Miatapower List Archive

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


I have been swapping emails with some others on timing and tuning now that
several of us are playing with the fuel rails. I know that there has been
some discussion about whether or not adding timing in the non-boosted rows
and lower RPM ranges has gained anyone any measurable power.

I guess I am wondering how the baseline map for the Link ECU was derived. I
know that Bill and Ray and others have said that the defaults maps were
derived from dyno testing, and that is very cool. The default maps seem to
be a great place to start, but how did they arrive at the first default map?
Is it based on the stock ECU map? Did Link reverse engineer the stock ECU
map and then use that as the baseline for the Link map, and then the maps
have been tweaked over the years? Has anyone ever added a little or a lot
more timing to the lower zones and rows and see if there is any power or
more efficient running advantages to adding timing to the lower zones and
rows? In other words, there could be a few untapped torque puppies to be
found while watching EGTs and ping. Has there been enough dyno testing to
know that the timing values in the lower zones and rows are not worth
messing with?

Just curious.

Jess

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


exactly my thoughts. Since the fuel rail didn't do anything for me (should
have known better than to spend $300 on a non-proven power gadget), I was
hoping to find at least a lame pony or so in the first 3 rows. I guess row3
can be tuned on the road, but row 1 and 2 ...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jess Gypin" <(email redacted)>
To: <(email redacted)>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 14:39
Subject: Link ECU timing map.


>
> I have been swapping emails with some others on timing and tuning now that
> several of us are playing with the fuel rails. I know that there has been
> some discussion about whether or not adding timing in the non-boosted rows
> and lower RPM ranges has gained anyone any measurable power.
>
> I guess I am wondering how the baseline map for the Link ECU was derived.
I
> know that Bill and Ray and others have said that the defaults maps were
> derived from dyno testing, and that is very cool. The default maps seem to
> be a great place to start, but how did they arrive at the first default
map?
> Is it based on the stock ECU map? Did Link reverse engineer the stock ECU
> map and then use that as the baseline for the Link map, and then the maps
> have been tweaked over the years? Has anyone ever added a little or a lot
> more timing to the lower zones and rows and see if there is any power or
> more efficient running advantages to adding timing to the lower zones and
> rows? In other words, there could be a few untapped torque puppies to be
> found while watching EGTs and ping. Has there been enough dyno testing to
> know that the timing values in the lower zones and rows are not worth
> messing with?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Jess
>
>

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



Why did the fuel rail not provide any gains? I find that strange with
everyone else raving about them. What was the testing methodology?

Mark


On Tue, 1 May 2001, Frank Devocht wrote:

>
> exactly my thoughts. Since the fuel rail didn't do anything for me (should
> have known better than to spend $300 on a non-proven power gadget), I was
> hoping to find at least a lame pony or so in the first 3 rows. I guess row3
> can be tuned on the road, but row 1 and 2 ...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jess Gypin" <(email redacted)>
> To: <(email redacted)>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 14:39
> Subject: Link ECU timing map.
>
>
> >
> > I have been swapping emails with some others on timing and tuning now that
> > several of us are playing with the fuel rails. I know that there has been
> > some discussion about whether or not adding timing in the non-boosted rows
> > and lower RPM ranges has gained anyone any measurable power.
> >
> > I guess I am wondering how the baseline map for the Link ECU was derived.
> I
> > know that Bill and Ray and others have said that the defaults maps were
> > derived from dyno testing, and that is very cool. The default maps seem to
> > be a great place to start, but how did they arrive at the first default
> map?
> > Is it based on the stock ECU map? Did Link reverse engineer the stock ECU
> > map and then use that as the baseline for the Link map, and then the maps
> > have been tweaked over the years? Has anyone ever added a little or a lot
> > more timing to the lower zones and rows and see if there is any power or
> > more efficient running advantages to adding timing to the lower zones and
> > rows? In other words, there could be a few untapped torque puppies to be
> > found while watching EGTs and ping. Has there been enough dyno testing to
> > know that the timing values in the lower zones and rows are not worth
> > messing with?
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> > Jess
> >
> >
>
>

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


One of Bill's customers wanted his NA car dyno tuned to the max so it got
the full treatment and we got the results. And yes, the starting point was
the factory ECU timing as measured by a datalogging device. The fuel
numbers aren't perfect for turbo motors since the exhaust setup was
different, but the ign timing is pretty close.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jess Gypin" <(email redacted)>
To: <(email redacted)>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 5:39 AM
Subject: Link ECU timing map.


>
> I have been swapping emails with some others on timing and tuning now that
> several of us are playing with the fuel rails. I know that there has been
> some discussion about whether or not adding timing in the non-boosted rows
> and lower RPM ranges has gained anyone any measurable power.
>
> I guess I am wondering how the baseline map for the Link ECU was derived.
I
> know that Bill and Ray and others have said that the defaults maps were
> derived from dyno testing, and that is very cool. The default maps seem to
> be a great place to start, but how did they arrive at the first default
map?
> Is it based on the stock ECU map? Did Link reverse engineer the stock ECU
> map and then use that as the baseline for the Link map, and then the maps
> have been tweaked over the years? Has anyone ever added a little or a lot
> more timing to the lower zones and rows and see if there is any power or
> more efficient running advantages to adding timing to the lower zones and
> rows? In other words, there could be a few untapped torque puppies to be
> found while watching EGTs and ping. Has there been enough dyno testing to
> know that the timing values in the lower zones and rows are not worth
> messing with?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Jess
>
>