[AmuroRay]

So why not do more timing, and less boost? Less problems overspinning the turbo.

[ThreeStripes]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

So why not do more timing, and less boost? Less problems overspinning the turbo.

Likely part of the strategy to a point but I would imagine that the limited knock resistance of 93 means you’re working with a low timing ceiling.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

So why not do more timing, and less boost? Less problems overspinning the turbo.

Most people that track try to utilize a bit more timing vs. boost to make their power, but at some point that isn't feasible anymore. Because at some point you can't add anymore timing - whether that be octane limitations or the fact that you literally can't add any more timing, or you're just not seeing the power returns anymore. Then you'll need boost to make more power.

If you only wanted to utilize timing you become an NA engine, and like an NA engine, at some point you need boost to make more power. You also can more easily add boost compared to timing.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by F87source

Most people that track try to utilize a bit more timing vs. boost to make their power, but at some point that isn't feasible anymore. Because at some point you can't add anymore timing - whether that be octane limitations or the fact that you literally can't add any more timing, or you're just not seeing the power returns anymore. Then you'll need boost to make more power.

If you only wanted to utilize timing you become an NA engine, and like an NA engine, at some point you need boost to make more power. You also can more easily add boost compared to timing.

I made similar power on higher timing and lower boost, vs the higher boost and lower timing. The difference between 2psi and 2deg of timing was 10whp (in favor of having more boost). This really isn't relevant to the thread, it was just a question.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I made similar power on higher timing and lower boost, vs the higher boost and lower timing. The difference between 2psi and 2deg of timing was 10whp (in favor of having more boost). This really isn't relevant to the thread, it was just a question.

The issue is there's only so much timing you can add before you can't add anymore. That's why eventually you'll need boost.

[VGSON]

Originally Posted by M2guru

I was AMAZED that the IATs DROPPED as the RPMs went up. This is a new (vs. the CSF) VRSF Race intercooler. So far I am thrilled with it, but need track time to know how good it is. The ambient at the time of the log was 55ish. I do have the intake wrapped with gold heat reflective tape - that's new too.

Nice. I have the smaller one from when I was FBO. My next one will likely be stageFP's a/w setup they are developing. If not it will be the race vrsf. I'm typically seeing 10deg above ambient which is fine most of the time. Rarely gets above 100.

Your car is making some real good power. I'm seeing similar torque numbers just a lil higher due to more timing(ethanol and 13/14deg)..creeps above 700nm. We're still sitting around 20psi. Hoping we'll take a stab at 25psi soon.

Tires spinning above 6k in 3rd is a real butt pucker moment lol. I'm" on the hunt for 18" 513m's or staying with 437's and drag radials for traction.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by VGSON

Nice. I have the smaller one from when I was FBO. My next one will likely be stageFP's a/w setup they are developing. If not it will be the race vrsf. I'm typically seeing 10deg above ambient which is fine most of the time. Rarely gets above 100.

Your car is making some real good power. I'm seeing similar torque numbers just a lil higher due to more timing(ethanol and 13/14deg)..creeps above 700nm. We're still sitting around 20psi. Hoping we'll take a stab at 25psi soon.

Tires spinning above 6k in 3rd is a real butt pucker moment lol. I'm" on the hunt for 18" 513m's or staying with 437's and drag radials for traction.

Are you using BM3 or MHD? Are they doing a load based or boost based tune? Do you mind sharing a log?


If you guys want, I can do a virtual dyno for you - just for fun.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Are you using BM3 or MHD? Are they doing a load based or boost based tune? Do you mind sharing a log?


If you guys want, I can do a virtual dyno for you - just for fun.

It's impossible to do a boost based tune on any tuning platform.... The DME architecture is load based and there's no way to change that unless you rewrite the entire DME logic.

[VGSON]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Are you using BM3 or MHD? Are they doing a load based or boost based tune? Do you mind sharing a log?


If you guys want, I can do a virtual dyno for you - just for fun.

Sent you a pm.

[ericlr1225]

usually 2.9psi ≈ 2 degree timing, Once you final the tune. It's always safer to run more boost and back off the timing if your turbo still has room(in the efficiency range). The OTS map runs more timing with tapered boost because the stock turbo runs out of steam.

[wheela]

Originally Posted by M2guru

That's cool if it's accurate! I didn't think that I'd surpass my old '92 Eclipse GSX that I don't have any more. It had 540HP. Looking forward to trying to control it on the racetrack - first event at the end of April!

It's tempting to trust the torque actual value in the logs (input into the power calculation) but it's not an actual torque measurement, it comes from the torque model in the DME. It's probably pretty accurate on a fully stock car, but unfortunately the model accuracy will suffer once you're physically modified and tuned.

Eclipse sounds sweet! My last car was an eclipse.

Excited to see how your tuning progresses

[wheela]

Originally Posted by ThreeStripes

Likely part of the strategy to a point but I would imagine that the limited knock resistance of 93 means you’re working with a low timing ceiling.

This. You want to advance timing until best torque and no further, unless you hit an octane limit before reaching optimal timimg. With boost and 93, you generally hit the octane limit before you get to minimum timing for best torque (MTBT).

Ethanol has higher octane (more knock resistance) than 93 so you can run more timing before hitting an octane limit than with 93. It's a little confounded though, because ethanol also burns slower than 93, so it already needs more timing to get to MTBT than on 93 does.

Edit: What I said about burning speed above is incorrect. I just did some quick googling and it looks like higher ethanol blends have faster flame speeds than gasoline, for some reason I had it backwards Carry on!

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by wheela

It's tempting to trust the torque actual value in the logs (input into the power calculation) but it's not an actual torque measurement, it comes from the torque model in the DME. It's probably pretty accurate on a fully stock car, but unfortunately the model accuracy will suffer once you're physically modified and tuned.

Eclipse sounds sweet! My last car was an eclipse.

Excited to see how your tuning progresses

I compared mine against my actual dyno and it was spot on - 14% drivetrain loss was calculated to get the wheel HP numbers.

Logs:
https://datazap.me/u/amuroray/dyno-r...og=0&data=4-23

Graph:


These were done on lower boost and more timing - the logs indicate that higher boost and less timing equaled more peak HP.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by ericlr1225

usually 2.9psi ≈ 2 degree timing, Once you final the tune. It's always safer to run more boost and back off the timing if your turbo still has room(in the efficiency range). The OTS map runs more timing with tapered boost because the stock turbo runs out of steam.

Are you sure? Both are the same map

Sport Plus - (higher boost, lower timing)
https://datazap.me/u/amuroray/3rd-4t...25-26-27-28-29

RPM | Boost| Timing| Torque (NM)| Engine HP
5800 | 19.5 | 5.5 | 553 | 450.4
5900 | 18.7 | 5.5 | 536 | 444.1
6000 | 18.2 | 6 | 530 | 446.6
6100 | 17.6 | 6.5 | 513 | 439.5
6200 | 17.5 | 6.5 | 500 | 435.4
6300 | 17.2 | 7.5 | 495 | 438

Comfort - (higher timing, Lower boost)
https://datazap.me/u/amuroray/dyno-r...og=0&data=4-23

RPM | Boost| Timing | Torque (NM)| Engine HP
5800 |
5900 |
6000 | 16.0 | 9.5 | 514 | 433.1
6100 | 16.0 | 10 | 506 | 433.5
6200 | 15.7 | 10.5 | 502 | 437.1
6300 | 15.8 | 10.5 | 496 | 438.8

[wheela]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I compared mine against my actual dyno and it was spot on - 14% drivetrain loss was calculated to get the wheel HP numbers.

Logs:
https://datazap.me/u/amuroray/dyno-r...og=0&data=4-23

Graph:


These were done on lower boost and more timing - the logs indicate that higher boost and less timing equaled more peak HP.

Wow, that's awesome it matched up so well! What mods do have in those runs?

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by wheela

Wow, that's awesome it matched up so well! What mods do have in those runs?

Stage FP OTS tune on MHD, MST V2 inlet, Turbosmart Plumb back diverter, CTS intake, Eventuri intake, ***Less Downpipe, some crappy intercooler, 93 Octane, M Performance Exhaust (muffler) The dyno was done in comfort mode where the car was running less boost but more timing.

In my post above, I compared the logs of the car in Sport Plus where it makes more boost, but less timing and it records slightly more power.

Here is the STD corrected graph:

[cookiemontis]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Datapoint:

At 6436RPM you're making 565hp!!

https://www.omnicalculator.com/conve...-to-horsepower

If you are referring to torque act. clutch in Newton Meters, it will not be accurate with a non-stock turbo. The calculation is based on specifications from the factory turbo. It is not a bad thing to reference as the higher it is the more torque you are putting down, but it wont match actual torque/nm you would get from doing a Dyno.

[ericlr1225]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Are you sure? Both are the same map

Sport Plus - (higher boost, lower timing)
https://datazap.me/u/amuroray/3rd-4t...25-26-27-28-29

RPM | Boost| Timing| Torque (NM)| Engine HP
5800 | 19.5 | 5.5 | 553 | 450.4
5900 | 18.7 | 5.5 | 536 | 444.1
6000 | 18.2 | 6 | 530 | 446.6
6100 | 17.6 | 6.5 | 513 | 439.5
6200 | 17.5 | 6.5 | 500 | 435.4
6300 | 17.2 | 7.5 | 495 | 438

Comfort - (higher timing, Lower boost)
https://datazap.me/u/amuroray/dyno-r...og=0&data=4-23

RPM | Boost| Timing | Torque (NM)| Engine HP
5800 |
5900 |
6000 | 16.0 | 9.5 | 514 | 433.1
6100 | 16.0 | 10 | 506 | 433.5
6200 | 15.7 | 10.5 | 502 | 437.1
6300 | 15.8 | 10.5 | 496 | 438.8

I learned from the HPA tuning class. There is no correct answer about timing/boost. Cuz every turbo is different. 2.9psi on PS2 is not equal to 2.9psi on stock turbo.

My point is when the car is tuned up close to max. It's safer to back up timing a bit and add more boost. When you know it's too much boost, the car goes to limp mode. When you know there is too much timing, it'd be too late

[samsamdar]

M2guru Do you know what's up with these screws for the oil and coolant inlet/outlet lines? So there are supposed to be 6 of them. And from my understanding, all 6 of them are the same part number 07129904588. But for some reason, I have some screws that are longer than others and I'm not sure why. It looks like the longer ones will fit into the block and screw all the way in but they won't fit into the turbo side screw holes (they are too long to properly hold in the lines). Any idea why this is and which screws are supposed to go where? Also, is that 588 the same part number you used for your screws?

[M2guru]

Originally Posted by samsamdar

M2guru Do you know what's up with these screws for the oil and coolant inlet/outlet lines? So there are supposed to be 6 of them. And from my understanding, all 6 of them are the same part number 07129904588. But for some reason, I have some screws that are longer than others and I'm not sure why. It looks like the longer ones will fit into the block and screw all the way in but they won't fit into the turbo side screw holes (they are too long to properly hold in the lines). Any idea why this is and which screws are supposed to go where? Also, is that 588 the same part number you used for your screws?

All six are the same screws/bolts according to realoem. If there is an odd one out (longer), I would use it on the oil return line on the block side or for the coolant lines that hold both coolant lines to the turbo.




A couple things that I can remember: 1) I also think mine were not the same length, but pretty sure they were the same width and thread pitch (I cannot remember which went where, but it looks like it shouldn't matter - even though you are finding out that it might) and 2) when securing them to the block (and maybe the turbo), the flange doesn't fit flush with the block, but it was in as far as it could go. This threw me off for a while until I verified with someone else's photos.



I hope that helps. Wish I could remember more precisely for you.

[samsamdar]

Originally Posted by M2guru

All six are the same screws/bolts according to realoem. If there is an odd one out (longer), I would use it on the oil return line on the block side or for the coolant lines that hold both coolant lines to the turbo.

Attachment 3385519
Attachment 3385537

A couple things that I can remember: 1) I also think mine were not the same length, but pretty sure they were the same width and thread pitch (I cannot remember which went where, but it looks like it shouldn't matter - even though you are finding out that it might) and 2) when securing them to the block (and maybe the turbo), the flange doesn't fit flush with the block, but it was in as far as it could go. This threw me off for a while until I verified with someone else's photos.

Attachment 3385521

I hope that helps. Wish I could remember more precisely for you.

No worries that helps a ton! I’m going to just test fit all of them until I figure out which ones sit flush in which positions

[Mr_M//]

This should clear the confusion.
But there’s one with two lines together, that would require a longer bolt.