[Nick.CBR]

Hey Guys,

Just got back from the dyno.

This is on the latest BETA 3-25 v4 code. My settings were 50% UT and 75% IC which is essentially Stage 2 using the old method (~15 lbs of boost).

My car is a 6AT, DCI, and 93 oct. gas.

342rwhp (best)
377rwtq (best)

Very happy with the results and the car runs great!

Nick

[pcmike]

Why 75% IC when Shiv said we can get away with 50%? I just updated my V4 (6AT) and I'm running 50% UT, 50% IC, and 45% upshift on map1 and 30% on map2 so I can figure out which I like better. I had been running 50% IC previously on stg2+ with no issues that I know of (no codes)? Just trying to understand how IC should be adjusted. Good results though.. very nice!

[forza1976]

Thanks Nick, those results are more what I might see. However I'd be a bit lower being I'm AWD.

Thanks for the info!

[jpsimon]

nice and smooth! have a baseline?

[jpsimon]

Originally Posted by pcmike

Why 75% IC when Shiv said we can get away with 50%? I just updated my V4 (6AT) and I'm running 50% UT, 50% IC, and 45% upshift on map1 and 30% on map2 so I can figure out which I like better. I had been running 50% IC previously on stg2+ with no issues that I know of (no codes)? Just trying to understand how IC should be adjusted. Good results though.. very nice!

the OP is runnig a new beta setup which you adjust differently

[cn555ic]

Nice....You can turn down the IC a drop lower since you are running 93 oct....Nice and smooth!

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by pcmike

Why 75% IC when Shiv said we can get away with 50%? I just updated my V4 (6AT) and I'm running 50% UT, 50% IC, and 45% upshift on map1 and 30% on map2 so I can figure out which I like better. I had been running 50% IC previously on stg2+ with no issues that I know of (no codes)? Just trying to understand how IC should be adjusted. Good results though.. very nice!

Thanks. It was a place to start and was the equiv. of the old stage 2. I thought I was reading this morning the recommended starting point was 75% IC so I left it there - I'm sure I could have played more but honestly, I'd rather keep it on the safe side with summer coming up and no FMIC.

I went in really wanting a solid 340 and that's what I got. Probably has another 10-15 locked up but I just don't know what I'm doing enough to play with it anymore than that.

Nick

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

the OP is runnig a new beta setup which you adjust differently

Thanks!

I forgot not everyone knows what's up with the new maps.

So as mentioned, things are adjusted differently with the new code for v4.

No I don't have a baseline and yes shame on me

Nick

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

nice and smooth! have a baseline?

I'd like to see the VANOS event at 4,500 cleaned up a bit but the car runs SOOOOOOO nice on this that it's not a huge deal.

Nick

[shiv@vishnu]

Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the effects of the vanos shift is to retard timing or drop boost right at that 4300rpm transition. We did this with the previous maps and may do it again with the new maps by the time they are publicly released It just hurts me emotionally to reduce output when the engine wants to make it just because of a short term nonlinearity.

Looking forward to the Std (not sae) numbers. They should be 1-2% higher

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the effects of the vanos shift is to retard timing or drop boost right at that 4300rpm transition. We did this with the previous maps and may do it again with the new maps by the time they are publicly released It just hurts me emotionally to reduce output when the engine wants to make it just because of a short term nonlinearity.

Looking forward to the Std (not sae) numbers. They should be 1-2% higher

That's interesting and totally makes sense. We overlayed my older numbers (330/363 and found the even't less pronounced. I honestly don't care too much; the car runs awesome and it's nice to know I still have some room to go.

Also, very happy with the AFR's...

Nick

[shyestsparks]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the effects of the vanos shift is to retard timing or drop boost right at that 4300rpm transition. We did this with the previous maps and may do it again with the new maps by the time they are publicly released It just hurts me emotionally to reduce output when the engine wants to make it just because of a short term nonlinearity.

Looking forward to the Std (not sae) numbers. They should be 1-2% higher

My vote is to keep the maps the way they are; I'd rather have more output and be less linear than less output and more linear.

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by shyestsparks

My vote is to keep the maps the way they are; I'd rather have more output and be less linear than less output and more linear.

Agreed. The VANOS event is hardly perceptible (if at all) and the car runs very hard.

Nick

[pcmike]

I'm running the very same beta and I read the same email that I'm sure the OP read.. and Shiv said to run IC for 93oct around 50% so I was questioning why he is at 75%?

To be honest.. I think more of what I'm questioning is what IC actually does and how it should be adjusted. What do I need to log and look at in order to fine tune IC and in what increments should it be adjusted?

Originally Posted by jpsimon

the OP is runnig a new beta setup which you adjust differently

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by pcmike

I'm running the very same beta and I read the same email that I'm sure the OP read.. and Shiv said to run IC for 93oct around 50% so I was questioning why he is at 75%?

To be honest.. I think more of what I'm questioning is what IC actual does and how it should be adjusted. What do I need to log and look at in order to fine tune IC and in what increments should it be adjusted?

You are correct. I choose 75% IC because I don't know what the hell I'm doing and to be honest, I put the code on AT THE DYNO because it was that new; not enough time to tinker on the street I'm not interested in melting down my car because I get greedy and start putting numbers in boxes on a laptop; it's too easy to get overzealous

I'd gladly chase an extra 10 HP down if someone is there to look at my logs and be a guide.

Bottom line is just out there having a good time. Went with 3 other cars to the dyno today and we all ran great numbers!

Nick

EDIT: IC is how much timing the Procede pulls as the boost increases. The lower the %, the less timing the box pulls and the more power the car *should* make. Get too crazy and don't have meth or good enough fuel to handle the timing advance and you start knocking/detonating and are relying on the DME proactivly pulling timing to prevent the misfires/detonation.

Rule of thumb with timing on a boosted car is better safe than melted pistons (read: sorry). Also, my car is 6AT so I'm a little more conservative on the timing so I don't misfire; the 6MT cars can be more aggressive in that respect. This is my DD after all and CEL's aren't cool

[zsapphire7]

Originally Posted by Nick.CBR

I'd like to see the VANOS event at 4,500 cleaned up a bit but the car runs SOOOOOOO nice on this that it's not a huge deal.

Nick

actually I'd like this cleaned up for more predictable and linear response. maybe there should be a toggle on and off for this?

[pcmike]

Nick,

I'm in the same boat.. 6AT and daily driver. I plan on going out in a few minutes and doing some datalogs at 50%/50%. What upshift softening value are you using? Also, can you be specific as to what sort of logs you logged today via user software so I can try and get some so we can compare?

Thanks

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by zsapphire7

actually I'd like this cleaned up for more predictable and linear response. maybe there should be a toggle on and off for this?

I don't know I mean if it was causing a big traction issue because of the jump I could see it but other than cleaning up the graph; do you think you're going to notice?

I mean I have no idea, I know that I don't...

Nick

[Nick.CBR]

Originally Posted by pcmike

Nick,

I'm in the same boat.. 6AT and daily driver. I plan on going out in a few minutes and doing some datalogs at 50%/50%. What upshift softening value are you using? Also, can you be specific as to what sort of logs you logged today via user software so I can try and get some so we can compare?

Thanks

Default on the upshift softening.

Here are the V4 channels to log:

http://www.vishnutuningforum.com/for...ead.php?t=1040

Just follow the instructions to replace the two files in your user software directory.

Nick

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by Nick.CBR

I don't know I mean if it was causing a big traction issue because of the jump I could see it but other than cleaning up the graph; do you think you're going to notice?

I mean I have no idea, I know that I don't...

Nick

+1 i definitely dont notice. Imo there are much more important things to worry about

[zsapphire7]

Originally Posted by Nick.CBR

I don't know I mean if it was causing a big traction issue because of the jump I could see it but other than cleaning up the graph; do you think you're going to notice?

I mean I have no idea, I know that I don't...

Nick

that's why I suggest it to be a toggle depending on the user. personally I would not like it if I was at an apex and slowly powering out on the track and my rpm happened to fall right below 4500 which can happen..

[HPFREAK]

good numbers but as SHiv mentioned you should use STD with a turbo car. SAE is fine but from everything I have read it is not the right correction factor to use with a turbo car. NA cars should use SAE for sure.