fastrob691

iTrader: (9)

Relogged coolant using mitsulogger started at 179 and topped out @ 187.7 the other program we used (ecuedit) still shows 204.26 steady cruise. I compared knock counts my worst was 1@4800 no timing pulled.

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Finally got around to reading this thread. Kinda wondering a few things:

1) Why do some of the MIVEC maps pull back cam timing at 3500 rpm like this map:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...in/Current.jpg

2) How certain is it that the max setting is "30"?

TTP Engineering

iTrader: (465)

Peak torque/boost is a knock prone area. Reducing intake advance lowers knock threshold slightly.

popadel

Once the turbo has spooled up there is little need for the VVT. On the stock car the turbo is at fool boost by 3500. Keeping an additional 2-5 degrees will provide better flow up top (same as with an adjustable cam gear)

The stock VVT map is a total disaster!

A

Ted B

iTrader: (6)

How useful, and where in the rpm range the VVT is most useful depends squarely on the static cam timing. The cams really need to be ground in such a manner that suits the VVT setup of a particular application.

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Mitsu Service Manual cam specs say the intake cam is:

IVO BTDC 0-30* / IVC ABDC 80-50*

Mychailo, I found that I could squeeze a little more timing and a little more boost by doing that. It also seemed to flatten the torque band out somewhat from the dyno information that I have been provided:

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Thanks. PM'ing you about a more specific question.

tephra

iTrader: (6)

is this ok to use on a stock IX (AUDM)?

I am currently using the JDM MIVEC and it delivers a lot more torque earlier on..

cheers
dave

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Dave, that map is the one with the somewhat questionable dyno sheet attached. It did make peak torque at 3150 rpm. The car in question had some issues, fueling wasnt quite zero'd, but it seemed to work well. Every car is different so the MIVEC advance at higher rpm might not work for you as well. Feel free to use any part of it you like, and NO it doesnt damage the car.

Pd1

iTrader: (38)

Interesting thread. I wonder how much less advancing/retarding the Cosworth cams can take with their 11mm lift. In other words, it seems to me that since these cams are pressing the valves farther into the combustion chamber that perhaps the VVT has to be a little more conservative in order to avoid valve-to-piston contact. Has anyone done the math on this? Theoretically, we should be able to figure out the max advance/retard setting that one can safely use with the Cosworth cams. It'll just take someone like Ted B to do it.

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Though I know better than to guarantee anything in this world, I think Cosworth probably took that into consideration when they designed the cams.

JustDSM

iTrader: (28)

I would tend to agree

tephra

iTrader: (6)

thanks John, it looks a lot different from my own - but thats only because the map is RPM compressed - if you know what I mean

maybe something to try on the dyno this weekend

savior1974

Sorry to resurrect the dead.... But I just spent a couple hours trying to understand what I am looking at. Now I was thinking about taking one of these maps and trying it out in my car, but the thing is, The only mod my car has is a Works High Flow Air Filter. Do you think it would be ok if I were to input the values of these VVT maps on my stock car, without tuning or modding anything else? If that is ok, then can you point me to a tune that would be ok for that. I'm curious to see if they make any difference compared to my stock car.

I see that in one of the posts, Eflicker said that he dynoed his car on the USDM fuel maps, saw some added power with a shift in the powerband and I was thinking I could possibly get something similar.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...&postcount=168

Also, I happen to live like a mile away from a gas station that sells 100oct at the pump, so I always run 4 gallons of 100 and 8 gallons of 91. if that might make a difference.

Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

Bump.

cij911, John's post might be a little misleading, he didnt actually add any more columns to the table. He just rescaled the existing columns.. There are still 16 elements - just no 750rpm or 1250rpm.

John, I'm real curious about the 8000 row though, did you change the RPM Max value in Scaling Manager to have a max value of 8000?

Also this RPM scale is used in the boost tables. did you change them there as well?