Post your MAT Based Timing Retard Table
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
Post your MAT Based Timing Retard Table
Ok, so what is everyone running for MAT based timing retard? Please post what fuel you're running. We know you guys with E85 probably don't even have a table, but the rest of us on pump gas need this feature.
Here's my current table.
93 Octane:
I think this is conservative. To the point I'm tempted to make it less-conservative as it really hurts power as AITs climb, though I'm also trying to improve the AITs too.
Here's my current table.
93 Octane:
I think this is conservative. To the point I'm tempted to make it less-conservative as it really hurts power as AITs climb, though I'm also trying to improve the AITs too.
#3
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
Ian- Yours is almost identical to mine. I did all the conversions from C to F and we're very similar curves.
EDIT: I also just read online some systems simply pick a number, (say 120*F for example) and then subract X timing per degree above that temp, flat and linear. I read 2 people with a miata used ~40*C (~104F) and then every degree C above that, minus 1/8 degree.
That would look like
40C = 0
45C = .625
60C = 2.5
80C = 5
90C = 6.25
That's similar to mine below 60*C, but above 60*C, mine is more conservative, as I'm pulling about 1 degree more timing up top.
EDIT: I also just read online some systems simply pick a number, (say 120*F for example) and then subract X timing per degree above that temp, flat and linear. I read 2 people with a miata used ~40*C (~104F) and then every degree C above that, minus 1/8 degree.
That would look like
40C = 0
45C = .625
60C = 2.5
80C = 5
90C = 6.25
That's similar to mine below 60*C, but above 60*C, mine is more conservative, as I'm pulling about 1 degree more timing up top.
#6
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
Here's my timing table. It's not ideal, I pulled 3 deg out of the upper boosted cells and it cost me 52whp... But I saw a tiny amount of metal on the plugs (det) so I pulled timing until I could get the spark tuned better. I actually think the det was happening at high load/low RPM/high AITs but I pulled across the entire table to be safe.
#8
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
Another approach?
Ok here's a thought I just had that I'd like to get some feedback on.
When the air temps go up, this basically means that the fuel/air charge is going to be hotter during compression and during the early parts of ignition. Thus more likely to detonate.
I believe a colder mixture burns slower, and a hotter mixture burns faster. So I can kinda see the need to pull timing with higher temps due to this, even if detonation was not an issue. Just to keep peak pressure in the right spot. But I doubt it's much because while it burns faster, hotter air is less dense too so they kinda cancel each other out to some extent.
But in the miata's case, the problem is too hot = detonation. And pulling timing doesn't directly cool the charge, it just shifts peak pressure to the right to prevent it from detonating at the expense of power. Less peak pressure solves the detonation but hurts power.
So.... What about just setting up a fuel enrichment at high AITs and NOT pull timing? This would more or less treat the problem (air is hot) instead of masking it (pulling timing to reduce peak pressure/chance of det but at the expense of power). You would be relying on the extra fuel to help cool the charge. This is well accepted that more fuel helps prevent detonation.
My gut feeling says going from say, 11.0:1 AFRs to 10.0:1 AFRs would make more power than pulling 5-6* of timing and keeping the 11.0:1 AFRs. And I believe both would "fix" the problem of detonation. Thoughts? I think this idea has promise!
When the air temps go up, this basically means that the fuel/air charge is going to be hotter during compression and during the early parts of ignition. Thus more likely to detonate.
I believe a colder mixture burns slower, and a hotter mixture burns faster. So I can kinda see the need to pull timing with higher temps due to this, even if detonation was not an issue. Just to keep peak pressure in the right spot. But I doubt it's much because while it burns faster, hotter air is less dense too so they kinda cancel each other out to some extent.
But in the miata's case, the problem is too hot = detonation. And pulling timing doesn't directly cool the charge, it just shifts peak pressure to the right to prevent it from detonating at the expense of power. Less peak pressure solves the detonation but hurts power.
So.... What about just setting up a fuel enrichment at high AITs and NOT pull timing? This would more or less treat the problem (air is hot) instead of masking it (pulling timing to reduce peak pressure/chance of det but at the expense of power). You would be relying on the extra fuel to help cool the charge. This is well accepted that more fuel helps prevent detonation.
My gut feeling says going from say, 11.0:1 AFRs to 10.0:1 AFRs would make more power than pulling 5-6* of timing and keeping the 11.0:1 AFRs. And I believe both would "fix" the problem of detonation. Thoughts? I think this idea has promise!
#9
So.... What about just setting up a fuel enrichment at high AITs and NOT pull timing? This would more or less treat the problem (air is hot) instead of masking it (pulling timing to reduce peak pressure/chance of det but at the expense of power). You would be relying on the extra fuel to help cool the charge. This is well accepted that more fuel helps prevent detonation.
My gut feeling says going from say, 11.0:1 AFRs to 10.0:1 AFRs would make more power than pulling 5-6* of timing and keeping the 11.0:1 AFRs. And I believe both would "fix" the problem of detonation. Thoughts? I think this idea has promise!
Second, the existing tables in the MS3 won't do this, because the air density table is a 2d table and you'd want a 3d one. There's no point in running 1-2 points richer when cruising down the freeway just because you're in Las Vegas and the ambient air temp is 116F.
--Ian
#10
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
Second, the existing tables in the MS3 won't do this, because the air density table is a 2d table and you'd want a 3d one. There's no point in running 1-2 points richer when cruising down the freeway just because you're in Las Vegas and the ambient air temp is 116F.
--Ian
--Ian
But I'd probably do it based on MAT. And not have it kick in until air temps are pretty high, say +130 for example. That way it only kicks in when actually boosting around.
#11
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
As an example, you could play with the MAT fuel correction and have it begin adding fuel above 120*F, and by 150*F it's enriching AFRs from say 11.0 to 10.0. And at the same time, you're MAT based timing retard pulls say 1* at 140 and 2* at 160.
So comparatively, with 160*F air temps, I'd be only pulling 2* of timing instead of 4, but adding 1 point of fuel too. The question is, would this make more power? I think it would. My car gets slow when you start pulling lots of timing.
So comparatively, with 160*F air temps, I'd be only pulling 2* of timing instead of 4, but adding 1 point of fuel too. The question is, would this make more power? I think it would. My car gets slow when you start pulling lots of timing.
#13
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
I don't know how much power I'd "loose", but virtual dyno shows 3* of timing cost me 52whp on my setup. Thus why I'm curious what would happen if I could keep more timing in it and use fuel to help control detonation. Neither of these are new ideas, we all tune rich in boost to control det, and pulling timing with high AITs is nothing new either.
The question is, would more of one and less of the other make more power? Based on loosing 52whp pulling 3* of timing on my setup, I'm thinking that adding fuel and keeping the timing higher could be a better approach.
#14
Elite Member
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Very NorCal
Posts: 10,441
Total Cats: 1,899
As an example, you could play with the MAT fuel correction and have it begin adding fuel above 120*F, and by 150*F it's enriching AFRs from say 11.0 to 10.0. And at the same time, you're MAT based timing retard pulls say 1* at 140 and 2* at 160.
So comparatively, with 160*F air temps, I'd be only pulling 2* of timing instead of 4, but adding 1 point of fuel too.
So comparatively, with 160*F air temps, I'd be only pulling 2* of timing instead of 4, but adding 1 point of fuel too.
Honestly, I wouldn't be screwing with this as a "make more power" feature, I'd be looking at it as a "make it safer" feature.
#15
As an example, you could play with the MAT fuel correction and have it begin adding fuel above 120*F, and by 150*F it's enriching AFRs from say 11.0 to 10.0. And at the same time, you're MAT based timing retard pulls say 1* at 140 and 2* at 160.
So comparatively, with 160*F air temps, I'd be only pulling 2* of timing instead of 4, but adding 1 point of fuel too. The question is, would this make more power? I think it would. My car gets slow when you start pulling lots of timing.
So comparatively, with 160*F air temps, I'd be only pulling 2* of timing instead of 4, but adding 1 point of fuel too. The question is, would this make more power? I think it would. My car gets slow when you start pulling lots of timing.
--Ian
#16
Retired Mech Design Engr
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 5,009
Total Cats: 857
<p> </p><p><img src="https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.miataturbo.net-vbulletin/576x504/80-mat_timing_retard_dab02c5ea210e69f6150e81ee60c47fc 2faeabba.png" title="" /> </p><p> </p>
#17
Elite Member
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Very NorCal
Posts: 10,441
Total Cats: 1,899
The only time I see temps this high is idling in traffic after the fan kicks on and heatsoaks the hell out of everything under the hood.
But I agree, while you should never see IAT's this high, it would be nice to know that something is watching your back should you loose significant airflow through the heat exchangers or you heatsoak sitting on a grid/in the pits/staging area/burnout box.
But I agree, while you should never see IAT's this high, it would be nice to know that something is watching your back should you loose significant airflow through the heat exchangers or you heatsoak sitting on a grid/in the pits/staging area/burnout box.
#18
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
If you're seeing 160F, I think you need a better intercooler. 160F is 70C, I don't even see temps that high on the dyno with pitiful airflow through the intercooler. Looking at my datalog from fuel pressure testing a week or so ago, a 3rd gear pull (at 27 psi!) took the AITs from 27C/80F (which was about the ambient temp) up to 40C/104F.
--Ian
--Ian
#19
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 481
I agree, I was thinking about this at lunch and it seems like a much better way to go. Certainly better than pulling fuel as does the as-delivered table.
Honestly, I wouldn't be screwing with this as a "make more power" feature, I'd be looking at it as a "make it safer" feature.
Honestly, I wouldn't be screwing with this as a "make more power" feature, I'd be looking at it as a "make it safer" feature.
The only time I see temps this high is idling in traffic after the fan kicks on and heatsoaks the hell out of everything under the hood.
But I agree, while you should never see IAT's this high, it would be nice to know that something is watching your back should you loose significant airflow through the heat exchangers or you heatsoak sitting on a grid/in the pits/staging area/burnout box.
But I agree, while you should never see IAT's this high, it would be nice to know that something is watching your back should you loose significant airflow through the heat exchangers or you heatsoak sitting on a grid/in the pits/staging area/burnout box.
#20
Like I mentioned above, this blower makes realllyyy hot air. I'm working on getting my intercooler to work better. Currently it's around 10-15 over ambient in cruise, and will climb an additional 40*F in a 1-2-3 pull to 8,500. It's an ebay bar/plate, maybe it sucks but I ran this same IC with a turbo and it was beast then, more like Ian's numbers.
--Ian