295 hp, 272 tq, 1 bolt on, Mase tuned.
Apr 24, 2007, 09:19 PM
#16
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, we generally see big gains on IXs with just a tune, especially when the boost is raised a bit. However, I think your logged boost curve shows why removing the restrictor pill is a poor way to raise boost - look how erratic it is.
Also, Mr. Mase surely knows far more about tuning than I do, but isn't the answer to his question about AFRs obvious? You don't tune to 11.8 AFRs like that, because:
1) This is on a dyno. The conditions on the road are not going to be exactly the same despite it being a load-bearing dyno due to weather changes, road grade changes (incline/decline), and gear changes (only tuned/dyno'd in one gear).
2) You don't make significantly more power from 11.4 to 11.8, so why get so close to the danger area on pump gas when there is so little to gain?
3) The OP is going to add an exhaust, which will change not only the air flow but the boost levels with the pill removed from the boost system. With the AFRs already being so close to the danger area, changes like this can cause a problem.
If that stuff is not obvious, then I apologize.
Also, Mr. Mase surely knows far more about tuning than I do, but isn't the answer to his question about AFRs obvious? You don't tune to 11.8 AFRs like that, because:
1) This is on a dyno. The conditions on the road are not going to be exactly the same despite it being a load-bearing dyno due to weather changes, road grade changes (incline/decline), and gear changes (only tuned/dyno'd in one gear).
2) You don't make significantly more power from 11.4 to 11.8, so why get so close to the danger area on pump gas when there is so little to gain?
3) The OP is going to add an exhaust, which will change not only the air flow but the boost levels with the pill removed from the boost system. With the AFRs already being so close to the danger area, changes like this can cause a problem.
If that stuff is not obvious, then I apologize.
Im sorry but I disagree.
first 'danger area' on these motors would be 12.5:1 actual. 12.3:1 would be fairly aggressive. and 11.8:1-12:1 is ideal for a street motor/conservative tune.
The reason his boost is more erratic than normal is because of the porting job. Yes a MBC/EBC would def smooth out the boost curve.
theres a few reasons why you shouldnt run a pig rich AFR. To name a few off the top of my head: 1. Carbon build up from valves/pistons/combustion chamber all the way to making that back bumper nice and black. 2. fouls out spark plugs much quicker. 3. makes u down on power slightly. 4 if you're running 10% richer WOT, guess how much more gas that sucks?!? 5. why hurt the motors efficiency when its not needed? 6. clogs cats 7. excess fuel wears down piston ring seal 8. breaks down oil quicker
I have thousands of hours from time on several types of chassis dynos/engine dynos, street,drag, road course. Im in tune with the changes taking the car out of one environment and placing it into the next.
Another surprising thing ive watched these tuners come and go is the fact they dont 'tune' the car with the same running conditions the car is going to be in, regardless if its the intake temps/coolant temps and/or the correct loading conditions. without it, the tune wont be consistant. so sure, if you run a 11.8:1 on the dyno in a manner when you go out on the street and your other parameter trims are not correct, sure it can certainly lean out to the point it becomes dangerous.
Lastly, the future mods were previously discussed before we finished the tune. And trust me when I say the car is running optimal AFR for perfect reliability.
Regards,
Mase
Last edited by Mase; Apr 25, 2007 at 12:32 AM.
Apr 24, 2007, 09:24 PM
#17
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: every where
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mase. How exactly are you calculating the heat transfer "key points"? Also, what are these key points you speak of? Since you felt you needed to throw your "resume" out there, why not share with us these key points? I'm intrested in understanding this.
My take on AFR's, ignition timing and power/safety in a Internal Combustion engine:
It's a known fact that a lower mixture density burns slower than the reverse. The speed of the flame front resulting from the ignition sequence, is totally and completly dependant on the the density of the mixture and AFR's.
richening up the Air/Fuel mixture results in a slower flame front speed, thus results in a slower burn. This effect allows you to move the peak pressure later in the combustion process, which allows for more ignition advance, which creates more torque, because the peak pressure, is later in crank angle.
The faster the burn rate and the closer the peak cylinder pressure is to TDC, the more likely conditions will be right for detonation.
If you lean an engine out more, you will have to retard ignition timing to create the same conditions and to keep detonation in check.
Of course, we all know that using leaner AFR's and less ignition advance will make a little more power, but is it actually safer? Is the few extra ponies gained actualy worth tuning on the ragged edge? My personal opinion is that richer mixtures do result in less power, but are safer.
I DON'T combat detonation with richer AFR's, i combat detonation with ignition timing. I'm not like some tuners that feel as though it's OK to throw a bunch of ignition timing at a engine and if it knocks, well just add more fuel. I tune for conservative AFR's and what ever the engine wants for ignition timing, i give it.
Also, my orignins in tuning were not founded in the DSM world. I was actually tought by one of the finest, most experienced tuners in the Honda world. He gave me the opertunity to prove myself and grow as a tuner, and for him i am thankful.
Mase, although there is a bit of ambiguity on these boards about who i am, the name in my sig should explain it all to you. I do hope you understand we have our different ways of tuning. I will go with mine. You can stick with yours. It's what makes us completly diffrent. Which is welcomed by me and others, im sure.
Sincerely,
CJ
My take on AFR's, ignition timing and power/safety in a Internal Combustion engine:
It's a known fact that a lower mixture density burns slower than the reverse. The speed of the flame front resulting from the ignition sequence, is totally and completly dependant on the the density of the mixture and AFR's.
richening up the Air/Fuel mixture results in a slower flame front speed, thus results in a slower burn. This effect allows you to move the peak pressure later in the combustion process, which allows for more ignition advance, which creates more torque, because the peak pressure, is later in crank angle.
The faster the burn rate and the closer the peak cylinder pressure is to TDC, the more likely conditions will be right for detonation.
If you lean an engine out more, you will have to retard ignition timing to create the same conditions and to keep detonation in check.
Of course, we all know that using leaner AFR's and less ignition advance will make a little more power, but is it actually safer? Is the few extra ponies gained actualy worth tuning on the ragged edge? My personal opinion is that richer mixtures do result in less power, but are safer.
I DON'T combat detonation with richer AFR's, i combat detonation with ignition timing. I'm not like some tuners that feel as though it's OK to throw a bunch of ignition timing at a engine and if it knocks, well just add more fuel. I tune for conservative AFR's and what ever the engine wants for ignition timing, i give it.
Also, my orignins in tuning were not founded in the DSM world. I was actually tought by one of the finest, most experienced tuners in the Honda world. He gave me the opertunity to prove myself and grow as a tuner, and for him i am thankful.
Mase, although there is a bit of ambiguity on these boards about who i am, the name in my sig should explain it all to you. I do hope you understand we have our different ways of tuning. I will go with mine. You can stick with yours. It's what makes us completly diffrent. Which is welcomed by me and others, im sure.
Sincerely,
CJ
but this was a real good way to end it
^^^^I do hope you understand we have our different ways of tuning.
nice way to end it^^^^
Apr 25, 2007, 12:07 AM
#18
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
richening up the Air/Fuel mixture results in a slower flame front speed, thus results in a slower burn. This effect allows you to move the peak pressure later in the combustion process, which allows for more ignition advance, which creates more torque, because the peak pressure, is later in crank angle.
Of course, we all know that using leaner AFR's and less ignition advance will make a little more power, but is it actually safer? Is the few extra ponies gained actualy worth tuning on the ragged edge? My personal opinion is that richer mixtures do result in less power, but are safer.
The whole point of running an optimal AFR is not to make more power, its to run the engine at its optimal and efficient condition.
Next time youre on your local dyno, try exactly what you said out. You'll find what you originally stated to be untrue.
Mase, although there is a bit of ambiguity on these boards about who i am, the name in my sig should explain it all to you. I do hope you understand we have our different ways of tuning. I will go with mine. You can stick with yours. It's what makes us completly diffrent. Which is welcomed by me and others, im sure.
Sincerely,
CJ
Sincerely,
CJ
Regards,
Mase
Last edited by Mase; Apr 25, 2007 at 12:42 AM.
Apr 25, 2007, 06:41 AM
#19
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol at last comment. i read allllllllllllllll of that, it was so interesting for something i couldnt comprehend. i leared a lil something though. i want Als input on this. hes in the school of 11.5:1 if im not mistaken
Apr 25, 2007, 08:14 AM
#20
Mase, you gave all those reasons for not running a pig rich AFR, but 11.3-11.5 is not pig rich at all. The stock tune going into the 9s is "pig rich," but a moderate/safe 11.3-11.5 is far from pig rich, yet will still make great power without being close to the edge.
No, the boost is not erratic due to the porting job. Why did you say that? It's strictly from removing the pill.
No, the boost is not erratic due to the porting job. Why did you say that? It's strictly from removing the pill.
Apr 25, 2007, 08:56 AM
#22
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Birmingham, Al
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mase, you gave all those reasons for not running a pig rich AFR, but 11.3-11.5 is not pig rich at all. The stock tune going into the 9s is "pig rich," but a moderate/safe 11.3-11.5 is far from pig rich, yet will still make great power without being close to the edge.
No, the boost is not erratic due to the porting job. Why did you say that? It's strictly from removing the pill.
No, the boost is not erratic due to the porting job. Why did you say that? It's strictly from removing the pill.
Obviously the pill is the issue with the boost, but quibbling over .5 AFR point isn't really a big deal. 11.7 is a little "lean" for how most on here tune, but a deg of timing or so less will please the ECU. Its a just a different train of thought especially common in the Honda world. As for AFRs in the low 11s washing out the rings and contributing to something other than normal carbon buildup, nope thats not going to happen either. I think people should stop with the chest beating and posting of BS fluff....its having a negative effect all around in perception of both ability and knowledge.
Apr 25, 2007, 10:06 AM
#23
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mase, you gave all those reasons for not running a pig rich AFR, but 11.3-11.5 is not pig rich at all. The stock tune going into the 9s is "pig rich," but a moderate/safe 11.3-11.5 is far from pig rich, yet will still make great power without being close to the edge.
No, the boost is not erratic due to the porting job. Why did you say that? It's strictly from removing the pill.
No, the boost is not erratic due to the porting job. Why did you say that? It's strictly from removing the pill.
You're more than welcome to run a richer, less powerful and conservative mixture, it doesnt affect what i do at all. but until you KNOW the limits, and find the optimal point between power and reliablity...Theres really no point of going back and forth about it without really understanding whats going on here.
stock tune evo's often dont run 9:1. The OP's car is a prime example. his midrange even on the factory tune is quite fair. Most of them do run quite rich on the upper RPMs however.
removing the pill closest to the solenoid makes the boost spike; thats been known, but the porting job has made it worse even after i smoothed out the boost curve as much as possible w/ the solenoid feedback, hence my erratic choice of words.
Everyone can 'tune' any way they wish, ive done my fair share of learning, completed an engineering degree, and been lucky enough to tuck a vast array of experience under my belt. The reliability record of my tuning is never in question. So when you come into a thread and say "ohh its too lean" without warranting actual proof, then of course im going to say something about it.
Online forums are a great place because they are consumed with a wealth of data. Sometimes the data is not accurate. Everyone can learn a thing or two, and continuing a topic like this can help out many people (but it would be better addressed in its own thread)
Mase
Last edited by Mase; Apr 25, 2007 at 10:19 AM.
Apr 25, 2007, 03:16 PM
#24
Account Disabled
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you want to slow down the burn rate by richening up the mixture. For the past 20 years or better the OEM's have been fighting to achieve a quicker burn. Richening up the mixture only fights what the OEM's have been trying to do in making a more efficient motor.
Thermodynamically speaking the quicker the burn rate the more advantage you can take of the burn by placing it over the 15-20 degree angle of the crank ATDC. Long burn motors need to start the burn early (more advance) to place the peak pressure point of the burn across our desired 15-20 degrees of crank rotation. While the crank is moving up you are igniting spark. More advance means more negative work as the burn pushes down on an upward traveling piston.
With that said I tuned my motor last year by ear and trap speeds. Stock 1g DSM motor on stock cams to the tune of 11.5 at 130mph, by **********ing ear. I got an LC1 and was surprised to see 12.6 AFR at full boost and holding it to redline (8000rpm's). The motor loved it. This year on my new motor I've been running 12.2 AFR on pump gas and have netted 12.0's at 122mph on the stock 14b turbo. When I feel like pushing it I'll take it back to mid 12's and shoot for the moon.
Unless you have to bandaide something you want to make the burn as quick as possible and use ignition timing to maximize your torque at that given engine speed and load.
Thermodynamically speaking the quicker the burn rate the more advantage you can take of the burn by placing it over the 15-20 degree angle of the crank ATDC. Long burn motors need to start the burn early (more advance) to place the peak pressure point of the burn across our desired 15-20 degrees of crank rotation. While the crank is moving up you are igniting spark. More advance means more negative work as the burn pushes down on an upward traveling piston.
With that said I tuned my motor last year by ear and trap speeds. Stock 1g DSM motor on stock cams to the tune of 11.5 at 130mph, by **********ing ear. I got an LC1 and was surprised to see 12.6 AFR at full boost and holding it to redline (8000rpm's). The motor loved it. This year on my new motor I've been running 12.2 AFR on pump gas and have netted 12.0's at 122mph on the stock 14b turbo. When I feel like pushing it I'll take it back to mid 12's and shoot for the moon.
Unless you have to bandaide something you want to make the burn as quick as possible and use ignition timing to maximize your torque at that given engine speed and load.
Apr 25, 2007, 04:21 PM
#25
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you want to slow down the burn rate by richening up the mixture. For the past 20 years or better the OEM's have been fighting to achieve a quicker burn. Richening up the mixture only fights what the OEM's have been trying to do in making a more efficient motor.
Thermodynamically speaking the quicker the burn rate the more advantage you can take of the burn by placing it over the 15-20 degree angle of the crank ATDC. Long burn motors need to start the burn early (more advance) to place the peak pressure point of the burn across our desired 15-20 degrees of crank rotation. While the crank is moving up you are igniting spark. More advance means more negative work as the burn pushes down on an upward traveling piston.
With that said I tuned my motor last year by ear and trap speeds. Stock 1g DSM motor on stock cams to the tune of 11.5 at 130mph, by **********ing ear. I got an LC1 and was surprised to see 12.6 AFR at full boost and holding it to redline (8000rpm's). The motor loved it. This year on my new motor I've been running 12.2 AFR on pump gas and have netted 12.0's at 122mph on the stock 14b turbo. When I feel like pushing it I'll take it back to mid 12's and shoot for the moon.
Unless you have to bandaide something you want to make the burn as quick as possible and use ignition timing to maximize your torque at that given engine speed and load.
Thermodynamically speaking the quicker the burn rate the more advantage you can take of the burn by placing it over the 15-20 degree angle of the crank ATDC. Long burn motors need to start the burn early (more advance) to place the peak pressure point of the burn across our desired 15-20 degrees of crank rotation. While the crank is moving up you are igniting spark. More advance means more negative work as the burn pushes down on an upward traveling piston.
With that said I tuned my motor last year by ear and trap speeds. Stock 1g DSM motor on stock cams to the tune of 11.5 at 130mph, by **********ing ear. I got an LC1 and was surprised to see 12.6 AFR at full boost and holding it to redline (8000rpm's). The motor loved it. This year on my new motor I've been running 12.2 AFR on pump gas and have netted 12.0's at 122mph on the stock 14b turbo. When I feel like pushing it I'll take it back to mid 12's and shoot for the moon.
Unless you have to bandaide something you want to make the burn as quick as possible and use ignition timing to maximize your torque at that given engine speed and load.
Apr 25, 2007, 04:50 PM
#28
Why would you want to slow down the burn rate by richening up the mixture. For the past 20 years or better the OEM's have been fighting to achieve a quicker burn. Richening up the mixture only fights what the OEM's have been trying to do in making a more efficient motor.
Thermodynamically speaking the quicker the burn rate the more advantage you can take of the burn by placing it over the 15-20 degree angle of the crank ATDC. Long burn motors need to start the burn early (more advance) to place the peak pressure point of the burn across our desired 15-20 degrees of crank rotation. While the crank is moving up you are igniting spark. More advance means more negative work as the burn pushes down on an upward traveling piston.
With that said I tuned my motor last year by ear and trap speeds. Stock 1g DSM motor on stock cams to the tune of 11.5 at 130mph, by **********ing ear. I got an LC1 and was surprised to see 12.6 AFR at full boost and holding it to redline (8000rpm's). The motor loved it. This year on my new motor I've been running 12.2 AFR on pump gas and have netted 12.0's at 122mph on the stock 14b turbo. When I feel like pushing it I'll take it back to mid 12's and shoot for the moon.
Unless you have to bandaide something you want to make the burn as quick as possible and use ignition timing to maximize your torque at that given engine speed and load.
Thermodynamically speaking the quicker the burn rate the more advantage you can take of the burn by placing it over the 15-20 degree angle of the crank ATDC. Long burn motors need to start the burn early (more advance) to place the peak pressure point of the burn across our desired 15-20 degrees of crank rotation. While the crank is moving up you are igniting spark. More advance means more negative work as the burn pushes down on an upward traveling piston.
With that said I tuned my motor last year by ear and trap speeds. Stock 1g DSM motor on stock cams to the tune of 11.5 at 130mph, by **********ing ear. I got an LC1 and was surprised to see 12.6 AFR at full boost and holding it to redline (8000rpm's). The motor loved it. This year on my new motor I've been running 12.2 AFR on pump gas and have netted 12.0's at 122mph on the stock 14b turbo. When I feel like pushing it I'll take it back to mid 12's and shoot for the moon.
Unless you have to bandaide something you want to make the burn as quick as possible and use ignition timing to maximize your torque at that given engine speed and load.
Originally Posted by iTune
The faster the burn rate and the closer the peak cylinder pressure is to TDC, the more likely conditions will be right for detonation
Originally Posted by iTune
richening up the Air/Fuel mixture results in a slower flame front speed, thus results in a slower burn. This effect allows you to move the peak pressure later in the combustion process, which allows for more ignition advance, which creates more torque, because the peak pressure, is later in crank angle.
Originally Posted by iTune
If you lean an engine out more, you will have to retard ignition timing to create the same conditions and to keep detonation in check.
Like stated above, if you lean an engine out more, you WILL have to retard ignition timing a bit to control detonation. This speeds up the burn process, but puts ignition advance later. Both will put peak pressure later in crank angle, although a leaner mixture will make a bit more power, because it can actually be tuned to put peak pressure even later in crank angle.
There is no question that a leaner AFR will make more power, which means the engine is obviously more effecient. But at what point do you reach the point of diminishing returns? Where you sacrifice power for reliability? Running a leaner AFR leaves little room for error. Unfortunatly, we don't live in a perfect world and conditions are always changing. ECU's do have correction factors, they must be set-up properly in order to work properly. But, there are other unforseen factors that can happen. Especially when dealing with turbocharged, high powered engines. Where the margin or error is greatly reduced.
CJ
Apr 25, 2007, 05:07 PM
#29
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Who Knows
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both are very valid points. Is one right or is one wrong? I think that is just up to the tuner and that is that. You can go back and fourth untill you are both blue in the face but no matter how you look at it it is an internet forum and no one will ever be right.
I tune one of these ways but I dont think it to be superior, just what I like and works best for me.
I think that a true test of time will be a good test as to whose "style" is actually superior.
( I feel like that last part should be an intro to a Wu-Tang song!)
Mitch Mckee
I tune one of these ways but I dont think it to be superior, just what I like and works best for me.
I think that a true test of time will be a good test as to whose "style" is actually superior.
( I feel like that last part should be an intro to a Wu-Tang song!)
Mitch Mckee
Apr 25, 2007, 05:09 PM
#30
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...87#post4255787
please, take this conversation here, if you will. I don't want this thread to get shutdown because we are off topic.
CJ
please, take this conversation here, if you will. I don't want this thread to get shutdown because we are off topic.
CJ