Let's Talk Timing Maps

[mb3000]

So, now that a large amount of owners have timing control via the Chrome ECU, I'm interested to see what everyone's running.

In anticipation of receiving and installing my Chrome ECU I played around with the factory map a little bit. Added a little bit in some areas, and took some away in others. Basically tried to smooth it out a little bit. Still getting used to the ROM map parameters, in comparison to AEM :lol: Should be a good enough starting point for my basic TD04 setup.

http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad128/mb3000gt_photos/NewFlashTimingMap_zps6709c5f6.png

[NOMIEZVR4]

Here is mine..just added 2 degrees in the 5500 range otherwise stock. I'm running e85 however and a hi 11's low 12 AFR
http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/Untitled_zps665cb479.png (http://s314.photobucket.com/user/nomiezvr4/media/Untitled_zps665cb479.png.html)

[J. Fast]

Hrmmm, okay. I'll play. How about we post them 3-D too! Possibly? When I get a min I'll grab a couple off my EMS lappy.

[NOMIEZVR4]

How do we post the map in 3d from ecuflash?

[mb3000]

Just click the "View" tab. This graph is so small however I found it useless. Don't know if you can enlarge it or not...

[NOMIEZVR4]

yeah..i saw that...looked pretty useless

[mb3000]

It is. I found it best to export the data into Excel and work on it there. In AEM the graph was just about all I used. Set your timing where you want it to be under WOT, then switch to graph and just smooth out everything else. Doesn't matter what the value is as long as it's smooth.

Another thing I noticed initially was that the ROM factory map was very jagged. This IMO is decieving because in comparison to the typical AEM, there are fewer RPM break points, so it actually helps the smoothing a lot.

[Toni]

Different engine/turbo/boost configs will certainly affect how these timing charts look. Also, if you use a gm sensor with a translator, your load numbers may be shifted quite a bit.

[HLxDrummer]

My plan is to do pulls from 6 PSI to 15 PSI in like 2 psi increments. Keep bumping timing until I hit knock then back it off 2 degrees. Maybe back it off a little more at peak torque. Hopefully I can add in quite a bit at higher RPMs to make up for the boost drop off with 9Bs.

I ran out of time last time I was tuning so I just did 15 PSI low 11's AFR and bumped it up 2 degrees in a few spots (I tried 4 and had no knock so figured 2 degrees was safe on pump).

I would love to do virtual dyno but my tuning laptop is slow as shit and can't run those programs :(

Should be a good thread! Make sure you post mods and what gas your running.

[kywhitelightning]

Different engine/turbo/boost configs will certainly affect how these timing charts look. Also, if you use a gm sensor with a translator, your load numbers may be shifted quite a bit.

Zeroing the translator and relying on the flash for tuning will give good load nombers. Unless you max the load calculation in the ecu for the programmed MAF size.

Jeff

[Greg E]

Zeroing the translator and relying on the flash for tuning will give good load nombers. Unless you max the load calculation in the ecu for the programmed MAF size.

Jeff

The older version translators (with the 4 knobs) seem to report less airflow than the MAFTPro. No clue why. Could be the MAF being used as well.

[kywhitelightning]

The older version translators (with the 4 knobs) seem to report less airflow than the MAFTPro. No clue why. Could be the MAF being used as well.

I haven't logged my translator in a while but the last time I pulled a log from it, it saw 670g/s. Any idea what that should represent in Hz? That was before I upped the "fuel cut cap" on the translator so there was no correlation to the Hz value the ecu saw. That comes up to 88.62Lb/Hr. I have an idea of where that should land me HP wise and VD backs it up. Now since the Hz value is essentially uncapped I see near 4800Hz. Do the numbers have any correlation or is there skew from the translator?

This is a translator gen 2 not pro btw.

How do you screen shot the maps? I know I can print screen and then use word to save it. Is that what you guys are doing to post them?

Jeff

[Greg E]

I haven't logged my translator in a while but the last time I pulled a log from it, it saw 670g/s. Any idea what that should represent in Hz?

I've wanted to flow bench test a MAF for a while. Just never found a place to do it for me.

[NOMIEZVR4]

I haven't logged my translator in a while but the last time I pulled a log from it, it saw 670g/s. Any idea what that should represent in Hz? That was before I upped the "fuel cut cap" on the translator so there was no correlation to the Hz value the ecu saw. That comes up to 88.62Lb/Hr. I have an idea of where that should land me HP wise and VD backs it up. Now since the Hz value is essentially uncapped I see near 4800Hz. Do the numbers have any correlation or is there skew from the translator?

This is a translator gen 2 not pro btw.

How do you screen shot the maps? I know I can print screen and then use word to save it. Is that what you guys are doing to post them?

Jeff
Just open the map, press the print screen button on your keyboard, open paint, and paste. then you can save it to some online photohosting place...aka photobucket and link it. I can do it for you if you'd like. :)

[kywhitelightning]

Just open the map, press the print screen button on your keyboard, open paint, and paste. then you can save it to some online photohosting place...aka photobucket and link it. I can do it for you if you'd like. :)

That'll be fine. Thanks

Jeff

[TwIzTeD_3kGt]

This is my 20psi map. I think I had to back off timing one more degree up top when the summer heat got real bad (90+F), but other than that, it's solid.

As you can see, I changed the stock map quite a bit. I was convinced the timing jumping around the way the stock map does was causing knock during spool, since the 19t's spool around 4200rpm for me. A smooth progression took care of it.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/twizted_3kgt/TimingMap20psi_zps5f3f7317.jpg~original

[NOMIEZVR4]

That'll be fine. Thanks

Jeff
Jeff's Timing Map
http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/jeff_zpsd50d6597.png (http://s314.photobucket.com/user/nomiezvr4/media/jeff_zpsd50d6597.png.html)

[kywhitelightning]

This is my 20psi map. I think I had to back off timing one more degree up top when the summer heat got real bad (90+F), but other than that, it's solid.

As you can see, I changed the stock map quite a bit. I was convinced the timing jumping around the way the stock map does was causing knock during spool, since the 19t's spool around 4200rpm for me. A smooth progression took care of it.

19L's should not spool at 4200. Mine were at full spool with head work by 3400-3600 tops. I started my pulls at 2800ish so maybe that's a factor too. 4200 just sounds lazy, no offense.

Jeff

[NOMIEZVR4]

He's on stock heads IIRC...I think he's basing the number off of his dyno chart where the TQ starts to flat line...Hey Rick do you have a map sensor and can you log boost? My car doesn't start moving till about 3500ish in 3rd gear and I've got cams.

[TwIzTeD_3kGt]

19L's should not spool at 4200. Mine were at full spool with head work by 3400-3600 tops. I started my pulls at 2800ish so maybe that's a factor too. 4200 just sounds lazy, no offense.

Jeff


He's on stock heads IIRC...I think he's basing the number off of his dyno chart where the TQ starts to flat line...Hey Rick do you have a map sensor and can you log boost? My car doesn't start moving till about 3500ish in 3rd gear and I've got cams.

This. Going off my VDR charts, at 20psi they aren't fully spooled until at least 4.2k. That's from starting around 2.5k on the pull. Stock heads. No offense taken of course, I'd be happy if someone noticed something wrong with my setup. :p

[TwIzTeD_3kGt]

Jeff's Timing Map
http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/jeff_zpsd50d6597.png (http://s314.photobucket.com/user/nomiezvr4/media/jeff_zpsd50d6597.png.html)

What's Jeff's fuel setup? Pump+Meth right?

[kywhitelightning]

Yes, lots of meth. No water, just meth. 20% of my fueling in boost is methanol. 1600ml/min is the flow rate. My 680's are at 65-67%DC at 43.5 psi rail pressure static. I actually tried to run lower timing and it knocked some?????? I knew on my 19t's I was able to get away with 27* up top so I pushed it a little with this setup just to see. This map REALLY likes when I add race gas to the tank he he.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

I edited the above post because when I did the fueling calculation I forgot to add in the boost pressure increasing the rail pressure. 20% is what is being injected up to 28psi. I can't get past 25psi with that timing map unless it cools off but the reason I keep it like that is because I don't need a new flash to run race gas. I pour it in and turn up the DSBC.

Jeff

[Toni]

Jeff,

What is the max load that you hit?

[kywhitelightning]

299. As soon as I start a pull it pretty much pegs at 299 and stays there until the end. I refuse to change the MAF size again as it is a global change to the tune and everything would need to be changed all over again.

Jeff

[RealMcCoy]

i edited the above post because when i did the fueling calculation i forgot to add in the boost pressure increasing the rail pressure.

Jeff

wat...?

[kywhitelightning]

A fuel pressure regulators job is to increase rail pressure 1psi for every 1psi increase in the intake manifold. I didn't account for the 25-28 psi of increased rail pressure the fuel injectors were seeing which raises their flow above the on the box rating of 680. To say it short my original figures were skewed quite a bit.

Reality is the figures are, simply put, a guestimate of what is going on in the engine. I have statically tested my meth setup numerous times for 1 minute straight and I always come up with near 1600ml in the container at the end of the min. Sometimes +50ml sometimes -50ml but, it is really difficult to capture a mist and then even more difficult to keep it from evaporating before getting an accurate measurement. If the fuel injectors are actually flowing what their rating is (and they never do) and the logger is seeing 67% duty cycle at the absolute most, I can guestimate my fueling based on what has been measured and what the logger is seeing.

The 20% figure is certainly not a static figure across the board either because the injector duty cycle starts small and I am usually at peak boost within 600RPM's of the original hit of the throttle. The methanol injection is boost based so it maxes way before the IDC's see their max.

Jeff

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

The injectors flow the same because their flow is dependent on the differential pressure between the intake and the fuel inlet. That is why the FPR is a 1:1 ratio, to keep the injector effective size constant.

So, even at 25 PSI of boost the injectors still act like they are 660s.

[kywhitelightning]

Got it.

Jeff

[J. Fast]

Here's the map I'm currently running.

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/20gsE-85TimingColorado_zpsaa40322c.jpg

[familyMAN]

How much boost you running? Billet td05s? Was this optimized on dyno? If so all load rows or just your current max? Thanks!

[J. Fast]

Yep, billet 20G's. Whatever boost I set it to 10psi to 35psi :). Optimized on a dyno. EDIT: And a racetrack for 30min sessions.

[J. Fast]

Here's a couple timing maps I transferred from 2-D Chrome format and translated into 3-D. It's much easier to see where smoothing can be sorted when you look at them this way.

99 VR-4 Chrome ECU Stock High Octane Timing Map.

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/Stock3000gttimingmap_zps56de5a95.jpg

kylightning Chrome ECU DR750 High Octane Methanol Injection Timing Map

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/Kylightningtimingmap_zps635e49a2.jpg

Here's the type of base ignition map smoothing that can be achieved with a 3-D tuning strategy.

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/timingmap_zps213841eb.jpg

[Greg E]

ECUFlash has the ability to display maps in this fashion but I never use it. It's neat and all though.

[J. Fast]

ECUFlash has the ability to display maps in this fashion but I never use it. It's neat and all though.

It is a great way to optimize a timing map. You can see where the holes are in the transitions. The smoothing really helps with the driving experience. When you can 3-D trace your timing real time with the laptop open in a live tuning vs. having to refer to log it's easy to smooth and see where the edges of the squares aren't proportionate to one another.


Also, familyman, I'd like to see your timing map. Why haven't you shared it?

[kywhitelightning]

ECUFlash has the ability to display maps in this fashion but I never use it. It's neat and all though.

IIRC, the graph of it is so freaking small, it's unreadable and practically useless. Any way of getting the graphs to enlarge?

Jeff

[Greg E]

IIRC, the graph of it is so freaking small, it's unreadable and practically useless. Any way of getting the graphs to enlarge?

Jeff

Yes but I don't remember at the moment.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Yes but I don't remember at the moment.

I'd love to figure that out too, it is really dumb you can't just drag it to full screen. I've resorted to dropping the resolution on the laptop really low to get it blown up. Maybe the developer could use a suggestion. It is a great feature, but not if you can't see it.

[llabmik2]

Here's a couple timing maps I transferred from 2-D Chrome format and translated into 3-D. It's much easier to see where smoothing can be sorted when you look at them this way.

99 VR-4 Chrome ECU Stock High Octane Timing Map.


You threw me for a loop there for a second. You were saying the 2D maps from Chrome to the 3D maps in AEM. Took me a second to realize you were talking about the graphing feature. As all maps for spark and fuel are 3D in every ECU.

Hell Vipec can do a 6D map. That can take a bit to get right.

I use the graphing feature a lot. Like you said it really does help when you can get a visualization of whats going on instead of just looking at numbers, that and color gradient.

[Greg E]

You threw me for a loop there for a second. You were saying the 2D maps from Chrome to the 3D maps in AEM. Took me a second to realize you were talking about the graphing feature. As all maps for spark and fuel are 3D in every ECU.

Hell Vipec can do a 6D map. That can take a bit to get right.

I use the graphing feature a lot. Like you said it really does help when you can get a visualization of whats going on instead of just looking at numbers, that and color gradient.

The color gradient is why I never use 3D graphs in ECUFlash. You get a good visual of what is going on.

[familyMAN]

Here's the type of base ignition map smoothing that can be achieved with a 3-D tuning strategy.

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/timingmap_zps213841eb.jpg

J, at a quick glance, mine is almost identical to this one. I want to play with the timing up top more to see if higher is worth it. 19* at idle with a sharp ramp to 38* at 2500 in vac.

My actual idle timing varies because I give AEM a ton of timing flexibility at idle to stabilize the idle. (Works like a charm;))

I haven't posted mine because I don't think it's optimized yet so refrain from public posting so I don't lead anyone astray.

[TurboSinceBirth]

I was never able to enlarge the graphs in ecuflash but I have been using the graphical feature. I definitely prefer that for tuning since it's so much easier and quicker to smooth the map out. You can stare at the table but honestly it's much harder to take care of any discrepancies just looking at numbers. It's easier to miss something and the average person won't be able to tell how smooth or jagged their changes are. You'd be surprised the difference there is between what you think looks good on a table format and still looks bad in graphical view.

It definitely takes longer in ecuflash referencing the axis each time to make a change or even picking a cell, incrementing/decrementing until you see a visual change, reverting the changes, and then moving to another area of the map if you're not where you want. The 3D trace feature in AEM is nice and part of the reason I asked if ecuflash had some sort of a trace feature. It wouldn't be too hard to rescale the axis in AEM, copy your table over, smooth it out, and copy it back to ecuflash.

Different strokes for different folks but I'm definitely more of a visual learner. I know many prefer that methodology also. Sometimes it's easy to get lost and forget the big picture.

[J. Fast]

I totally agree with you TSB. It's easier for my eye to look at a 3-d map and visualize proportionate grid squares and try to make all sides equal and smooth than it is to look at a rainbow or just Excel format numbers.

I think graphing everything in 3-D is also a good basis for comparison.


What do you guys think about posting fuel maps too? That's where things get interesting.

[TwIzTeD_3kGt]

I was never able to enlarge the graphs in ecuflash but I have been using the graphical feature. I definitely prefer that for tuning since it's so much easier and quicker to smooth the map out. You can stare at the table but honestly it's much harder to take care of any discrepancies just looking at numbers. It's easier to miss something and the average person won't be able to tell how smooth or jagged their changes are. You'd be surprised the difference there is between what you think looks good on a table format and still looks bad in graphical view.

It definitely takes longer in ecuflash referencing the axis each time to make a change or even picking a cell, incrementing/decrementing until you see a visual change, reverting the changes, and then moving to another area of the map if you're not where you want. The 3D trace feature in AEM is nice and part of the reason I asked if ecuflash had some sort of a trace feature. It wouldn't be too hard to rescale the axis in AEM, copy your table over, smooth it out, and copy it back to ecuflash.

Different strokes for different folks but I'm definitely more of a visual learner. I know many prefer that methodology also. Sometimes it's easy to get lost and forget the big picture.

As in live map tracing? If so, Evoscan has that. Not in 3D that I know of though.

[TurboSinceBirth]

As in live map tracing? If so, Evoscan has that. Not in 3D that I know of though.

That would be helpful. I'm looking for more of a 3D map tracing inside ecuflash. There isn't such a thing but it would be more useful for smoothing things out from a graphical view.

[Greg E]

One of the best tuners I've ever met was a guy from New York that flash tuned EVOs. He used the same programs as Chrome and had no live tuning. Just read the evoscan logs, hunted the cells on the tables and adjusted them. His "technique" was very highly criticized by many because he would select a large block of the map and make all the values the same number. Usually a group of 6-8 cells in a few rows. He did this to make sure you got the same numbers when putting down the hammer thus getting consistent power. This was especially important when tuning solely on pump gas with a boost controller not under the will of the ECU and you're right close to the edge where even a small amount of knock could spell disaster.

Anyway, this guy got SLAMMED hard when some Internet tuning expert got ahold of one of his tuned ROMs and posted it on EVOm. It was the intelligence level of the 3SGTO Facebook page where somehow every know-it-all came out of the wood work to criticize the "unsmoothness" of this guys tunes. His reputation was completely destroyed in this one thread. These Internet mechanics convinced themselves that any failed engine with this guys tune on it was the result of that unsmoothness.

Maybe tomorrow if I'm bored at work ill find the thread.

Moral of the story: these features you guys think you need are neat, but not necessary.

Also, don't forget that A stock car ran pretty damn good for over 20 years now with this "sloppy" and "unsmooth" timing map. I bet more R&D that went into that "sucky" stock map than I have put into the entire chrome ECU platform.

[familyMAN]

There's a similar school of thought with one 4g63 tuner that you tune your timing at highest boost to find mbt throughout the rev range and set that for all the lower load rows as well. Ex. 15* at 35psi at 7k. He would then make it 15* at 7k for everything 10psi to 35psi.

This way you know you are never past mbt at varying load, throttle and boost situations.

[llabmik2]

One of the best tuners I've ever met was a guy from New York that flash tuned EVOs. He used the same programs as Chrome and had no live tuning. Just read the evoscan logs, hunted the cells on the tables and adjusted them. His "technique" was very highly criticized by many because he would select a large block of the map and make all the values the same number. Usually a group of 6-8 cells in a few rows. He did this to make sure you got the same numbers when putting down the hammer thus getting consistent power. This was especially important when tuning solely on pump gas with a boost controller not under the will of the ECU and you're right close to the edge where even a small amount of knock could spell disaster.

Anyway, this guy got SLAMMED hard when some Internet tuning expert got ahold of one of his tuned ROMs and posted it on EVOm. It was the intelligence level of the 3SGTO Facebook page where somehow every know-it-all came out of the wood work to criticize the "unsmoothness" of this guys tunes. His reputation was completely destroyed in this one thread. These Internet mechanics convinced themselves that any failed engine with this guys tune on it was the result of that unsmoothness.

Maybe tomorrow if I'm bored at work ill find the thread.

Moral of the story: these features you guys think you need are neat, but not necessary.

Also, don't forget that A stock car ran pretty damn good for over 20 years now with this "sloppy" and "unsmooth" timing map. I bet more R&D that went into that "sucky" stock map than I have put into the entire chrome ECU platform.

You talking about Al of Dynoflash?

[mjannusch]

There's a similar school of thought with one 4g63 tuner that you tune your timing at highest boost to find mbt throughout the rev range and set that for all the lower load rows as well. Ex. 15* at 35psi at 7k. He would then make it 15* at 7k for everything 10psi to 35psi.

This way you know you are never past mbt at varying load, throttle and boost situations.
If you are only drag racing then sure - otherwise you are leaving a lot of power and efficiency on the table at the lower loads.

[Greg E]

You talking about Al of Dynoflash?

Yes.


...but in my search for that thread I stumbled on some other stuff I didn't realize had come up about him over the years (last time I looked into him was 09). Looks like over the years he just got lazy and sloppy. He was always a bit rude and arrogant but looks like he never backed his work when things went catastrophically wrong.

Probably not the best example to make my point then... :lol:

[llabmik2]

Yeah, I have fixed a lot of his tunes, as a lot of others have also. The sea of 7's was a pretty horrible way of tuning.

[Jimvr4]

Bringing this discussion back to the top. I'm going to start modifying my timing in Chrome v2 and I noticed the way the stock ROM timing table is built by just copying all the values at a load of 160 over into every column that has higher load. Does everyone agree that you should be able to make the same timing vs. rpm no matter what the load??

What I see in my logs is that as load increases from 160 to 220 (that's as high as I've seen on 91 pump), I start seeing knock above 5000 rpm. There seems to be a bump in the stock ROM between 4500-6000 where timing is more advanced. It goes from 12* at 4500 up to 19* at 5000 and then 18* at 5500 and 21* at 6000. It seems like my car wants to see less timing in this region. Oh, and if you haven't followed my tuning thread I've already bumped up the VE above 1600 Hz and I'm seeing low 10s AFR now.

What I'm thinking is to moderate that big 7 degree jump from 4500-5000 and then smooth it out to 20* at 7000. So something like
4500 12*
5000 14*
5500 16*
6000 18*
6500 20*
7000 20*

What do you guys think?

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

no as load increases you need to reduce timing. The only reason the chrome map is that way is because it is a stretched out stock map. The way chrome ships the timing is 100% stock that way and it is then off Greg's back if you do something crazy.

[Greg E]

The stock timing map is setup to take advantage of the 9b torque curve. Being that you now have a completely different turbo, as you tweak this map (add timing in some areas, take it away from others) you'll find that the behavior you see in the stock map will wave higher in the load areas and in the upper RPMs.

Your peak torque at whatever load and RPM will demand the smallest numbers and anything above that will want the higher numbers.

Take note that your peak torque will always change depending on how much boost and what gear you're in. I know its hard to do this on the street but its best to try and get logs of various WOT pulls at all rpm and load ranges. This takes time (and balls when it comes to tuning 6th gear).

When tuning on the street I general optimize 3rd gear then go for some low rpm punches in 6th (to simulate climbing hills or passing cars).

Moral of the story is, you will get some numbers that vary wildly from the stock map when all is said and done. Chances are you will end up taking away a lot of timing when using pump gas.

[Jimvr4]

no as load increases you need to reduce timing. The only reason the chrome map is that way is because it is a stretched out stock map. The way chrome ships the timing is 100% stock that way and it is then off Greg's back if you do something crazy.

OK, that's pretty much what I thought but I didn't see anyone on Chrome here pulling their timing up high.


The stock timing map is setup to take advantage of the 9b torque curve. Being that you now have a completely different turbo, as you tweak this map (add timing in some areas, take it away from others) you'll find that the behavior you see in the stock map will wave higher in the load areas and in the upper RPMs.

Your peak torque at whatever load and RPM will demand the smallest numbers and anything above that will want the higher numbers.

Take note that your peak torque will always change depending on how much boost and what gear you're in. I know its hard to do this on the street but its best to try and get logs of various WOT pulls at all rpm and load ranges. This takes time (and balls when it comes to tuning 6th gear).

When tuning on the street I general optimize 3rd gear then go for some low rpm punches in 6th (to simulate climbing hills or passing cars).

Moral of the story is, you will get some numbers that vary wildly from the stock map when all is said and done. Chances are you will end up taking away a lot of timing when using pump gas.

IDK about tuning 4th gear on the street either, it's 150 at like 7000. It was hard enough finding a good spot for 3rd gear pulls :lo5l:

Probably need to change to the EVO MAF now. I've seen 2707 Hz when I pulled 4th and hit 217 load. I read that 2700 ish is the limit of the stock MAF measuring capability. So I guess I'll be pulling timing out and trying to increase boost. I guess I'll be limited by the stock SMIC and 91 pump.

BTW, refresh us on your plans for dual maps in newer Chrome versions? And please don't make it read the Active Aero switch since Spyders don't have one.

[Greg E]

It will read the AE switch and all 95+ cars don't have it but installation is simple plug and play. :)

[Jimvr4]

It will read the AA switch and all 95+ cars don't have it but installation is simple plug and play. :)

Not true for Spyders :( The switch plate only acommodates cruise, 12V socket, trunk open/close, and top open/close. No room for AA at all.

[Greg E]

Not true for Spyders :( The switch plate only acommodates cruise, 12V socket, trunk open/close, and top open/close. No room for AA at all.

According to caps all spyders have the same dash harness as the normal 3/S.

I just realized you typed AA and not AE. It'll use the active exhaust switches not the active Areo switches.

[Jimvr4]

I just realized you typed AA and not AE.

YOU typed AA !! :p I gots proof :suspect:

[Greg E]

Yes I made the same mistake as you. :p

[Greg E]

IDK about tuning 4th gear on the street either, it's 150 at like 7000. It was hard enough finding a good spot for 3rd gear pulls :lo5l:

The idea is to just get into the high load/low RPM area of the map.

[niterydr]

After browsing I've realized my post count and contributions are dismal to say the least. So lets get 2 setups posted to help the masses. One a healthy bolt on TD04 setup, one my old blue car where I had no limits and literally put it on the dyno to find limits of octane or parts.

A few notes:

These are all AEM V1 maps
These are all cars that have/had run a VERY LONG time and put up good numbers/durability
These all had manipulators but these are some base-maps. I wouldn't suggest ever plugging these into your map and letting it rip, but it gets you started for reference. If you have a question ask, don't try to reverse engineer my stuff. Here to help :)



First up is a calibrated 2g ECU. 13t car, pump gas, roughly 400awhp on a dyno dynamics brand dyno without correction @ around 17-18psi.

6495

Last up, a peak into insanity. Load bearing dyno tuned up to roughly 28psi or around 650awhp. Then we had to switch to sweeps (versus holding it there and pounding timing at it). 720.2awhp uncorrected the heads buckled (ARPs torqued to 105 ft lbs, non pinned heads as this is 2006), roughly 33psi on the map sensor, 592 torque. I knew we were flirting with disaster, we calculated yield to be around 712awhp (very long story how we cam to calculate clamp force based off assumed cylinder pressure based on raw torque output on the dyno) and this was seriously the last pull, and well the heads yielded. No knock, C-16 fuel. Bearings perfect on tear down. Car never ran afterwards except in and out of the shop to be town down for a single setup that never worked. (this is my old blue stealth with 620awhp uncorrected it did trap around 136mph). This is seriously pushing the fuel to 13.0AFR (burned the best there on this setup) and adding timing until it came back with no gains and backing it back down a bit (usually pulling between .3 to 1.2 degree resulted in a 2-10hp drop).

6494

Have at it! Hope it helps.

[familyMAN]

Why are you running more timing around 5k, which was probably peak tq, and then drop up top on the big build? That goes against every other tuning strategy I have ever seen on a turbo car.

Josh, I know you have WAY more tuning experience than me but 30* at your peak tq (cylinder pressure) at 30psi sounds like you were trying to pop a head gasket:D. Cut that in half and keep the timing the same up top and you would've made the same HP, correct? And maybe saved the HG and car would still be together since it led to the tear down and part out:(

Let me know what I am missing!

Edit: also, why calculate "head" yield on HP? Wouldn't it be related to TQ/cylinder pressure? My understanding is the head studs shouldn't care about low tq, high rpm, high hp. They care about high cylinder pressure and tq.

[niterydr]

Why are you running more timing around 5k, which was probably peak tq, and then drop up top on the big build? That goes against every other tuning strategy I have ever seen on a turbo car.

Josh, I know you have WAY more tuning experience than me but 30* at your peak tq (cylinder pressure) at 30psi sounds like you were trying to pop a head gasket:D. Cut that in half and keep the timing the same up top and you would've made the same HP, correct? And maybe saved the HG and car would still be together since it led to the tear down and part out:(

Let me know what I am missing!

Edit: also, why calculate "head" yield on HP? Wouldn't it be related to TQ/cylinder pressure? My understanding is the head studs shouldn't care about low tq, high rpm, high hp. They care about high cylinder pressure and tq.

Great questions lets discuss!

The ultimate goal for timing is to tune for MBT. You want the timing to create the maximum efficiency and that the flame gets across that piston with the best advantage after TDC (this is why you want to "back into" timing adjustments, there is typically a window of timing that will produce the same torque output but just increase cylinder pressure). What if I told you I actually had another 4-5 degrees in it just to test this theory? Well I did, it made no more power or noise, but I assume cylinder pressure was much much higher. I wish I had Ion knock sensing then (and now, its on my to buy tool list).

I'll demonstrate with a graph and explain. Taken from a good read: "FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES" by H. N. Gupta (I need to find my copy somewhere).
6497

Anyway, with the C16 we were not anywhere knock limited and thus could actually push to MBT, essentially until the car stopped making power. Then we'd back it down. I would push the setup until it would only pick up 1-4hp and then back it down. If I cut the timing in say half, I would have left a good 60-80hp on the table EASILY. With a load bearing dyno and unlimited dyno pulls (I think we experimented different cam settings, fuel octanes, intercooler setups to the tune of roughly 300 pulls?) you can back your way into data slowly.
Frankly the car kept making more and more power with the timing so I kept adding it. Again it is just a number on this basemap and was for the setting. On this setup (again in 2006) the delta cam grinds were not doing us any favors neither were the 50 trims at full tilt, so VE really didn't seem to increase much after peak torque. It didn't get much worse, just this car always flattened out after it "came on". Which proves another point, every setup is different. The car didn't let go at peak torque it let go afterwards, see below dip in dynochart, that is with it pushing coolant. Again it was an in-house "social" experiment just to see how far things could get pushed. (FYI: with 15 degrees of timing on the C16 the setup would actually misfire horribly due to the 2 heat range colder plugs and just how much a bear C16 is).

6496

Another note:

Calculating to HP, good observation :) We actually calculated it to raw tractive effort (raw torque output on the dyno) then translated it into a horsepower figure to know where we should slow down. It much easier to look for a HP number (which is a function of torque and RPM, another reason the timing flat lined, I knew I had a ceiling and didn't want to exceed it). To be honest I had weather corrections on and the way the intake air temperature sensor for the dyno was positioned versus the dyno room fan, it was actually taking away horsepower (dynos are tricky tools, very easy to manipulate numbers in error and of course on purpose). When I was doing this live, if memory serves correct, the dyno showed 705hp so I thought we were close but safe. Again playing with fire, I knew the risks.

I hope that helps. Gotta to run to pick-up a snowblower, but I hope this discussion continues. On a side note, you stopped sending me logs ;)

*cliff notes: I didn't keep add timing as rpm increased as I didn't want any more power, I wanted right around 715 and to keep it there**

[familyMAN]

Josh, Thanks for the discussion. I knew you wouldn't take my questions defensively:D. Surprising to me based on what I understand that you would blow a gasket after surviving peak tq unless you were near or past mbt in the upper rpms, creating more cylinder pressure than needed.

Logs are a pain to send back and forth. What we need to do is rent a dyno!! Not sure I gave you latest update on car, but it's down for a proper build instead of stock crap so I can safely crank boost and timing to wring out these little 14b hair dryers.

Too bad you never hit the track with the 700+ tune. Big traps were in store based on 600 results!

[niterydr]

Josh, Thanks for the discussion. I knew you wouldn't take my questions defensively:D. Surprising to me based on what I understand that you would blow a gasket after surviving peak tq unless you were near or past mbt in the upper rpms, creating more cylinder pressure than needed.

Logs are a pain to send back and forth. What we need to do is rent a dyno!! Not sure I gave you latest update on car, but it's down for a proper build instead of stock crap so I can safely crank boost and timing to wring out these little 14b hair dryers.

Too bad you never hit the track with the 700+ tune. Big traps were in store based on 600 results!

Sounds good! Those b wheels loose efficiency pretty quickly after say 25-28psi. I do regret not getting it to the track with another 100+hp nearly everywhere over the 136mph traps, oh well.

[niterydr]

Josh, Thanks for the discussion. I knew you wouldn't take my questions defensively:D. Surprising to me based on what I understand that you would blow a gasket after surviving peak tq unless you were near or past mbt in the upper rpms, creating more cylinder pressure than needed.

Logs are a pain to send back and forth. What we need to do is rent a dyno!! Not sure I gave you latest update on car, but it's down for a proper build instead of stock crap so I can safely crank boost and timing to wring out these little 14b hair dryers.

Too bad you never hit the track with the 700+ tune. Big traps were in store based on 600 results!

Sounds good! Those b wheels loose efficiency pretty quickly after say 25-28psi. I do regret not getting it to the track with another 100+hp nearly everywhere over the 136mph traps, oh well.

[familyMAN]

Yep, figured happy zone will be around 25-26psi so reducing as much back pressure as possible to help out the little comp wheel....Modding my 3sx kit for WG dumps and I opened up the downpipe to 4" and doing 4" single. Will post timing maps when I get it cranked up. I know there's a lot of power to be had since 1* of timing picked up 20awtq on setup, before tearing down and going a little crazy with build to work the 14bs:D

[J. Fast]

Great questions lets discuss!

The ultimate goal for timing is to tune for MBT. You want the timing to create the maximum efficiency and that the flame gets across that piston with the best advantage after TDC (this is why you want to "back into" timing adjustments, there is typically a window of timing that will produce the same torque output but just increase cylinder pressure). What if I told you I actually had another 4-5 degrees in it just to test this theory? Well I did, it made no more power or noise, but I assume cylinder pressure was much much higher. I wish I had Ion knock sensing then (and now, its on my to buy tool list).

I'll demonstrate with a graph and explain. Taken from a good read: "FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES" by H. N. Gupta (I need to find my copy somewhere).
6497

Anyway, with the C16 we were not anywhere knock limited and thus could actually push to MBT, essentially until the car stopped making power. Then we'd back it down. I would push the setup until it would only pick up 1-4hp and then back it down. If I cut the timing in say half, I would have left a good 60-80hp on the table EASILY. With a load bearing dyno and unlimited dyno pulls (I think we experimented different cam settings, fuel octanes, intercooler setups to the tune of roughly 300 pulls?) you can back your way into data slowly.
Frankly the car kept making more and more power with the timing so I kept adding it. Again it is just a number on this basemap and was for the setting. On this setup (again in 2006) the delta cam grinds were not doing us any favors neither were the 50 trims at full tilt, so VE really didn't seem to increase much after peak torque. It didn't get much worse, just this car always flattened out after it "came on". Which proves another point, every setup is different. The car didn't let go at peak torque it let go afterwards, see below dip in dynochart, that is with it pushing coolant. Again it was an in-house "social" experiment just to see how far things could get pushed. (FYI: with 15 degrees of timing on the C16 the setup would actually misfire horribly due to the 2 heat range colder plugs and just how much a bear C16 is).

6496

Another note:

Calculating to HP, good observation :) We actually calculated it to raw tractive effort (raw torque output on the dyno) then translated it into a horsepower figure to know where we should slow down. It much easier to look for a HP number (which is a function of torque and RPM, another reason the timing flat lined, I knew I had a ceiling and didn't want to exceed it). To be honest I had weather corrections on and the way the intake air temperature sensor for the dyno was positioned versus the dyno room fan, it was actually taking away horsepower (dynos are tricky tools, very easy to manipulate numbers in error and of course on purpose). When I was doing this live, if memory serves correct, the dyno showed 705hp so I thought we were close but safe. Again playing with fire, I knew the risks.

I hope that helps. Gotta to run to pick-up a snowblower, but I hope this discussion continues. On a side note, you stopped sending me logs ;)

*cliff notes: I didn't keep add timing as rpm increased as I didn't want any more power, I wanted right around 715 and to keep it there**

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/DSCN7626.jpg

Excellent post sir... This post comes right out of EFI University Manual. I took a picture of the graph and attempted to have a discussion a few years ago regarding timing maps and was superinflamo'd from guys that say you need a head lift fix... We're building 1000+hp engines (uncorrected familyguy) in Denver without pinned heads because of this little chart right here. UPPCOS is pushing 1200bhp on his Meth/Eth engine build on stock heads/cams with Aermet ARP hardware. I'm now at 800. No O-rings or Compression rods... just bolts.

When you pass MBT all you create is excess cylinder pressure at the same hp and you pound your bearings flat.

[familyMAN]

We're building 1000+hp engines (uncorrected familyguy) in Denver without pinned heads because of this little chart right here. UPPCOS is pushing 1200bhp on his Meth/Eth engine build on stock heads/cams with Aermet ARP hardware. I'm now at 800. No O-rings or Compression rods... just bolts.



Can you post your 800 uncorrected chart? Just last week you posted 7xx corrected, 590 uncorrected. That's a big jump and would definitely be a feat at your altitude.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy163/JFastMotorsports/DSCN7626.jpg

Excellent post sir... This post comes right out of EFI University Manual. I took a picture of the graph and attempted to have a discussion a few years ago regarding timing maps and was superinflamo'd from guys that say you need a head lift fix... We're building 1000+hp engines (uncorrected familyguy) in Denver without pinned heads because of this little chart right here. UPPCOS is pushing 1200bhp on his Meth/Eth engine build on stock heads/cams with Aermet ARP hardware. I'm now at 800. No O-rings or Compression rods... just bolts.

When you pass MBT all you create is excess cylinder pressure at the same hp and you pound your bearings flat.

? You spent a few days arguing with us that bearings don't get pounded flat.

[J. Fast]

? You spent a few days arguing with us that bearings don't get pounded flat. I never said that. My opinion, if one was to pound bearings flat then they're using the wrong load range bearing, the engine balance is off, engine misfires occurred, or the journals have been oil starved.

I also showed how to calculate the engine load at the rod pin, piston crown, main bearing, and rod bearings (long hand) illustrating one can evaluate the stress levels and limitations of their engine components instead of guessing and just tossing stuff in there.

We see a lot of taking it apart 10,000 miles later and finding a component was used beyond its load carrying capability, flat bearings, elongated rod pin bosses, underthreaded fasteners based on holding requirement. All things one can evaluate and asses before turning the key.

There is professional training and scholarly application. A build sheet and plan helps a lot. You can evaluate the anticipated engine loads at varying degrees of ignition advance at variable afr's and power outputs. It's called SAE Engine Analysis and Engine Blueprinting.

Cheap insurance policy... since 2009 has helped me select the right components, and prevents me from doing shit twice and blowing engines. Engine Analyzer Pro (http://performancetrends.com/Engine-Analyzer-Pro.htm)

[familyMAN]

UPPCOS is pushing 1200bhp on his Meth/Eth engine build on stock heads/cams with Aermet ARP hardware. I'm now at 800. No O-rings or Compression rods... just bolts.




Can you post your 800 uncorrected chart? Just last week you posted 7xx corrected, 590 uncorrected. That's a big jump and would definitely be a feat at your altitude.

Bump.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Where are any charts? I think I need a video that pans to the dyno screen to believe it anyway.



Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[familyMAN]

Bump.

[Jimvr4]

At the risk of being laughed out by all you high HP folks I humbly submit my 91 pump timing map :lo5l: This is what I will be tuning with this weekend and hopefully getting a chance to push the car into different areas of the map and turn up the boost a bit.

6519

[J. Fast]

Nice, very nice Mr. Jim! I see you did some 3-D graphing. Really helps with timing map smoothing. What software are you graphing with?

[Jimvr4]

It's a built in feature in Excel. I just cut and pasted from Chrome and 3D plotted it. It really does help to get a visual.

[familyMAN]

We're building 1000+hp engines (uncorrected familyguy) in Denver without pinned heads because of this little chart right here. UPPCOS is pushing 1200bhp on his Meth/Eth engine build on stock heads/cams with Aermet ARP hardware. I'm now at 800. No O-rings or Compression rods... just bolts.




Can you post your 800 uncorrected chart? Just last week you posted 7xx corrected, 590 uncorrected. That's a big jump and would definitely be a feat at your altitude.


Nice, very nice Mr. Jim! I see you did some 3-D graphing. Really helps with timing map smoothing. What software are you graphing with?

You're back, but where's the 800 uncorrected graph?

[J. Fast]

You're back, but where's the 800 uncorrected graph?

It finally dawned on me that discussion with you is a waste of my time. Once I figured out who you were and learned and read about your historical path and outcomes I realized it's you who's the fool... not me. Look at your outcomes. Popped motor in 2012, 2nd popped motor less than a year later, now you've been reduced to de-modding because you're an idiot.

Quit patronizing me and move along. Go into your garage and turn your ignition key and let me know what the outcome is.

This thread is about timing maps and experience. You have nothing constructive, illustrative, or scholarly of your own to share other than a long list of parts you destroyed and paths that no one wants to go down so stfu and move along.

[familyMAN]

It finally dawned on me that discussion with you is a waste of my time. Once I figured out who you were and learned and read about your historical path and outcomes I realized it's you who's the fool... not me. Look at your outcomes. Popped motor in 2012, 2nd popped motor less than a year later, now you've been reduced to de-modding because you're an idiot.

Quit patronizing me and move along. Go into your garage and turn your ignition key and let me know what the outcome is.

This thread is about timing maps and experience. You have nothing constructive, illustrative, or scholarly of your own to share other than a long list of parts you destroyed and paths that no one wants to go down so stfu and move along.

So no chart?

Not hiding who I am. Pretty open about the history of popped motors for those that are interested. There is info to be learned. I'll take blame for some mistakes (500awtq on stock 74rods) but certainly not all.

De-modding, sure. If you call selecting parts to better compliment my goals de-modding. Series1 to 2 upgrade. Adding AC. Yep de-modding.

You have been taking shots at others misfortunes lately. I take shots at you when state your corrected hp/tq numbers as a measure of how stressed your engine's bearings, rods are. As you already know, they are actually only seeing the stress of uncorrected since that's the real hp/tq at your altitude. Why not for accuracy, use your uncorrected in those discussions (which ARE impressive at your altitude or any for that matter)? I have to assume the inaccuracy (and thus deceit) is on purpose since you have clearly stated how much smarter you are than me.

Then, you come to this thread to throw out hp numbers that you and friend are making and specifically mention my (butchered) forum name to note it's corrected numbers. I simply asked for the chart. If it was an estimate based on your experience tuning at least make a virtual dyno chart and post the log. You says the car has been out on the track this week so should've had an opportunity to do a 3rd gear pull at some point.

Maybe only your friends numbers were uncorrected and then you state yours at 800 with no clarifier. Are those corrected and you just made a mistake putting them together in the same statement?

[J. Fast]

Not hiding who I am. Pretty open about the history of popped motors for those that are interested. There is info to be learned. I'll take blame for some mistakes (500awtq on stock 74rods) but certainly not all.

De-modding, sure. If you call selecting parts to better compliment my goals de-modding.

I take shots at you when state your corrected hp/tq numbers as a measure of how stressed your engine's bearings, rods are. As you already know, they are actually only seeing the stress of uncorrected since that's the real hp/tq at your altitude. Why not for accuracy, use your uncorrected in those discussions (which ARE impressive at your altitude or any for that matter)? I have to assume the inaccuracy (and thus deceit) is on purpose since you have clearly stated how much smarter you are than me.

Then, you come to this thread to throw out hp numbers that you and friend are making and specifically mention my (butchered) forum name to note it's corrected numbers. I simply asked for the chart. If it was an estimate based on your experience tuning at least make a virtual dyno chart and post the log. You says the car has been out on the track this week so should've had an opportunity to do a 3rd gear pull at some point.

So no chart then? I'll move along.

.... I stand corrected after re-reading. You popped your engine in 2012 then popped it (3) more times last year. I have nothing further to share with you bro and would suggest you keep your stupid to yourself. You've got blown engine outcomes licked.


Last pro tip from me on the matter... EFI University - Electronic Fuel Injection Tuning, Training and Certification (http://www.efi101.com/)

[HellBringer]

since 2009 has helped me select the right components, and prevents me from doing shit twice and blowing engines. Engine Analyzer Pro (http://performancetrends.com/Engine-Analyzer-Pro.htm)



Really, drmbldr..? The only thing I recall you doing in 2009 was touting 19T's (not to mention your other indiscretions) and ultimately becoming the laughing stock of the interwebz! Did EAP advise you on your 19T selection?






You're back, but where's the 800 uncorrected graph?



Not gonna happen because it's all absolute bullshit, of course... We all already know that, though. Otherwise, it might turn out like this:




http://www.dynamicracing.com/mw/images/a/a9/Drmbldr5050split91oct100octdynojetA.jpg

[familyMAN]

Okay, back on topic...since everyone posting here has AEM or chrome, maybe we should post virtual dyno chart, or real if you have one, along with the timing map that was run? Seems it would be more insightful (spool characteristics, where peak tq hits, how much it drops, etc) than just a timing map alone.

Oh....oops.

[CoopKill]

Come on Jeremy. Once again I wish you would contain your bullshit. You have some great things to offer, but you bury that in a pile of stench so deep it never sees the light of day. Respect yourself, and seek some help...

Post the facts backing your statement, or move the fuck on. Your deflection attacks get old.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Reeks of nelson saying he is too good for us to share his dyno plots.

Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[kywhitelightning]

Okay, back on topic...since everyone posting here has AEM or chrome, maybe we should post virtual dyno chart, or real if you have one, along with the timing map that was run? Seems it would be more insightful (spool characteristics, where peak tq hits, how much it drops, etc) than just a timing map alone.

Oh....oops.

Great idea!!! That can lead to some very informative discussions.

Jeff

[niterydr]

Okay, back on topic...since everyone posting here has AEM or chrome, maybe we should post virtual dyno chart, or real if you have one, along with the timing map that was run? Seems it would be more insightful (spool characteristics, where peak tq hits, how much it drops, etc) than just a timing map alone.

Oh....oops.

Sure, what else do you want? I have multiple graphs, logs, dyno charts I can pull. Any particular requests?

[familyMAN]

Was more of a dig at jfast for once again not backing up his claims of hp and superiority.

We'll take anything you want to post though! More info is better.

Have any DSM dynos and timing maps? :)