Data Logs! Post them here.

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Tor

I gave up on "the perfect result too". Satisfactory is a good goal, or robust so it at least runs the same with varying conditions. Mine started to set higher negative LTFT. I imagine it could be due to the change in CL timers or MAF IAT comp due to it getting colder. But nevertheless, even when it runs a bit leaner, in the colder temperatures it doesn't knock more than before. So I suppose I could label that as satisfactory too, although I'm not entirely happy.

Here are my logs from today:
A few pulls for VD:
http://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-222-330-...zoom=3404-6629
And me beating on it in uphill in 4th:
http://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-222-330-...zoom=7277-7502

I'd love to exchange tunes, I'll send you a PM. Thanks!



I didn't expect a damp road to make much difference, but it could be there is a tiny bit of slip, although it should make the curve fluctuating? To be honest I am quite sure my A/C doesn't kick out at full throttle. I have several experiences to support that.
1) 3 tracklogs on the same day. 2 without A/C, one with. The one with A/C on looks absolutely horrible with regards to knock compared to the two others.
2) Another track day at 30 deg C (86 F) ambient. For a 50 mins session I had the A/C on the whole time. Half of it the cabin was nice and cool, the other half the A/C started to blow hot air only. There was no real kicking in and out. Second half the A/C just stopped delivering any cool air. This was my first track day and I didn't have an oil cooler. I never experienced since that the A/C pumps hot air, neither did I see such high oil temps again (135 C / 275 F ) since I installed an oil cooler immediately afterward.

Anyway, as mentioned, I did another log today. Dry road, A/C off. I am back with the previous results. I can't tell much difference to the other logs where I already added the bulk of the timing. I think I am messuring the imperfections of the road at this point rather than the performance changes. Still, compared to the old timing there is a noticeable gain:



The 177 hp from the old timing is in line with most of my previous logs. If I really got 183-185 hp, I think that's probably pretty good for the cheap Gruppe-S UEL header. I would love to take the car on a real dyno at this point. I would probably be disappointed though. European dynos are not as optimistic as many of the US dyno charts that are being posted here from various header manufacturers and pro tuners. My bet is 180 wheel and 215 crank. If I get 220 crank, I'll be very very happy (stock car was messured 159/189). When I see claims of 240 crank hp with a header, tune and E85, I just laugh "US dyno".

I suppose you got to find a happy medium between the achievable and what you want to achieve with your setup.

I dont know whether if AC cuts off under full throttle, but I do know it doesnt run as good and is more knock prone once it is on vs off.

I know that the results from a specific dyno that many people, including a vendor on this forum, use over here in socal consistently reads high. It is widely accepted by local tuners, racing organizations, and enthusiast that this specific dyno has a correction factor of 1.1 over, and reads 10% more 'enthusastic' than the more common dynojet dynos. So when they are quoting or showing dynos at 200hps is more like 180 on a dynojet. I dont think all US dynos read high.

[churchx]

It's almost that we might benefit from some thread with dynos correction factors & with stock baselines dynoed on them posted, to ease at least very rough result comparison.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Tor

The 177 hp from the old timing is in line with most of my previous logs. If I really got 183-185 hp, I think that's probably pretty good for the cheap Gruppe-S UEL header. I would love to take the car on a real dyno at this point. I would probably be disappointed though. European dynos are not as optimistic as many of the US dyno charts that are being posted here from various header manufacturers and pro tuners. My bet is 180 wheel and 215 crank. If I get 220 crank, I'll be very very happy (stock car was messured 159/189). When I see claims of 240 crank hp with a header, tune and E85, I just laugh "US dyno".

I can see that your logs are on 3rd gear? It makes sense power to be a bit low on this gear. Make an ordinary dyno using 5th gear ...

[Wayno]

Originally Posted by churchx

It's almost that we might benefit from some thread with dynos correction factors & with stock baselines dynoed on them posted, to ease at least very rough result comparison.

Would be a total waste of time and have no purpose other than confuse people and lead them down more paths of wasting time.

The only way to compare two cars is on the exact same dyno, on the same day, in the same conditions, in the same gears, in the same market.

Tor has done well to use the virtual dyno as it was intended - removing all variables besides the changes made to the file.

[pym19109]

Hi guys
https://datazap.me/u/shirokuma/log-1...zoom=2203-2433
This is 3rd gear wot and following by 4th gear.

In 3rd, sometime there is knock but sometime there is free. 4th the knock going high but iam still 1. Should I pull timing to reduce the knock in 4th or higher gear ?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by pym19109

Hi guys
https://datazap.me/u/shirokuma/log-1...zoom=2203-2433
This is 3rd gear wot and following by 4th gear.

In 3rd, sometime there is knock but sometime there is free. 4th the knock going high but iam still 1. Should I pull timing to reduce the knock in 4th or higher gear ?

yes , if those logs are not track logs id pull 1 degree timing at rpm 6500 and over and loads 1.2 and over

[pym19109]

Originally Posted by steve99

yes , if those logs are not track logs id pull 1 degree timing at rpm 6500 and over and loads 1.2 and over

Thank you Steve.

So assume it is a track log. What is critical value ? Or is it ok if iam still 1 ?

[Tor]

Originally Posted by pym19109

Thank you Steve.

So assume it is a track log. What is critical value ? Or is it ok if iam still 1 ?

It will never drop IAM at high rpm.

There is a confusion about IAM and FLKC. It's not like IAM drop is a "next worse step than FLKC". Probably because with an IAM drop there is always FLKC present simultaneously and IAM drop will reduce timing in all rpm.

But they are simply two different mechanisms the ECU is using. Sometimes you will see an IAM drop at lower rpm, with only very low FLKC. So each kind of event should be treated individually and seen equally. IAM drop also should be seen according to severity. If it drops to 0.98, it's insignificant and can be disregarded like you would disregard -0.65 FLKC.

You got to threat it as two diffirent mechanisms. -2.9 FLKC is pretty high, IAM drop or not - depending on gear as well.

Above 6000 rpm: Aim for knock free 3rd gear. And do 4+ pulls straight after eachother. Then you will see if it knocks when you put some heat into it. In 4th aim for less the -1.3 and 5th less -2.

In your case I would take out timing with -0.35 at 6800 load, -0.65 at 7000, and -1.3 at 7500, from load 1.1 to 1.4.

You could also try to increase Timing Compensation Per Cylinder A and B or you could change your IAT compensation so it retards timing with 90 F IAT. Edit: Seeing you are in Thailand last solution is of course not a good idea, since you probaly have those or higher IATs all the time.

[pym19109]

Originally Posted by Tor

It will never drop IAM at high rpm.

There is a confusion about IAM and FLKC. It's not like IAM drop is a "next worse step than FLKC". Probably because with an IAM drop there is always FLKC present simultaneously and IAM drop will reduce timing in all rpm.

But they are simply two different mechanisms the ECU is using. Sometimes you will see an IAM drop at lower rpm, with only very low FLKC. So each kind of event should be treated individually and seen equally. IAM drop also should be seen according to severity. If it drops to 0.98, it's insignificant and can be disregarded like you would disregard -0.65 FLKC.

You got to threat it as two diffirent mechanisms. -2.9 FLKC is pretty high, IAM drop or not - depending on gear as well.

Above 6000 rpm: Aim for knock free 3rd gear. And do 4+ pulls straight after eachother. Then you will see if it knocks when you put some heat into it. In 4th aim for less the -1.3 and 5th less -2.

In your case I would take out timing with -0.35 at 6800 load, -0.65 at 7000, and -1.3 at 7500, from load 1.1 to 1.4.

You could also try to increase Timing Compensation Per Cylinder A and B or you could change your IAT compensation so it retards timing with 90 F IAT. Edit: Seeing you are in Thailand last solution is of course not a good idea, since you probaly have those or higher IATs all the time.

Thank you Tor .
Very clear answer!!

Edit. Yes, average temp here around 30C. Super hot here

[Steelrain444]

Hi all,
I am sort of new to this game so please bear with me.

I just recently installed the OpenFlash Header 3 and flashed with the OFT Stage 2 93 Octane tune. After flashing I drove for around 60 miles at steady throttle, never going over 20% throttle or 3500 RPM. Here a few logs from the trips I made. Just let me know if everything looks alright.

https://datazap.me/u/masonmc22/learn...7?log=1&data=1
https://datazap.me/u/masonmc22/learn...7?log=2&data=1

Thanks!

[Tor]

Another small test: Making my tune signigficantly leaner above 5000 rpm (red pull). No noticeable change on VD but I have a lot more FLKC activity. So I do think richer is the right way to go for me:



Previously it was FLKC free in 3rd. Changing transient timing didn't help on my FBKC either, think I have to pull some out of Base Timing B so solve that.

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Tor

Another small test: Making my tune signigficantly leaner above 5000 rpm (red pull). No noticeable change on VD but I have a lot more FLKC activity. So I do think richer is the right way to go for me:



Previously it was FLKC free in 3rd. Changing transient timing didn't help on my FBKC either, think I have to pull some out of Base Timing B so solve that.

Interesting.. not even a reduction in the FBKC with additional -2 of ignition advance on the transient table? Also 1.6 degree of flkc cost you 3 whp. I woder if adding another 1.6 would yield another +3whp.

Edit: Or not quite as much reduction (disproportionate) from your previous log. dialing back -2.8 in the transient reduced your -2.8 to -1.4. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the changes to the transient retard.

https://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-2322-0?...4848-4199-4012

[Tor]

Originally Posted by solidONE

Interesting.. not even a reduction in the FBKC with additional -2 of ignition advance on the transient table? Also 1.6 degree of flkc cost you 3 whp. I woder if adding another 1.6 would yield another +3whp.

Edit: Or not quite as much reduction (disproportionate) from your previous log. dialing back -2.8 in the transient reduced your -2.8 to -1.4. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the changes to the transient retard.

https://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-2322-0?...4848-4199-4012

I did a lot of logs already and it takes out -2.8 in other logs. E.g. here:
https://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-234?log...zoom=2196-2417

It doesn't pull -1.6 all the time with the leaner tune, as can be seen above. It actually doesn't knock too bad, it's just more random. E.g. here it's pretty low FLKC considering the gears:
https://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-234-0?l...om=12169-12539

Also, I'm not getting too hung up on the exact numbers (182 vs. 185 hp). From what I've seen this is well within the variation even between 2 pulls on the same tune. So I'd rather see it as "there is not much difference". If I had gotten e.g. 187-189 with the leaner tune I would have considered the difference.

Given that I get more consistent low FLKC with the richer tune I'll revert to that. From the logs of that tune I would think I can even run that on track too, though I don't think there will be much of that anymore this year.

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Tor

I did a lot of logs already and it takes out -2.8 in other logs. E.g. here:
https://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-234?log...zoom=2196-2417

It doesn't pull -1.6 all the time with the leaner tune, as can be seen above. It actually doesn't knock too bad, it's just more random. E.g. here it's pretty low FLKC considering the gears:
https://datazap.me/u/tor/tor-234-0?l...om=12169-12539

Also, I'm not getting too hung up on the exact numbers (182 vs. 185 hp). From what I've seen this is well within the variation even between 2 pulls on the same tune. So I'd rather see it as "there is not much difference". If I had gotten e.g. 187-189 with the leaner tune I would have considered the difference.

Given that I get more consistent low FLKC with the richer tune I'll revert to that. From the logs of that tune I would think I can even run that on track too, though I don't think there will be much of that anymore this year.

I see.. definitely stick with your previous fuel map if it's preventing any KC activity. For mine, though running on different fuel and different exhaust setup, leaning out the fuel map did not produce more knock corrections. although it didn't necessarily make much more power either. Meh.. at least I'm saving a tiny bit more gas with the leaner map.