Not seeing the gain I expected. :-( What's going on?? **solved**

[Teseo]

Originally Posted by Tor

Well I will only be selling one header. And because people here are scared of ordering overseas I could probably sell it with a profit even after using it a year until the next time the car needs inspection and I have to take it off.

You need "i know someone" who works on that smog inspection

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Scrappydoo

Oh dear, your German is dominating your application of English.

Haha I just find it funny that a lot here write headers like it's a V8. And I'm not even German, I just occupying some of their land as retaliation of the past.

Originally Posted by elBarto

But the header isn't visible from underneath the car and if you have a stock (looking) enginebay you don't see it from above also. The soundpipe blocks the view a little bit.

The Gruppe S sticks out a bit in front of the engine, the front O2 sensor is clearly visible and clearly not going into a cat and I deleted the sound generator that blocks the view. Though I wrapped the header it's still pretty obvious. I'm not sure I will risk it, the swap is really fast.

But we are drifting off topic which is "where are my 10 hp".

I was clearly a bit annoyed at the logs earlier and calmed down a bit. The improvement in the torque dip is nice for driving the car on the streets and for sure will have some benefit on track too. Also, it doesn't sound that bad though I prefer the EL sound. I was just hoping for more.

Now that I have it, I'm going to keep it and keep tuning. I was already thinking about E85 before (though it's a pain to get here), so this is extra motivation. I now expect a 20 hp gain from E85, since I got cheated of 10 here.

[solidONE]

You could try making it run a bit leaner and see if you can get a few more ponies from that. The OFH ignition advance is already pretty aggressive, though you could try adding ignition advance incrementally where there is no knock corrections.

The tire size you inputted will have an effect on the Vdyno calculations and total weight to a lesser extent. The numbers might be slightly off between different wheel/tire setups, so that might have thrown your numbers off a little. Though 174Hp with a stg1 tune and stock header is pretty impressive. It's quite possible that the stg.1 pull you did was reading high. Good luck.

For your reference, my stg 1 tune got me about 165-168hp on 91 fuel. Stg 2 with Tomei EL my pulls were getting between 178-181hp pretty consistently.

[Tor]

Guys, I must admit I this thread was a mistake. Thank you for all your input. I apologize much for wasting your time!

I didn't do my due diligence and jumped to conclusions. I relied on memory and didn't load up all my old logs. I used one perhaps too optimistic log as a reference.

Anyway, loading up a bunch of logs, sorting and discarding based on shape and deviating number in either direction I came up with this. Admittedly it's biased towards the better numbers - but hey that what the pros do too



So in reality, I may be around 175-177 hp now vs. 168-170 before. More important than the actual number, this gap is present in the whole curve now. So I'm more inclined now to go through the hassle of keeping it.

Originally Posted by solidONE

You could try making it run a bit leaner and see if you can get a few more ponies from that. The OFH ignition advance is already pretty aggressive, though you could try adding ignition advance incrementally where there is no knock corrections.

It's already running pretty lean at 11.7 and there is already some slight FLKC, so I don't think it will be more headache that gain going in that direction. Also, this needs to be a track capable tune.

The tire size you inputted will have an effect on the Vdyno calculations and total weight to a lesser extent. The numbers might be slightly off between different wheel/tire setups, so that might have thrown your numbers off a little. Though 174Hp with a stg1 tune and stock header is pretty impressive. It's quite possible that the stg.1 pull you did was reading high. Good luck.

For your reference, my stg 1 tune got me about 165-168hp on 91 fuel. Stg 2 with Tomei EL my pulls were getting between 178-181hp pretty consistently.

Yes, the above now better match those numbers. I'll do some more runs at different temperatures later on, maybe the compensations cause deviations too. Best thing would be a pull at 20 deg C and with the other wheels.

[oldgunfan]

How good is your fuel over there TOR? These 86 motors really need good fuel.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by oldgunfan

How good is your fuel over there TOR? These 86 motors really need good fuel.

It's awesome. 100 Octane RON = 95 AKI. We have 102 as well = 97 AKI. The brand fuel I am using is 100 RON and allegedly they deliver higher octane than advertised.

It's not even complaining much at 4,5 and 6th gear WOT:

[solidONE]

another thing that I'd do to try to be more consistent converting logs to Vdyno is look at the RPM's in the logs throughout each pull. If there are any unusual dips or spikes in any part of the pull, I would not use that data for Vdyno. It will read falsely high in most cases. Small dips and spikes in the RPM during a pull indicates wheel slip, even small ones, will cause the converted information to be inaccurate.

Also, I noticed you using smoothing factor 3. I generally like to use 2 smoothing. The higher the smoothing factor selected the lower the converted numbers, typically. But I suppose it helps smooth out inconsistencies between pulls.

Glad to see someone using this tool correctly, as I've seen people post some pretty wild looking Vdyno pulls on this forum. Pretty much all the ones I've seen on this forum looked horribly wrong besides yours.

[eddieflyinv]

Maybe try a stage 2 tune ? There are changes in them specifically to take advantage of losing the catalyic converter, and may give you a bit better result.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[EAGLE5]

I believe multiple tuners have tried extracting extra power from my header, but all have failed. Also, it's noticeably peppier than a stock header and tune. So I'm confused. But anyway...

[Tor]

Originally Posted by solidONE

another thing that I'd do to try to be more consistent converting logs to Vdyno is look at the RPM's in the logs throughout each pull. If there are any unusual dips or spikes in any part of the pull, I would not use that data for Vdyno. It will read falsely high in most cases. Small dips and spikes in the RPM during a pull indicates wheel slip, even small ones, will cause the converted information to be inaccurate.

Thank you for your help. I didn't consider minute grip differences could be a factor, but that would make sense. But wouldn't wheel spin cause a lower reading? I mean we measure the time it take to accelerate a certain mass to a certain speed, and if it takes longer to get there it should show an overall lower reading? I understand it may locally bump the curve up where the spinning is taking place

Also, I noticed you using smoothing factor 3. I generally like to use 2 smoothing. The higher the smoothing factor selected the lower the converted numbers, typically. But I suppose it helps smooth out inconsistencies between pulls.

Thanks for the tip. I probably went to 3 at some point where I looked at curves that didn't have the best data. I now tried factor 2 and even 1. They both give good curves with pulls that are reasonable, not so much with pulls that are questionable.

It seems I used the worst data and manipulated it wrong in the first post.

Glad to see someone using this tool correctly, as I've seen people post some pretty wild looking Vdyno pulls on this forum. Pretty much all the ones I've seen on this forum looked horribly wrong besides yours.

Thanks. I messed up the first ones and it really confused me not to see an improvement. I am going to change the subject to "solved". Thanks for your help!

Here smoothing 1 (just to make me happy). This is just another confirmation to me to take any actual dyno charts from anyone that is looking to sell anything with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by eddieflyinv

Maybe try a stage 2 tune ? There are changes in them specifically to take advantage of losing the catalyic converter, and may give you a bit better result.

It already is. Stg 2 vs stg 1 vs. stock. That's why I was confused not to see an improvement.

[Kodename47]

If you're getting that FLKC every pul, you'll likely make more consistent power by getting rid of it.

I'd also address the rich dip at 3500-4000RPM.

[Vin]

I'm running the same header and Wayno tune and I have exactly the same rich dip at 3500 rpm.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

If you're getting that FLKC every pul, you'll likely make more consistent power by getting rid of it.

Thanks, yes I will at some point when the LTFT settles, I know from experience that it will go slightly richer with this MAF scale.

I don't know if I should wait with the effort of adjusting the timing until it gets warmer? At the moment I have IATs of 5-15 degs C, I assume I will need to remove even more with more humane 20-25 degs, which is what I have on average through the year?

I'd also address the rich dip at 3500-4000RPM.

What speaks against touching it is that in OL, that MAF scale produces so consistent number that I know what it will learn before the itself ECU does. And once the LTFT settles they have very minute corrections (like +0.8 +1.2). And as long as it's in closed loop it doesn't matter anyway?

I did let the Vgi tool chew on my MAF scale but decided not to correct it. What it suggest is almost impossible to smooth out meaningfully. And it's right in the critical spot 2.5 to 3.2 volts that it want to have the MAF look like a rollercoaster. The reason I put it through the Vgi tool was because it was slightly lean on top (0.2 higher) after switching to stg 2 tune. But I decided just to add 2 percent above 3.2 volts instead, and I guess it will settle at 11.5 once it's finish adding LTFT (it's 11.7 during the pulls for Vdyn).

Any suggestions how to go about that?


By the way, one of the things I love about Wayno's new tunes is the lack of learning required. With the uniform injector ratio, what the learning does is just to move the whole MAF scale up or down a slight bit when the LFTF finishes learning. If the MAF is good it won't move much at all. I feel absolutely no difference in performance between a fresh flash and driving several hundred kilometers, because all it will do is move the whole MAF scale about 0.2 down.

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm running the same header and Wayno tune and I have exactly the same rich dip at 3500 rpm.

I went through a lot of my old logs and even the stg 1 tunes do it right at the same spot, just not quite as pronounced. Also the old tunes before the uniform injector ratios do it. I guess it has to do with the AVCS?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Tor

I went through a lot of my old logs and even the stg 1 tunes do it right at the same spot, just not quite as pronounced. Also the old tunes before the uniform injector ratios do it. I guess it has to do with the AVCS?

I don't have a lot of knowledge on this topic. However I did compare a couple of logs from my friends, running the same header and tune (122.1), and the AFR looked like this, three different shapes:



You can clearly see my car with the pronounced rich dip.

On my car with the 122.5 tune it looks like this (uncorrected for SAE), it's the 122.5 100 stg 2 UEL +2% (default) Wayno tune:



As you can the shape of our AFR is very similar. I played around with some MAF scaling (generated by a friend) , the lean hump at 4 - 4.5k rpm was then resolved. However the rich dip at 3.5 - 4k rpm remained.