Joining the 500 RWHP club
05-26-13 | 09:36 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Back in the BOOST Game
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 698
Likes: 1
From: Chicago IL
Joining the 500 RWHP club
I replaced my exhaust and had Ball Joint (Joe Waters) come out from Cleveland to help me retune the FD. We essentially added 4 lbs of boost with an Apexi GT Exhaust and grew power numbers by 80HP at the wheels with more room to go. Ignition breakup was just starting to occur on the dyno, but we grabbed two BACK TO BACK 505 RWHP dyno pulls.
Joe is top notch and knows what he is doing (as evident by the numbers he is pulling on the BNRs).
The Numbers are Excellent. See for yourself.
505 rwhp with 375 rwtq all @ just under 22PSI.
This is an Aspec 500r that spools insanely quick as you can see. I will scan in the dyno sheet later this week for a clearer view.
Joe is top notch and knows what he is doing (as evident by the numbers he is pulling on the BNRs).
The Numbers are Excellent. See for yourself.
505 rwhp with 375 rwtq all @ just under 22PSI.
This is an Aspec 500r that spools insanely quick as you can see. I will scan in the dyno sheet later this week for a clearer view.
05-26-13 | 08:41 PM
#4
Thank you very much for the compliments, it was a pleasure working with you and and I'm glad I was able to get you the numbers your last tuner couldn't.
Just to clarify, I had to rebuild and scale Don's base map from scratch as the last tuner did not rescale his map for anything over 17psi. Consequently I had Don running 100 octane unleaded as a safety measure to protect his investment while I rebuilt his map. The 100 octane in combination with the 600cc's of water being injected caused breakup at high RPM.
We later put in 12 gallons of 93 octane and this cured the ignition breakup issue; as the lower octane was easier to ignite.
Once again, congratulations Don, I hope you enjoy the car and I'm happy I could get you want you wanted.
Just to clarify, I had to rebuild and scale Don's base map from scratch as the last tuner did not rescale his map for anything over 17psi. Consequently I had Don running 100 octane unleaded as a safety measure to protect his investment while I rebuilt his map. The 100 octane in combination with the 600cc's of water being injected caused breakup at high RPM.
We later put in 12 gallons of 93 octane and this cured the ignition breakup issue; as the lower octane was easier to ignite.
Once again, congratulations Don, I hope you enjoy the car and I'm happy I could get you want you wanted.
05-27-13 | 01:16 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Back in the BOOST Game
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 698
Likes: 1
From: Chicago IL
Joe, this car is Unreal. Not only is it stupid fast, sound amazing with a solid and safe tune, but my girl just rode with me and she was blown away at how smooth and drivable the half bridge is.
Oh and I turned on the ac.... nice having all the creature comforts of the PEP package rx7 with ice cold ac and 500rwhp. Power steering, cruise, abs and ac all still intact.
Oh and I turned on the ac.... nice having all the creature comforts of the PEP package rx7 with ice cold ac and 500rwhp. Power steering, cruise, abs and ac all still intact.
05-27-13 | 03:22 PM
#6
05-27-13 | 07:24 PM
#7
Steve Kan never re-scaled the map before attempting the tune, all he did was load in a base map that had a Map Reference PIM 20 value of 25,000. This value is good for around 17psi, which is conveniently where he stopped tuning the car. The 500R turbo doesn't start making power till 19psi, and if you're building a map for someone looking for 500whp the first thing you're going to do is rescale the map to recognize boost pressures above 20. If it chokes from the lack of exhaust flow you'll stop tuning where it chokes, but to not have even re-scaled the map prior to tuning doesn't make any sense.
He also had the car tuned with 14 degrees of split with conservative advance timing ranging from 9-13 through the rev range at that pressure, with 12 degrees being at peak power. On the base tune from Steve I read 10-10.5 afr's across the board. This conservative timing combined with the rich AFR's lead to dangerously high EGT's that over time would have damaged the motor. The tune worked, but I can't imagine for how long.
Then there's also the drivability tuning that I was told Steve blamed on the car having a half-bridge port. During drivability tuning I found many inconsistent spots that were either too lean or too rich causing hiccups similar to when a car has a failing TPS. He also didn't adjust Inj vs Accel TPS to solve his problems during throttle tip-in which added to the hiccups.
Overall I found Steve's tune to be one that was conservative to the point where the motor would probably fail due to high EGT's and lacked any refinement in drivability tuning.
Take my comments with whatever feelings you want and I know saying anything bad about Steve is like insulting god on this forum. All I'm stating is the facts that I found when analyzing Steve's map when confronted with the goal of reaching 500whp+ on Don's car.
Trending Topics
05-27-13 | 10:01 PM
#8
Rotary Freak
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: fort worth, tx, usa
Here are a few things to clarify.
1.) 25000 = 1.5 kg/cm2 = 22.5psi. I was never intended to run more than 22psi on his car since it was pump gas with water injection so there were no reason to loose map resolution over something never exceeded. Map sensor will read over it and will run the last row as reference If over 22.5psi
2.) Timing has very little on egt unless you run stupid retarded like 0-5 degrees leading. I have done enough testing to show that egt doesnt change over timing unless you run 23-25 degrees in advanced. Leaner a/f is what creates high egt.
3.) You can run anything rich enough on cruising to damper any hesitation for half bridge or full bridge. 12.5-13.2 will definately get rid of it but you are also lossing 14 % in fuel economy. Try to set it to 13.5 or higher and see if the hesitation go away.
glad you were able to get more hp for him. It doesnt make sense for me to tune for higher boost since it wasnt gaining in hp with the setup he had Which is why I told him his exhaust was the restriction.
Not sure where you see 10.5 a/f unless the new exhaust flow differently than the old.
1.) 25000 = 1.5 kg/cm2 = 22.5psi. I was never intended to run more than 22psi on his car since it was pump gas with water injection so there were no reason to loose map resolution over something never exceeded. Map sensor will read over it and will run the last row as reference If over 22.5psi
2.) Timing has very little on egt unless you run stupid retarded like 0-5 degrees leading. I have done enough testing to show that egt doesnt change over timing unless you run 23-25 degrees in advanced. Leaner a/f is what creates high egt.
3.) You can run anything rich enough on cruising to damper any hesitation for half bridge or full bridge. 12.5-13.2 will definately get rid of it but you are also lossing 14 % in fuel economy. Try to set it to 13.5 or higher and see if the hesitation go away.
glad you were able to get more hp for him. It doesnt make sense for me to tune for higher boost since it wasnt gaining in hp with the setup he had Which is why I told him his exhaust was the restriction.
Not sure where you see 10.5 a/f unless the new exhaust flow differently than the old.
I'll admit, there was no way Don could have gotten 500whp without a new exhaust, but there still was much more left on the table. Gotta give you props on fabbing that exhaust, looked and sounded awesome! Amazing welds as well.
Steve Kan never re-scaled the map before attempting the tune, all he did was load in a base map that had a Map Reference PIM 20 value of 25,000. This value is good for around 17psi, which is conveniently where he stopped tuning the car. The 500R turbo doesn't start making power till 19psi, and if you're building a map for someone looking for 500whp the first thing you're going to do is rescale the map to recognize boost pressures above 20. If it chokes from the lack of exhaust flow you'll stop tuning where it chokes, but to not have even re-scaled the map prior to tuning doesn't make any sense.
He also had the car tuned with 14 degrees of split with conservative advance timing ranging from 9-13 through the rev range at that pressure, with 12 degrees being at peak power. On the base tune from Steve I read 10-10.5 afr's across the board. This conservative timing combined with the rich AFR's lead to dangerously high EGT's that over time would have damaged the motor. The tune worked, but I can't imagine for how long.
Then there's also the drivability tuning that I was told Steve blamed on the car having a half-bridge port. During drivability tuning I found many inconsistent spots that were either too lean or too rich causing hiccups similar to when a car has a failing TPS. He also didn't adjust Inj vs Accel TPS to solve his problems during throttle tip-in which added to the hiccups.
Overall I found Steve's tune to be one that was conservative to the point where the motor would probably fail due to high EGT's and lacked any refinement in drivability tuning.
Take my comments with whatever feelings you want and I know saying anything bad about Steve is like insulting god on this forum. All I'm stating is the facts that I found when analyzing Steve's map when confronted with the goal of reaching 500whp+ on Don's car.
Steve Kan never re-scaled the map before attempting the tune, all he did was load in a base map that had a Map Reference PIM 20 value of 25,000. This value is good for around 17psi, which is conveniently where he stopped tuning the car. The 500R turbo doesn't start making power till 19psi, and if you're building a map for someone looking for 500whp the first thing you're going to do is rescale the map to recognize boost pressures above 20. If it chokes from the lack of exhaust flow you'll stop tuning where it chokes, but to not have even re-scaled the map prior to tuning doesn't make any sense.
He also had the car tuned with 14 degrees of split with conservative advance timing ranging from 9-13 through the rev range at that pressure, with 12 degrees being at peak power. On the base tune from Steve I read 10-10.5 afr's across the board. This conservative timing combined with the rich AFR's lead to dangerously high EGT's that over time would have damaged the motor. The tune worked, but I can't imagine for how long.
Then there's also the drivability tuning that I was told Steve blamed on the car having a half-bridge port. During drivability tuning I found many inconsistent spots that were either too lean or too rich causing hiccups similar to when a car has a failing TPS. He also didn't adjust Inj vs Accel TPS to solve his problems during throttle tip-in which added to the hiccups.
Overall I found Steve's tune to be one that was conservative to the point where the motor would probably fail due to high EGT's and lacked any refinement in drivability tuning.
Take my comments with whatever feelings you want and I know saying anything bad about Steve is like insulting god on this forum. All I'm stating is the facts that I found when analyzing Steve's map when confronted with the goal of reaching 500whp+ on Don's car.
05-27-13 | 11:00 PM
#11
1. I agree and you are correct to a point. With your calibration for the 3-bar, max map resolution during the tune required 27,000 map resolution (not 25,000) to accurately read 21.95psi. Every scale for the 3-bar is different and I know different tuners have their preferences. But at your scale of 6,600 KG/M2/v with offset of 357 KG/M2 I had to adjust for map resolutions not just at 27,000, but at 29,000 as well in order to accurately tune the fuel/ignition tables.
2. Timing has a lot to do with EGT. If you're running 14 degrees of split with a low advance combined with a high AFR you are dumping a high amount of unburned mixture into the exhaust which results in high EGT. I hod Don testify to high EGT numbers prior to my involvement. EGT can be raised by a number of factors but this condition always leads to high EGT. It's basic tuning, if you burn a rich and somewhat unburnt mixture; you're going to have higher EGT.
3. Fuel economy aside, which usually isn't a factor in a half bridge build (customer usually doesn't care), it's no excuse to have a map that transitions from 10.7:1 afr - 17:6 afr between two cells during the cruising map. I don't see how you could have left him with that under the excuse that it was simply a "half bridge problem". I ended up setting him to as lean a afr that wouldn't cause hesitation/bucking and give reasonable fuel economy. I also don't understand why you couldn't have made the simple change of adjusting INJ vs Accel TPS to fix tip in.
4. The 10.5-10:1 AFR reading was attested to by the customer before I agreed to tune the car.
5. You've tuned plenty of cars and as I'm sure you know different turbos have their sweet spots, in this case 19psi for a 500R. Sometimes you have to push through that barrier to start making power. Pardon me, but it seems like you did a lazy job on this mans car and he had to have me fly out to correct what you couldn't do. I think you owe this man an apology for the time and money spent on his tune and his time.
2. Timing has a lot to do with EGT. If you're running 14 degrees of split with a low advance combined with a high AFR you are dumping a high amount of unburned mixture into the exhaust which results in high EGT. I hod Don testify to high EGT numbers prior to my involvement. EGT can be raised by a number of factors but this condition always leads to high EGT. It's basic tuning, if you burn a rich and somewhat unburnt mixture; you're going to have higher EGT.
3. Fuel economy aside, which usually isn't a factor in a half bridge build (customer usually doesn't care), it's no excuse to have a map that transitions from 10.7:1 afr - 17:6 afr between two cells during the cruising map. I don't see how you could have left him with that under the excuse that it was simply a "half bridge problem". I ended up setting him to as lean a afr that wouldn't cause hesitation/bucking and give reasonable fuel economy. I also don't understand why you couldn't have made the simple change of adjusting INJ vs Accel TPS to fix tip in.
4. The 10.5-10:1 AFR reading was attested to by the customer before I agreed to tune the car.
5. You've tuned plenty of cars and as I'm sure you know different turbos have their sweet spots, in this case 19psi for a 500R. Sometimes you have to push through that barrier to start making power. Pardon me, but it seems like you did a lazy job on this mans car and he had to have me fly out to correct what you couldn't do. I think you owe this man an apology for the time and money spent on his tune and his time.
Here are a few things to clarify.
1.) 25000 = 1.5 kg/cm2 = 22.5psi. I was never intended to run more than 22psi on his car since it was pump gas with water injection so there were no reason to loose map resolution over something never exceeded. Map sensor will read over it and will run the last row as reference If over 22.5psi
2.) Timing has very little on egt unless you run stupid retarded like 0-5 degrees leading. I have done enough testing to show that egt doesnt change over timing unless you run 23-25 degrees in advanced. Leaner a/f is what creates high egt.
3.) You can run anything rich enough on cruising to damper any hesitation for half bridge or full bridge. 12.5-13.2 will definately get rid of it but you are also lossing 14 % in fuel economy. Try to set it to 13.5 or higher and see if the hesitation go away.
glad you were able to get more hp for him. It doesnt make sense for me to tune for higher boost since it wasnt gaining in hp with the setup he had Which is why I told him his exhaust was the restriction.
Not sure where you see 10.5 a/f unless the new exhaust flow differently than the old.
1.) 25000 = 1.5 kg/cm2 = 22.5psi. I was never intended to run more than 22psi on his car since it was pump gas with water injection so there were no reason to loose map resolution over something never exceeded. Map sensor will read over it and will run the last row as reference If over 22.5psi
2.) Timing has very little on egt unless you run stupid retarded like 0-5 degrees leading. I have done enough testing to show that egt doesnt change over timing unless you run 23-25 degrees in advanced. Leaner a/f is what creates high egt.
3.) You can run anything rich enough on cruising to damper any hesitation for half bridge or full bridge. 12.5-13.2 will definately get rid of it but you are also lossing 14 % in fuel economy. Try to set it to 13.5 or higher and see if the hesitation go away.
glad you were able to get more hp for him. It doesnt make sense for me to tune for higher boost since it wasnt gaining in hp with the setup he had Which is why I told him his exhaust was the restriction.
Not sure where you see 10.5 a/f unless the new exhaust flow differently than the old.
05-28-13 | 12:42 AM
#12
Rotary Freak
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: fort worth, tx, usa
1. I agree and you are correct to a point. With your calibration for the 3-bar, max map resolution during the tune required 27,000 map resolution (not 25,000) to accurately read 21.95psi. Every scale for the 3-bar is different and I know different tuners have their preferences. But at your scale of 6,600 KG/M2/v with offset of 357 KG/M2 I had to adjust for map resolutions not just at 27,000, but at 29,000 as well in order to accurately tune the fuel/ignition tables.
This is a GM A49 3bar map sensor correct? how did you verified the actual boost? boost gauge? a different calibrated map sensor? were they measured at the same location pick up point? 27000 = 24.5psi. If my calibration was off, why are you using my calibration to adjust to 27000?
2. Timing has a lot to do with EGT. If you're running 14 degrees of split with a low advance combined with a high AFR you are dumping a high amount of unburned mixture into the exhaust which results in high EGT. I hod Don testify to high EGT numbers prior to my involvement. EGT can be raised by a number of factors but this condition always leads to high EGT. It's basic tuning, if you burn a rich and somewhat unburnt mixture; you're going to have higher EGT.
again, I don't think you understand EGT vs. timing in a rotary. If this was a 4 cylinder, I6, V6 or V8, I would agreed. Even a 4G63 runs 0-4 degrees of timing at peak torque at 24-26psi. Trailing timing is set to help complete the burn. running too little split timing will cause the rotor to spin backwards (detonation). What was the EGT before and after your tune? it's not timing that makes the hp, it's the air flow.
3. Fuel economy aside, which usually isn't a factor in a half bridge build (customer usually doesn't care), it's no excuse to have a map that transitions from 10.7:1 afr - 17:6 afr between two cells during the cruising map. I don't see how you could have left him with that under the excuse that it was simply a "half bridge problem". I ended up setting him to as lean a afr that wouldn't cause hesitation/bucking and give reasonable fuel economy. I also don't understand why you couldn't have made the simple change of adjusting INJ vs Accel TPS to fix tip in.
This is not a naturally aspirated engine and we are not tuning Alpha N. You do not mess with inj vs. accel tps to help with tip in. (let me know the a/f is correct by constantly reving and letting off the gas pedal as fast as you can. does it goto 10's? if so, the Inj vs. Accel TPS is too rich. if injector latency and fuel pressure is set correctly, tip in shouldn't be a factor
4. The 10.5-10:1 AFR reading was attested to by the customer before I agreed to tune the car.
not sure why it went into low 10's, it was tuned to 11-11.2 a/f on the dyno. The car was tuned with the old exhaust in place. was this a/f measured with the old exhaust?
5. You've tuned plenty of cars and as I'm sure you know different turbos have their sweet spots, in this case 19psi for a 500R. Sometimes you have to push through that barrier to start making power. Pardon me, but it seems like you did a lazy job on this mans car and he had to have me fly out to correct what you couldn't do. I think you owe this man an apology for the time and money spent on his tune and his time.
This is a GM A49 3bar map sensor correct? how did you verified the actual boost? boost gauge? a different calibrated map sensor? were they measured at the same location pick up point? 27000 = 24.5psi. If my calibration was off, why are you using my calibration to adjust to 27000?
2. Timing has a lot to do with EGT. If you're running 14 degrees of split with a low advance combined with a high AFR you are dumping a high amount of unburned mixture into the exhaust which results in high EGT. I hod Don testify to high EGT numbers prior to my involvement. EGT can be raised by a number of factors but this condition always leads to high EGT. It's basic tuning, if you burn a rich and somewhat unburnt mixture; you're going to have higher EGT.
again, I don't think you understand EGT vs. timing in a rotary. If this was a 4 cylinder, I6, V6 or V8, I would agreed. Even a 4G63 runs 0-4 degrees of timing at peak torque at 24-26psi. Trailing timing is set to help complete the burn. running too little split timing will cause the rotor to spin backwards (detonation). What was the EGT before and after your tune? it's not timing that makes the hp, it's the air flow.
3. Fuel economy aside, which usually isn't a factor in a half bridge build (customer usually doesn't care), it's no excuse to have a map that transitions from 10.7:1 afr - 17:6 afr between two cells during the cruising map. I don't see how you could have left him with that under the excuse that it was simply a "half bridge problem". I ended up setting him to as lean a afr that wouldn't cause hesitation/bucking and give reasonable fuel economy. I also don't understand why you couldn't have made the simple change of adjusting INJ vs Accel TPS to fix tip in.
This is not a naturally aspirated engine and we are not tuning Alpha N. You do not mess with inj vs. accel tps to help with tip in. (let me know the a/f is correct by constantly reving and letting off the gas pedal as fast as you can. does it goto 10's? if so, the Inj vs. Accel TPS is too rich. if injector latency and fuel pressure is set correctly, tip in shouldn't be a factor
4. The 10.5-10:1 AFR reading was attested to by the customer before I agreed to tune the car.
not sure why it went into low 10's, it was tuned to 11-11.2 a/f on the dyno. The car was tuned with the old exhaust in place. was this a/f measured with the old exhaust?
5. You've tuned plenty of cars and as I'm sure you know different turbos have their sweet spots, in this case 19psi for a 500R. Sometimes you have to push through that barrier to start making power. Pardon me, but it seems like you did a lazy job on this mans car and he had to have me fly out to correct what you couldn't do. I think you owe this man an apology for the time and money spent on his tune and his time.
500R = T61 = GT35R = 61mm compressor wheel. Eventhough the compressor and turbine wheel were designed different, they flow approximately the same (They maxed out at around 500-520rwhp. How is their sweet spot be at 19psi when they maxed out at around 20-22psi in a rotary? Judging from the dyno chart, you are probably running around 14-20 degrees of timing with 10 degrees of split to maintain the torque at high rpm. if that works for you good, I personally wouldn't do it to any of my customers unless they understands the risks involved.
05-28-13 | 12:40 PM
#14
This is a GM A49 3bar map sensor correct? how did you verified the actual boost? boost gauge? a different calibrated map sensor? were they measured at the same location pick up point? 27000 = 24.5psi. If my calibration was off, why are you using my calibration to adjust to 27000?
again, I don't think you understand EGT vs. timing in a rotary. If this was a 4 cylinder, I6, V6 or V8, I would agreed. Even a 4G63 runs 0-4 degrees of timing at peak torque at 24-26psi. Trailing timing is set to help complete the burn. running too little split timing will cause the rotor to spin backwards (detonation). What was the EGT before and after your tune? it's not timing that makes the hp, it's the air flow.
This is not a naturally aspirated engine and we are not tuning Alpha N. You do not mess with inj vs. accel tps to help with tip in. (let me know the a/f is correct by constantly reving and letting off the gas pedal as fast as you can. does it goto 10's? if so, the Inj vs. Accel TPS is too rich. if injector latency and fuel pressure is set correctly, tip in shouldn't be a factor
500R = T61 = GT35R = 61mm compressor wheel. Eventhough the compressor and turbine wheel were designed different, they flow approximately the same (They maxed out at around 500-520rwhp. How is their sweet spot be at 19psi when they maxed out at around 20-22psi in a rotary? Judging from the dyno chart, you are probably running around 14-20 degrees of timing with 10 degrees of split to maintain the torque at high rpm. if that works for you good, I personally wouldn't do it to any of my customers unless they understands the risks involved.
I'm running 14 degrees of advance timing and 12 split. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between conservative timing and overly conservative timing. I know how to make safe power on rotary's and the results speak for themselves. There's also 600cc's of only water being injected into the motor to increase the safety net.
This is your problem, you keep making excuses for yourself to justify delivering a tune that even when the customer brought up issue's after tuning you simply brushed it off as being a "half-bridge problem". This isn't a argument of feelings or emotions, but one of facts; and the fact is that you failed to deliver for the customer even when he had the trust to come back to you after you blew his prior motor confusing for one running e85.
No wonder he reached out to me for help with his car, he put his trust in you twice and you failed him.
05-28-13 | 02:03 PM
#15
Fresh o2 sensor change, not that it matters a WHOLE bunch.. but its going to read better than the 3 year old one that was on the car. Don is also running 70% water/30% meth.
As far as to blowing up his motor prior? It didnt blow on the dyno. It blew on one of the hottest days we have had in years here (close to 110?) when he had the a/c running and beating on it. Also was nowhere NEAR this setup.
As far as to blowing up his motor prior? It didnt blow on the dyno. It blew on one of the hottest days we have had in years here (close to 110?) when he had the a/c running and beating on it. Also was nowhere NEAR this setup.
05-28-13 | 02:14 PM
#16
Fresh o2 sensor change, not that it matters a WHOLE bunch.. but its going to read better than the 3 year old one that was on the car. Don is also running 70% water/30% meth.
As far as to blowing up his motor prior? It didnt blow on the dyno. It blew on one of the hottest days we have had in years here (close to 110?) when he had the a/c running and beating on it. Also was nowhere NEAR this setup.
As far as to blowing up his motor prior? It didnt blow on the dyno. It blew on one of the hottest days we have had in years here (close to 110?) when he had the a/c running and beating on it. Also was nowhere NEAR this setup.
05-28-13 | 02:19 PM
#18
Rotary Freak
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: fort worth, tx, usa
Yes, that is the sensor installed. Boost was verified via the Dynojet computer, which was supplied boost from a T connection coming off the FPR. If you look at the dyno sheet you can see the boost reading. I'm using your calibration point because that was what the car was originally setup on and it's far quicker to re-scale the map given that calibration without having to re-scale the map and then re-scale it based off your wrong calibration. Don't put the blame on me because your calibration was off, it worked, but required me to re-scale the map for higher boost.
I saw what it says on the boost reading on the dyno chart. Your "verified" boost reading between the dyno and Power fc map sensor were in separate location. when was the last time you measured the boost pressure at different location of the intake manifold? Are you telling me that every location will measure the same?
So it's okay for you to reuse the "wrong" calibration on the map sensor to tune his car when you "know" that it was wrong. didn't you say you remap everything which also include rescaling the map reference. Does it make you less "lazy" to simply not change a simple offset/calibration of the map sensor and tune it with the correct map calibraion that you claimed was wrong? So now its okay becuase it "worked"? Isn't what tuning is all about? to properly correct what was wrong with the tune? Oh wait, you were still using my map so why change it. So what exactly was really changed on the map? I have don's old file in hand, you have his new file. Let's compare and post in here. I sure like to see where your "claimed" 10.5-17 a/f crusing map is located on my map. that's about 32% in fuel difference between cells
I understand how EGT works, a leaner condition will raise EGT, but a overly rich condition combined with low timing will also cause high EGT as the excess fuel is burned during exhaust phase and not during combustion. I agree, it's not timing that makes the peak power, but there's a difference between safe timing and too conservative of timing. EGT before was 1,700 and climbing, EGT after was close to 1600. The before EGT was measured before Don changed the exhaust.
I don't think you understand how EGT works. There are alot of factors that introduced higher EGT. EMAP, EGT mounting location, timing, fuel, gas use, length of burn. Stop contradicting yourself on timing. timing is set to offset airflow (or lack there of). How much of the EGT dropped due to a better flow exhaust system? Do you know how many degrees of power stroke a rotary engine has vs. a piston? since you claimed my timing was too conservative. 1700F pre turbo is totally acceptable. I have ran as hot as 1850F in my old 730whp drag car in the past. Since you want to talk about EGT, what's your EGT on your "470whp BNR turbo turbo car"
If you don't think adjusting inj vs. accel tps to help solve tip-in issues is a bad idea then ask Chuck. Many tuners including myself have used this method to successfully solve issues with tip-in. Also, I've never seen the " letting off the gas pedal as fast as you can. does it goto 10's?" happen on any car I've made the adjustment on.
Did I say it is a bad thing to adjust it? What do you think Tip is? What do you think "adjusting inj vs. accel tps" really mean? Don't give me numbers. Tell me what it means.
Before I tuned the car and before it got a new exhaust I had Don perform a WOT test on the car to measure the current AFR. This was the range he told me and nothing had been changed on the car since you tuned it.
His wideband was wired to the datalogit. Didn't he send you the log to show the a/f ratio? Was it video taped during the run? Oh wait, a little birdie told me you didn't know how to setup the wideband calibration log using datalogit.
As Good Fella said "Just stopping in to point out that the 500R is simply a 35R turbo with a larger 67mm inducer/84mm exducer compressor wheel". So it kind of isn't.
I'm running 14 degrees of advance timing and 12 split. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between conservative timing and overly conservative timing. I know how to make safe power on rotary's and the results speak for themselves. There's also 600cc's of only water being injected into the motor to increase the safety net.
So you run 14 degrees of leading with 12 split vs. my 13 degrees of leading with 14 split. I guess that extra 1 degree of leading and 2 degrees split makes a whole lot of difference in EGT
This is your problem, you keep making excuses for yourself to justify delivering a tune that even when the customer brought up issue's after tuning you simply brushed it off as being a "half-bridge problem". This isn't a argument of feelings or emotions, but one of facts; and the fact is that you failed to deliver for the customer even when he had the trust to come back to you after you blew his prior motor confusing for one running e85.
I told him up front that he will experience pulsation at cruise due to HBP engine. This is before I even start tuning it. "your" richen it up until it stop pulsing will get rid of the pulsation. Did you also notified Don that his spark plugs will foul sooner because you are running richer in crusing A/F? Great way to trash a $120/set of spark plugs.
No wonder he reached out to me for help with his car, he put his trust in you twice and you failed him.
I saw what it says on the boost reading on the dyno chart. Your "verified" boost reading between the dyno and Power fc map sensor were in separate location. when was the last time you measured the boost pressure at different location of the intake manifold? Are you telling me that every location will measure the same?
So it's okay for you to reuse the "wrong" calibration on the map sensor to tune his car when you "know" that it was wrong. didn't you say you remap everything which also include rescaling the map reference. Does it make you less "lazy" to simply not change a simple offset/calibration of the map sensor and tune it with the correct map calibraion that you claimed was wrong? So now its okay becuase it "worked"? Isn't what tuning is all about? to properly correct what was wrong with the tune? Oh wait, you were still using my map so why change it. So what exactly was really changed on the map? I have don's old file in hand, you have his new file. Let's compare and post in here. I sure like to see where your "claimed" 10.5-17 a/f crusing map is located on my map. that's about 32% in fuel difference between cells
I understand how EGT works, a leaner condition will raise EGT, but a overly rich condition combined with low timing will also cause high EGT as the excess fuel is burned during exhaust phase and not during combustion. I agree, it's not timing that makes the peak power, but there's a difference between safe timing and too conservative of timing. EGT before was 1,700 and climbing, EGT after was close to 1600. The before EGT was measured before Don changed the exhaust.
I don't think you understand how EGT works. There are alot of factors that introduced higher EGT. EMAP, EGT mounting location, timing, fuel, gas use, length of burn. Stop contradicting yourself on timing. timing is set to offset airflow (or lack there of). How much of the EGT dropped due to a better flow exhaust system? Do you know how many degrees of power stroke a rotary engine has vs. a piston? since you claimed my timing was too conservative. 1700F pre turbo is totally acceptable. I have ran as hot as 1850F in my old 730whp drag car in the past. Since you want to talk about EGT, what's your EGT on your "470whp BNR turbo turbo car"
If you don't think adjusting inj vs. accel tps to help solve tip-in issues is a bad idea then ask Chuck. Many tuners including myself have used this method to successfully solve issues with tip-in. Also, I've never seen the " letting off the gas pedal as fast as you can. does it goto 10's?" happen on any car I've made the adjustment on.
Did I say it is a bad thing to adjust it? What do you think Tip is? What do you think "adjusting inj vs. accel tps" really mean? Don't give me numbers. Tell me what it means.
Before I tuned the car and before it got a new exhaust I had Don perform a WOT test on the car to measure the current AFR. This was the range he told me and nothing had been changed on the car since you tuned it.
His wideband was wired to the datalogit. Didn't he send you the log to show the a/f ratio? Was it video taped during the run? Oh wait, a little birdie told me you didn't know how to setup the wideband calibration log using datalogit.
As Good Fella said "Just stopping in to point out that the 500R is simply a 35R turbo with a larger 67mm inducer/84mm exducer compressor wheel". So it kind of isn't.
I'm running 14 degrees of advance timing and 12 split. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between conservative timing and overly conservative timing. I know how to make safe power on rotary's and the results speak for themselves. There's also 600cc's of only water being injected into the motor to increase the safety net.
So you run 14 degrees of leading with 12 split vs. my 13 degrees of leading with 14 split. I guess that extra 1 degree of leading and 2 degrees split makes a whole lot of difference in EGT
This is your problem, you keep making excuses for yourself to justify delivering a tune that even when the customer brought up issue's after tuning you simply brushed it off as being a "half-bridge problem". This isn't a argument of feelings or emotions, but one of facts; and the fact is that you failed to deliver for the customer even when he had the trust to come back to you after you blew his prior motor confusing for one running e85.
I told him up front that he will experience pulsation at cruise due to HBP engine. This is before I even start tuning it. "your" richen it up until it stop pulsing will get rid of the pulsation. Did you also notified Don that his spark plugs will foul sooner because you are running richer in crusing A/F? Great way to trash a $120/set of spark plugs.
No wonder he reached out to me for help with his car, he put his trust in you twice and you failed him.
05-28-13 | 02:27 PM
#19
Thread Starter
Back in the BOOST Game
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 698
Likes: 1
From: Chicago IL
Two things. 1 I am running 100% water distilled. 2. The motor wad on the way out before that hot day. When driving the car and you clutch in and it kills itself... and it has hot start issues they all point to low compression. Regardless I knew I was pushing the car to the edge of the stock motor prior to blowing it. Frankly I wanted a new keg to get better power. This thread was only meant to showcase the 500rwhp that ball joint helped me obtain.
This is not meant to be a comparison of tuners. I have read alot on this topic myself but frankly am just a bit squeamish on doing it my self. The time Joe spent with me explaining his theory, And watching him implement it was a great learning experience as well.
I will say having the personal road tuning time and fine tuning with ball joint helped to dial in this car.
Net result, I am at 505 rwhp and this car is a blast to drive while keeping AC ps abs and cruise.
This is not meant to be a comparison of tuners. I have read alot on this topic myself but frankly am just a bit squeamish on doing it my self. The time Joe spent with me explaining his theory, And watching him implement it was a great learning experience as well.
I will say having the personal road tuning time and fine tuning with ball joint helped to dial in this car.
Net result, I am at 505 rwhp and this car is a blast to drive while keeping AC ps abs and cruise.
05-28-13 | 02:56 PM
#20
Thread Starter
Back in the BOOST Game
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 698
Likes: 1
From: Chicago IL
One other point... the clutch in stall in the car occurred last year after the last tune. Then I quickly started to get hot start issues. The e85 confusion did indeed happen but whatever... I am not into placing blame... These are cars and rotaries can be finicky.
Boosted414, you know I love you like a brother, but it was ignition breakup and not detonation.
Boosted414, you know I love you like a brother, but it was ignition breakup and not detonation.
05-28-13 | 03:05 PM
#21
Didn't the car break up while you were tuning it and you blame it on race gas? I have been told that it sounded more like detonation than break up. I guess he should be glad that he is running ALS seals or else you owe him an engine. I wonder how bad the dent is on the rotor from your breakup. he reached out to you because you claimed that he should easily get 500rwhp on his car. yet it took you 8psi more to acheive it after the exhaust change. 1.1kg/cm2 vs. 1.7kg/cm2. so you gained 10hp/psi. that's below optimum my friend.
100 octane and 600cc's of water will do that at that power level considering the 11.5 NGK race plugs he's running foul quickly when running under rich conditions for a extended period of time. Such as, most of the cruising map and idle map you gave him were very rich and I'm sure put those plugs in a less then perfect state.
Also, if it were detonation then switching the car to 93 octane would have made the problem worse instead of fixing it, which it did. The numbers and Don's testament to how the car drives speaks for themselves.
Your detonation argument is wrong, have your buddy that's feeding you this crap info compression check his engine if you don't believe me. You're grasping at straws at this point.
I reached out to him to ask if I could see the map and he sent it to me knowing that I have made power on rotaries and would maybe find the spots where things could be changed. He had invested a lot of money in his dream car and was not satisfied with the power numbers it put down. I highlighted the areas that needed to be changed and also added my phone number if he wanted more clarification. After further discussion and me proving myself he offered to fly me out to tune the car. That was that.
Also, your maths wrong. He did 422whp at 16psi, I got 505whp at 21.95psi. That's 6 more psi and 14 per psi, but considering that the turbo doesn't really start making power till 19psi it's a dumb argument. For example at 21psi we made 473whp and 505whp at 22psi. So I could make the argument that I made 32whp on one psi. Power per PSI is different for every turbo and every port, your argument is wrong.
Try again.
05-28-13 | 03:38 PM
#22
Rotary Freak
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: fort worth, tx, usa
Yeah, we had ignition breakup at 7,500rpm, I know the difference between detonation and ignition breakup. I'm pretty sure I know who told you that and he is not a tuner, which is why he went to you to tune his car. If you don't tune regularly you might get the two confused. Your source even got the apex seals wrong, they're RA super seals.
Do you really know the difference between detonation and break up? You can't hear detontation at that rpm. They're not audible. I guess that's why the dyno chart only show 7000rpm since you know it was detonation and you didn't want to hit it again and really damage the engine. You can see breakup on a dyno chart but you can't see detonation on the chart till it blew the engine. You still haven't answered the previous question I asked you. As for you thinking it was bill. again, you are wrong again. I do talk to Dean occasionally and he already told me enough for me to know your character. Arrogant know it all with less than 2 yrs of tuning experience and thinks that You can do better than the rest. Judging by your post in here, you presented yourself as such.
How old are you? 24? so I was driving my 3rd gen rx7 while you are still drinking milk? I have been tuning my own vehicle since 95 and I didn't dare to touch anyone's car until 6 yrs later because I didn't want the responsibility of it but enough have asked and I eventually give in.
100 octane and 600cc's of water will do that at that power level considering the 11.5 NGK race plugs he's running foul quickly when running under rich conditions for a extended period of time. Such as, most of the cruising map and idle map you gave him were very rich and I'm sure put those plugs in a less then perfect state.
Don't you read spark plugs before tuning? That's part of the tuning process. eliminating any potential variable. that comes to show you are still a noob.
Also, if it were detonation then switching the car to 93 octane would have made the problem worse instead of fixing it, which it did. The numbers and Don's testament to how the car drives speaks for themselves.
many things could have happened before changing the fuel. You could easily adjusted the timing map, adding more fuel, ran lower boost, etc...
Your detonation argument is wrong, have your buddy that's feeding you this crap info compression check his engine if you don't believe me. You're grasping at straws at this point.
I reached out to him to ask if I could see the map and he sent it to me knowing that I have made power on rotaries and would maybe find the spots where things could be changed. He had invested a lot of money in his dream car and was not satisfied with the power numbers it put down. I highlighted the areas that needed to be changed and also added my phone number if he wanted more clarification. After further discussion and me proving myself he offered to fly me out to tune the car. That was that.
Also, your maths wrong. He did 422whp at 16psi, I got 505whp at 21.95psi. That's 6 more psi and 14 per psi, but considering that the turbo doesn't really start making power till 19psi it's a dumb argument. For example at 21psi we made 473whp and 505whp at 22psi. So I could make the argument that I made 32whp on one psi. Power per PSI is different for every turbo and every port, your argument is wrong.
VE is VE, it doesn't change better as boost goes higher. If anything, it gets worst since airflow, restriction and EMP come into play.
again, I asked you what the PIM was reading at 21.95psi. You said 1.7 to properly rescale it for the boost level he needs based on the "calibration error" on the map sensor. IF so, that's 8psi difference since the car was tuned to 1.1 on the PFC.
2-5% better in efficiency on the turbo doesn't translate to 30% in power efficiency gain or in your case, 250% based on your 32whp/lb claimed.
Try again.
Do you really know the difference between detonation and break up? You can't hear detontation at that rpm. They're not audible. I guess that's why the dyno chart only show 7000rpm since you know it was detonation and you didn't want to hit it again and really damage the engine. You can see breakup on a dyno chart but you can't see detonation on the chart till it blew the engine. You still haven't answered the previous question I asked you. As for you thinking it was bill. again, you are wrong again. I do talk to Dean occasionally and he already told me enough for me to know your character. Arrogant know it all with less than 2 yrs of tuning experience and thinks that You can do better than the rest. Judging by your post in here, you presented yourself as such.
How old are you? 24? so I was driving my 3rd gen rx7 while you are still drinking milk? I have been tuning my own vehicle since 95 and I didn't dare to touch anyone's car until 6 yrs later because I didn't want the responsibility of it but enough have asked and I eventually give in.
100 octane and 600cc's of water will do that at that power level considering the 11.5 NGK race plugs he's running foul quickly when running under rich conditions for a extended period of time. Such as, most of the cruising map and idle map you gave him were very rich and I'm sure put those plugs in a less then perfect state.
Don't you read spark plugs before tuning? That's part of the tuning process. eliminating any potential variable. that comes to show you are still a noob.
Also, if it were detonation then switching the car to 93 octane would have made the problem worse instead of fixing it, which it did. The numbers and Don's testament to how the car drives speaks for themselves.
many things could have happened before changing the fuel. You could easily adjusted the timing map, adding more fuel, ran lower boost, etc...
Your detonation argument is wrong, have your buddy that's feeding you this crap info compression check his engine if you don't believe me. You're grasping at straws at this point.
I reached out to him to ask if I could see the map and he sent it to me knowing that I have made power on rotaries and would maybe find the spots where things could be changed. He had invested a lot of money in his dream car and was not satisfied with the power numbers it put down. I highlighted the areas that needed to be changed and also added my phone number if he wanted more clarification. After further discussion and me proving myself he offered to fly me out to tune the car. That was that.
Also, your maths wrong. He did 422whp at 16psi, I got 505whp at 21.95psi. That's 6 more psi and 14 per psi, but considering that the turbo doesn't really start making power till 19psi it's a dumb argument. For example at 21psi we made 473whp and 505whp at 22psi. So I could make the argument that I made 32whp on one psi. Power per PSI is different for every turbo and every port, your argument is wrong.
VE is VE, it doesn't change better as boost goes higher. If anything, it gets worst since airflow, restriction and EMP come into play.
again, I asked you what the PIM was reading at 21.95psi. You said 1.7 to properly rescale it for the boost level he needs based on the "calibration error" on the map sensor. IF so, that's 8psi difference since the car was tuned to 1.1 on the PFC.
2-5% better in efficiency on the turbo doesn't translate to 30% in power efficiency gain or in your case, 250% based on your 32whp/lb claimed.
Try again.
Try again.[/QUOTE]
05-28-13 | 04:21 PM
#23
How old are you? 24? so I was driving my 3rd gen rx7 while you are still drinking milk? I have been tuning my own vehicle since 95 and I didn't dare to touch anyone's car until 6 yrs later because I didn't want the responsibility of it but enough have asked and I eventually give in.
VE is VE, it doesn't change better as boost goes higher. If anything, it gets worst since airflow, restriction and EMP come into play.
again, I asked you what the PIM was reading at 21.95psi. You said 1.7 to properly rescale it for the boost level he needs based on the "calibration error" on the map sensor. IF so, that's 8psi difference since the car was tuned to 1.1 on the PFC.
2-5% better in efficiency on the turbo doesn't translate to 30% in power efficiency gain or in your case, 250% based on your 32whp/lb claimed.
again, I asked you what the PIM was reading at 21.95psi. You said 1.7 to properly rescale it for the boost level he needs based on the "calibration error" on the map sensor. IF so, that's 8psi difference since the car was tuned to 1.1 on the PFC.
2-5% better in efficiency on the turbo doesn't translate to 30% in power efficiency gain or in your case, 250% based on your 32whp/lb claimed.
try again
05-28-13 | 07:54 PM
#24
Rotary Freak
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: fort worth, tx, usa
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto
How old are you? 24? so I was driving my 3rd gen rx7 while you are still drinking milk? I have been tuning my own vehicle since 95 and I didn't dare to touch anyone's car until 6 yrs later because I didn't want the responsibility of it but enough have asked and I eventually give in.
Wow Steve, it's nice to see how quickly you've become immature in this argument and have started playing the age card and am assuming I'm just some young kid. For your information I've been working on cars since I was 14 and bought my 3rd gen when I was 18, I'm now 28 if that matters to you. But as you just proved by inadvertently using yourself as a example, wisdom and proper decision making do not necessarily come with age
Since you can't seem to be able to talk in my level, I will step down a couple of notch to yours. Besides, you are the one that called me out by posting and linking everyone to this thread. Did you not remembered you linked me on FB? You want my replied, you got it. So before you call someone out, make sure you have enough ammo. Obviously you are still dodging my questions by not answering the more technical questions that I asked.
We are still talking about tuning are we? so where does working on cars have anything to do with tuning them? They do teach mechanics in high school so your point of working on cars were irrelevant to tuning them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto
Don't you read spark plugs before tuning? That's part of the tuning process. eliminating any potential variable. that comes to show you are still a noob.
I knew he was running newer NGK race plugs at 11.5 heat range with a rich tune for many miles. I knew what I as getting into as I've tuned many cars with these plugs and know how they react to rich tunes as well as how they are effected by mileage. Also, the irony of you making the argument "eliminating any potential variable" before tuning is very hypocritical of you. Don just testified that at one time you attempted to tune his car thinking it was E85. I think that knowing what gas you're tuning on is a pretty big variable. So... by your same standards your also a "noob".
Actually, I did asked. I believed I asked bill prior to tune 3 cars from their area what fuel they were running. the answer I got was E85. Even after I realized he was running on pump, I asked Bill I thought you said they were all on E85 and that's when they corrected me.
as for spark plugs fouled, if they were, it would have been noticable at much lower boost. reason why it "breakup" like you said was either
1.), too aggressive in timing for the boost level
2.) too rich......
Don't blame on the spark plugs or the HKS twin power. I has been proven to support over 27psi of boost and over 600rwhp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto *
many things could have happened before changing the fuel. You could easily adjusted the timing map, adding more fuel, ran lower boost, etc...
So in this argument you're calling me and Don liars, in that by switching to 93 octane it didn't solve the problem. Well you can ask Don yourself, we never changed anything but the gas and the breakup problem was cured. So now your resorting to a argument that I must not be telling the truth. Don's testament and the results don't lie. Do you seriously think Don would sit back and let me say all this if it weren't true?
Calling you a liar? NO. Challenging your theory, YES. I didn't call Don a liar so you can stop twisting words in my mouth. Were you the one that said Bill doesn't know the difference between detonation and breakup? Why bring Don up or are you implying that Don knows the difference between detonation and breakup? You still have no idea why breakup went away switching from race gas to pump gas. So your theory is that because the fuel burns slower, it breaks up. How convenient.
The same dyno was measuring boost on both pulls, yours and mine. Your run was at 16psi measured by that dyno, mine was 21.95 measured by that same dyno. You can go off PIM values, but I don't know what PIM values you were at when you tuned due to how you calibrated the 3-bar. What I do trust is that dyno that we both tuned, which measured 16psi for you and 21.95psi for me. Call the dyno and ask for the graphs if you don't believe me, Don and his partner that's feeding you info should have enough sway to get them.
try again
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto *
VE is VE, it doesn't change better as boost goes higher. If anything, it gets worst since airflow, restriction and EMP come into play.*
again, I asked you what the PIM was reading at 21.95psi. You said 1.7 to properly rescale it for the boost level he needs based on the "calibration error" on the map sensor. IF so, that's 8psi difference since the car was tuned to 1.1 on the PFC.*
2-5% better in efficiency on the turbo doesn't translate to 30% in power efficiency gain or in your case, 250% based on your 32whp/lb claimed.
The same dyno was measuring boost on both pulls, yours and mine. Your run was at 16psi measured by that dyno, mine was 21.95 measured by that same dyno. You can go off PIM values, but I don't know what PIM values you were at when you tuned due to how you calibrated the 3-bar. What I do trust is that dyno that we both tuned, which measured 16psi for you and 21.95psi for me. Call the dyno and ask for the graphs if you don't believe me, Don and his partner that's feeding you info should have enough sway to get them.
try again
Again, You are the one that said you have to set the map references to 27000 in order to tune this properly because 25000 is conveniently where 16-17psi falls. Do I need to re-quote on what you wrote? Are you saying that it wasn't 1.7kg/cm2 that was tuned at? Did you even setup the logs correctly to monitor all the parameters? I already told you it was 1.1 based on my logs. You said 1.7. that's 8psi difference.
again, I'm still waiting for your correct map calibration profile. I'm also waiting for you to explain how your 1 degrees of timing difference makes 100F lower in EGT. What's the number in degrees on the power stroke in a rotary engine..... How my map has a 32% in fuel fluctuation in the cruise map. Very simple questions and should have been answered a long time ago....
[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by pluto
How old are you? 24? so I was driving my 3rd gen rx7 while you are still drinking milk? I have been tuning my own vehicle since 95 and I didn't dare to touch anyone's car until 6 yrs later because I didn't want the responsibility of it but enough have asked and I eventually give in.
Wow Steve, it's nice to see how quickly you've become immature in this argument and have started playing the age card and am assuming I'm just some young kid. For your information I've been working on cars since I was 14 and bought my 3rd gen when I was 18, I'm now 28 if that matters to you. But as you just proved by inadvertently using yourself as a example, wisdom and proper decision making do not necessarily come with age
Since you can't seem to be able to talk in my level, I will step down a couple of notch to yours. Besides, you are the one that called me out by posting and linking everyone to this thread. Did you not remembered you linked me on FB? You want my replied, you got it. So before you call someone out, make sure you have enough ammo. Obviously you are still dodging my questions by not answering the more technical questions that I asked.
We are still talking about tuning are we? so where does working on cars have anything to do with tuning them? They do teach mechanics in high school so your point of working on cars were irrelevant to tuning them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto
Don't you read spark plugs before tuning? That's part of the tuning process. eliminating any potential variable. that comes to show you are still a noob.
I knew he was running newer NGK race plugs at 11.5 heat range with a rich tune for many miles. I knew what I as getting into as I've tuned many cars with these plugs and know how they react to rich tunes as well as how they are effected by mileage. Also, the irony of you making the argument "eliminating any potential variable" before tuning is very hypocritical of you. Don just testified that at one time you attempted to tune his car thinking it was E85. I think that knowing what gas you're tuning on is a pretty big variable. So... by your same standards your also a "noob".
Actually, I did asked. I believed I asked bill prior to tune 3 cars from their area what fuel they were running. the answer I got was E85. Even after I realized he was running on pump, I asked Bill I thought you said they were all on E85 and that's when they corrected me.
as for spark plugs fouled, if they were, it would have been noticable at much lower boost. reason why it "breakup" like you said was either
1.), too aggressive in timing for the boost level
2.) too rich......
Don't blame on the spark plugs or the HKS twin power. I has been proven to support over 27psi of boost and over 600rwhp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto *
many things could have happened before changing the fuel. You could easily adjusted the timing map, adding more fuel, ran lower boost, etc...
So in this argument you're calling me and Don liars, in that by switching to 93 octane it didn't solve the problem. Well you can ask Don yourself, we never changed anything but the gas and the breakup problem was cured. So now your resorting to a argument that I must not be telling the truth. Don's testament and the results don't lie. Do you seriously think Don would sit back and let me say all this if it weren't true?
Calling you a liar? NO. Challenging your theory, YES. I didn't call Don a liar so you can stop twisting words in my mouth. Were you the one that said Bill doesn't know the difference between detonation and breakup? Why bring Don up or are you implying that Don knows the difference between detonation and breakup? You still have no idea why breakup went away switching from race gas to pump gas. So your theory is that because the fuel burns slower, it breaks up. How convenient.
The same dyno was measuring boost on both pulls, yours and mine. Your run was at 16psi measured by that dyno, mine was 21.95 measured by that same dyno. You can go off PIM values, but I don't know what PIM values you were at when you tuned due to how you calibrated the 3-bar. What I do trust is that dyno that we both tuned, which measured 16psi for you and 21.95psi for me. Call the dyno and ask for the graphs if you don't believe me, Don and his partner that's feeding you info should have enough sway to get them.
try again
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto *
VE is VE, it doesn't change better as boost goes higher. If anything, it gets worst since airflow, restriction and EMP come into play.*
again, I asked you what the PIM was reading at 21.95psi. You said 1.7 to properly rescale it for the boost level he needs based on the "calibration error" on the map sensor. IF so, that's 8psi difference since the car was tuned to 1.1 on the PFC.*
2-5% better in efficiency on the turbo doesn't translate to 30% in power efficiency gain or in your case, 250% based on your 32whp/lb claimed.
The same dyno was measuring boost on both pulls, yours and mine. Your run was at 16psi measured by that dyno, mine was 21.95 measured by that same dyno. You can go off PIM values, but I don't know what PIM values you were at when you tuned due to how you calibrated the 3-bar. What I do trust is that dyno that we both tuned, which measured 16psi for you and 21.95psi for me. Call the dyno and ask for the graphs if you don't believe me, Don and his partner that's feeding you info should have enough sway to get them.
try again
Again, You are the one that said you have to set the map references to 27000 in order to tune this properly because 25000 is conveniently where 16-17psi falls. Do I need to re-quote on what you wrote? Are you saying that it wasn't 1.7kg/cm2 that was tuned at? Did you even setup the logs correctly to monitor all the parameters? I already told you it was 1.1 based on my logs. You said 1.7. that's 8psi difference.
again, I'm still waiting for your correct map calibration profile. I'm also waiting for you to explain how your 1 degrees of timing difference makes 100F lower in EGT. What's the number in degrees on the power stroke in a rotary engine..... How my map has a 32% in fuel fluctuation in the cruise map. Very simple questions and should have been answered a long time ago....
[/QUOTE]
05-29-13 | 05:03 PM
#25
Look Steve, I called you out because I think the community needs to see what you actually stand for and how you treat your customers during the tuning process. I have made myself clear about what I found during my tuning of Don's car and what I did to correct it. Tuning you did not provide.
As for these technical details you keep going on about, these are things that can be found doing a Google search. So what is the point in having me repeat them.
I think you're a tuner that doesn't take the time to properly tune someone's car and cares more about getting it done then making the customer happy. Don isn't the only one of your customers to get lower power numbers, a simple search on this forum will consistently bring up your underwhelming results.
Given this long conversation I think the community now has enough information to make a judgement on you before they decide to have you tune their car.
That's why I contacted you, as I wanted to make sure you stated your side after I stated what I found.
Good luck with your future tuning.
As for these technical details you keep going on about, these are things that can be found doing a Google search. So what is the point in having me repeat them.
I think you're a tuner that doesn't take the time to properly tune someone's car and cares more about getting it done then making the customer happy. Don isn't the only one of your customers to get lower power numbers, a simple search on this forum will consistently bring up your underwhelming results.
Given this long conversation I think the community now has enough information to make a judgement on you before they decide to have you tune their car.
That's why I contacted you, as I wanted to make sure you stated your side after I stated what I found.
Good luck with your future tuning.