follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
86SPEED
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB > Technical Topics > Engine, Exhaust, Transmission

Engine, Exhaust, Transmission Discuss the FR-S | 86 | BRZ engine, exhaust and drivetrain.


User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-16-2014, 04:42 PM   #43
jamesm
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: 2013 FR-S
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,929
Thanks: 1,166
Thanked 2,285 Times in 1,177 Posts
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash View Post
Customer can't stay wide open in it because the engine falls flat and misfires. Neal@EQ can comment on that.

To the engine, all it sees is load (airflow/rev). It doesn't actually see about MAP. MAP is an load estimate. It's just an indication of the air pressure in the manifold. VVT (among other things) effect the correlation between MAP and actual engine load. So to me, engine load cuts (as opposed to MAP cuts) is the better approach.

As always, your mileage may vary.
i don't know what you mean by 'MAP is a load estimate'. Load is a load estimate. MAP is manifold pressure. I agree that MAP is only one factor contributing to engine load... hence why when trying to limit manifold pressure you'd want to use the MAP sensor, not load. Of course also just using the stock map means that there is no activation delay or way to control oscillation between the two states.

i can't see the advantage of an ignition/load-based strategy over one that actually cuts fuel based on manifold pressure. different strokes for different folks, i guess... certainly wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on a technical issue like this, probably not the last .
jamesm is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 04:47 PM   #44
ProjectD
Senior Member
 
ProjectD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Drives: '04 350Z/ 2013 LR BRZ (LM)
Location: Jax Flo - Rida
Posts: 265
Thanks: 444
Thanked 52 Times in 41 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by transition View Post
That would be an interesting comparison. I'll ask the tuner first what the key differences are between tuning an EcuTeK vs OpenFlash vehicle. If we could squeeze something in i'd definitely like to see that result as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cockatoo View Post
IN for OFT comparisons....
What ^^ they ^^ said....

Quote:
Originally Posted by husker741 View Post
The thing that is nice about the OFT is that you can sell the tablet eventually and get some money back. With a custom Ecutek tune, you really can't do that other than sell the cables or something. So I would rather have a custom OFT tune than a custom Ecutek tune.
same here.
ProjectD is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 04:48 PM   #45
transition
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: BRZ
Location: Earth
Posts: 206
Thanks: 43
Thanked 76 Times in 46 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash View Post
That's fine. I'm just pointing out that you chart compares the lower of 2 pulls on the OFT tune to the highest of 10 pulls on the Ecutek. By no means am I saying this was intentional. But I think it's important info to mention because a somewhat different picture is presented when comparing apples to apples. If you give me permission (this is your thread afterall) I can post up another dyno comparison that holds more testing variables constant.
Here you go.



transition is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to transition For This Useful Post:
mwjcyber (10-03-2014), raven1231 (07-16-2014), Shiv@Openflash (07-16-2014)
Old 07-16-2014, 04:49 PM   #46
Shiv@Openflash
Senior Member
 
Shiv@Openflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: 2013 FRS
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 2,629
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 5,451 Times in 1,491 Posts
Mentioned: 601 Post(s)
Tagged: 8 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesm View Post
i don't know what you mean by 'MAP is a load estimate'. Load is a load estimate. MAP is manifold pressure. I agree that MAP is only one factor contributing to engine load... hence why when trying to limit manifold pressure you'd want to use the MAP sensor, not load.

i can't see the advantage of an ignition/load-based strategy over one that actually cuts fuel based on manifold pressure. different stroked for different folks, i guess...
MAF is a better indicator of engine load than MAP. Take a turbo engine that is running wastegate spring pressure. Then go catless with a test pipe. The reduced exhaust restriction (and higher airflow/engine load) will be seen by a MAF sensor. It will go unnoticed by a MAP sensor. Different strokes indeed
Shiv@Openflash is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 05:03 PM   #47
jamesm
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: 2013 FR-S
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,929
Thanks: 1,166
Thanked 2,285 Times in 1,177 Posts
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash View Post
MAF is a better indicator of engine load than MAP. Take a turbo engine that is running wastegate spring pressure. Then go catless with a test pipe. The reduced exhaust restriction (and higher airflow/engine load) will be seen by a MAF sensor. It will go unnoticed by a MAP sensor. Different strokes indeed
But you're not trying to implement a load cut. You're trying to implement a boost cut. I don't see what you're getting at there. It's pretty simple: you want to limit manifold pressure... you use the thing that senses manifold pressure. I get the point that load and manifold pressure correlate somewhat and that factors other than increased boost can result in increased load, but isn't that exactly what you don't want to respond to if you're trying to implement a boost cut?

In any case.. i'm glad that you've found a way around it, even if we disagree on the implementation details. It will certainly save an engine... and at the end of the day that's what matters.
jamesm is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesm For This Useful Post:
raven1231 (07-16-2014)
Old 07-16-2014, 05:53 PM   #48
Shiv@Openflash
Senior Member
 
Shiv@Openflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: 2013 FRS
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 2,629
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 5,451 Times in 1,491 Posts
Mentioned: 601 Post(s)
Tagged: 8 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesm View Post
But you're not trying to implement a load cut. You're trying to implement a boost cut. I don't see what you're getting at there. It's pretty simple: you want to limit manifold pressure... you use the thing that senses manifold pressure. I get the point that load and manifold pressure correlate somewhat and that factors other than increased boost can result in increased load, but isn't that exactly what you don't want to respond to if you're trying to implement a boost cut?

In any case.. i'm glad that you've found a way around it, even if we disagree on the implementation details. It will certainly save an engine... and at the end of the day that's what matters.
No. The intention was to implement a load cut. This protects against wastegate failure or any other condition that would cause an overboost.

As an aside, the Denso logic makes this quite effective since engine load isn't just a raw MAF value but rather an engine speed (/rev) corrected load variable. So adding a breakpoint just above the desired engine load and then another one just above that and mapping in substantial ignition retard does the job very well. Arguably better than a rather simple MAP induced cut which is oblivious to any thing that would change engine VE and result in a condition where the ECU sees same nominal MAP value with vastly different engine load.
Shiv@Openflash is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 06:12 PM   #49
Shiv@Openflash
Senior Member
 
Shiv@Openflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: 2013 FRS
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 2,629
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 5,451 Times in 1,491 Posts
Mentioned: 601 Post(s)
Tagged: 8 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by transition View Post
Here you go.
Sorry for being picky but when comparing two competent NA tunes (even a 91oct vs 93oct in this case), pickiness is required since we are not dealing with huge power differences. So not being picky and ignoring sampling bias (unintentional I'm sure) can lead the casual observer to skewed or exaggerated results.

In the dyno files you kindly provided, I tried to compare a warm 5th gear OFT off-the-shelf run to a warm 5th gear custom Ecutek run but was unable to find anything that fits the bill. So I compared the one (and only) warm 4th gear OFT off-the self run to ALL of the warm 4th gear Ecutek custom tune runs and come up with this:



Not surprisingly this is more in line with what I would expect between a good 91 and good 93oct tune (the difference in power being primarily at high RPM due to running more advance up top with 93oct). The differences everywhere else are rather minor as one would expect with an NA car already running at or near MBT. The other graphs provided involve [unintentional] sampling bias which accounted for most of the dyno differences.

And again, forgive me for getting picky but I do spend a lot of time calibrating our OTS maps. So when someone compares them to something else, I apply the same pickiness in analyzing the data as I do with creating the OTS map. Not necessarily to refute the comparison but also possibly to learn from it. So please don't take my involvement in this thread the wrong way.

Still, it would be nice for the purpose of transparency to change the graph in your original post to the one provided above. I think it is as fair as possible given the sample pool you provided. And again, thank you for being transparent and providing all the dynojet run files.

Cheers,
Shiv

Last edited by Shiv@Openflash; 07-16-2014 at 06:44 PM.
Shiv@Openflash is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shiv@Openflash For This Useful Post:
chas3wba0 (07-16-2014), skidmark86 (07-16-2014)
Old 07-16-2014, 06:49 PM   #50
jamesm
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: 2013 FR-S
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,929
Thanks: 1,166
Thanked 2,285 Times in 1,177 Posts
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash View Post
No. The intention was to implement a load cut. This protects against wastegate failure or any other condition that would cause an overboost.

As an aside, the Denso logic makes this quite effective since engine load isn't just a raw MAF value but rather an engine speed (/rev) corrected load variable. So adding a breakpoint just above the desired engine load and then another one just above that and mapping in substantial ignition retard does the job very well. Arguably better than a rather simple MAP induced cut which is oblivious to any thing that would change engine VE and result in a condition where the ECU sees same nominal MAP value with vastly different engine load.
Gotcha.
jamesm is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 08:47 PM   #51
transition
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: BRZ
Location: Earth
Posts: 206
Thanks: 43
Thanked 76 Times in 46 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I'm convinced you should have been a lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash View Post
Sorry for being picky but when comparing two competent NA tunes (even a 91oct vs 93oct in this case), pickiness is required since we are not dealing with huge power differences. So not being picky and ignoring sampling bias (unintentional I'm sure) can lead the casual observer to skewed or exaggerated results.

In the dyno files you kindly provided, I tried to compare a warm 5th gear OFT off-the-shelf run to a warm 5th gear custom Ecutek run but was unable to find anything that fits the bill. So I compared the one (and only) warm 4th gear OFT off-the self run to ALL of the warm 4th gear Ecutek custom tune runs and come up with this:



Not surprisingly this is more in line with what I would expect between a good 91 and good 93oct tune (the difference in power being primarily at high RPM due to running more advance up top with 93oct). The differences everywhere else are rather minor as one would expect with an NA car already running at or near MBT. The other graphs provided involve [unintentional] sampling bias which accounted for most of the dyno differences.

And again, forgive me for getting picky but I do spend a lot of time calibrating our OTS maps. So when someone compares them to something else, I apply the same pickiness in analyzing the data as I do with creating the OTS map. Not necessarily to refute the comparison but also possibly to learn from it. So please don't take my involvement in this thread the wrong way.

Still, it would be nice for the purpose of transparency to change the graph in your original post to the one provided above. I think it is as fair as possible given the sample pool you provided. And again, thank you for being transparent and providing all the dynojet run files.

Cheers,
Shiv
transition is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 08:55 PM   #52
Shiv@Openflash
Senior Member
 
Shiv@Openflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: 2013 FRS
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 2,629
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 5,451 Times in 1,491 Posts
Mentioned: 601 Post(s)
Tagged: 8 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by transition View Post
I'm convinced you should have been a lawyer.
How so?
Shiv@Openflash is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 08:56 PM   #53
transition
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: BRZ
Location: Earth
Posts: 206
Thanks: 43
Thanked 76 Times in 46 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiv@Openflash View Post
How so?
/thread
transition is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 09:01 PM   #54
Shiv@Openflash
Senior Member
 
Shiv@Openflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: 2013 FRS
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 2,629
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 5,451 Times in 1,491 Posts
Mentioned: 601 Post(s)
Tagged: 8 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by transition View Post
/thread
In my opinion, the thread isn't done until that dyno comparison in your first post is replaced with something fair and valid for the reasons I took the time to politely and clearly explain earlier.

Shiv
Shiv@Openflash is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Shiv@Openflash For This Useful Post:
skidmark86 (07-16-2014)
Old 07-16-2014, 09:50 PM   #55
steve99
Senior Member
 
steve99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Drives: FT86
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,976
Thanks: 937
Thanked 4,372 Times in 2,611 Posts
Mentioned: 477 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Agree this thread has seen a lot of good info revealed and sensible logic based debate.

I have learned much from this so thanks to all
steve99 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to steve99 For This Useful Post:
jamesm (07-16-2014), Shiv@Openflash (07-16-2014)
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fi and openflash tune Hachi6 Forced Induction 59 11-20-2015 02:28 PM
Top Gear Solutions| OpenFlash Tablet Tune| Stage 1 Tune, Stage 2, Custom and E85 TopGearSolutions Engine, Exhaust, Bolt-Ons 90 04-14-2014 08:15 PM
OpenFlash Tuning Tech: Tales from the Dyno (Stock, Ecutek and OpenFlash tunes) Rombinhood@OpenFlash Software Tuning 237 02-10-2014 04:35 PM
>>> Circuit Motorsports > Scion FR-S + E85 + HKS Header + EcuTek Tune! Circuit Motorsports Software Tuning 9 12-14-2013 12:38 PM
Borla UEL Header, works automotive parts and ecutek tune clayrush Engine, Exhaust, Transmission 14 06-27-2013 03:37 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.