GTVEVO

iTrader: (22)

Thanks BBrooks and bradrs for the additional info, it does sound like a good approach to test and the best part is it could be a really cheap and effective fix. I too feel the same way and that maybe it shouldn't be used to direct drive the coils at all if it can't be done correctly as the stock ECU can. They could of even packaged a fix to this issue with the purchase of the AEM I would have thought but who knows.

With the SUN box I completely understand but Has anyone tested the OKADA plasma coils? I haven't found any hard data on why they are better or what they can do but I was wondering if they could handle more power.

bradrs - I just read the OKADA Plasma Direct coil thread started by TTP and your input is straight and to the point so please disregard my previous question on hard data, I think you have already spilled the beans on their true results. In conclusion you are better off to invest a bit more money and move to a direct COP system. For any others that are interested please read here = https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ht=plasma+coil

mandy1

iTrader: (1)

i never try to run the gt35 on high boost with stock coils so i dont know if it works or dont,but today i set the dwell as gtevo post and managed to run 628hp@35psi with 100% meth and no misfire with the bpr8es at .022. i can see a lot of people misfiring at only 28psi so i beleive it works.will see in the track. thanks for the info.

GTVEVO

iTrader: (22)

Thats great, thanks for the update! I have continued to run the dwell settings as I posted before without any issues and great results, I have not had to change plugs out either. I also plan to see how far I can push these within the next few weeks.

itzwolf

iTrader: (9)

Just want to add my experience to this thread.

I noticed some issues when tuning my car during break in that would appear to be a noisy engine. I was beginning to believe it was simply just a loud engine being completely built, Exedy triple plate clutch, build transmission and transfer case. I even ran race gas to 100% rule out any detonation issue with the gas I was running and the noise didn't change, I was bummed thinking it would add difficulty in really tuning this car as I always take a conservative approach and distinguishing knock or engine noise would prove to be nearly impossible. I never ran more than 17lbs of boost during this time and timing/AFR was conservative. I decided to try the settings noted here and my engine noise completely went away, i couldn’t believe it, so I logged pull after pull after pull. I then upped the boost from 17, to 19, then 21, then 23. I figure I must have been having some misfiring issues causing louder engine noise than normal. I know it sounds like this couldn't be true however this is the ONLY thing changed on the car/tune. For the DWell vs. RPM graphing I didn’t touch the first part of it, but where it starts to drop off I increased the graph all the way to the end, somewhat mirroring what AEM provided but with a higher value and removed the small dip. The car is very smooth now, and ready for more boost.

Also in addition to this, I have tuned a friend’s car to 28lbs of boost on pump gas. Now he didn't have any misfiring issues before since he has a HKS DLi2, but the car was smoother all around after the change, even the idle appeared better. We are hopefully going to up the boost a bit more and start working on a race gas tune.

I have to say thanks to GTVEVO for taking the step to research this, and provide a working solution to an ongoing problem. I haven't pushed the boost any higher than 23lbs on my car as I am trying to sell it, but I may do some additional tuning to get the boost a bit higher, especially if I am forced to keep it.

GTVEVO

iTrader: (22)

itzwolf, thanks for posting the results thats great news! If you starting seeing misfires again try moving up the Max Dwell to at least 1 tooth from the stock .5 tooth setting. This will keep your dwell calc from getting capped in the high rpms as explained.

Everyone, I am still running the high settings I posted with no ill effects and no misfires. Now with the abundant amount of testing I have done I now also believe that the stock EVO coils can hold more charge than the older 1g DSM coil ignitor setup that I was using before.

itzwolf

iTrader: (9)

GTVEVO, The Max and Min are 1.00 and 0.10, I havent tried the 1.25 that you are running yet. Is your Dwell vs. RPM still 105 straight across? I didnt want to go that high flat across as I wasn't to sure how it would effect long term since you were the first person to try it that way. What is the highest boost you have run now without issues? You do not have a HKS DLi2 correct, strictly stock coil packs? What about highest RPM you have gone? My setup is built to take 9500 RPMs easily, and with a 37r I know 9000+ RPM's would be needed during a 1/4 mile run.

GTVEVO

iTrader: (22)

The stock cal settings are .5 on the Max dwell so if you are running 1.0 teeth as max dwell this should be fine I just wanted to be sure you wasn't running the stock .5 which is a very very low setting.

With my setup I am running the stock coils with NO ign amp of any sort and my max dwell set at 1.25 teeth meaning 62.5% duty and a min of .1 teeth and still a dwell factor of 35. My Dwell vs RPM table starts at 75 till 1600 rpms then steadily increases to 105 @ 4800 rpm since I usually get full boost around here on what sounds to be the exact same setup you are running, I stay at 105 from the rest of the map.

I did testing on pump gas with and without alky injection and e85 with and without alky injection. All 4 of these tests seemed to having improvement across the board when compared the original stock cal settings on stock coils and my 1g DSM ignition setup on stock cal settings with the most improvements in the upper rpm range. With these changes I have ran around 33 psi on e85 with alky injection to around 8300 rpms with no misfire at all. I only had to stop because I was out of injector duty cycle completely (1150cc and dual modified pumps) but I do plan on running a test on race fuel aka q116 very soon. I have yet to find the limit on these new settings on the stock coils but I honestly now feel that the stock coils are much better than several of us had thought.

itzwolf

iTrader: (9)

Good to hear! I'm guessing the increase is "calculated" from 75 @ 1600 to 105 @ 4800? Looks like there is quite a bit of improvement that I can add to what I already have then. If your settings are working that well, and our setups are basically identical, I see no reason for me not to bump mine up a little more to what you have.

I am just wondering why AEM provided settings decreased with rpm then flat-lined basically... I know the cal was "rough" and didnt even run most peoples cars, but that just seems like its completely inadequate and guessed without proper testing.

GTVEVO

iTrader: (22)

I believe it is a liner increase to 4800 but I only moved down the lower rpm zones that wouldn't see as much boost to help with heat just in case since the dwell tables are not 3d and map dependent and the dwell seemed more than adequate for the lower rpm range.

I really have no idea why AEM didn't provide a more adequate setting, the only thing that comes to mind is safety. What is even more questionable is that the EVO 9 base call is completely different than the EVO 8 and they both use the exact same trigger and ignition system.

Again thanks for your input its much appreciated to all of us.

Spaceball 1

iTrader: (8)

I just wanted to update also, I recently took my car to the dyno with the settings we have been testing and made 532whp on 29 psi with no miss. The shop owner couldn't believe that i was on the stock ign with the EMS. He has had evos on the dyno with the AEM and ran into ign problems even before 28 psi sometimes with 35R's. I am now running 32psi with no miss at all on old plugs that should have been changed out before i started to mess with these dwell settings... I have 12 spark plugs sitting in the garage that are no longer needed cause i used to go through plugs before 3K miles. No more...

Aby@MIL.SPEC

iTrader: (161)

Can you please post your settings Spaceball1? If you dont want to, could you please pm them to me?

Thanks

mandy1

iTrader: (1)

after running 628hp the car have been in the street all the week and make some passes yesterday to feel the 628 on the street to see if the ignition hold,damn works great ,still with same plugs. 35psi 100%meth up to 9000rpm.here are my settings
dwell factor 35
dwell max1.00
dwell min .10
dwell vs rpm 105 up to 2400 at 3200=104,over 4000rpm =100, 8800=90,9600=80 10400=70,11200=60
still stock spark plug wires.

itzwolf

iTrader: (9)

Ok after reading mandy1's post I'm curious.

GTVEVO, your Dwell vs. RPM starts low and increases (eventually staying flat) with RPM.

mandy1, your Dwell vs. RPM starts high and decreases with RPM.

So, which one is the most "optimal" method in this case? Obviously both are working. I tried your settings GTVEVO with great success this morning, and I had something simular to mandy1 yesterday and through this past weekend with great success as well.

As the results are showing great so far, I think we should continue and look for what would be the most "correct" graphing for this.

GTVEVO

iTrader: (22)

When I started researching this issue I started looking at a reasonable duty cycle for coils and what I had found is 50-66% charge time is a reasonable duty cycle in most cases from what I had found and learned. No I couldn't find any rock hard data on the Stock ECU duty cycles on the EVO but I don't see why they wouldn't operate any differently and I am willing to take that risk and learn to see what they are capable of. The performance in the past to me just didn't add up as in the past years the 4g63T has always had a rather good ignition system supporting it.

The reason I have left my charge time flat at 105 is because in most cases as you increase load and rpm you want more dwell and spark power to ignite more fuel and pressure correctly being the reason I don't move my dwell down. Next as you increase rpms you will notice your battery voltage drops and this also causes the need more dwell to generate the same power the reason being I don't move up any more in the high rpms. I honestly try to keep things flat for now but in the upper rpm range with a Max Dwell set at 1.25 tooth or 62.5% duty cycle I am still getting capped on my dwell at around 8000rpms and 4.68750 uSec of dwell time. This is still well over twice the dwell time the stock cal settings have on the AEM. Note though if you have your MaxDwell set at 1 tooth or 50% you will hit your cap earlier depending on how you have your Dwell vs RPM table setup. For Example if I left my Dwell vs RPM table the same and changed my MaxDwell to 1 I would be capped at around 6400rpms +/- at 12volts.

Now as for others moving the dwell down it is just being safer in my option and not a wrong option if they are still getting a clean burn. I am just testing more of the limits and trying to get the best possible result. At this point everything seems to be a vast improvement.

Spaceball 1

iTrader: (8)

My settings are a little bit more aggressive than GTVEVO and others now have posted. I am running the stock dwell vs Batt, dwell factor of 35 max 1.25 min .1 What i did was figure out what 60% duty was at 8K rpms since that is my max revs which is 110. i used that 110 from 0 rpms to the 8K rpms, then at 8800 100 and so on so that i do not over run the coils at high rpms. You could run alot more dwell in lower RPMs but i didn't want to for the sake of the coils. I would have to calculate 60% duty cycle in lower rpms if someone sees fit, but i see no reason.