I was really thinking of doing that lol. as well as running a CAI pipe from the bumper - but the fog lamp's in the way, and a funnel there would block off air to the very necessary SST cooler

anyway, thanks for the input guys.

 

Timing = Power
AFR = Thermal Management


Or so the experts say

AFR's are not the place to look for power (except in pig rich situations). True they have to be in line, but Timing is what nets you power.

 

ram air? im pretty sure nothing "rams air" quite as well as a turbo.

stick your hand in front of a spooling turbo and the skin will get rammed right off

 

I already said the manufacturer has to work within constraints .. for that it is very good .. That was your original question isn't it

Once you compare aftermarket you are comparing apples to oranges .. they don't have to worry about warranty or water ingestions or any crap that can give you the excuse to claim $$ from them .. that is one reason the aftermarkets can be more 'efficient' and aggressive

 

Read my post more carefully and don't take stuff out of context. When an intake makes power over the stock box, aside from the filter element it is only because the maf housing is larger. The increase in volume will reduce velocity over the maf, fooling the ecu into running a lower load cell (learn more about engine management systems if you don't know what this means).

Lower load cells will run leaner air fuel ratios and more timing, which is where the power increase is from. Once tuning is done, the load cells will all be programmed to run the proper amount of timing and air fuel ratios thus negating the benefits of the intake.

Oh, and to address your comment about air fuel ratios not making power: you have no idea what you are talking about. Leaning out the air fuel ratios have HUGE gains in power. It is a fact that gasoline makes maximum power at about a 12.5:1 air fuel ratio. This, however is too aggressive for pump gas especially in a turbocharged car, so mid to high 11s is about the max safe level.

To address your other comment about how AFR = thermal management: It is true that leaner air fuel ratios produce higher EGTs, but you'd be hard pressed to go past ~1600 degress farenheit (max safe level from a turbocharged car) from lean air fuel ratios alone. That is usually caused by overworking your turbo and pushing it way past it's efficiency range, but that's a different conversation for a different time.

But again, there is much more to the effects of air fuel ratios than thermal management and it does in fact have a huge effect on power output. Here is a perfect example that disproves your timing vs air fuel theory: It is a fact that EVOs come stock with terrible maps that run too rich and also run way too aggressive timing.

As a result, it's very common for STOCK EVOs to have a couple counts of knock at high rpms, especially when running 91 octane. Remapping the ecu to run leaner air fuel ratios and retarding timing a few degrees actually nets significantly MORE power. So, LESS timing and LEANER air fuel ratios makes more power in a situation like this. While advancing timing can make power, it is only one aspect of ecu tuning and it has to be part of a balanced equation.

Here is an example complete with data logs from an EVO 9 with a TBE and a couple other things. In short, the original tuner wanted to run a richer air fuel ratio so he could run a lot more timing. Problem is that the car was knocking as a result so the car was retuned by someone who knew that a leaner air fuel ratio and less timing would be a better way to go and, well... see for yourself:

So, again, leaner air fuel ratios and less timing make more power and produces a higher level of repeatability and safety then trying to run the car richer so you can run a bunch of timing. As a general rule of thumb, when tuning a car the goal is to increase timing, boost, and lean the air fuel ratios until either no more power is made or you start seeing counts of knock, but they ALL have a huge effect on power output and can all destroy a motor in no time if they are not programmed correctly. I hope this helps you to better understand how ecu tuning works and how great of an effect the air fuel ratio really has on performance.

 

bump

 

"Oh, and to address your comment about air fuel ratios not making power: you have no idea what you are talking about. Leaning out the air fuel ratios have HUGE gains in power. It is a fact that gasoline makes maximum power at about a 12.5:1 air fuel ratio. This, however is too aggressive for pump gas especially in a turbocharged car, so mid to high 11s is about the max safe level.

To address your other comment about how AFR = thermal management: It is true that leaner air fuel ratios produce higher EGTs, but you'd be hard pressed to go past ~1600 degress farenheit (max safe level from a turbocharged car) from lean air fuel ratios alone. That is usually caused by overworking your turbo and pushing it way past it's efficiency range, but that's a different conversation for a different time.

But again, there is much more to the effects of air fuel ratios than thermal management and it does in fact have a huge effect on power output. Here is a perfect example that disproves your timing vs air fuel theory: It is a fact that EVOs come stock with terrible maps that run too rich and also run way too aggressive timing."


I don't want to get a flame going, and you sound "a little"defensive, so please allow me to clarify:

Actually, I read your post a few times before I posted that brief tenant of tuning that generated your encyclopedic response.

I was only speaking to the part that I quoted.

I thought that your statement about the power gains from leaning out AFR's left too much of a possibility for misunderstanding regarding where most of the power in tuning comes from or, at least, where it should come from.

(Not my opinion BTW, but from facts established by the EFI tuning school, ... now there's plenty that I don't know, but that's something that they teach, and I understand well enough)

I did mention that pig rich conditions were an exception, but the pros who test this stuff (not me), have established that there are minimal gains to be had by running leaner rather than safer.

(Again, pig rich conditions not withstanding, so at least we agree about that scenario)

(Ignition) Timing "IS" what makes power, because, properly applied, it's what increases Torque.

AFR's are best suited for thermal management purposes, not "near the edge" power gains.

Simplified, yes, but not overly so, and a good rule to follow.

Assuming reasonable AFR's are present, the most gains in a reflash will come from timing, long lasting ones will have the proper adjusted AFR's associated with them.

As to your statement about HUGE Gains from AFR's - when your change your fuel maps, your timing changes as well (especially if a piggyback is in use).

You don't have to agree about the formula of course, it's your engine after all, but I at least want the truth out there so that someone who might understand from your statement that AFR's are a good place to look for power, will have the caveat to consider.

I appreciate your intentions and the example that you cited, but one person's anecdotal experience won't change what the larger part of the industry embraces as the formula to make power. (There may be some descending opinions on that, I don't know)

If this were something that I thought I had discovered, I might have a dog in the fight, but I had to learn it from someone else.

No offense intended, but my original post is accurrate.

 

I made several points that disprove a lot of what you said and you are avoiding resonding to or acknowledging them. I provided a perfect example of how aggressive timing and a rich air fuel ratio is more knock prone and dangerous then running leaner and less timing, but you simply dismiss it because it disproves your "undisputable principles of engine management" that you seem to think you've been taught."

Timing is not what makes power, it is cylinder pressure. What creates cylinder pressure is a combination of several things that are all equally important: compression ratio, boost (if the car is turbocharged), timing, and the air fuel ratio. As proven in my example, timing is nothing if the fuel mixture is not easily combustible. Running super aggressive timing to create power means running rich air fuel ratios to keep temps down and that's not the way to go. Hell, that's one of the reasons that the stock EVO's tune is so bad.

Sure you can make power that way, but it's much more knock prone and dangerous than running less timing and a more combustible air fuel ratio. But again, timing is only ONE aspect of many that are important for making power. In any case, to address the initial comment of mine that you replied to in the first place: I was talking about how an aftermarket intake makes power and that the way that it makes it's power is also part of the way that a reflash makes power.

Therefor, you cannot assume that if an intake gives 10 whp and a reflash gives 60 whp that if you have both on your car you will make 70 whp. IT DOENS'T WORK THAT WAY. The 10 whp that the intake makes is from tricking the ecu into running a lower load cell, which will cause the car to run a leaner air fuel ratio and more timing.

Once ecu tuning is done, this advantage is lost because those timing and air fuel levels can be achieved on a stock intake by adjusting the load cell values in the ecu THUS NEGATING THE BENEFITS OF THE INTAKE. In any case, I'm tired of trying to help you understand this stuff because you obviously don't want to learn. And as far as the "pros" are concerned, that's where I learned all of this stuff from in the first place and where I continue to try to learn from.

I am not an expert nor have I ever claimed to be one, but I listen to people who know more than I do because that's how you learn. Why don't we get a tuner in here and see who's right, I think that that would settle this better than anything else.

 

i 'm not a i guy who knows this kinda stuff, But as far as i know more airflow makes /if its enough fuel available and the engine can burn it/ more hp and tq.
So this whole back and forth i don't understand one bit .
I know the biggest WHP and TQ cars dont even have an intake and the turbo is hangs on the front bumper opening.
Also every rally car or road race car we build , have a box with at least one EXTRA intake hose or tube to the box to feed extra cold air./example WRC cars/

So i dont know how it is works but seems to me , more air is more power.

 

True, at extreme hp levels any intake can be a restriction which is why drag cars run filterless quite often. What we are going back and forth on is the principles of engine management, and this guy nirevo seems to think that timing is what equals torque and power and air fuel ratios are just for thermal management, which is not the case. As I've said many times before, timing does not in itself equal power, cylinder pressure does, and although timing is an important aspect of cylinder pressure, it's just ONE aspect of many that are all important for making power.

 

You will still get more cold air in then if you did not have the scoop in place. Making it not useless

 

I was trying to keep on the basic idea so I tried to stay on that subject. I feel like we are in danger of hijacking the thread, because it was more about airflow.

You haven't disproved anything that I said, you simply provided an example where someone said they got more power by retarding timing and leaning out the fuel. May be they did, or felt that they did, in that example. There are too many unknowns and assumptions, for me to intelligently debate that one example. I'm sure it's possible that it at least appeared that way, or that there are circumstances that were present that I'm not aware of.

The thing is, we don't necessarily know that to be a governing principal. Your statement at the end of your earlier post was half right and half wrong - and I recognize that you are speaking in generalities to a degree, so I am trying to allow for that, because I am as well

You said:
"So, again, leaner air fuel ratios and less timing make more power and produces a higher level of repeatability and safety then trying to run the car richer so you can run a bunch of timing."

Tuning theory doesn't bear that idea out, there are too many assumptions to nail that down. Less timing is not typically the goal, from my understanding, but rather advancing till there is no more torque gain, and then backing it off for a margin of safety, then look at any overly rich conditions.

(And that's like trying to describe how an Octopus swims in written form - there's a lot of wiggling and back and forth motion not even mentioned in my description)

And You Said:
"As a general rule of thumb, when tuning a car the goal is to increase timing, boost, and lean the air fuel ratios until either no more power is made or you start seeing counts of knock, but they ALL have a huge effect on power output and can all destroy a motor in no time if they are not programmed correctly"

Generally speaking, I eagerly agree with that part of your statement.

Of course you can't advance timing ridiculously, but it is the place to look for power (as far as Ignition Timing - VS - AFR's goes)

But most of your reasoning doesn't seem to be promoting this idea, because you also summarized saying:

"So, again, leaner air fuel ratios and less timing make more power and produces a higher level of repeatability and safety then trying to run the car richer so you can run a bunch of timing"

Which seems to contradict the very next sentence (that again, I DID agree with)

_______________


And not to ignore the element of Boost that you mentioned:

Yes: VE and VE+ is also a big deal - .... but I wasn't addressing that.


Your are welcome to invite whomever you like to comment, I'm always interested in learning. That's how I learned about this theory to begin with.

EFI101 runs a very informative tuning class, and while it's only a class, they appear to have the respect of quit a few pros. I believe that I have understood "this part" of the training at least reasonably well.

Sorry for the long reply. I think that I may have gone



We now return you to your original thread

 

Of course we are speaking in generalities, but the point that I am trying to make is that ALL aspects of ecu tuning is what creates the net result of a power increase. What I think you are trying to explain is MTBT (minimum timing, best torque), in which I agree completely with and have all along. Again, as a general rule of thumb, increase timing until no more power is gained or until knock counts are present and then back off for a margin of safety. We agree on this. What we are not seeing eye to eye on is the fact that you say timing = power, and air fuel ratio = thermal management and that's not entirely accurate.

While AFR do have a large effect on EGTs, I am not talking about running crazy lean air fuel ratios anymore than you are talking about crazy high timing values. We are both assuming maximum safe values for each and perhaps that's why we are misunderstanding what each other is saying. The point that I am trying to make, again, is that cylinder pressure is what creates power, not timing. Timing is an aspect of cylinder pressure that DETERMINES power, but it is only one aspect of many. The air/fuel ratio has a huge effect on both the effectiveness and safety of the timing values, as does boost, as does compression ratio, which are all important aspects of cylinder pressure and thus determining factors in power gains from tuning. In any case, it's not important and I agree that we should get back on topic.

 

Now that's well said, I can live with that

I especially like your emphasis "Timing is an aspect of cylinder pressure that DETERMINES power"

AND YES, ultimately, cylinder pressure is what finally pushes the rod down.

now I'll have that beer, cheers!

 

Actually most power comes from increased cylinder pressure. Which can be achieved different ways. Ignition timing, boost pressure, cam timing, and yes even air fuel ratio.

Timing is not the single power creator. Example, boost pressure = 20psi at 3500 rpm, ignition timing is 4*, torque at 3500 = 210. Now let's change it to 25psi at 3500, ignition timing is 3*, torque at 3500 = 250.

In simple terms, it's a combination of everything that creates the power, the user actually controlling these combination, and how well it's managed.

Timing, afr, boost are all bounded by octane. More boost , less timing, leaner AFR, less timing. Timing is the most octane limited thing in the bunch from my experience.

You would be hard pressed to achieve MBT on pump gas.