sure youll hit the 500 mark to easy good luck

 

its definitely not AFRMAP. i just checked the log. it might be a slow computer. evoscan is finicky when logging to screen with subpar computers.

Ive seen more then one ECU logged wideband read crappy though.. i prefer direct.

 

Sounds like he might have the wrong eval equation in EvoScan, or just a really slow logging computer. Does his AFR column only record down to tenths? Mine records as 11.xxxxx for example.

 

turns out its an old AEM UEGO and it is being logged directly from serial to usb but the gauge only reads minimum 11! so the AFR is under 11!

I will need to lean it out so its a hair over 11 then we will go from there.. im gonna say its gonna make more power leaner. i will update it if any of the curve changes.

But ya i definitely wasn't aware of the gauge going minimum of 11.

The other car i did that was slow to respond with ecu pinned was Levar's but other then that i havent seen others slow to respond.

I think if the laptop is fast and evoscan can run smooth then there is no difference at all from logging ecu vs direct as you said.

 

Not to argue by any means, but that statement is sort of misleading for the normal reader. Setup dependent, yes, however, I've seen ample cars pick up spool by switching to bigger cams.

For example, a switch from S2s to S2Rs (more lift), net a whole lot more spool and made a ton more power up top. Also, S1s and sometimes S2s (setup dependent) will outspool the stock cams by a long shot.

Yes, cams will 'shift the powerband right', but with the cam technology these days it has made it easy for a bigger duration/lift cam to outspool a smaller cam due to ramp rate, lobe separation angle, etc (I know you know all this, just clearing it up a bit).

 

Yeah my bad :-) didnt even hit me until i checked the thread. I might have the first UEGO ever made..... My luck

 

Either way you car looks like a figgin blast to drive

 

I just can't get over how much tq this thing is making at only 4k...

 

Its been raining and 98% humidity so had no joy time yet in it. Will post when i do though:-)

 

It's all about velocity AND TUNE. You have a big laggy turbo and put bigger cams you can afford to lean out before spool which indeed increases spool. Forgot to mention tune which is huge.

 

I was gonna mention that. The old AEMs bottom out at 11.0 and that looks to be the issue.

Also, I did an ECU WB data vs Laptop serial-usb WB data comparison and they read at the same speed and accuracy (if the eval is correct).

 

ya i was wondering wtf lol.. ya thats the first ive seen the old aem wideband.

 

update: leaned it out a bit more.. did not lean out downlow yet enough to make it surpass 11's. but colder temps and leaner = more power.



now just need to richen it a hair at full boost downlow then raise it up a hair to match the 2nd half of the map and the car will be done and visiting the track. good setup for 93 for anyone who wants to just surpass 500 territory comfortably.