Jorge T

iTrader: (18)

I have always used an independent boost control from ECU until now. It may be that with ECU controlling boost, any increase in power(due to dense air) the increase in load (and boost psi remaining the same) there will be better fuel compensation.

tephra

iTrader: (6)

Yeah I know the loads will be different due to air temp compensation.

I guess its obvious colder air means leaner, colder = more dense, more dense with same fuel = leaner

ok so its best to tune in cooler weather so you get the densest air possible.. Also explains why my AFR changes in the morning/arvo/night

EE

iTrader: (9)

If you are using the stock ecu to control BOOST, lower temps mean higher loads - but if you are using the ecu to control the LOAD, lower temps will only mean lower solenoid duty cycle, thus maintaining the same load.

I don't see why, even if you have higher loads, the mixture will be leaner! if you use the stock ecu, and you put the same target afr in the fuel map for the different loads you hit (due to temperature variation), the ecu should automatically compensate fuel for the extra "load". Unless as tephra said, it's a function of the ecu to lean out the afr's in colder weather.


@Kouzman: it's a bit confusing for me to c that there was no power difference at all between 11.4 and 11.8... I guess that afr's are a "case by case" thing... I tune my car on the road, so I don't have exact figures - all i can say my car felt like 15 bhp more going from 10.5 to 11.6 afr, timing untouched.

kouzman

iTrader: (6)

well you are talking for a full point leaner. 10.5 is very rich thus from 10.5 to even 11 let alone 11.6 you would see a difference.

11.3 is fairly lean so I think from that point until 11.6-11.8 the difference can be negligible. Of course always on pump gas...

Racegas is another ball game...

evoredy

iTrader: (7)

lol happy now? i removed my crap.

Mellon Racing

iTrader: (38)

ouch, there's some bad examples in this thread, I hope people aren't trying some of these.

evoredy

iTrader: (7)

i agree. i removed my testing-phase maps. some people might actually use them on dissimilar cars and blow their motors.

lemmonhead

wow this thread turned out to be like the internet doing research you get some handfull of usefull information and a full load of Dog DOO DOO.

Mellon Racing

iTrader: (38)

evoredy - I wish I had time to give everyone freebie advice and really study their maps...I used to do that but now that I'm a business I just don't have as much free time and of course I can't pay the bills that way either.

evoredy

iTrader: (7)

hey dude, i was actually thinking of buying your services--not asking for a freebie. still am. sorry for any misunderstanding.

EDIT: back on topic:

EVO 8
GT35R
25PSI
91 OCTANE/CONSERVATIVE/NON-SMOOTHED

Mellon Racing

iTrader: (38)

at a glance the obvious flaw to me was that your timing was going up and down up and down...after peak load you should ramp the timing up

evoredy

iTrader: (7)

thanks for your time dude. i pulled the maps off so people won't blow stuff up. i'll send some logs over when i'm ready to have you look at them for adjustments/tuning. i have to wait for a good track day and ***** out a run or three for that 3rd gear pull.

PeteyTurbo

iTrader: (9)

You may want to pull some iming in the stationary rev limit area to make some more boost with that turbo IF the car wants to bog out when you launch it, if you drag race anyway..I have seen a ~10psi difference on a similar sized turbo with your timing vs. 4-5 degrees at ~6000rpm.

evoredy

iTrader: (7)

thanks. i am bogging bigtime and ditched the two-step altogether to get a clean launch the old fashioned way. will try it out.

i'll take a look at the load cells i'm hitting at 6K free rev/two-step and work from there. thats about where i launch at.

PeteyTurbo

iTrader: (9)

Good, this will let you launch again with the stat. rev limit..Log 2 byte and make changes until you log ~5 degrees..It works tons better for launching and is not overly agressive to make it tough on the turbo..