[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by dfv2

Only took a few hours!

Regardless of tuning platform used, all applications share the same fundamental constraints, to greater to lesser degrees. So a more open discussion will help everyone. Regardless of the tune used.

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Regardless of tuning platform used, all applications share the same fundamental constraints, to greater to lesser degrees. So a more open discussion will help everyone. Regardless of the tune used.

Overall agreed, but...

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm doing a bunch off e85 mapping this week/weekend. Will have a solution for you soon that will allow you to run high boost on a strong e85 mix. Similar to the mapping methodology we applied for the single turbo cars.

...doesn't help us tune with ATR nor does it help us understand basic constraints, you know - to a greater or lesser degree

Hope cobb comes in here to update us on their fuel scalar work!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by dfv2

Overall agreed, but...



...doesn't help us tune with ATR nor does it help us understand basic constraints, you know - to a greater or lesser degree

Yes it does and yes it will

[saxon]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Regardless of tuning platform used, all applications share the same fundamental constraints, to greater to lesser degrees. So a more open discussion will help everyone. Regardless of the tune used.

I agree , thanks for shedding some insight Shiv

[rader1]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes. I didn't even see Josh's post. But he is correct. ThE extra enrichment comes from the DME perceiving an under-pressure situation and then making big changes to IDC in an attempt to compensate. The increase in actual fuel pressure does little to increase fuel volume flow. But if you take this to the extreme, dme perceived fuel pressure drops low enough to trigger fuel rail pressure codes. So the key is to only rely on this method of fuel enrichment up to this fault threshold.

OK, that does make sense. However, if the DME doesn't hit requested AFRs and the tables allow for more pressure then wouldn't the DME command for more pressure to reach target AFRs? I completely understand pressure is only a part of the puzzle but just for now that's what I'm trying focus on/understand.


What rail pressure does the PROcede run on the average FBO NON-meth car with OL set to 100?

[Carl Morris]

Originally Posted by dfv2

Thanks, and unfortunately yes. I requested both I8A0S and IJE0S when it was released so I'd have both, which is handy since it seems like half of us have one or the other.

For anyone with a different rom build, I'll post screenies of any table you want, just ask.

Yeah, I'm on 18AOS, too. Didn't realize it wouldn't open in my ATR.

[Bleep]

Wow, that's some monster torque down low. Great job on those maps.

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Carl Morris

Yeah, I'm on 18AOS, too. Didn't realize it wouldn't open in my ATR.

ygpm

[Deadwrong]

Originally Posted by Carl Morris

Yeah, I'm on 18AOS, too. Didn't realize it wouldn't open in my ATR.

+1

[dfv2]

I made an I8A0S map for Carl, I'll post it as an attachment when I'm home so everyone can dl it.

edit - added to 1st post as attachment.

[nitehawk]

OP, what dyno plotting software did you use for your runs?
The numbers appear lower than what you would typically see (all things equal) using Virtual Dyno with Dynojet settings.

[dfv2]

I use my own calculations based on airboy and some classic mechanical engineering know-how. virtual dyno isn't as accurate... what are "dynojet settings" - actual G based calcs x1.15? I calculate actual G to HP based on moving a mass through time and space, against inertia/friction/drag. Been building these calcs for about 2 years.

[Carl Morris]

Cool.

[nitehawk]

Yeah, VD just appears to apply a multiplication factor of 1.09 for Dynojet.
You're macro is nifty indeed! Make it available to the public

[harry$]

Any news/ progress here since cobb released there fuel scalar?

[dfv2]

Bump for updates on first post!!

[Carl Morris]

Cool. I'd be interested in taking a look at your timing table...

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Carl Morris

Cool. I'd be interested in taking a look at your timing table...

This is what I'm running now. I haven't tested enough to know if there's more power to be had but overall this table is very comfortable on 50/50 through back to back multi-gear pulls.

[Carl Morris]

Interesting. You're running about a degree more than me (+/- .5) in the midrange, but you're really tapering down at high rpm. Generally my experience has been that if you can run 14 degrees at 6000rpm you can run 14+ degrees at 7000rpm. What's your reason for tapering off?

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Carl Morris

Interesting. You're running about a degree more than me (+/- .5) in the midrange, but you're really tapering down at high rpm. Generally my experience has been that if you can run 14 degrees at 6000rpm you can run 14+ degrees at 7000rpm. What's your reason for tapering off?

I shift at 6100ish RPM, so I keep the upper RPM values conservative for my own peace of mind. I agree that it's probably unnecessary since timing advance towards redline can easily continue to climb happily (given the logs I've seen, not logs I've done) especially with the boost taper of death on stockers.

[Carl Morris]

I take it you're running an automatic? I had auto guys try to tell me I should shift my manual that soon but I didn't get faster when I tried it. It makes me think that if the maps were set up to not pull timing so early the autos might do better revving a little higher and just letting it shift normally. But I don't have an auto to experiment with.

[marv85]

Another question on timing, I see at 2500 your timing is 4.5 then at 3000 you request 10.5. That's quite an increase in a short span.

Is that OK? or should we be more gradual?

On another note do you feel a sudden surge in power during that transition?