18 mpg
 

So yeah, my fuel economy sucks balls. I can get 21 MPG if the tank is mostly highway driving and I drive like a grandma.

I'll post up pics of my fuel and ignition maps shortly.

My setup is a 99 with a 2002 bottom end (10:1 compression), JR M45 @ 6-7psi, Adaptronic e420c tuned by a respectable tuner, JR water-to-air intercooler, JR headers, Magnaflow rear muffler (2.5" all the way), RX-7 460cc injectors recently cleaned and flow tested.

It made 167hp on a Dyno Dynamics.

I don't have any blowby and I have a catch can between my PCV valve and intake manifold, so it's as clean as a whistle.

I'm not using any fluids, everything seems fine engine wise. The only known mechanical problem is the gearbox - it sounds like it is out of a rally car.

Any ideas?

Fuel:

http://sites.google.com/site/timkent...ronic-fuel.png

Ignition:

http://sites.google.com/site/timkent...c-ignition.png

The supercharger bypass valve has recently been replaced, so that should be OK.

Is there an AFR target table on the Adaptronic? I don't see a big problem here, but perhaps you are just running rich at cruise. Or you have a big friction problem elsewhere, sticky brake, or that tranny noise.

What's your AFR at cruise?

I say your running too rich at cruise, I had the same problem before and I just leaned out my cruise rows to around 14.7-15

fuel table is meaningless. post AFR target table.

Is your ign locked at 10deg from setting your base timing? That would own your MPG.

:giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :bowrofl:

Can you guys not rescale your tables to provide better resolution in the areas you actually use? Every adaptronic table I see goes up to 300kPa... Seems to me that it would be possible to gain at least 4 rows and 2 columns towards increasing resolution and helping the table transition in areas where VE does not change linearly.

We need to see target afr's and a log or two of cruise as well as wot. fuel maps alone are useless.....That said I'm still working on fine tuning my fueling, and its 26-29 (city) driving normally, and about 20-25 getting on it and boosting all the time. Not bad but there's room for improvement imo.

Pretty sure we can't change what kpa it goes up to. I may be wrong

you can, but then you have to re-tune... it's just a pain.

it's still evenly spaced.

You can't just change the max kpa value to slightly over your max target? Won't the graphs just fill in with the interpolated values?...I guess those would be slightly off though.


http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/251/maxaz.jpg

It fills it in TO THE BEST OF ITS ABILITY. which, quite frankly is not good enough.

I tried to mess with mine, but gave up cause its just not worth the hassle.

it does nothing. if you change that number to some smaller value, the left hand colum will change and that's it. you'll seriously overfuel your shit.

it will jack up your spark table

it will also jack up your AFR targets.

and what sucks most is that there is no FAST way to fix it. You have to go in and edit every cell individually.

so as much fun as that sounds...

/\ haha I already went through my tables 3 times EACH cell individually when ironing out the fuel/spark the last few times.:facepalm:

SCREW THAT lol

Is it ok if I am tuning for 180kpa and set my my kpa value just above that? Is it when your change that value after you've already done tuning that software screws up that value?

I'm aiming for stoich at cruise, because I'm just running a narrowband sensor I can't target anything else anyway. Here's my target table:

http://sites.google.com/site/timkent...target-afr.png

It could be the transmission I guess, the brakes are all good though.

I'll do some datalogging and report back, thanks guys!

Narrow band = completely useless

14.7 AFR at 150 kPa = fucking insane