Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>


Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was 207.9
rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end (measured at
tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel and
eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the knock
window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp gain,
several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I also
added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total; my
last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock. Not
a bad evening's work!

Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was pretty
warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but even
pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.

I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The car
has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it should
be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to do
are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.

For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm thinking:
1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for safety

Here's the car setup:
- Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
- Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
- FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28 (3000
miles on it)
- FM III style I/C piping & intake
- FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
- Stock fuel rail
- FM turbo dual exhaust
- FM free-flow cat
- HKS SSQ blow-off valve
- EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need to
find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
- Plugged EGR in manifold

Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like pushing
string, but I'm getting there!

--Jerry

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Pick up the new chip. Its only 25 bucks. Your probably seeing some spark
scatter.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "nramsey" <(email redacted)>


>From what I have seen and heard cars are more knock prone on the
street...having to push the car around rather than spin rollers.

Nate

---- Original Message ----
From: (email redacted)
To: (email redacted)
Subject: RE: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:49:00 -0400

>
>Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
>Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull
>was 207.9
>rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
>improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end
>(measured at
>tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
>Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit,
>lousy
>timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master
>Fuel and
>eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the
>knock
>window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
>registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4
>hp gain,
>several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I
>also
>added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls
>total; my
>last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO
>knock. Not
>a bad evening's work!
>
>Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see
>knock!
>Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was
>pretty
>warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing
>the
>datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation,
>but even
>pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
>
>I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability.
>The car
>has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that
>it should
>be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
>realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can
>think to do
>are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
>
>For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
>thinking:
>1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
>2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for
>safety
>
>Here's the car setup:
>- Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
>- Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
>- FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28
>(3000
>miles on it)
>- FM III style I/C piping & intake
>- FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
>- Stock fuel rail
>- FM turbo dual exhaust
>- FM free-flow cat
>- HKS SSQ blow-off valve
>- EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!).
>Need to
>find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
>- Plugged EGR in manifold
>
>Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like
>pushing
>string, but I'm getting there!
>
>--Jerry
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray <(email redacted)>


Unless you do your dyno testing in high gear the combustion chambers
never reach peak temps as high as you see on the street. And if your
air temp ign timing retard is set too steep, the higher air temps on the
dyno will cause more ign retard than you will get on the street.



Jerry Malsam wrote:
>
> Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was 207.9
> rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end (measured at
> tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel and
> eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the knock
> window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp gain,
> several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I also
> added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total; my
> last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock. Not
> a bad evening's work!
>
> Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was pretty
> warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but even
> pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
>
> I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The car
> has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it should
> be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to do
> are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
>
> For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm thinking:
> 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for safety
>
> Here's the car setup:
> - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28 (3000
> miles on it)
> - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> - Stock fuel rail
> - FM turbo dual exhaust
> - FM free-flow cat
> - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need to
> find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> - Plugged EGR in manifold
>
> Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like pushing
> string, but I'm getting there!
>
> --Jerry

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>




Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
loads without a load cell or brake of somekind, which most Dynojets do not
have.

So here is what you do... You add timing until knock goes away on the
street or you find a real dyno that simulates load. Bill had this problem
when he first started tuning on his dyno where the dyno run would be
without knock and then on the street it would ping like a big dog.

Nothing wrong with how he tunes, just that the dynojet is not representive
of real world loads.

Mark


On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jerry Malsam wrote:

>
> Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was 207.9
> rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end (measured at
> tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel and
> eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the knock
> window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp gain,
> several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I also
> added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total; my
> last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock. Not
> a bad evening's work!
>
> Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was pretty
> warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but even
> pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
>
> I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The car
> has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it should
> be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to do
> are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
>
> For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm thinking:
> 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for safety
>
> Here's the car setup:
> - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28 (3000
> miles on it)
> - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> - Stock fuel rail
> - FM turbo dual exhaust
> - FM free-flow cat
> - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need to
> find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> - Plugged EGR in manifold
>
> Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like pushing
> string, but I'm getting there!
>
> --Jerry
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Where did you come up with that idea?? Curious. No spark scatter on the
dyno and spark scatter on the street?

Mark


On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, (email redacted) wrote:

> Pick up the new chip. Its only 25 bucks. Your probably seeing some spark
> scatter.
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>


Forgot to mention, all pulls were done in fourth gear from 2000rpm -- pretty
long pulls. Air temp retard is default from 22-Jun-2001 chip:

Fuel Low Slope: 128
Fuel High Slope: 128
Ignition Start ('C): 60
Ignition Slope: 32

Do these values sound reasonable? FWIW, air temp briefly got to 74'C in the
one pull (2nd pull overall) that was datalogged. It didn't get over 46'C on
the trip home.

--Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray" <(email redacted)>
Cc: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)


>
> Unless you do your dyno testing in high gear the combustion chambers
> never reach peak temps as high as you see on the street. And if your
> air temp ign timing retard is set too steep, the higher air temps on the
> dyno will cause more ign retard than you will get on the street.
>
>
>
> Jerry Malsam wrote:
> >
> > Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> > Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was
207.9
> > rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> > improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end
(measured at
> > tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> > Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> > timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel
and
> > eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the
knock
> > window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> > registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp
gain,
> > several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I
also
> > added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total;
my
> > last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock.
Not
> > a bad evening's work!
> >
> > Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> > Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was
pretty
> > warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> > datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but
even
> > pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
> >
> > I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The
car
> > has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it
should
> > be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> > realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to
do
> > are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
> >
> > For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
thinking:
> > 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> > 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for
safety
> >
> > Here's the car setup:
> > - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> > - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> > - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28
(3000
> > miles on it)
> > - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> > - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> > - Stock fuel rail
> > - FM turbo dual exhaust
> > - FM free-flow cat
> > - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> > - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need
to
> > find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> > - Plugged EGR in manifold
> >
> > Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like
pushing
> > string, but I'm getting there!
> >
> > --Jerry
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Cardell <(email redacted)>


74c!? I don't think I've ever seen a number that high, matter of fact much
over 50C. Did they have a fan? You probably want the ignition start closer
to 30C

Bill Cardell
(email redacted)
Flyin' Miata
1-800-359-6957 (sales only)
970-242-3800 (tech support)
flyinmiata.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Malsam [mailto:(email redacted)]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:25 PM
To: Ray
Cc: Miata Power
Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)



Forgot to mention, all pulls were done in fourth gear from 2000rpm -- pretty
long pulls. Air temp retard is default from 22-Jun-2001 chip:

Fuel Low Slope: 128
Fuel High Slope: 128
Ignition Start ('C): 60
Ignition Slope: 32

Do these values sound reasonable? FWIW, air temp briefly got to 74'C in the
one pull (2nd pull overall) that was datalogged. It didn't get over 46'C on
the trip home.

--Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray" <(email redacted)>
Cc: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)


>
> Unless you do your dyno testing in high gear the combustion chambers
> never reach peak temps as high as you see on the street. And if your
> air temp ign timing retard is set too steep, the higher air temps on the
> dyno will cause more ign retard than you will get on the street.
>
>
>
> Jerry Malsam wrote:
> >
> > Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> > Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was
207.9
> > rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> > improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end
(measured at
> > tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> > Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> > timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel
and
> > eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the
knock
> > window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> > registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp
gain,
> > several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I
also
> > added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total;
my
> > last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock.
Not
> > a bad evening's work!
> >
> > Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> > Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was
pretty
> > warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> > datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but
even
> > pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
> >
> > I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The
car
> > has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it
should
> > be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> > realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to
do
> > are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
> >
> > For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
thinking:
> > 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> > 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for
safety
> >
> > Here's the car setup:
> > - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> > - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> > - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28
(3000
> > miles on it)
> > - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> > - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> > - Stock fuel rail
> > - FM turbo dual exhaust
> > - FM free-flow cat
> > - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> > - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need
to
> > find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> > - Plugged EGR in manifold
> >
> > Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like
pushing
> > string, but I'm getting there!
> >
> > --Jerry
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Well maybe not... I just got off work and I am still buzzing from the JP8.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>


Let me just confirm: You're saying (for a Dynojet) tune fuel on the dyno,
then tune timing on the street?

--Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Peugeot" <(email redacted)>
To: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>
Cc: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)


>
>
>
> Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
> loads without a load cell or brake of somekind, which most Dynojets do not
> have.
>
> So here is what you do... You add timing until knock goes away on the
> street or you find a real dyno that simulates load. Bill had this problem
> when he first started tuning on his dyno where the dyno run would be
> without knock and then on the street it would ping like a big dog.
>
> Nothing wrong with how he tunes, just that the dynojet is not representive
> of real world loads.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jerry Malsam wrote:
>
> >
> > Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> > Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was
207.9
> > rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> > improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end
(measured at
> > tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> > Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> > timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel
and
> > eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the
knock
> > window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> > registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp
gain,
> > several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I
also
> > added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total;
my
> > last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock.
Not
> > a bad evening's work!
> >
> > Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> > Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was
pretty
> > warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> > datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but
even
> > pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
> >
> > I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The
car
> > has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it
should
> > be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> > realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to
do
> > are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
> >
> > For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
thinking:
> > 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> > 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for
safety
> >
> > Here's the car setup:
> > - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> > - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> > - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28
(3000
> > miles on it)
> > - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> > - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> > - Stock fuel rail
> > - FM turbo dual exhaust
> > - FM free-flow cat
> > - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> > - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need
to
> > find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> > - Plugged EGR in manifold
> >
> > Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like
pushing
> > string, but I'm getting there!
> >
> > --Jerry
> >
> >
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>


Eh, maybe it speaks less to the dyno vs. street knock disparity and more to
the general lust for more power...? 220rwhp @15psi on 93 octane does seem a
little weak, dontcha think?

--Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Peugeot" <(email redacted)>
To: <(email redacted)>
Cc: <(email redacted)>; <(email redacted)>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)


>
>
> Where did you come up with that idea?? Curious. No spark scatter on the
> dyno and spark scatter on the street?
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, (email redacted) wrote:
>
> > Pick up the new chip. Its only 25 bucks. Your probably seeing some
spark
> > scatter.
> >
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>


Yeah, they had a medium sized floor fan, positioned off to the side (on the
lift). Probably not much cool air got to the intake, nor the I/C & rad for
that matter...

--Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Cardell" <(email redacted)>
To: "'Jerry Malsam'" <(email redacted)>; "Ray" <(email redacted)>
Cc: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)


> 74c!? I don't think I've ever seen a number that high, matter of fact much
> over 50C. Did they have a fan? You probably want the ignition start closer
> to 30C
>
> Bill Cardell
> (email redacted)
> Flyin' Miata
> 1-800-359-6957 (sales only)
> 970-242-3800 (tech support)
> flyinmiata.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Malsam [mailto:(email redacted)]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: Ray
> Cc: Miata Power
> Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
>
>
>
> Forgot to mention, all pulls were done in fourth gear from 2000rpm --
pretty
> long pulls. Air temp retard is default from 22-Jun-2001 chip:
>
> Fuel Low Slope: 128
> Fuel High Slope: 128
> Ignition Start ('C): 60
> Ignition Slope: 32
>
> Do these values sound reasonable? FWIW, air temp briefly got to 74'C in
the
> one pull (2nd pull overall) that was datalogged. It didn't get over 46'C
on
> the trip home.
>
> --Jerry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray" <(email redacted)>
> Cc: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
>
>
> >
> > Unless you do your dyno testing in high gear the combustion chambers
> > never reach peak temps as high as you see on the street. And if your
> > air temp ign timing retard is set too steep, the higher air temps on the
> > dyno will cause more ign retard than you will get on the street.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jerry Malsam wrote:
> > >
> > > Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> > > Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was
> 207.9
> > > rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> > > improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end
> (measured at
> > > tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> > > Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit,
lousy
> > > timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master
Fuel
> and
> > > eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the
> knock
> > > window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> > > registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp
> gain,
> > > several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I
> also
> > > added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total;
> my
> > > last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO
knock.
> Not
> > > a bad evening's work!
> > >
> > > Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> > > Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was
> pretty
> > > warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> > > datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation,
but
> even
> > > pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The
> car
> > > has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it
> should
> > > be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> > > realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think
to
> do
> > > are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
> > >
> > > For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
> thinking:
> > > 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> > > 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for
> safety
> > >
> > > Here's the car setup:
> > > - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> > > - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> > > - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28
> (3000
> > > miles on it)
> > > - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> > > - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> > > - Stock fuel rail
> > > - FM turbo dual exhaust
> > > - FM free-flow cat
> > > - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> > > - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need
> to
> > > find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> > > - Plugged EGR in manifold
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like
> pushing
> > > string, but I'm getting there!
> > >
> > > --Jerry
> >
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Keep adding timing till its goes away???? :-)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Well, it will all be off... but usually pulling some timing will do the
trick. The fuel required should be pretty close... I don't own a dynojet
so I never have the problem.


Mark

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jerry Malsam wrote:

>
> Let me just confirm: You're saying (for a Dynojet) tune fuel on the dyno,
> then tune timing on the street?
>
> --Jerry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Peugeot" <(email redacted)>
> To: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>
> Cc: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
> > loads without a load cell or brake of somekind, which most Dynojets do not
> > have.
> >
> > So here is what you do... You add timing until knock goes away on the
> > street or you find a real dyno that simulates load. Bill had this problem
> > when he first started tuning on his dyno where the dyno run would be
> > without knock and then on the street it would ping like a big dog.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with how he tunes, just that the dynojet is not representive
> > of real world loads.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jerry Malsam wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> > > Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was
> 207.9
> > > rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> > > improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end
> (measured at
> > > tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> > > Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> > > timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel
> and
> > > eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the
> knock
> > > window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> > > registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp
> gain,
> > > several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I
> also
> > > added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total;
> my
> > > last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock.
> Not
> > > a bad evening's work!
> > >
> > > Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> > > Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was
> pretty
> > > warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> > > datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but
> even
> > > pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The
> car
> > > has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it
> should
> > > be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> > > realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to
> do
> > > are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
> > >
> > > For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
> thinking:
> > > 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> > > 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for
> safety
> > >
> > > Here's the car setup:
> > > - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> > > - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> > > - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28
> (3000
> > > miles on it)
> > > - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> > > - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> > > - Stock fuel rail
> > > - FM turbo dual exhaust
> > > - FM free-flow cat
> > > - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> > > - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need
> to
> > > find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> > > - Plugged EGR in manifold
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like
> pushing
> > > string, but I'm getting there!
> > >
> > > --Jerry
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Retarding :)



On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, (email redacted) wrote:

> Keep adding timing till its goes away???? :-)
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ray <(email redacted)>


The newer defaults start at lower temp so are not likely to be the
culprit here. More likely just the reduced engine load on the dyno.

Jerry Malsam wrote:
>
> Forgot to mention, all pulls were done in fourth gear from 2000rpm -- pretty
> long pulls. Air temp retard is default from 22-Jun-2001 chip:
>
> Fuel Low Slope: 128
> Fuel High Slope: 128
> Ignition Start ('C): 60
> Ignition Slope: 32
>
> Do these values sound reasonable? FWIW, air temp briefly got to 74'C in the
> one pull (2nd pull overall) that was datalogged. It didn't get over 46'C on
> the trip home.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Shiv Pathak" <(email redacted)>



>From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>
>
> Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
> loads without a load cell or brake of somekind...

I don't agree that one, Mark.

my 2c,
shiv

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Really, so how can you simulate actual loads without a load cell or brake
of some kind? I would love to know because others seem to be having a
problem doing just that. It may not make a difference when tuning a TEC-II
because of the way the TEC-II handles the fuel management, but I cannot
imagine how you would simulate a steady state situation on a Dyno where
you have no brake... say 4000 RPM at 75% throttle. How are you going to
tune that on a non-loading dyno?

Your answer is probably that you don't have to, and you are probably
correct. You'll be close enough that no one will really
care. Unfortunately not every system works on the theory of linear
dynamics and resort to more conventional approaches to mapping fuel.

To tune these regions without a load cell type dyno is difficult to say
the least. What would take only a few minutes on a steady state dyno would
take far longer on a unbraked dyno. Maybe you should take a visit down
here sometime and check out what we can do with our dyno.

Mark



On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:

>
> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >
> >
> > Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
> > loads without a load cell or brake of somekind...
>
> I don't agree that one, Mark.
>
> my 2c,
> shiv
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Shiv Pathak" <(email redacted)>


I spent the last three days on a load-based dyno, tuning a programmable ECU
(nope, not a TEC-II). And I've found them to be pretty cumbersome to use.
First, I did an intertial style pull as a baseline. Then, I used the steady
state function, rpm by rpm, to load up the engine, manipulating timing and
fuel in an effort to improve displayed hp output. And sure enough,
displayed power increased substantially. I was happy. After three hours of
doing that, I ran another intertial style run to see the huge gains. I was
fully expecting to see the kinds of gains I saw during the last few hours of
steady-state tuning. Strangely enough, there were no real gains. I saved
the two maps and trailered the car (2wd converted Subaru race car) to a
local Dynojet (at the Mustang Ranch). And sure enough, both maps made
essentially the same power when tested in both 2nd and 4th gear. Then I
went back to tuning the traditional way and gained another 14rwhp. Took 3
runs and 10 minutes. I was done so early, I even had time to stick my Miata
up on the dyno :)

In summary, I don't like load based dyos for the following reasons:

1. Takes a lot time to tune, zone by zone.
2. Tuner needs to sustain max load for a while in order to take in all the
info from hp reading, wideband o2, EGT, map values, etc,. 10 seconds of
steady state WOT in a 15psi turbo car, with marginal airflow through the
engine, is nasty. So nasty, in fact, that hp starts falling off by itself
with no changes. Not enough consistency.
3. Engines, in the real world, never operate in steady state conditions.
At least in situations were we care about performance. They are always
accelerating to some degree-- degrees which can be simulated on a dynojet by
proper testing gear selection.


As for partial throttle performance, I don't have confidence that I can hold
the throttle open steadily enough to tune and quantify results. This, IMHO,
is best left for an engine dyno. However, since I tune non-WOT conditions
on the street, having a dyno that can hold load and rpm constant is of
little use. I really like the real-world nature of real-world driving.

Just my opinion. Others, as always, will differ.

cheers,
shiv

----------
>From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>To: Shiv Pathak <(email redacted)>
>Cc: Jerry Malsam <(email redacted)>, Miata Power <(email redacted)>
>Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
>Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 6:30 PM
>

>
>
> Really, so how can you simulate actual loads without a load cell or brake
> of some kind? I would love to know because others seem to be having a
> problem doing just that. It may not make a difference when tuning a TEC-II
> because of the way the TEC-II handles the fuel management, but I cannot
> imagine how you would simulate a steady state situation on a Dyno where
> you have no brake... say 4000 RPM at 75% throttle. How are you going to
> tune that on a non-loading dyno?
>
> Your answer is probably that you don't have to, and you are probably
> correct. You'll be close enough that no one will really
> care. Unfortunately not every system works on the theory of linear
> dynamics and resort to more conventional approaches to mapping fuel.
>
> To tune these regions without a load cell type dyno is difficult to say
> the least. What would take only a few minutes on a steady state dyno would
> take far longer on a unbraked dyno. Maybe you should take a visit down
> here sometime and check out what we can do with our dyno.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:
>
>>
>> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>> >
>> >
>> > Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
>> > loads without a load cell or brake of somekind...
>>
>> I don't agree that one, Mark.
>>
>> my 2c,
>> shiv
>>
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jess Gypin" <(email redacted)>


Very cool. The thing to do now is datalog the car and if you can send me a
scan of the dyno if they plotted the AF and torque curve. Using that, we
should be able to smooth out and optimize the maps for driveability. You can
lean out master fuel about 2-4 points at a time and advance timing by about
1 degree at a time to see what happens with power.

The dyno does not present as much load to the car as the street does. I had
the same thing happen after I spent the day on the FM dyno. I had to pull
1.5 degrees of timing and add about 3 points of fuel to chill out the knock.
If you get a chance, send me one of your current datalogs and we can smooth
it out and fill in the holes.

Jess
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Malsam" <(email redacted)>
To: "Miata Power" <(email redacted)>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 15:49 PM
Subject: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)


>
> Well I found a local shop with a Dynojet and finally did some tuning.
> Starting with fuel/timing maps Jess helped me with, my first pull was
207.9
> rwhp & 222.6 ft-lb -- a little disappointing, but LOTSA room for
> improvement. The dyno's A/F log showed VERY rich on the top end (measured
at
> tailpipe with cat on car), so we leaned out a little bit run by run.
> Unfortunately, my laptop died on me after the second run (dammit, lousy
> timing...), so I had to tune using the keypad, starting with Master Fuel
and
> eventually hitting fuel in individual zones. I set the keypad to the knock
> window and kept my eyes glued to it during the pulls, but it never
> registered even one knock. Very cool to cut 4 points fuel and see 4 hp
gain,
> several pulls in a row. Eventually, we got A/F ratio to 11.5-12.0. I also
> added back a half a degree of ignition trim. We did seven pulls total; my
> last pull was 220.9 rwhp & 225.? ft-lb (cut off chart) with ZERO knock.
Not
> a bad evening's work!
>
> Now here's the confusing part: On the street driving home I see knock!
> Actual, legitimate knock -- not just background noise. Plus, it was pretty
> warm in the dyno shop and nice & cool out on the street. I'm doing the
> datalog/street-tuning thing again trying to rectify that situation, but
even
> pulling 0.5 deg timing trim doesn't kill the knock.
>
> I'm looking for more power, but not at the expense of reliability. The car
> has a pretty nice setup, listed below. Seems to me (gut feel) that it
should
> be good for at least 240rwhp @ 15psi with proper tuning -- is this a
> realistic goal with my current setup? Only other upgrades I can think to
do
> are new FM software w/ repositioned CAS and a fatter fuel rail.
>
> For when I make it back to the dyno, what's the process here? I'm
thinking:
> 1. Get A/F ratio to 11.5
> 2. Increase timing to onset of knock, then back off 0.5 degree for safety
>
> Here's the car setup:
> - Stock 1.8L engine w/ 52k miles in '97 Miata; 93 octane gas; 15 psi
> - Link MkII w/ 22-Jun-2001 FM air temp compensation sensor & software
> - FM II turbo system w/ newly rebuilt sleeve bearing Garrett T25/28 (3000
> miles on it)
> - FM III style I/C piping & intake
> - FM "racer" intercooler and radiator
> - Stock fuel rail
> - FM turbo dual exhaust
> - FM free-flow cat
> - HKS SSQ blow-off valve
> - EGT probes in exhaust runners 1 and 4, but no gauge in yet (!). Need to
> find an appropriate amp so I could datalog EGT.
> - Plugged EGR in manifold
>
> Thanks in advance -- this learning process is taking a while, like pushing
> string, but I'm getting there!
>
> --Jerry
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



While that is a rather lucid reply, I personally feel that by having the
capabilities of having both load and inertial dyno's I have the best of
both worlds. I would agree that while you have pointed out some
weaknesses, many of them are addressable.

1. Consistancy is KEY! You cannot make solid gains without being able to
keep temps from soaring wildly out of control. Fortunately I have a BIG
pit right in front of my dyno and I can run water over the radiator and
use a big fan in order to keep temps consistant for long periods of time.

2. Tuning Zone by Zone is not that time consuming. There are shortcuts to
make programming faster and easier. I was able to program Brian Goodwins
Haltech in under an hour with NO BASE MAP and make more power than stock.

3. Engines do operate in steady state conditions, such as cruise,
climbing hills, towing loads, and even sometimes at WOT such as in a land
speed record car. Not all cars are used for 1/4 mile runs.

Fortunately, a load based dyno provides you with the ability to do both
loaded and unloaded testing... in the case of 1/4 mile cars I can simulate
the loads and speeds that they will endure and that is real world data
that matters. Lower the time on the dyno and you will lower the time at
the track.

Some dyno's, as well as some dyno operators, are better than others. I
would not expect anyone who normally tunes on an inertial dyno to step
right up and make good use of their time on a load based dyno... I also
suspect that someone used to using a load based dyno would be less
effective on a inertial only dyno... YMMV.

We all use equipment that we are comfortable with and it's just like a
mechanic. A mechanic certainly is not judged by his tools, he is judged by
how effective he is. Same goes for tuners, the tuner is not a product of
his tools, his tools may reflect his philosphy.

Mark

PS - What kind of ECU was it?



On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:

> I spent the last three days on a load-based dyno, tuning a programmable ECU
> (nope, not a TEC-II). And I've found them to be pretty cumbersome to use.
> First, I did an intertial style pull as a baseline. Then, I used the steady
> state function, rpm by rpm, to load up the engine, manipulating timing and
> fuel in an effort to improve displayed hp output. And sure enough,
> displayed power increased substantially. I was happy. After three hours of
> doing that, I ran another intertial style run to see the huge gains. I was
> fully expecting to see the kinds of gains I saw during the last few hours of
> steady-state tuning. Strangely enough, there were no real gains. I saved
> the two maps and trailered the car (2wd converted Subaru race car) to a
> local Dynojet (at the Mustang Ranch). And sure enough, both maps made
> essentially the same power when tested in both 2nd and 4th gear. Then I
> went back to tuning the traditional way and gained another 14rwhp. Took 3
> runs and 10 minutes. I was done so early, I even had time to stick my Miata
> up on the dyno :)
>
> In summary, I don't like load based dyos for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Takes a lot time to tune, zone by zone.
> 2. Tuner needs to sustain max load for a while in order to take in all the
> info from hp reading, wideband o2, EGT, map values, etc,. 10 seconds of
> steady state WOT in a 15psi turbo car, with marginal airflow through the
> engine, is nasty. So nasty, in fact, that hp starts falling off by itself
> with no changes. Not enough consistency.
> 3. Engines, in the real world, never operate in steady state conditions.
> At least in situations were we care about performance. They are always
> accelerating to some degree-- degrees which can be simulated on a dynojet by
> proper testing gear selection.
>
>
> As for partial throttle performance, I don't have confidence that I can hold
> the throttle open steadily enough to tune and quantify results. This, IMHO,
> is best left for an engine dyno. However, since I tune non-WOT conditions
> on the street, having a dyno that can hold load and rpm constant is of
> little use. I really like the real-world nature of real-world driving.
>
> Just my opinion. Others, as always, will differ.
>
> cheers,
> shiv
>
> ----------
> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >To: Shiv Pathak <(email redacted)>
> >Cc: Jerry Malsam <(email redacted)>, Miata Power <(email redacted)>
> >Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
> >Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 6:30 PM
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Really, so how can you simulate actual loads without a load cell or brake
> > of some kind? I would love to know because others seem to be having a
> > problem doing just that. It may not make a difference when tuning a TEC-II
> > because of the way the TEC-II handles the fuel management, but I cannot
> > imagine how you would simulate a steady state situation on a Dyno where
> > you have no brake... say 4000 RPM at 75% throttle. How are you going to
> > tune that on a non-loading dyno?
> >
> > Your answer is probably that you don't have to, and you are probably
> > correct. You'll be close enough that no one will really
> > care. Unfortunately not every system works on the theory of linear
> > dynamics and resort to more conventional approaches to mapping fuel.
> >
> > To tune these regions without a load cell type dyno is difficult to say
> > the least. What would take only a few minutes on a steady state dyno would
> > take far longer on a unbraked dyno. Maybe you should take a visit down
> > here sometime and check out what we can do with our dyno.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
> >> > loads without a load cell or brake of somekind...
> >>
> >> I don't agree that one, Mark.
> >>
> >> my 2c,
> >> shiv
> >>
> >
> >
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Shiv Pathak" <(email redacted)>


That's fine. Everyone will have their own opinions and tuning techniques.
The only reason I responded was to contest your comment that one cannot
simulate "real world load" without a loading dyno. I have heard this
comment before and have always felt that it was misleading to those who
aren't familiar with dyno tuning. It's certainly not the right vs. wrong
issue that many have made it out to be.

Cheers,
shiv

----------
>From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>To: Shiv Pathak <(email redacted)>
>Cc: Jerry Malsam <(email redacted)>, Miata Power <(email redacted)>
>Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
>Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 11:47 PM
>

>
>
> While that is a rather lucid reply, I personally feel that by having the
> capabilities of having both load and inertial dyno's I have the best of
> both worlds. I would agree that while you have pointed out some
> weaknesses, many of them are addressable.
>
> 1. Consistancy is KEY! You cannot make solid gains without being able to
> keep temps from soaring wildly out of control. Fortunately I have a BIG
> pit right in front of my dyno and I can run water over the radiator and
> use a big fan in order to keep temps consistant for long periods of time.
>
> 2. Tuning Zone by Zone is not that time consuming. There are shortcuts to
> make programming faster and easier. I was able to program Brian Goodwins
> Haltech in under an hour with NO BASE MAP and make more power than stock.
>
> 3. Engines do operate in steady state conditions, such as cruise,
> climbing hills, towing loads, and even sometimes at WOT such as in a land
> speed record car. Not all cars are used for 1/4 mile runs.
>
> Fortunately, a load based dyno provides you with the ability to do both
> loaded and unloaded testing... in the case of 1/4 mile cars I can simulate
> the loads and speeds that they will endure and that is real world data
> that matters. Lower the time on the dyno and you will lower the time at
> the track.
>
> Some dyno's, as well as some dyno operators, are better than others. I
> would not expect anyone who normally tunes on an inertial dyno to step
> right up and make good use of their time on a load based dyno... I also
> suspect that someone used to using a load based dyno would be less
> effective on a inertial only dyno... YMMV.
>
> We all use equipment that we are comfortable with and it's just like a
> mechanic. A mechanic certainly is not judged by his tools, he is judged by
> how effective he is. Same goes for tuners, the tuner is not a product of
> his tools, his tools may reflect his philosphy.
>
> Mark
>
> PS - What kind of ECU was it?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:
>
>> I spent the last three days on a load-based dyno, tuning a programmable ECU
>> (nope, not a TEC-II). And I've found them to be pretty cumbersome to use.
>> First, I did an intertial style pull as a baseline. Then, I used the steady
>> state function, rpm by rpm, to load up the engine, manipulating timing and
>> fuel in an effort to improve displayed hp output. And sure enough,
>> displayed power increased substantially. I was happy. After three hours of
>> doing that, I ran another intertial style run to see the huge gains. I was
>> fully expecting to see the kinds of gains I saw during the last few hours of
>> steady-state tuning. Strangely enough, there were no real gains. I saved
>> the two maps and trailered the car (2wd converted Subaru race car) to a
>> local Dynojet (at the Mustang Ranch). And sure enough, both maps made
>> essentially the same power when tested in both 2nd and 4th gear. Then I
>> went back to tuning the traditional way and gained another 14rwhp. Took 3
>> runs and 10 minutes. I was done so early, I even had time to stick my Miata
>> up on the dyno :)
>>
>> In summary, I don't like load based dyos for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. Takes a lot time to tune, zone by zone.
>> 2. Tuner needs to sustain max load for a while in order to take in all the
>> info from hp reading, wideband o2, EGT, map values, etc,. 10 seconds of
>> steady state WOT in a 15psi turbo car, with marginal airflow through the
>> engine, is nasty. So nasty, in fact, that hp starts falling off by itself
>> with no changes. Not enough consistency.
>> 3. Engines, in the real world, never operate in steady state conditions.
>> At least in situations were we care about performance. They are always
>> accelerating to some degree-- degrees which can be simulated on a dynojet by
>> proper testing gear selection.
>>
>>
>> As for partial throttle performance, I don't have confidence that I can hold
>> the throttle open steadily enough to tune and quantify results. This, IMHO,
>> is best left for an engine dyno. However, since I tune non-WOT conditions
>> on the street, having a dyno that can hold load and rpm constant is of
>> little use. I really like the real-world nature of real-world driving.
>>
>> Just my opinion. Others, as always, will differ.
>>
>> cheers,
>> shiv
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>> >To: Shiv Pathak <(email redacted)>
>> >Cc: Jerry Malsam <(email redacted)>, Miata Power <(email redacted)>
>> >Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
>> >Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 6:30 PM
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Really, so how can you simulate actual loads without a load cell or brake
>> > of some kind? I would love to know because others seem to be having a
>> > problem doing just that. It may not make a difference when tuning a TEC-II
>> > because of the way the TEC-II handles the fuel management, but I cannot
>> > imagine how you would simulate a steady state situation on a Dyno where
>> > you have no brake... say 4000 RPM at 75% throttle. How are you going to
>> > tune that on a non-loading dyno?
>> >
>> > Your answer is probably that you don't have to, and you are probably
>> > correct. You'll be close enough that no one will really
>> > care. Unfortunately not every system works on the theory of linear
>> > dynamics and resort to more conventional approaches to mapping fuel.
>> >
>> > To tune these regions without a load cell type dyno is difficult to say
>> > the least. What would take only a few minutes on a steady state dyno would
>> > take far longer on a unbraked dyno. Maybe you should take a visit down
>> > here sometime and check out what we can do with our dyno.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
>> >> > loads without a load cell or brake of somekind...
>> >>
>> >> I don't agree that one, Mark.
>> >>
>> >> my 2c,
>> >> shiv
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

In a message dated 10/18/01 2:51:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
(email redacted) writes:


> 3. Engines do operate in steady state conditions, such as cruise,
> climbing hills, towing loads, and even sometimes at WOT such as in a land
> speed record car. Not all cars are used for 1/4 mile runs.
>
> Fortunately, a load based dyno provides you with the ability to do both
> loaded and unloaded testing... in the case of 1/4 mile cars I can simulate
> the loads and speeds that they will endure and that is real world data
> that matters. Lower the time on the dyno and you will lower the time at
> the track.
>
>

I have to agree with Mark on this one. You do in fact consistantly see steady
state conditions in daily use. I have many data logs that show this.

And I usually pull a bit of timing out for street use if I am tuning for all
out Max Power on a dynojet......:) I tend to compensate for this with richer
A/F mixtures if I want to tune for "real world" use.....:)

They way I tune partial load cells is to use particularly long strech of wide
open, lightly used uphill road and watch the MAP/TPS readings in real time to
keep them as steady as possible. This gives me enough time, and enough
samples to effectively tune those areas.

Gibb
92 1.8 TEC-II IRTB

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Agreed, it's not right vs wrong.

Mark

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:

> That's fine. Everyone will have their own opinions and tuning techniques.
> The only reason I responded was to contest your comment that one cannot
> simulate "real world load" without a loading dyno. I have heard this
> comment before and have always felt that it was misleading to those who
> aren't familiar with dyno tuning. It's certainly not the right vs. wrong
> issue that many have made it out to be.
>
> Cheers,
> shiv
>
> ----------
> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >To: Shiv Pathak <(email redacted)>
> >Cc: Jerry Malsam <(email redacted)>, Miata Power <(email redacted)>
> >Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
> >Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 11:47 PM
> >
>
> >
> >
> > While that is a rather lucid reply, I personally feel that by having the
> > capabilities of having both load and inertial dyno's I have the best of
> > both worlds. I would agree that while you have pointed out some
> > weaknesses, many of them are addressable.
> >
> > 1. Consistancy is KEY! You cannot make solid gains without being able to
> > keep temps from soaring wildly out of control. Fortunately I have a BIG
> > pit right in front of my dyno and I can run water over the radiator and
> > use a big fan in order to keep temps consistant for long periods of time.
> >
> > 2. Tuning Zone by Zone is not that time consuming. There are shortcuts to
> > make programming faster and easier. I was able to program Brian Goodwins
> > Haltech in under an hour with NO BASE MAP and make more power than stock.
> >
> > 3. Engines do operate in steady state conditions, such as cruise,
> > climbing hills, towing loads, and even sometimes at WOT such as in a land
> > speed record car. Not all cars are used for 1/4 mile runs.
> >
> > Fortunately, a load based dyno provides you with the ability to do both
> > loaded and unloaded testing... in the case of 1/4 mile cars I can simulate
> > the loads and speeds that they will endure and that is real world data
> > that matters. Lower the time on the dyno and you will lower the time at
> > the track.
> >
> > Some dyno's, as well as some dyno operators, are better than others. I
> > would not expect anyone who normally tunes on an inertial dyno to step
> > right up and make good use of their time on a load based dyno... I also
> > suspect that someone used to using a load based dyno would be less
> > effective on a inertial only dyno... YMMV.
> >
> > We all use equipment that we are comfortable with and it's just like a
> > mechanic. A mechanic certainly is not judged by his tools, he is judged by
> > how effective he is. Same goes for tuners, the tuner is not a product of
> > his tools, his tools may reflect his philosphy.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > PS - What kind of ECU was it?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:
> >
> >> I spent the last three days on a load-based dyno, tuning a programmable ECU
> >> (nope, not a TEC-II). And I've found them to be pretty cumbersome to use.
> >> First, I did an intertial style pull as a baseline. Then, I used the steady
> >> state function, rpm by rpm, to load up the engine, manipulating timing and
> >> fuel in an effort to improve displayed hp output. And sure enough,
> >> displayed power increased substantially. I was happy. After three hours of
> >> doing that, I ran another intertial style run to see the huge gains. I was
> >> fully expecting to see the kinds of gains I saw during the last few hours of
> >> steady-state tuning. Strangely enough, there were no real gains. I saved
> >> the two maps and trailered the car (2wd converted Subaru race car) to a
> >> local Dynojet (at the Mustang Ranch). And sure enough, both maps made
> >> essentially the same power when tested in both 2nd and 4th gear. Then I
> >> went back to tuning the traditional way and gained another 14rwhp. Took 3
> >> runs and 10 minutes. I was done so early, I even had time to stick my Miata
> >> up on the dyno :)
> >>
> >> In summary, I don't like load based dyos for the following reasons:
> >>
> >> 1. Takes a lot time to tune, zone by zone.
> >> 2. Tuner needs to sustain max load for a while in order to take in all the
> >> info from hp reading, wideband o2, EGT, map values, etc,. 10 seconds of
> >> steady state WOT in a 15psi turbo car, with marginal airflow through the
> >> engine, is nasty. So nasty, in fact, that hp starts falling off by itself
> >> with no changes. Not enough consistency.
> >> 3. Engines, in the real world, never operate in steady state conditions.
> >> At least in situations were we care about performance. They are always
> >> accelerating to some degree-- degrees which can be simulated on a dynojet by
> >> proper testing gear selection.
> >>
> >>
> >> As for partial throttle performance, I don't have confidence that I can hold
> >> the throttle open steadily enough to tune and quantify results. This, IMHO,
> >> is best left for an engine dyno. However, since I tune non-WOT conditions
> >> on the street, having a dyno that can hold load and rpm constant is of
> >> little use. I really like the real-world nature of real-world driving.
> >>
> >> Just my opinion. Others, as always, will differ.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> shiv
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >> >To: Shiv Pathak <(email redacted)>
> >> >Cc: Jerry Malsam <(email redacted)>, Miata Power <(email redacted)>
> >> >Subject: Re: Finally dyno-tuned, got questions (long)
> >> >Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 6:30 PM
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Really, so how can you simulate actual loads without a load cell or brake
> >> > of some kind? I would love to know because others seem to be having a
> >> > problem doing just that. It may not make a difference when tuning a TEC-II
> >> > because of the way the TEC-II handles the fuel management, but I cannot
> >> > imagine how you would simulate a steady state situation on a Dyno where
> >> > you have no brake... say 4000 RPM at 75% throttle. How are you going to
> >> > tune that on a non-loading dyno?
> >> >
> >> > Your answer is probably that you don't have to, and you are probably
> >> > correct. You'll be close enough that no one will really
> >> > care. Unfortunately not every system works on the theory of linear
> >> > dynamics and resort to more conventional approaches to mapping fuel.
> >> >
> >> > To tune these regions without a load cell type dyno is difficult to say
> >> > the least. What would take only a few minutes on a steady state dyno would
> >> > take far longer on a unbraked dyno. Maybe you should take a visit down
> >> > here sometime and check out what we can do with our dyno.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here is the problem when tuning on a dynojet, you cannot simulate actual
> >> >> > loads without a load cell or brake of somekind...
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't agree that one, Mark.
> >> >>
> >> >> my 2c,
> >> >> shiv
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>