When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Thanks for the thread. It's given me the confidence to do two things:
1. Switch back to 87.
2. Run more timing
FWIW, I use Brain's map and added 5 degrees from 1660-7000 RPM and 24-98.7 kPa. It's still about 5 degrees less than yours though. The car's been running great so far.
I just thought I'd share some of the tuning work I've done this weekend. This should give some people a better idea of how WOT spark effects Tooutput as your approach MBT.
Test vehicle is a 99 miata mostly stock (4-2-1 JDM oem header, 2.5" exhaust)
ECU is MS3X, fuel tuned to 12.5 tapering to 12.2
91 octane gas used
Note: low compression in cylinder 4 and it was burning a decent amount of oil
I took the stock MSPNP pro basemap and tuned fuel first. I then did a series of runs at 7 degrees timing pulled from basemap, 5 deg pulled, 3 pulled, 1 pulled, basemap, 1 degree added.
DYNO was a mustang chassis dyno with WHP and WTQ output via analog signals to the spare analog inputs of the MS3X and logged.
I've charted the outputs below. The basemap seems to be pretty spot on MBT. The +1 deg gave a bit more power in some parts of the map but I'd call it just about no gain (MAT was lower for that run too).
I wish I ran a +2, +3, and +4 to see where WTQ drops off or where knock begins to happen. Maybe I'll rerun that another time.
I took the stock MSPNP pro basemap and tuned fuel first. I then did a series of runs at 7 degrees timing pulled from basemap, 5 deg pulled, 3 pulled, 1 pulled, basemap, 1 degree added.
Looks good! This is a very accurate representation of what happens on sweep pulls if you pull timing with static fuel. The most common issue I see in tuning is the addition of fuel and timing for "more power" which, in effect, translates to a slower flame front during combustion from the additional fuel to compensate for the additional timing. All it nets is more fuel used. I'm not saying this is the case here but representing the most common issue I run see. To determine if your timing is optimized, you would choose to make fueling alterations at a given timing point. If you are able to hold a load point on an eddy current or similar dyno, you can make these changes real-time.
Pretty cool, thanks for sharing, and yeah there's not really even a point in playing with timing much past base map on 91. 27-28* unless you have major breathing mods
Originally Posted by vtjballeng
Looks good! This is a very accurate representation of what happens on sweep pulls if you pull timing with static fuel. The most common issue I see in tuning is the addition of fuel and timing for "more power" which, in effect, translates to a slower flame front during combustion from the additional fuel to compensate for the additional timing. All it nets is more fuel used. I'm not saying this is the case here but representing the most common issue I run see. To determine if your timing is optimized, you would choose to make fueling alterations at a given timing point. If you are able to hold a load point on an eddy current or similar dyno, you can make these changes real-time.
in MS usually the addition of timing necessitates the addition of fuel (if you're really making more power) as the car will lean out otherwise.
in MS usually the addition of timing necessitates the addition of fuel (if you're really making more power) as the car will lean out otherwise.
I am referring to the cyclic loop many tuners enter when they simply target more timing to make more power, then end up adding fuel to keep knock under control. Typically, it is possible to dial back fuel and timing in such cases and make the same power. The trick is dialing both back though as playing with just one variable at a time will register lower power. Many articles written about it and tuning guidelines regarding it. Here is one Spark Timing Myths Debunked - Spark Timing Myths Explained:: Application Notes .
The other, even more common, issue I see is people adding fuel when they are seeing a wideband read lean due to rich misfires.
throwing fuel at det is doin it wrong.
that wasn't part of this convo which is why I was curious why you brought it up.
You can't be sure unless you also change fuel parameters. He kept them fixed. A full dial in will involve optimizing fuel & ignition. This adds a lot more time to the tuning process and thus money as well. He could end up making more power at -1 deg while targeting 12.9:1 across the range, while saving fuel assuming this is NA. Or he could get nothing and he just happens to be optimized currently using rule of thumb fuel data.
I'm very glad this thread got back from the dead. Have been playing with cruise cells on my friends turbo 1.6 and was really apprehensive about going any further, after referencing other maps.
Learned a lot of good things influenced by this thread. Definitely deserves a sticky.
(Network down at work today, spent the last 9 hours "researching")
Hi, I am trying to find someone with a 1.8 Turbo with matching black top injectors that I can compare my tables with. I have not driven much yet as I am still working out all the settings. I have used the warmup tuner and ve tuner. i know most of things to configured and have done so but timing is everything I know there a a few maps posted here but many are for NA or 1.6.
94 MX-3
BPT import
MicroSquirt
LS2 Coils Batch Fire
03-14-2013, 03:16 PM
0
I know there a a few maps posted here but many are for NA or 1.6.
