Yes, your correct Rich. The "clunks" happen mostly during off-throttle or very light. I guess I have nothing to worry about as all seem normal but that's one of the very first thing I notice and downshifting from 2nd to 1st don't seem to happen as much automatically, +1 for that. Thanks to the both of you for this wonderful gift.

 

Finally got my laptop back after 4 months. I went from v27 to 30.06 lol. Theres nearly no clicks at all when downshifting and seems much smoother. I did notice that if im coasting at 3k or so rpm and press on the gas it almost hangs for a second before getting the power on. It stays at 3k rpm for a second. It never happened on my older tune.

 

The wife ordered me a Tactrix cable for our anniversary and the prompt folks at FedEx got it to me literally the next business day. So I installed the Balance beta 30.06 and after two weeks here are my impressions....

WOW. Ignoring the delay in engaging the clutches from a dead stop, throttle response in the Ralliart in general is excellent compared to any other turbocharged car I have owned (namely going from small to large throttle openings when already underway) but this map takes it to a whole new level. Throttle response is immediate, shifts are stock-like-smooth in both auto and manual. Even in commuter traffic, engine response and driveability are greatly improved over stock, plus I'm averaging approximately +1km/L (= +2.375MPG) in my commute to and from work which is pure urban driving, moderate stop-and-go.

Even the wife says the car feels like it's not struggling anymore -- she agreed with the Road & Track review of the Ralliart (in 'A Time for Turbos') where the journalist commented that stomping on it in the RA was like calling down to the engine room for more power and Scottie saying "I've already given her all she's got captain", whereas now, the car just smoothly pulls through it's powerband to a much higher rpm before power begins to taper. This really is what the car should have been like from the factory - smooth, powerful and with incredible engine response.

I made one change to the 30.06 map, and that was to copy the stock Evo X's maf scaling tables over as I am running the Evo X maf with an AEM cone filter. Without the ability to log, my observations are purely anecdotal/subjective, but I have noticed zero change in power (I expected zero) and only -.2km/L (-0.475MPG) difference over 150km of driving, so still netting a gain of ~+1.9MPG compared to stock. This change was made solely for my peace of mind -- the maf scaling tables are very very close, but the Evo X's stock values are slightly higher for each voltage entry so I figure the changes should enrich the tune so as to be even more safe than before. Again, without logging, this is purely anecdotal, but based on what I think those values do (based on posts in the Tuning section) that should be the net result, and based on a short measure of slightly increased fuel usage for the same trip + nearly identical conditions versus the base 30.06 beta.

Richard, Bryan -- you guys are what keeps this Ralliart community going! The fact that you do all of this pro bono...it's just unbelievable.

 

You should log your fuel trims... See what they are doing. The ECU will always shoot for 14.7:1 AFR at idle or cruise (closed loop... Front o2 sensor) via trim % adjustments.

At WOT, this tune disregards TrIms, so you are then changing the load calcs (MAF load / MAP load)... Not sure if that is a good move. Note the non-TBE base maps are plenty rich already...

Rich

 

Good idea - just need to score a MicroSD (apparently the one I had was bad?) which is why I didn't/couldn't log my current LTFT. I'm pretty confident they wouldn't go to +12 like those with the AEM intake, as the MAF difference isn't as great (lol, assuming) * EDIT - the difference in the MAF scaling is between 2 and 13% different (with the Evo X's being higher across the board).

Once I get that MicroSD I'll log my fuel trims with this re-scaled map and then swap back and log trims with the 30.06. Alternately...I may just swap back to 30.06 as is since there's still quite a bit of headroom from the sound of it. Running overly rich has its own set of problems (catalytic converter life and plug fouling being the least of them I'd bet).

 

Richard,

Hello!

Two stupid questions, since the MR and RA SST are the same hardware wise, has any progress been made to program the S-Sport mode, launch control into the RA?? I know there was a thread about an icelandic tcu update that supposedly did this.

Second, old school hot rodder here, ran many chevys ( holdens ) with the ole turbo 350 transmission and installed hard shift kits into the valve bodies, any chance of REALLY firming up the shifting of the SST to a nice " tire chirping " second gear monster???

I realise I may be the minority wanting really hard shifts on this car but, had to ask Sir!

Thank you for all you do!!

Chris

 

The only time we've got insanely rough shifts has been when the ECU's SST tables are out of kilter, and that was worst at part-throttle.

S-Sport programming would be the way to do it. Some guys are working on trying a MUT-III reflash to "MR style" now, I understand.

Rich

 

hi there, this may seem like a real 'noob' question but i've been searching to try and find the start of the v30 beta's. I was just wondering what specifics they are for (stock pill, ams pill, tbe? etc)
i have a 2009 AUS ralliart and am wondering whether to flash the 2.7 stock pill or if the v30.006 beta is right?
i also have an ams boost pill on the way that i will be installing at a later date.
thanks

 

G'day!

The v30.006 should be totally fine. It's the ROM version I use.

The post with that revision is right here.

Cheers,

Rich

 

Did some logging (Evo X Maf and AEM dryflow, with the 30.006 beta)....

Cruise LTFT range from +6.83594 (level-ground cruise @ 50kph) to 4.10156 (level-ground cruise @ 60kph). It's not maxing it out (I believe the maximum trim adjustment is +/-12.xx) so as long as I'm not doing anything else to lean it out I feel I have some safe headroom (no need to run my modifications with the Evo X maf scaling in other words).

Thanks again Bryan and Richard!

 

That's the full airbox AEM intake, right?

Rich

 

No just the evo x maf and an aem cone (DIY intake)

 

Ah yeah, okay. So is this your own customised v30.006 with Evo X MAF Scalings, or original version? [edit: Reading post properly again provided me with the answer. Duh]

You can now try both, watch those trims... and see first-hand the outcome of different scalings. The scaling that gets consistently closer to zero... wins!

Rich

 

Rich, you have a PM.

 

Hi majinfajita.

I've just been working through the logs of another fellow with a Base Map + Evo X MAF housing, and focusing some brainpower on this area (cue the gif of a hamster running in a wheel).


You should definitely run your "revised" Base Map, with Evo X MAF Scaling tables x 3. The reason is, the Base Map tune does not allow trims to change WOT fuelling calcs. So while your trims may be within "limits", that won't be contributing anything to your WOT fuelling.

You need to get your MAF scalings matching your Evo X MAF housing in order to ensure Idle, Cruise and WOT fuelling are in line with expectations.


I now regret commenting, "Not sure that's a good idea" in Post #3469, as I wasn't being clear enough at all. Doing my best to correct that here.


So... to anyone else changing their intake to run a different sized MAF housing... you need to:

- Ensure your MAF Scaling tables x 3 are correct for your MAF housing size.
- Log your fuel trims to verify Idle/Cruise fuel calcs.
- Get a wideband to verify WOT fuelling.

Rich