FE Evo too lean?
Jan 5, 2016, 02:44 PM
#16
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SL, UT
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When my 8 was stock, it would regularly see 3-4 counts of knock on the stock tune on 91 octane. I still think your scaring people about a "problem" that doesn't really exist. And encouraging people to void their warranty with a reflash. If someone isn't looking for performance eenhancment, they should not be reflashing their car, all they're doing is voiding the warranty. You know, the warranty that will cover a blown motor.
I would never require anybody to reflash their car, I just would highly, highly suggest it in this case, "warranty" be damned.
The difference here is running a safer burn ratio on the car is going to SAVE the engine and render it a normal, reliable 4B11T. Letting it run on those factory settings is inevitably going to cause damage, especially the second you fill up on a sub-par tank of gas and experience some pre-ignition (as opposed to detonation) from the overly aggressive settings.
It's the same Subaru ringland failure argument. It's obvious their factory calibrations aren't safe, but would you rather fix it with a mild COBB OTS map and void your so-called "warranty," or be without a car when your EJ inevitably pops a ring land while you hope and pray it will be covered under warranty and not be blamed on owner abuse or neglect.
Just because you don't like what I have to say, doesn't alter my credibility or experience. To try to slander me in that fashion is just being an *******, because you've got not a single clue what you're up against if you're going to try that.
Jan 5, 2016, 04:35 PM
#19
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
I'm not just some random moron trying to get attention. Damn near 300 Evo X's tuned at this point, mostly very high specific output E85 cars.
Plenty of tunes that don't knock (the 4B11T is VERY detonation resistant) blow engines for various reasons. As I stated, the knock control system isn't fast enough to protect from a prominent and serious series of detonation events, which is exactly what you get when the engine is calibrated WAY BEYOND the limits of your fuel.
If any supposed Evo tuner ran this timing profile and burn ratio on a car on pump gas, they would be chased away with pitchforks and knives. But it's OK if Mitsubishi does it?
The only difference between the burn ratio and AFR curve presented on this factory mapping and an optimal E85 (you know, that magical highly-detonation-resistant and heavily cooling fuel) tune is the factory one runs about 5 PSI less boost at 6000 RPM and peak torque, and about 4 PSI less up top.
Again, there were no other changes to the mapping. It wasn't a calculated and responsible change, and the engine obviously was not recalibrated on an engine dyno with these changes. It's like they handed the car to some intern, told them that mid 11's is an optimal burn ratio curve, that all of the "pro tuners" out there do it, and he pressed the + + + key a few times on the fuel map here and there, and called it good.
This is the work of somebody who has NO CLUE that both timing advance and burn ratio affect the placement of PCP and what it can do to the likelihood and magnitude of detonation when it comes on.
Remember, knock sum tells you NOTHING about how bad the detonation event is (that is, the magnitude of the resulting secondary flame front from the unplanned combustion event). You can watch it snowball sometimes, and sometimes the following combustion events are clean, but none of what you have to say changes the fact that knock-free (if going by that metric alone and ignoring how the engine is actually performing, I consider 1-3 randomly placed and intermittent knock sum to be acceptable) tunes blow engines all the time.
Plenty of tunes that don't knock (the 4B11T is VERY detonation resistant) blow engines for various reasons. As I stated, the knock control system isn't fast enough to protect from a prominent and serious series of detonation events, which is exactly what you get when the engine is calibrated WAY BEYOND the limits of your fuel.
If any supposed Evo tuner ran this timing profile and burn ratio on a car on pump gas, they would be chased away with pitchforks and knives. But it's OK if Mitsubishi does it?
The only difference between the burn ratio and AFR curve presented on this factory mapping and an optimal E85 (you know, that magical highly-detonation-resistant and heavily cooling fuel) tune is the factory one runs about 5 PSI less boost at 6000 RPM and peak torque, and about 4 PSI less up top.
Again, there were no other changes to the mapping. It wasn't a calculated and responsible change, and the engine obviously was not recalibrated on an engine dyno with these changes. It's like they handed the car to some intern, told them that mid 11's is an optimal burn ratio curve, that all of the "pro tuners" out there do it, and he pressed the + + + key a few times on the fuel map here and there, and called it good.
This is the work of somebody who has NO CLUE that both timing advance and burn ratio affect the placement of PCP and what it can do to the likelihood and magnitude of detonation when it comes on.
Remember, knock sum tells you NOTHING about how bad the detonation event is (that is, the magnitude of the resulting secondary flame front from the unplanned combustion event). You can watch it snowball sometimes, and sometimes the following combustion events are clean, but none of what you have to say changes the fact that knock-free (if going by that metric alone and ignoring how the engine is actually performing, I consider 1-3 randomly placed and intermittent knock sum to be acceptable) tunes blow engines all the time.
You say the knock control is too slow, but the very datalogs you posted show the ECU almost instantly pull up to 2* of timing to combat the 1-2 counts of knock. Which effectively resolves the knock.
Then you say 1-3 randomly placed, intermittent, counts of knock is acceptable. The logs you posted show 1 count twice, and 2 counts once. So, is 1-3 counts acceptable or not? It's not like the thing has 3 counts from 3000-7500...
Also, I hope you're not running 24* of timing out the top on an E85 car, thats well past MBT.
Except the mode of failure that will result from that factory ROM will be blamed on OWNER ABUSE. I can absolutely guaran-****ing-tee you that.
I would never require anybody to reflash their car, I just would highly, highly suggest it in this case, "warranty" be damned.
The difference here is running a safer burn ratio on the car is going to SAVE the engine and render it a normal, reliable 4B11T. Letting it run on those factory settings is inevitably going to cause damage, especially the second you fill up on a sub-par tank of gas and experience some pre-ignition (as opposed to detonation) from the overly aggressive settings.
It's the same Subaru ringland failure argument. It's obvious their factory calibrations aren't safe, but would you rather fix it with a mild COBB OTS map and void your so-called "warranty," or be without a car when your EJ inevitably pops a ring land while you hope and pray it will be covered under warranty and not be blamed on owner abuse or neglect.
Just because you don't like what I have to say, doesn't alter my credibility or experience. To try to slander me in that fashion is just being an *******, because you've got not a single clue what you're up against if you're going to try that.
I would never require anybody to reflash their car, I just would highly, highly suggest it in this case, "warranty" be damned.
The difference here is running a safer burn ratio on the car is going to SAVE the engine and render it a normal, reliable 4B11T. Letting it run on those factory settings is inevitably going to cause damage, especially the second you fill up on a sub-par tank of gas and experience some pre-ignition (as opposed to detonation) from the overly aggressive settings.
It's the same Subaru ringland failure argument. It's obvious their factory calibrations aren't safe, but would you rather fix it with a mild COBB OTS map and void your so-called "warranty," or be without a car when your EJ inevitably pops a ring land while you hope and pray it will be covered under warranty and not be blamed on owner abuse or neglect.
Just because you don't like what I have to say, doesn't alter my credibility or experience. To try to slander me in that fashion is just being an *******, because you've got not a single clue what you're up against if you're going to try that.
Half of what you've said is contradicted by other things you've said. IE, "very detonation resistant"....."until they crack ringlands". Because that's pretty much the failure mode for detonation, cracking the top ring land through crown. If knock is mild enough and uncontrolled, and the piston is strong enough, it will just erode the crown away until it reaches the ringland.
And you have yet to post who you are, so other then a sh!tty website, your credentials don't hold up.
Jan 5, 2016, 05:32 PM
#22
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SL, UT
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say the knock control is too slow, but the very datalogs you posted show the ECU almost instantly pull up to 2* of timing to combat the 1-2 counts of knock. Which effectively resolves the knock.
Then you say 1-3 randomly placed, intermittent, counts of knock is acceptable. The logs you posted show 1 count twice, and 2 counts once. So, is 1-3 counts acceptable or not? It's not like the thing has 3 counts from 3000-7500...
Also, I hope you're not running 24* of timing out the top on an E85 car, thats well past MBT.
Half of what you've said is contradicted by other things you've said. IE, "very detonation resistant"....."until they crack ringlands". Because that's pretty much the failure mode for detonation, cracking the top ring land through crown. If knock is mild enough and uncontrolled, and the piston is strong enough, it will just erode the crown away until it reaches the ringland.
And you have yet to post who you are, so other then a sh!tty website, your credentials don't hold up.
And now we have 2 actually reputable guys come in and say you're wrong. I'll patiently wait for dyno results from English Racing....
Then you say 1-3 randomly placed, intermittent, counts of knock is acceptable. The logs you posted show 1 count twice, and 2 counts once. So, is 1-3 counts acceptable or not? It's not like the thing has 3 counts from 3000-7500...
Also, I hope you're not running 24* of timing out the top on an E85 car, thats well past MBT.
Half of what you've said is contradicted by other things you've said. IE, "very detonation resistant"....."until they crack ringlands". Because that's pretty much the failure mode for detonation, cracking the top ring land through crown. If knock is mild enough and uncontrolled, and the piston is strong enough, it will just erode the crown away until it reaches the ringland.
And you have yet to post who you are, so other then a sh!tty website, your credentials don't hold up.
And now we have 2 actually reputable guys come in and say you're wrong. I'll patiently wait for dyno results from English Racing....
Again, mid-low 11's and 18-19 degrees at 5500 RPM. Does that seem sane to you?
You know nothing about tuning Evo X's if you think 24 degrees @ 7500 RPM is beyond MBT on the stock turbo @ 17 ish PSI on E85. It is on a 4G63, but not on these things. Hell, the stock map has the car way past 24 degrees @ 7500 RPM on pump gas, but lower boost.
And you just completely contradicted yourself, because if that timing profile is beyond MBT, how is Mitsubishi's timing profile of 22 deg up top on PUMP GAS not beyond MBT?
I was speaking of Subarus and cracked ring lands, relating warranty coverage. Read my post again. I've never once had a cracked stock piston on an Evo X, but have seen several come from other tuners which were probably due to a very similar failure mode that I'm talking about. The tune not knocking under positive conditions, and then going to complete **** the second you experience unfavorable conditions (poor quality fuel blend, fuel system heat soak - which is oh so prevalent on the CZ4A, charge system / IC heat soak).
Another point is I collected these logs from a car at high elevation. It's going to be creeping into the 180 load cell where the factory calibrator leaned it out 12% whereas you might not see that at all at sea level because it's still well in the 200-load range.
Take the normal 2015 GSR fuel map. It's very nice and tapered through the load range because they are controlling combustion pressure and PCP through the rev and load range to safe margins for the engine.
On the FE fuel map, you get a jump from 10.17 AFR to 10.94 target AFR just from 200 to 180 load which of course cannot possibly be intentional. That's a 8% difference in burn ratio from what amounts to a very small change in cylinder pressure (or lets say 17.5 PSI versus 19.5 PSI).
It's obvious they didn't establish the FE mapping on an engine dyno. This is the kind of **** you see when somebody's mappings are plagiarized by a hackjob tuner and then lean it out a bit, and add a degree of timing advance. Wow, more power!
Again, conditions vary, that's the second reason this mapping is so dangerous in the long term.
I don't think either of these tuners have actually fully reviewed what I found, so I'm not going to argue with them here.
Last edited by UT_EvoX; Jan 5, 2016 at 05:52 PM.
Jan 5, 2016, 05:38 PM
#23
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SL, UT
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
edit: yeah, I watched again and I can't see the stock AFR curve.
If you admit the FE puts out roughly the same power as other 2014-2015 (which we all know have the same crucial settings for WOT operation), then you also agree leaning it out did no good whatsoever except create a more unsafe run condition, right?
What was the change good for, then?
Jan 5, 2016, 05:58 PM
#24
I was having problems locating the dyno sheet but the video includes it. It was buried under 10.3 (richest the Dyno reads)...around 9.7 on an AEM failsafe. Leaning it out in and of itself isnt dangerous. They can survive at 12.2 if all other conditions are correct. Point of me posting is that the "toon" change didnt hurt anything anymore than any other crappy stock X tune.
Your conclusions and putting words in my mouth are unneeded.
The car is so radically detuned that the 265 is easy to turn into 314 with proper AFR and timing. Why has the MIVEC changed in basically every year? Because they are experimenting trying to make a better driving experience? Who knows. Change isnt bad, in this case it just doesnt really matter one way or the other if its doing what it does stock....so rich it wont pull past 7100 rpm even with a 7600 rpm redline. I feel the change is like the factory reflash to "enhance torque", a shot in the dark in our opinion but honest effort in theirs.
Mitsu has run cars past what we normally refer to as MBT in their tunes before, this goes back A LONG way. The most relevant example is the Evo 8 which would run 18-19* at 14psi but made the same power at 14*. They are tuned on an engine stand with fixed air supply actually in a temp controlled cell. MBT at full power is 20-21, just because it "does" more doesnt make it right as I outlined previously. Technically MBT is a floating value based on boost (airflow) but in the Mitsu community and in some part due to things Bryan and I have posted (among others) we use MBT in different context. If a car was on fuel that had unlimited octane, boost is irrelevant, and the point that timing stops making power is "MBT". The 8/9 have been agreed upon that is 17-18* and in some cases 19 (crappy head porting). I have lots of cars making over 800whp at 40psi and only 14*. The current quickest AWD Mitsu in the world doesnt run "MBT" on M5, not because it cant but because we dont.
Cliffs- The Final Edition got another conservative factory tune.
Your conclusions and putting words in my mouth are unneeded.
The car is so radically detuned that the 265 is easy to turn into 314 with proper AFR and timing. Why has the MIVEC changed in basically every year? Because they are experimenting trying to make a better driving experience? Who knows. Change isnt bad, in this case it just doesnt really matter one way or the other if its doing what it does stock....so rich it wont pull past 7100 rpm even with a 7600 rpm redline. I feel the change is like the factory reflash to "enhance torque", a shot in the dark in our opinion but honest effort in theirs.
Mitsu has run cars past what we normally refer to as MBT in their tunes before, this goes back A LONG way. The most relevant example is the Evo 8 which would run 18-19* at 14psi but made the same power at 14*. They are tuned on an engine stand with fixed air supply actually in a temp controlled cell. MBT at full power is 20-21, just because it "does" more doesnt make it right as I outlined previously. Technically MBT is a floating value based on boost (airflow) but in the Mitsu community and in some part due to things Bryan and I have posted (among others) we use MBT in different context. If a car was on fuel that had unlimited octane, boost is irrelevant, and the point that timing stops making power is "MBT". The 8/9 have been agreed upon that is 17-18* and in some cases 19 (crappy head porting). I have lots of cars making over 800whp at 40psi and only 14*. The current quickest AWD Mitsu in the world doesnt run "MBT" on M5, not because it cant but because we dont.
Cliffs- The Final Edition got another conservative factory tune.
Last edited by JohnBradley; Jan 5, 2016 at 06:05 PM.
Jan 5, 2016, 06:12 PM
#25
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SL, UT
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was having problems locating the dyno sheet but the video includes it. It was buried under 10.3 (richest the Dyno reads)...around 9.7 on an AEM failsafe. Leaning it out in and of itself isnt dangerous. They can survive at 12.2 if all other conditions are correct. Point of me posting is that the "toon" change didnt hurt anything anymore than any other crappy stock X tune.
Your conclusions and putting words in my mouth are unneeded.
The car is so radically detuned that the 265 is easy to turn into 314 with proper AFR and timing. Why has the MIVEC changed in basically every year? Because they are experimenting trying to make a better driving experience? Who knows. Change isnt bad, in this case it just doesnt really matter one way or the other if its doing what it does stock....so rich it wont pull past 7100 rpm even with a 7600 rpm redline. I feel the change is like the factory reflash to "enhance torque", a shot in the dark in our opinion but honest effort in theirs.
Mitsu has run cars past what we normally refer to as MBT in their tunes before, this goes back A LONG way. The most relevant example is the Evo 8 which would run 18-19* at 14psi but made the same power at 14*. They are tuned on an engine stand with fixed air supply actually in a temp controlled cell. MBT at full power is 20-21, just because it "does" more doesnt make it right as I outlined previously. Technically MBT is a floating value based on boost (airflow) but in the Mitsu community and in some part due to things Bryan and I have posted (among others) we use MBT in different context. If a car was on fuel that had unlimited octane, boost is irrelevant, and the point that timing stops making power is "MBT". The 8/9 have been agreed upon that is 17-18* and in some cases 19 (crappy head porting). I have lots of cars making over 800whp at 40psi and only 14*. The current quickest AWD Mitsu in the world doesnt run "MBT" on M5, not because it cant but because we dont.
Your conclusions and putting words in my mouth are unneeded.
The car is so radically detuned that the 265 is easy to turn into 314 with proper AFR and timing. Why has the MIVEC changed in basically every year? Because they are experimenting trying to make a better driving experience? Who knows. Change isnt bad, in this case it just doesnt really matter one way or the other if its doing what it does stock....so rich it wont pull past 7100 rpm even with a 7600 rpm redline. I feel the change is like the factory reflash to "enhance torque", a shot in the dark in our opinion but honest effort in theirs.
Mitsu has run cars past what we normally refer to as MBT in their tunes before, this goes back A LONG way. The most relevant example is the Evo 8 which would run 18-19* at 14psi but made the same power at 14*. They are tuned on an engine stand with fixed air supply actually in a temp controlled cell. MBT at full power is 20-21, just because it "does" more doesnt make it right as I outlined previously. Technically MBT is a floating value based on boost (airflow) but in the Mitsu community and in some part due to things Bryan and I have posted (among others) we use MBT in different context. If a car was on fuel that had unlimited octane, boost is irrelevant, and the point that timing stops making power is "MBT". The 8/9 have been agreed upon that is 17-18* and in some cases 19 (crappy head porting). I have lots of cars making over 800whp at 40psi and only 14*. The current quickest AWD Mitsu in the world doesnt run "MBT" on M5, not because it cant but because we dont.
That absolutely will lead to a richer reading than actual because O2 is consumed in the cat during combustion of additional fuel and combustion byproducts.
Less O2 = richer reading.
If not, then your point stands.
I don't intend to try to blatantly discredit you, but MIVEC settings haven't changed since 2011.
2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2015 FE all pictured here.
Ex. MIVEC mappings of course are all the same as well.
I will concede Mitsubishi did continue to control PCP correctly and are running it pig rich still above 6500 RPM. This will be a factor that saves a few engines as the very top end is where you have the most accumulated heat during a pull and of course is disproportionately prone to detonation given the relatively low combustion pressure (boost tapers way down on a stock turbo, stock mapping of course).
Jan 6, 2016, 02:27 PM
#27
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SL, UT
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know it will be richer than the pre-cat reading, so that must be taken into account.
