EVO9 problem with XML and boost level

[danyix]

I know what you mean, good idea is also set lower IGN timing at high load areas, to be sure, no knock happends.
My efficiency may be better at higher boost level comparing to you, because i have AMS Intercooler. Target is to get 1,65BAR at midrange and 1,5BAR at revlimiter.
We also have Shell V-power Racing at 100OCT RON
My IX GSR is Euro spec with only one solenoid.

What makes me sad is that it looks like the ECU has some lag before it starts to regulate.

I dont want that much overboost, because if the engine gets that much load at overboost it must be damaged due overboost or it can handle it and i can use that level of boost. So if the overboosted level is too high for the engine it makes some damage on it, that will destroy it in shorter time as it would be without overboost ... right ?

What modifications do you have appart of AMS Intercooler upgrade?

[Rotawerx]

with this example we can see that are 2 ways to get more power.
the typical us-style with "high-boost", richer a/f´s and low timing.

evo400 use the jp-style with "mid-boost" (1,5bar) and lean a/f´s.
playing around with the timing and power comes alone.

very interesting to see

my favorit is the second one.

Agreed. Go to EFIuniversity, it will open your eyes.
2nd way makes the same power, and uses less fuel.

I am wanting to raises boost on NZ Evo9, and maybe try RS VVT map also.

[Twinturbo]

with this example we can see that are 2 ways to get more power.
the typical us-style with "high-boost", richer a/f´s and low timing.

evo400 use the jp-style with "mid-boost" (1,5bar) and lean a/f´s.
playing around with the timing and power comes alone.

very interesting to see

my favorit is the second one.

Agreed. Go to EFIuniversity, it will open your eyes.
2nd way makes the same power, and uses less fuel.

I am wanting to raises boost on NZ Evo9, and maybe try RS VVT map also.

Yes, I also like the second way to do it and even think it makes more power than the rich A/F way

[S54fan]

If we take that view to extreme we end up with a normally aspirated car though! It is a popularised idea to jump on that more timing and less boost is always better. Yes, some neanderthals need to be reminded that boost is not everything, but it is all about balance. We run richer, retard timing and reduce compression to allow us to use boost. Of course we can take it too far as the illustration I gave, in that case I reduced the boost again to run more timing. At 1.5 bar I'm running 10 or 11 degrees at 6000 RPM with knock sums in the 0-3 range and maxed out octane number. This is similar timing to what the many standard cars runs at standard boost from their datalogs, and I'm running it about 10% leaner - in the low to mid 11s. I don't find power from going to 12:1 so I don't do it.

My personal view is that I run the COMBINATION of boost, fuel and timing that gives the most power and torque.

[Twinturbo]

If we take that view to extreme we end up with a normally aspirated car though! It is a popularised idea to jump on that more timing and less boost is always better. Yes, some neanderthals need to be reminded that boost is not everything, but it is all about balance. We run richer, retard timing and reduce compression to allow us to use boost. Of course we can take it too far as the illustration I gave, in that case I reduced the boost again to run more timing. At 1.5 bar I'm running 10 or 11 degrees at 6000 RPM with knock sums in the 0-3 range and maxed out octane number. This is similar timing to what the many standard cars runs at standard boost from their datalogs, and I'm running it about 10% leaner - in the low to mid 11s. I don't find power from going to 12:1 so I don't do it.

My personal view is that I run the COMBINATION of boost, fuel and timing that gives the most power and torque.

Of course
On lower rpms and not so high EGT you could lean out a bit more, but on high rpm/boost you can not stay ultra lean and still hold same power or more. It is a thin line to balance to get the most out of your engine and stay safe...

[S54fan]

There is also a trend to run rich in the midrange and lean at the top, the theory being that you're running less torque. However, the exhaust manifold pressure is higher, EGT is higher at high revs, and high revs are the place where a car may be held at peak power for some time at top speed, so I keep a gradual richening towards the top end.

I do move lean spool disable from 7000 to 7500 RPM though, because otherwise it just steps to 100% IDC at 7000 RPM even at moderate boost and runs rich unless you have the boost quite high.

[evo400]

thank you flash,
i see more power in more efficiency

[evo400]

There is also a trend to run rich in the midrange and lean at the top, the theory being that you're running less torque. However, the exhaust manifold pressure is higher, EGT is higher at high revs, and high revs are the place where a car may be held at peak power for some time at top speed, so I keep a gradual richening towards the top end.

I do move lean spool disable from 7000 to 7500 RPM though, because otherwise it just steps to 100% IDC at 7000 RPM even at moderate boost and runs rich unless you have the boost quite high.

My Teacher Sean McEldery from HPF , has explained to me that i need the most fuel at torq maximum and less at peak power. Thats because if you make the most torq you need most fuel mixture for each engine cycle. And at top power you dont have so much torq and dont need so much fuel. My idea is always make the midrange richer, because you can use it for spool up faster (richer mixture makes more exhaust gas) and the second benefit is when you run pretty fast, you can always use your midrange to cool down your engine, but stil have good speed while using the bigest torq range.

So if you have trouble with IDC, your problem will probably be the capacity of fuel flow in the system. Maybe your pump will not hold the pressure at higher flow per minute (not per rev).


About EGT etc..... Excelent tuner said: You cant mask your problems with rich fuel. If you set A/F to optimum value, set some safe boost and timing your EGT should be also fine, or you have to search some very big problem that cant be solved by rich fuel mixture.

[S54fan]

My fuel flow is indeed marginal - the injectors have 94% IDC at the top end of 4th gear. At about that IDC I'm losing fine AFR control because they have no time to close. This is with a Walbro pump and keeping the top end AFR in the 11.0-11.5 range. This is not uncommon on this spec of Evo IX running a decent amount of top end boost. I could run more fuel pressure but I find OEM fuel pressure regulator and pipework better than the cheaper aftermarket stuff for leaks, perishing etc. I'd probably rather change the injectors than the regulator.

Despite your respected teacher's advice I'm not going to run it leaner than that unless he underwrites my engine and finds me the power I lose from doing so - I have to retard the timing or drop the boost to run leaner than that. Most people agree that varying AFR makes little difference to power, just that you get the EGTs hotter - even more so if you have to retard the ignition. Dropping boost is something I want to avoid when it makes extra power from each boost increment.

I've also tested on the dyno and the road running various boost levels. I gained from running more boost with timing to suit rather than the other way around. Just to confirm my present AVC-R targets at 1.65 kg/cm^2 midrange, 1.55 at 6000, 1.45 at 7000, 1.40 at 7500 RPM. I usually peak at 1.70.

I will post my ignition and fuel maps and you can perhaps say where you run different for interest?

[S54fan]

http://john824.fotopic.net/p36885454.html

Click full size to see better.

Note the fuelling is richer in the high vac areas than many maps, but I still run a positive mid fuel trim. This area is standard UK FQ300-360.

The 100-180 area timing is retarded to get rid of lift off det. The ECU doesn't correct this, but it does show as a lift off knock sum from high boost. I cannot find a programmable ramp rate to stop it advancing so quickly on lifting off. I tried more/less fuel, the only cure was to run below 1.5 bar or to retard these areas. On full throttle it is across at 260 in the midrange.

With the above noted boost levels on V-power I have knock sums under 3 even in a high gear with the car driven hard. AFR is in 11.0-11.5 range from mid to top.

With the stock IX GSR map and similar boost I made 345 WHP at Dastek. Since I now run more timing and less fuel at the top I hope I now make more.

Comments/criticisms/comparisons welcome, that is how I learn. I have my own views and experience but I am interested in the styles of other's mapping, and outside a commercial arena I think it is nice to make comparisons.

Some Dastek dyno plots here:

http://john824.fotopic.net/p28808472.html

http://john824.fotopic.net/p28808474.html

The highest power plots have the most boost!

[evo400]

Haha, i am running pretty close setting to you.
My AFR desired table is 10,5 compared to yours 10,2 (real values are not same but are near)
My IGN is same or max +2degree compared to you (get some marginal knock, only at lift off first time on heating up engine, next pulls are mostly without knock) when compraing only the full throttle section. At lower load i like to have more advance comparing to you. It is better for torq and fuel consumption.

I just cant say my boost curve or actual load.......... if you can explain me how to read ir (or calculate) exactly i can do some log because i am owner of evoscan licence.

I like to run lower boost and agressive timming. Because if you have to wait until you hit the target boost , you have shorter timalag at lower boost copraring to great boost with lower ign advance. I know you may have more power but the better response can be faster on the 1/4mile or on the track. Like you said, it is all about balance and prefference. I like the fast response, lightly reving machine.

It is some time back, i had SEAT Leon TDi 4x4, and it was pretty fast too (made 14,1s on 1/4mile and scary for VW VR6, AUDI A8 4.0TDI and many more) and i tryed to play with boost. Original boost was 1,4BAR, and i was playing up to 2,1BAR with comic result. Maximum acceleration was achieved at 1,6BAR. It was probably not the bigest power but i was testing it on acceleration from 50-200km/h and had managed to shorten my time by 3seconds.

[S54fan]

If you send me your ROM by email I can disassemble it, edit the request ID 00 and 01 and return it to you. jcsbanks at yahoo.co.uk

This would also allow me to make comparisons to see where I can get more torque Although if the extra timing is at load >140 then I will get my lift off detonation back.

I do find that the boost rise is very fast once you're at say 1.4 bar the extra time taken to get to 1.6 is not noticed?

What actual boost do you run? Is it so different to mine?

[evo400]

mail on the way,
about the extra boost : i like stable boost curve and if i would set more boost at midrange i would see more boost fall on top end, and i would be more sad seeing it.
It is for me better to tune step by step and try to find where is the limitation and how to make more performance in small steps. All my tuning has been done in very small steps only by feeling. I dont have an easy way to 4wheel dyno, so i cant try it on. All tuning must be dne on public roads or at airport, and comparing acceleration logs for better performance and looking what happends in engine. I would love to tune my car on dyno, but it is long way to go for me to GB (~1000milles).

[S54fan]

My favourite curves and drive are where it reaches peak power almost immediately after spool up and holds this flat. The torque reaches a crazy peak and never actually holds because it decays immediately. Same with the boost. This way the average power is very high and the engine is very flexible, rally car style. It can make traction tricky in bad conditions, and it does need strong internals and a lot of octane or low compressoin but it feels amazing.

The style I don't like is the flat torque curve of the S54 engine in my previous E46 M3 - even though I post as S54fan because when I joined I had this car When you changed gear in that at 8000 RPM and dropped back the power dropped substantially.

With the massive torque turbo car as long as you are between 4000 and 8000 RPM then full power is instant in any gear.

I can't do this on the standard Evo, but I have no objection to tracing around the top line of the compressor plot if I had stronger conrods and methanol injection.

TTP Engineering in the US runs 32 PSI and high 10s at 130 mph on stock engine and turbo. He won't hold 32 PSI at red line of course.

[flash]

in the attachment you see a map from a jp-streetdriver.

modifications on the car:
- 90mm exhaust (with 90mm downpipe and testpipe)
- selfmade 80mm outlet
- ported stock turbo
- piping kit and big intercooler (a little jp-company)
- open intake
- a 272exhaust cam
- ex. manifold (selfmade)
- a 270l/h pump

the car run at a boost of 1,6bar (at redline 1,5) with MBC.
he use 105octan RON-gas only.
sometimes knockcount of max. 3 at a egt of max.920°C.

(the mapping is not the final edition but nearly complet)