RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Personally I upgraded even when I had stock cams and making alot less power because I open track the car and I wanted lower IDC's.

Now I really need them with the car holding more boost up top and flowing alot more air. I am at 82% IDC with the 349whp tune on 100 octane which isn't bad since I run 100 all the time now, the larger injectors are more insurance for me and my FPgreen is going in soon anyway.

The 9's seem to need them after "stage 1" here in Cali, "Stage 1" being, TBE with no cat, LICP, drop in filter, boost control and tune. The 9's hit about 95% IDC with those mods on 91 octane at 23psi peak.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

On the last couple 9's I have tuned, according to EvoScan LoadCalc:

1. 220 @ 6500 rpm (MBC)

2. 217 @ 6500 rpm (MBC)

3. 224 @ 6500 rpm (stock boost control)

4. 229 @ 6500 rpm (MBC)

All these are tuned to about 10-12* at 6500 on 91 octane.

honki24

iTrader: (23)

Your scaling really helped me, thanks! I have a tune somewhat similar to yours and I use 93+ blue water injection (water+meth) and the only area I find too extreme on your map is the spool up area of ~2500RPM ~120ish load. My car wont take the 20+ degrees timing advance, I suppose that's where the 100 is nice. I have to scale all the way back to 7-8 degrees to get a similar AFR curve.

I have two maps that both make 350whp (dynojet) but I was able to take a few pointers from yours to make one of them smoother. Perhaps I'll post pix later.

WaxThis2005

looks good, nice #'s

honki24

iTrader: (23)

one other question for you though bryan, why don't you go a little leaner up top? It really helps to keep 4th and 5th gear at a reasonable AFR and since the turbo only holds that 25.5psi (same boost setting as me) momentarily, it helps the HP not to fall off up top.

cij911

iTrader: (14)

Wow 18* up top on 9.....Sweet....I am at 16* now at 7K but also 19psi....I am not sure if I could push it any further or if it would yield any additional hp...

jcsbanks

220@7500 on the 93 in 3rd gear, so about 17 degrees, but the timing is safe to do silly speeds in 5th/6th gear.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

it's basically 11.4 from 4500 to 7000 and 11.3 from 7000 to 7800.

I track the car so I keep the AFR's a little richer than most. Espically up top.

The downward slope of HP after 6200 on that dyno chart is really from the turbo itself at this horsepower level on that dyno.

Compare these two curves:

Test run is with ecu-based boost control, same peak boost, but is holding boost for much longer, and base run which is MBC, with the same peak boost but doesn't hold boost as well. Notice how the Test Run plot starts expanding the middle region of the power band vertically. Now compare it to post #1 in this thread where I was holding even more boost overall, but same peak boost. You will see that the more boost you hold, the sooner the peak HP peaks, and gives the illusion of not holding HP up top, where it's actually making more HP all the way to the limiter, but looks like its dropping drastically compared to the MBC run because it peaked much higher and earlier.

honki24

iTrader: (23)

I track mine too. VIR, CMP, Summit. Please enligten me though (sorry I really couldnt think of any less pretentious way to say it, but I mean it earnestly) why you would keep it richer up top for racing... I mean you're running 100oct... not meth right? Moreover, for me at least, 5th gear is very sluggish @~130mph when it is only around 10.8 AFR, I think it would help alot. Just my thoughts on the matter. In my previous tunes, I've had no problems with my 3rd gear AFR getting up to ~12.4 so that my 5th gear isn't rediculously rich at the track. Your insight would be most welcome.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

No worries, I guess just different strokes for different folks. My car seems to like running a bit richer so I tune for it. Also, how much boost are you holding at 6000 / 6500 / 7000 / 7500?

My 4th gear AFRs are about the same as 3rd. 5th I haven't checked since this last tune. Soon though.

honki24

iTrader: (23)

Fair enough answer! Umm my boost falls off like it's my car's job. I think 18ish by 7500. How in the world do you get your 3rd and 4th AFR near the same? With your resolution (260, 280, 315) both 3rd and 4th have nearly the same loads up top. hmmm.... perphaps the loadcalc on mitsulogger is off just enough. I'll keep trying.

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Brian I am thinking that this is at the normal 20-21 taper near redline? Are these cars also using the normal suspects, TBE (or cat back), filter, etc.?

Also FWIW, my simulation software showed 7* should be the sweetspot with those Cossies. Course I think you already said it didnt so I dunno. It does show the GSC's need 2* like Greg said and it seems to suppory my tuning style for the most part.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Updated this with boost: (logged via MD MAP sensor)

1. 220 @ 6500 rpm (MBC) - 22.5psi @ 3800rpm / 19psi @6500rpm

2. 217 @ 6500 rpm (stock boost control, stock EVO 9) - 21.5psi @3850rpm / 17psi @6500rpm

3. 224 @ 6500 rpm (MBC) - 23psi@ 3400rpm / 19.5 @6500rpm

4. 229 @ 6500 rpm (MBC) - 23psi @3400rpm / 19psi @6500rpm

I had 2 and 3 mixed from the last post. This is corrected above. Also, these have the usual TBE no cat,etc except for #2 which was a totally stock 9 with a tune.

Mr. Evo IX

iTrader: (5)

Bryan, your map's smoothness is positively stunning! .

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Wow old thread bump!

Thanks.

It's much different now.