What AFR you 2.5's running at the top ?
12 March 2006, 02:32 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RobEvo5
Nice graph. Somehow I have just got to find away to keep the graph climing above 5250, and possibly ramping up quicker in the mid range as well. Do you know what you timing your was doing between 5-6K. ?
13 March 2006, 02:00 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scott.T
Rob,
It may be the Venom single point 740cc injectors not atomizing very well .....any one elses comments on Venom's performance would probably be appreciated.
It may be the Venom single point 740cc injectors not atomizing very well .....any one elses comments on Venom's performance would probably be appreciated.
13 March 2006, 03:25 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks to me like you need to make the engine breath a little better at the topend to get it to take more timing.
The torque seems reasonable for the boost but I suspect VE is falling rapidly above 5500rpm due to a combination of std inlet, UK heads and 2.5" exhaust and poor heat management.
What MY is the car?
Have you looked at the map tracer in the commander to see if its dropping through load rows at higher revs?
Andrew...
The torque seems reasonable for the boost but I suspect VE is falling rapidly above 5500rpm due to a combination of std inlet, UK heads and 2.5" exhaust and poor heat management.
What MY is the car?
Have you looked at the map tracer in the commander to see if its dropping through load rows at higher revs?
Andrew...
13 March 2006, 03:52 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is that weird? What MY is it? If it's pre-99 then I would suspect it's over 5v on the MAF.
Does it stay in row 19? From looking at the graphs and what's been said I suspect it will be dropping down the rows above 5.5K.
Andrew...
Does it stay in row 19? From looking at the graphs and what's been said I suspect it will be dropping down the rows above 5.5K.
Andrew...
13 March 2006, 07:50 PM
#37
It's an MY98 and the MAF has been rescaled to suite i.e not using the default STi MAF settings.
AFAIK Scoobyduck (steve) only gets into Rows 15/16 on his MY98.
The 'mapper' also mentioned that it was stange that it was going as high 18.
This was when the clutch was knackered. Now the clutch is not slipping it's hitting 19 & 20
Surley dropping down the rows is going to advance the timing not retard, as the lower rows container higher figures (well at least on the collection of maps I have, they do).
AFAIK Scoobyduck (steve) only gets into Rows 15/16 on his MY98.
The 'mapper' also mentioned that it was stange that it was going as high 18.
This was when the clutch was knackered. Now the clutch is not slipping it's hitting 19 & 20
Surley dropping down the rows is going to advance the timing not retard, as the lower rows container higher figures (well at least on the collection of maps I have, they do).
Last edited by Scott.T; 13 March 2006 at 08:01 PM.
13 March 2006, 10:00 PM
#38
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No 
If the lower rows have higher timing its just because nobody has bothered to set them properly !
It is good practice to set the 'run-off' zones extremely safe ie rich and retarded (like some mappers out there
)
Andy
If the lower rows have higher timing its just because nobody has bothered to set them properly !It is good practice to set the 'run-off' zones extremely safe ie rich and retarded (like some mappers out there
)Andy
13 March 2006, 10:48 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does Steve have a 2.5 and a 20G now?
Using the 'standard' scalings for a UK98 MAF my car was in row 19 with the MAF at 5.115v from about 5K upwards.
Even if the airflow was dropping off and moving down the load rows I would still expect timing to rise a few degrees with rpm. Are you saying that the timing 'retards' at higher rpm?
Andrew...
Using the 'standard' scalings for a UK98 MAF my car was in row 19 with the MAF at 5.115v from about 5K upwards.
Even if the airflow was dropping off and moving down the load rows I would still expect timing to rise a few degrees with rpm. Are you saying that the timing 'retards' at higher rpm?
Andrew...
14 March 2006, 12:41 AM
#41
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ECU Mapping - www.JollyGreenMonster.co.uk
Posts: 16,548
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Probably obvious from my absence from the thread that I mapped it!
Nail squarely hit on the head!
the timing does not flatten off
it is rescaled using the MAF scaling on settings 3 on the FC-Edit software.
peaks between rows 19 and 20.. commander probably shows 20 and then runs along row 19 and then drops off above 5200rpm into 18 and then 17.
Map timing increases as it drops off down the map.
I don't feel the timnig is that tame.. the engine cannot breath imho.
hold on it is rescaled now.. but wasn't in previous post.. lol..
Scoobyduck is still running a 2litre and not a 20g..
I am not sure I said strange.. just that the load the ECU is seeing is high.. probably down to the air being drawn through the standard air box, it is different to a uk98 2litre for example, but then it would be.
The orignal mention of the ecu dropping through the rows I believe was posted by Paul with regard to the timnig not being flat.. although it may appear so in the map as each row has similar timing.. as Rob said it apeared flat.
Paul is correct it drops down the rows and the timing increases..
H&S quote the 2.5inch system they do as restricting things to around 360bhp.. iirc Rob is running TSL 2.5inch system.. if we assume similar flow then you are getting close to that area and it will be starting to restrict things before 360.. the standard air box is clearly imho causing a restriction due to the load the ecu is seeing via the maf.. I did mention this many times whilst mapping it but Rob doesn't want induction noise.. then we have the standard uk98 heads whcih are not going to flow as much as STi.
I understand your wanting it to run big numbers on the rollers Rob, but feel this number chasing is forgotting where you drive it.. the spool on this car is very rapid and it does really pull well..
But I would like you to be happy with the car and I am happy to spend a bit more time FOC trying to gain everything there is to have out of the current setup..
Simon
Originally Posted by Zen Performance
Rob,
I think you are confused. At no point did I question the mapping, it was yourself that started the mapping thread with a question about AFR.
Just because the a map doesn't have additional timing with increasing RPM on a row by row basis, that doesn't mean it isn't appropriate. Some cars need timing removing at the top simply because they are sensitive to det. That is a problem I come across on many UK cars of a certain vintage. Add the 2.5 bottom end and you can run into serious problems trying to get the power you wish.
Some cars just behave nicely and power is easy to get, other can be a pain.
I think you are confused. At no point did I question the mapping, it was yourself that started the mapping thread with a question about AFR.
Just because the a map doesn't have additional timing with increasing RPM on a row by row basis, that doesn't mean it isn't appropriate. Some cars need timing removing at the top simply because they are sensitive to det. That is a problem I come across on many UK cars of a certain vintage. Add the 2.5 bottom end and you can run into serious problems trying to get the power you wish.
Some cars just behave nicely and power is easy to get, other can be a pain.
Originally Posted by Andy.F
It certainly looks like it flattens off timing or struggles to breath from circa 5200 rpm.
Originally Posted by Scott.T
It does use the whole of the map i.e all 20 rows depite not being rescaled to do so. Which is a bit weird.
From what I've seen it peaks momentarily into Row 20 then drops back into 19
From what I've seen it peaks momentarily into Row 20 then drops back into 19
peaks between rows 19 and 20.. commander probably shows 20 and then runs along row 19 and then drops off above 5200rpm into 18 and then 17.
Map timing increases as it drops off down the map.
I don't feel the timnig is that tame.. the engine cannot breath imho.
Originally Posted by Scott.T
It's an MY98 and the MAF has been rescaled to suite i.e not using the default STi MAF settings.
AFAIK Scoobyduck (steve) only gets into Rows 15/16 on his MY98.
The 'mapper' also mentioned that it was stange that it was going as high 18.
This was when the clutch was knackered. Now the clutch is not slipping it's hitting 19 & 20
Surley dropping down the rows is going to advance the timing not retard, as the lower rows container higher figures (well at least on the collection of maps I have, they do).
AFAIK Scoobyduck (steve) only gets into Rows 15/16 on his MY98.
The 'mapper' also mentioned that it was stange that it was going as high 18.
This was when the clutch was knackered. Now the clutch is not slipping it's hitting 19 & 20
Surley dropping down the rows is going to advance the timing not retard, as the lower rows container higher figures (well at least on the collection of maps I have, they do).
Scoobyduck is still running a 2litre and not a 20g..
I am not sure I said strange.. just that the load the ECU is seeing is high.. probably down to the air being drawn through the standard air box, it is different to a uk98 2litre for example, but then it would be.
The orignal mention of the ecu dropping through the rows I believe was posted by Paul with regard to the timnig not being flat.. although it may appear so in the map as each row has similar timing.. as Rob said it apeared flat.
Paul is correct it drops down the rows and the timing increases..
H&S quote the 2.5inch system they do as restricting things to around 360bhp.. iirc Rob is running TSL 2.5inch system.. if we assume similar flow then you are getting close to that area and it will be starting to restrict things before 360.. the standard air box is clearly imho causing a restriction due to the load the ecu is seeing via the maf.. I did mention this many times whilst mapping it but Rob doesn't want induction noise.. then we have the standard uk98 heads whcih are not going to flow as much as STi.
I understand your wanting it to run big numbers on the rollers Rob, but feel this number chasing is forgotting where you drive it.. the spool on this car is very rapid and it does really pull well..
But I would like you to be happy with the car and I am happy to spend a bit more time FOC trying to gain everything there is to have out of the current setup..
Simon
Last edited by Jolly Green Monster; 14 March 2006 at 12:46 AM.
14 March 2006, 03:06 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob
Have you vented the crankcase breather, this freed up a couple more degrees of timing for me at the topend.
Otherwise get some NF into it. 1ml/L, and hey presto 2-3 degrees more timing everywhere
Combination of the two, and you might be getting close your target without changing exhaust or induction. Probably works out cheaper too
Just my tuppence worth
Simon
Have you vented the crankcase breather, this freed up a couple more degrees of timing for me at the topend.
Otherwise get some NF into it. 1ml/L, and hey presto 2-3 degrees more timing everywhere
Combination of the two, and you might be getting close your target without changing exhaust or induction. Probably works out cheaper too
Just my tuppence worth
Simon
14 March 2006, 03:14 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, isn't the MY98 UK MAF housing smaller (~75mm iirc, c/w ~90mm for JDM and MY99/00, hence the rescaling required), and if so, would it be worth sourcing a JDM housing to remove that restriction (if it is restricting - someone needs to do a fancy calculation)?
Just a thought
Just a thought
14 March 2006, 08:18 AM
#44
Originally Posted by Andy.F
Just to clarify, by lower rows I was referring to lower as in lower on the map, not lower numerically.
That's all right then. As it hasn't got any more 'lower' rows to use, as it used all 20.
Simon,
When I first said the MAF wasn't rescaled I was referring to the row scaling i.e geting it to use all 20 rows, as talked about by AndyF on my 22B thread.
When I then said it was rescaled, I was referring to the MAF Voltages/% due to it being a UK MAF (we think, but worth Rob checking)
(Although I expect there is some relation between the 2 'scales'...I'm not 100% upto speed on PFC configuration....YET).
14 March 2006, 09:11 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simon - Sorry to drag you into this, you have been a diamond geezer throught my mission, and have been very tollerant of me, chopping and changing bits but without hesitation willing to re-look at things. And still offering to get the max from my car with the current mod's.
Before going much further I guess I am going to have to consider an induction kit but that is a mine field in itsself. APS cold induction kits can't be brought for love nor money, and the K&N type kits suck in warm air, so are they really any better. I might try and air box mod by drilling lots of holes in the side base.
Before going much further I guess I am going to have to consider an induction kit but that is a mine field in itsself. APS cold induction kits can't be brought for love nor money, and the K&N type kits suck in warm air, so are they really any better. I might try and air box mod by drilling lots of holes in the side base.
14 March 2006, 09:40 AM
#46
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndrewC
Does Steve have a 2.5 and a 20G now?
Using the 'standard' scalings for a UK98 MAF my car was in row 19 with the MAF at 5.115v from about 5K upwards.
Even if the airflow was dropping off and moving down the load rows I would still expect timing to rise a few degrees with rpm. Are you saying that the timing 'retards' at higher rpm?
Andrew...
Using the 'standard' scalings for a UK98 MAF my car was in row 19 with the MAF at 5.115v from about 5K upwards.
Even if the airflow was dropping off and moving down the load rows I would still expect timing to rise a few degrees with rpm. Are you saying that the timing 'retards' at higher rpm?
Andrew...
14 March 2006, 10:41 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I have seen a hole there as well - my own car seemed to have a problem between 6600 and 6800, but I'm not sure that is the case here, Simon has said that the timing is not flat so I take it that means it does rise with RPM despite the drop off in airflow.
I think there are enough people more knowledgeable than me discussing this, I'll go back to watching.
Andrew...
PS. One more thing, I did read what Andy said the wrong way round, to my way of thinking lower in the map means a lower load row not lower visually, but that's what you get for using software written in the lower hemisphere
I think there are enough people more knowledgeable than me discussing this, I'll go back to watching.
Andrew...
PS. One more thing, I did read what Andy said the wrong way round, to my way of thinking lower in the map means a lower load row not lower visually, but that's what you get for using software written in the lower hemisphere
14 March 2006, 10:49 AM
#48
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ECU Mapping - www.JollyGreenMonster.co.uk
Posts: 16,548
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by AndrewC
Yes I have seen a hole there as well - my own car seemed to have a problem between 6600 and 6800, but I'm not sure that is the case here, Simon has said that the timing is not flat so I take it that means it does rise with RPM despite the drop off in airflow.
I think there are enough people more knowledgeable than me discussing this, I'll go back to watching.
Andrew...
PS. One more thing, I did read what Andy said the wrong way round, to my way of thinking lower in the map means a lower load row not lower visually, but that's what you get for using software written in the lower hemisphere
I think there are enough people more knowledgeable than me discussing this, I'll go back to watching.
Andrew...
PS. One more thing, I did read what Andy said the wrong way round, to my way of thinking lower in the map means a lower load row not lower visually, but that's what you get for using software written in the lower hemisphere
I also read that the same way as yourself Andrew not that is makes any difference.. probably because switching between ecu's gets confusing referring to it visually as some work the other way up (Omex/GEMs for example or Hydra which increase down visually with rpm).
Simon
14 March 2006, 10:52 AM
#49
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ECU Mapping - www.JollyGreenMonster.co.uk
Posts: 16,548
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by SiHethers
Rob
Have you vented the crankcase breather, this freed up a couple more degrees of timing for me at the topend.
Otherwise get some NF into it. 1ml/L, and hey presto 2-3 degrees more timing everywhere
Combination of the two, and you might be getting close your target without changing exhaust or induction. Probably works out cheaper too
Just my tuppence worth
Simon
Have you vented the crankcase breather, this freed up a couple more degrees of timing for me at the topend.
Otherwise get some NF into it. 1ml/L, and hey presto 2-3 degrees more timing everywhere
Combination of the two, and you might be getting close your target without changing exhaust or induction. Probably works out cheaper too
Just my tuppence worth
Simon
Simon
14 March 2006, 10:57 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndrewC
I think there are enough people more knowledgeable than me discussing this, I'll go back to watching.
But with a knowledge base like this on tap its not worth even trying. I am hoping Simon might be able to find a few more degrees at the top, and no doub't we will have a play at some stage. But its looking like it might transpire I need some more supporting mods.
14 March 2006, 01:39 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scott.T
Don't K&N do a cold air kit these days, called a Typhoon (I think)
14 March 2006, 01:48 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jolly Green Monster
I have said it before and I will say it again... the timing is NOT tame..
Nitrous ?
14 March 2006, 05:05 PM
#56
Heat management........
Little money and more time would be best spent wrapping those headers and downpipe. And sorting out some sort of heatshield for the 20g.
It's probably why it dropped from 344BHP to 334BHP is such a short space of time. And also why a slight tinkle was heard on the RR.
£1.35 per Meter, about 30 meters required...so pretty cheap really from www.thinkauto.com
P.S Not sure why you car 'stinks' either. It becomes very fumey inside and especially in the back, when ragged IMHO
Little money and more time would be best spent wrapping those headers and downpipe. And sorting out some sort of heatshield for the 20g.
It's probably why it dropped from 344BHP to 334BHP is such a short space of time. And also why a slight tinkle was heard on the RR.
£1.35 per Meter, about 30 meters required...so pretty cheap really from www.thinkauto.com
P.S Not sure why you car 'stinks' either. It becomes very fumey inside and especially in the back, when ragged IMHO
Last edited by Scott.T; 14 March 2006 at 05:07 PM.
14 March 2006, 05:32 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scott.T
Heat management........
Little money and more time would be best spent wrapping those headers and downpipe. And sorting out some sort of heatshield for the 20g.
It's probably why it dropped from 344BHP to 334BHP is such a short space of time. And also why a slight tinkle was heard on the RR.
£1.35 per Meter, about 30 meters required...so pretty cheap really from www.thinkauto.com
P.S Not sure why you car 'stinks' either. It becomes very fumey inside and especially in the back, when ragged IMHO
Little money and more time would be best spent wrapping those headers and downpipe. And sorting out some sort of heatshield for the 20g.
It's probably why it dropped from 344BHP to 334BHP is such a short space of time. And also why a slight tinkle was heard on the RR.
£1.35 per Meter, about 30 meters required...so pretty cheap really from www.thinkauto.com
P.S Not sure why you car 'stinks' either. It becomes very fumey inside and especially in the back, when ragged IMHO
With regards to smell it was probably you shi**ing yourself as were were trying to map it in 5th in the dark and rain on full song.! If it wern't you it was probably me and I was driving
14 March 2006, 05:36 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to old methods again and listening to the car and having a feel for the car, my money is on the requirement for a K&N induction kit of some description. It has a full decat and a huge turbo and needs to get some more air in for everything else to breath better. But guess an Induction kit could **** up the fueling and everything else again.! Doh.
14 March 2006, 08:25 PM
#59
You'll gain more then 1-2 BHP. You lost 10BHP in under 5 mins on the rollers. He only ran it up twice after the initial check and calibration.
I lost count of the amount of runs PE done on mine when I had the TEK re-mapped from TD04 - VF28. Must of been getting on for 10 - 15. And I saw little variation in output.
The only time I saw a variation of that magnitude was when we had finished and Chris poured a mug of water on the intercooler to see what difference it made.....+12BHP.
P.S take the ITG out and check it, they are/can be pretty gungey. Also worth cleaning the MAF with brake cleaner and cotton bud.
I lost count of the amount of runs PE done on mine when I had the TEK re-mapped from TD04 - VF28. Must of been getting on for 10 - 15. And I saw little variation in output.
The only time I saw a variation of that magnitude was when we had finished and Chris poured a mug of water on the intercooler to see what difference it made.....+12BHP.
P.S take the ITG out and check it, they are/can be pretty gungey. Also worth cleaning the MAF with brake cleaner and cotton bud.
15 March 2006, 08:49 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scott.T
P.S take the ITG out and check it, they are/can be pretty gungey. Also worth cleaning the MAF with brake cleaner and cotton bud.