SWOLN

iTrader: (6)

Just wanted to say thank you to Mase, who is a pretty fantastic tuner, Nice guy, very professional, and would recommend him to anyone. Anyway, I have only one bolt on, and it's Buschurs ported stock manifold that was coated by HPC. I have no TBE, no MBC or MBC, yet. The only other addition to the car was the tune and the removal of the stock pill. Unfortunately, there was no real base run. The 1st run was after the pill was removed, that yielded 276 hp and 256 tq @ 21.5 psi on the Japtrix Mustang Dyno. Ambient temp was about 80 degrees. After using Ecuflash and Evoscan he was able to extract 295 hp and 272 tq @ 21 psi, (not sure how the boost went down). I'm pretty happy, the car feels better everywhere. I will definitely be using Mase to tune my car again, after I get more, "go faster parts".

ken9gsr

iTrader: (1)

im guessing japtrix is finally doing flashes? last time i went they were only doing tunes with the afc.

jbrown

iTrader: (17)

I think they are doing flashes now, but you have to call and ask to be sure.

This flash was done by Mase on Japtrix' Dyno. He's a vendor on here and an independent tuner who normally works at Stage6 in Jacksonville. He just built that 600whp FQ-340 in the UK.

Mase's profile page:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/members/44545-mase.html

Stage6 homepage:
http://www.Stage6Motorsports.com

tehforbes

iTrader: (5)

wow picked up 19hp with just porting the stocker!!! NICEEEEE sounds like a pretty good mod to dooo...

NoTec

iTrader: (4)

Dont you mean 19 pk hp after the tune.

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

The purple/pink/whatever colors appear to be the boost pressure. Running, on average, a little bit more boost in the mid-range area, but pretty much the same after that pre-tune. The wastegate duty cycle is probably maxed out in both cases. He leaned it out in the mid-range and then top-end. Maybe running a bit more timing. More power is always good

mcwop23

iTrader: (7)

Mase tuned me to, he's not of the school of thought that the AFRs need to be near 11:1. I'm pretty much 11.7-11.8 across the board with my tune.

iTune

iTrader: (3)

too lean, IMHO. I don't tune that lean. Unless the customer wants every last drop of power....for the very small increase in power, you loose reliability and safety. Not a good trade off. I would not go leaner than 11.5:1.

iTune

iTrader: (3)

Nice numbers BTW> Do you have another graph of your AFR's? I can't see your scaling.

CJ

SWOLN

iTrader: (6)

Thanks CJ, The scaling wasn't on the graphs for some reason, I think it was because the boost curve scaling took its place. They were about 11.7, and normally he tunes it at 11.8. I asked for a little room to spare, so when I install the TBE it would be safer. At least until I can get with him. There was a last dyno run where it made 300 hp, and it seemed that there was more of an AFR line than a curve. I didn't post the 300hp because it seemed the 295 hp was most repeatable.

... I'm kicking myself now, as I would liked to have known what the baseline was before I took the pill out, so that I could see the real gains. I know I made more than 19 peak hp and 26 peak torque.

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

I think stock IX's dyno around 255whp on a dynojet?

Mase

NO, that is not too lean. The car is the upmost reliable. Ive tuned literally hundreds of turbo motors, ranging from v10s,v8's, to 6 cylinders, and of course 4 bangers. There are a few key points related to the heat transfer of each IC motor you must look at before chosing a desired lambda.

On this motor, there is absolutely no point of running it richer. Especially if you have all your correction factors dead on where the overall mixture will not deviate from your target lambda.

Since you are confident its too lean, please explain your reasoning why you should run a richer mixture than 11.5:1 on this motor. im curious to hear the logic behind this. but if its like most DSM'ers its probably the same old "dsm logic of tuning" where you richen up the mixture to 'combat' detonation, which of course is just a bandaid fix.

Regards,

Mase

P.S. Jason, good seeing you again, I'll let you know when I come back down, enjoy the car.

SWOLN

iTrader: (6)

Thank you for the support Mase. I'll look for your call. Nice job on the GT Twin Turbo BTW. How much HP now ?

Warrtalon

iTrader: (6)

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.

iTune

iTrader: (3)

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. IF you lean an engine out too much, and are forced to retard ignition timing a lot, your EGT's will be higher than ideal.

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