PDA

View Full Version : Pretty advanced tuning question



tErbobOOst
04-27-2005, 11:24 AM
This is only for people that really know what they are talking about (i'm talkin to you enthalpy http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/wink.gif ). If you dont, learn and read...

This is a very multi part question/subject...

My friend (DSM owner) and I were talking about street vs. dyno tuning. He believes street tuning is better because of the real world situations that dynos can not provide. I beleive dyno tuning is better because you can see the torque curve and tune based on the torque curve. My tuning theory goes as follows:

Start w/ an A/F around 9 or 10 with very conservative timing. Start to lean things up until your torque curve starts to drop (max torque). You then richen it up...this should occur around 12.0 A/F. You then do the same with timing. Keep adding timing until your torque curve starts to drop and then back it down a little bit. This should all keep knock in check while giving max horsepower.

He believes you tune the torque curve (not based on the torque curve like I said). He also believes having a RICH 9.1 A/F but with a lot of timing thrown at it will give more power (on high boost levels, like 30 psi) than a A/F of 12.0 with less timing.


Here is part of our convo (these are all theoretical numbers):
WikedSicc: 500whp @ 5degrees timing @ 15psi @ 11.5af
WikedSicc: then upped boost to 20psi
WikedSicc: now u knock
DRFTspec180: then u keep ur 11.5 A/F and pull timing to compensate for the upped boost
WikedSicc: take timing from 5 to 2 degrees
WikedSicc: then knock is away
DRFTspec180: so then u dont have to do anything
WikedSicc: but ur at say 490whp
WikedSicc: so then you richen it up
DRFTspec180: pulling timing like that, while upping the boost doesnt take away power
WikedSicc: and then add timing back up to like5 or higher
WikedSicc: and hp is at 510whp
WikedSicc: pulling timing takes power away
DRFTspec180: not when u add 5 psi
WikedSicc: im using theoretical numbers
WikedSicc: dont get caught up on how realistic the numbers are
DRFTspec180: i know
WikedSicc: focus on the idea
DRFTspec180: i'm using that as a theoretical number too
DRFTspec180: if u add boost, taking away timing will not drop power
WikedSicc: you cold
DRFTspec180: or atleast drop power below what it was w/o the added boost
WikedSicc: or you would be at the same
WikedSicc: yea, whatever
WikedSicc: you still have gained none if any power
WikedSicc: thats the point
DRFTspec180: i'm saying u will gain power
DRFTspec180: more than if u stay at that timing but richen to 9.1
WikedSicc: well going to 9 you will be able to surpass the original timing

My main question is who is right...is a richer mixture with more timing better than a leaner mixture with less timing?

Feel free to go off on tangents about tuning, this is a pretty open discussion of tuning theory.

DeatschWerks_Dave
04-27-2005, 11:54 AM
This does not seem to be such an advanced question IMO. I am by no means a tunin guru but I think I have something useful to add sooo...
I like the way you do your tuning. You adjust your ingition timing to give you best torque with least timing (called BTLT or something like that - a basic tuning theory). Your friend seems to think more timing will ALWAYS give you more power. This is a common misconception. You want peak cylinder pressure to be acheived at 20* after top dead center. Factors such as rpm, pressure and temperature will dictate where you should start your spark in order to build your peak cylinder pressure at 20* ATDC. As far as AFR tuning, I agree with you as well - just use conservative timing to start with to keep knock in check and adjust it to a good 11:1-12:1. Then start your ign timing tuning process.

DeatschWerks_Dave
04-27-2005, 11:54 AM
sorry - double post http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Enthalpy
04-27-2005, 01:44 PM
good post dave!!

now for a bit more detail. your first problem is that you are dealing with a DSM owner. they have to do sh!t backwards because they are too cheap to buy dyno time for AWD cars. so they street tune and tune by knock counts only. which is the most rediculous way to tune.

the goal of tuning is to maximise power/tq output of an engine. and to maximize it while still maintaining safety.

general rules of thumb.

if you need to run less than 15 deg of timing at the TQ peak than you need to go to higher octane fuel. your mixture is too unstable. runign cars excessively rich and with almost no timing will allow you to keep adding boost and making more power...but it will nto allow you to make ALL The power that you have available in your setup.

like dave said the point of timing is to maximize cylinder pressures at approximately 15-20 deg after TDC. once you have to retard timing excessively to prevent detonation then you are making less than ideal power. becasue the peak cylinder pressures are happening too late and you are loosing effective cylinder pressure to create TQ. so goignt o higher octane allows you to add more timing to achieve best TQ again. now the trap people fall into is thinking that more timing = more power. this is not always true. more timing = more power as long as you are running less advance than is theoreticaly ideal. after this point adding timing will either reduce pwoer output...OR create pre ignition. pre ignition is differnt than detonation (even though they are generally refered to by the general public as the same) pre ignition is whne the af mixture is sparked too early and reaches maximum cylinder pressure before TDC. so adding more timing does not create more power...

On to the fuel side of the question.

running a car excessively rich will result in reduced power as well. running a car excessively lean will result in excessive combustion temps and will create increased chance of detonation. so the happy medium for boosted cars seems to be between 11.5 and 12.5 depending on how close you are to the detonation threshold for your given setup.

so the long and the short of it...

runnign a car at low timing but proper AFR will make the same [censored] power that proper timing and rich mixture will.

but if you put the proper damn fuel in the car.. then you can make more power by running proper fuel and timign values.

MATT_BACK_VASS
04-27-2005, 01:51 PM
http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.tamparacing.com/photopost/data/500/zoolandertiming.jpg

tErbobOOst
04-27-2005, 02:14 PM
lol, i love that pic.

Well it seems as though I got the answer I wanted. Although it seems as though we are both right, although my way is the better way of doing things.

I knew about the cylinder pressure issue, but I guess i never actually thought about it and brought it up as an argument. It makes perfect sense though.

Thanks for all the input. I'd love to keep this discussion going as I love talking about tuning and learning more, so if anyone has anything else to say please do.

WikedSicc
04-27-2005, 02:59 PM
Hey, I am the other person in that conversatin. First off what kind of statement is "you are dealing with a DSM owner. they have to do sh!t backwards because they are too cheap"?

Secondly, you were not given the entire conversation. You say
"if you need to run less than 15 deg of timing at the TQ peak than you need to go to higher octane fuel. your mixture is too unstable. runign cars excessively rich and with almost no timing will allow you to keep adding boost and making more power...but it will nto allow you to make ALL The power that you have available in your setup."

The part left out was that this entire conversation was about making optimum power on 93 octane. Yes exactly what I was saying is running rediculously low timing and running close to a 9.5a/f. This allows for more boost and more power on 93 octane. I fully realize that I will gain more power running 116 and therefore I can run a leaner mixture w/out any knocking problem, however this was not the conversation. I do not know how many people run 116 on a daily basis.

infamous240
04-27-2005, 03:06 PM
Running "rediculously low" timing and 9.5 a/f ratios isn't even bass-ackwards, it's just silly. You cannot make any more power that way on 93 Octane than you would if the car were properly tuned. You are just wasting gas.

klattr1
04-27-2005, 03:17 PM
9.5:1 afr's will nearly make your car cut out in WOT. talk about loading it up. i would hate to see what u think about whats right for tuning a NA setup.

DSM's are a totally different ballgame from 240sx but tuning is universal. Even the stock DSM ecu runs 10-12 deg. initially (at peak TQ) and then ramps it up from there at higher rpms. If you want to maximize output from 93 octane, then try it out like Scott and Dave have suggested. Start conservative and then work your way up. Fuel is usually alot easier to get right but from there you just have to know how much timing is enough. Changes in the torque curve from messing around with the timing is only accessible on the dyno.

BlackBomber
04-27-2005, 04:05 PM
and running close to a 9.5a/f. This allows for more boost and more power on 93 octane.



I hope you are joking about a 9.5 a/f. This will wash the oil off of your cylinder walls scarring them and put fuel in your oil. Not a good idea by any stretch.

240hooker
04-27-2005, 08:05 PM
Awsome info. Thanks guys.

WikedSicc
04-27-2005, 09:03 PM
I am not joking about running a 9.5:1 ratio. What I have said makes perfect sense. Infact it is being run and is working. You have to remember that this is only on 93 octane.

Qouting Entalpy "if you need to run less than 15 deg of timing at the TQ peak than you need to go to higher octane fuel. your mixture is too unstable. runign cars excessively rich and with almost no timing will allow you to keep adding boost and making more power...but it will nto allow you to make ALL The power that you have available in your setup."

He was not aware that my statements were solely based on a 93 octane fuel map. He claims running that rich and little timing is not getting the max horsepower that the motor is capable of. This is evident, however you would have to run a higher octane fuel. This is not going to happen due to the fact that this is a 93 octane fuel map (a seperate is created with more timing, better a/f, and more boost on 116), and I was talking about getting max horsepower from 93 octane. He then says, "runign cars excessively rich and with almost no timing will allow you to keep adding boost and making more power". This is exactly what I was saying. Running rich, hardly any timing, more boost, and more power.

I find it humorous that Enthalpy, someone who is well know as having a valid opinion, has made his statments(w/out knowing the basis of the conversation) and has infact backed up my arguement, and you all still disagree. If you read the posts you will notice this. You guys then proceed to claim how terbo boost was correct, and tell me what I am doing is wrong. Take a set back from the "usual" and think about what has been written here.

http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

klattr1
04-27-2005, 10:03 PM
you have now been cursed. lol

i dont know how many cars you have tuned with 9.5:1 afrs but they tend to break up due to too much fuel. hence the term "Off the Charts".

why do you think that companies like AEM, Innovate and Dynojet make electrical sweep gauges that dont show richer than 10:1 or 11:1? it just isnt optimal.

maybe you should try out a new wideband sensor. maybe yours is just poop and is reading off and you are filling people with misinformation?

duncan351
04-27-2005, 10:17 PM
I am not joking about running a 9.5:1 ratio. What I have said makes perfect sense. Infact it is being run and is working. You have to remember that this is only on 93 octane.

Qouting Entalpy "if you need to run less than 15 deg of timing at the TQ peak than you need to go to higher octane fuel. your mixture is too unstable. runign cars excessively rich and with almost no timing will allow you to keep adding boost and making more power...but it will nto allow you to make ALL The power that you have available in your setup."

He was not aware that my statements were solely based on a 93 octane fuel map. He claims running that rich and little timing is not getting the max horsepower that the motor is capable of. This is evident, however you would have to run a higher octane fuel. This is not going to happen due to the fact that this is a 93 octane fuel map (a seperate is created with more timing, better a/f, and more boost on 116), and I was talking about getting max horsepower from 93 octane. He then says, "runign cars excessively rich and with almost no timing will allow you to keep adding boost and making more power". This is exactly what I was saying. Running rich, hardly any timing, more boost, and more power.

I find it humorous that Enthalpy, someone who is well know as having a valid opinion, has made his statments(w/out knowing the basis of the conversation) and has infact backed up my arguement, and you all still disagree. If you read the posts you will notice this. You guys then proceed to claim how terbo boost was correct, and tell me what I am doing is wrong. Take a set back from the "usual" and think about what has been written here.

http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/tongue.gif



WikedSicc,
I have had this exact discussion with Scott before on my setup for 93 octane. By running low timing and low A/F's and more boost you are simply not making much more power(if any) than a properly tuned 93 octane map. How much more boost do you think you can push on pump gas? 17-19psi on pump depending on setup is usually the max on a properly tuned setup. If you turn the boost up to 21-22psi
on pump is about as much as you will be able to push. Now we aren't going to make any more power this way than with a optimized tune and running the lower boost levels such as 17 - 19psi. More boost is not always the best way to make power.

WikedSicc
04-27-2005, 11:44 PM
You bring up a valid point, but this information I am not striking down. It is hard because you guys have not seen the entire conversation, and I don't know why my friend felt he needed to post it on here, especially w/ a 1/8 of the conversation.

I told him that this was an effective way of producing more power on a specific motor. I even said that this may in the end produce equal power, or even less on other motors, but in this situation it was producing more. He even went ahead and made this comment, "a motor is a motor". This couldn't be more wrong, this topic proving it. From motor to motor (even turbo 4cyl to turbo 4cyl) the same things do not produce the same results. Piston mold, compression ratios, cam duration, ect., the list goes on and on.

All in all, I am by no means saying this is the best way to tune. I am not saying it is the worst way. Tuning is a compromise. Try tuning to more lean ratios w/ more timing and less boost, see your outcome. Then try what I was talking about. Exchange timing and a lean mixture for the ability of more boost. Sometimes you will come out ahead, sometimes you won't.

PS. "If you turn the boost up to 21-22psi
on pump is about as much as you will be able to push." I'll answer that, it was nearly 30psi.

WikedSicc
04-27-2005, 11:55 PM
Klattr1 do you have any idea what you are talking about. The aem UEGO wide band kit ( the non gauge kit, the one that plugs into ems) will read whatever a/f ratio you throw at it. Do some research before you make these ignorant comments.

klattr1
04-28-2005, 12:33 AM
Klattr1 do you have any idea what you are talking about. The aem UEGO wide band kit ( the non gauge kit, the one that plugs into ems) will read whatever a/f ratio you throw at it. Do some research before you make these ignorant comments.


i have no idea whatsoever. lol
im not talking about digital readouts.
http://www.modernperformance.com/all/aem_uego_gauge.jpg

http://www.plxdevices.com/M-Series-Accessories/2InchGauge/M-SeriesGauge3DBlack_Small.jpg

http://www.widebandcommander.com/images/part_gauges.jpg

Tombs_UK
04-28-2005, 02:54 AM
My tuning theory goes as follows:

Start w/ an A/F around 9 or 10 with very conservative timing. Start to lean things up until your torque curve starts to drop (max torque). You then richen it up...this should occur around 12.0 A/F. You then do the same with timing. Keep adding timing until your torque curve starts to drop and then back it down a little bit. This should all keep knock in check while giving max horsepower.



Pretty simple tuning question: http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/wink.gif

This is a good precis of dyno tuning, but of course this assumes you have hours of access to a dyno.

How can the same outcome be achieved through street-tuning? It would be easy enough to tune the fuelling to between 11.5 and 12.5:1, but the ignition would be more difficult. Seat-of-the-pants-Dyno, or a case of advancing the ignition in each area until you get det, and then retarding it somewhat?

Some tuners get superb results from street-tuning alone http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif

WikedSicc
04-28-2005, 07:51 AM
Klattr1, I am glad you found pictures of the gauge when I clearly stated that I was talking about the UEGO w/out the gauge. I beleive there was a miscommunication between you and me. I thought you said that you can not read below then, and you were just saying the values on the gauge.

Anyone that is tuning solely of looking at a gauge like that will not have a good tune. You need logs. EMS will log the other UEGO to whatever A/F ratio you have. This is how I would know that my A/F is below 11:1. I have already explained what I am talking about, it works, enthalpy unknowingly backed it up.

As for street tune vs. dyno tune. There are aspects of both that are vital. On a dyno, you see a torque curve and can tune accordingly. On the down side, you do not know these values are correct. Of course the curve will be correct, just the hp values may be strewn. The dyno will NEVER simulate real world conditions. It does it's best but just can not do it.

All dynos have numerous numerous calculations to determine these values. These calculations also change dyno to dyno. Dyno jets are also different than mustang dynos. Mustang dynos have more of an ability to simulate real world loads, but don't exactly. Roller weights are different from dyno to dyno aswell. Even from a mustang dyno to another mustang dyno. On the subject of rollers, not all rollers are the same radius. This causes strewn results do to the ratios between the transmission you are running and the roller itself.

It comes down to the fact you can get numbers from a dyno, usually not correct, and you can tune along a curve. Sure you have a great tune while on a dyno. However these conditions are not the same on the street or track. Plain and simple, a dyno tries to simulate real world conditions, and comes close, but can not.

killjoy
04-28-2005, 08:52 AM
Ummm, they cannot read any AFR they are thrown. Wideband sensors read 0-5v unlike the narrowband sensors that read between 0-1v. See chart below.

A/F ratio Voltage(volts)
10.015625 0
10.015625 0.156
10.015625 0.312
10.015625 0.468
10.015625 0.624
10.015625 0.780
10.2890625 0.936
10.71875 1.092
11.109375 1.248
11.421875 1.404
11.8125 1.560
12.203125 1.716
12.59375 1.872
13.1015625 2.028
13.4921875 2.184
14.1171875 2.340
14.703125 2.496
15.71875 2.652
17.0078125 2.808
18.609375 2.964
18.9609375 3.120
18.9609375 3.276
18.9609375 3.432
18.9609375 3.588
18.9609375 3.744
18.9609375 3.900
18.9609375 4.056
18.9609375 4.212
18.9609375 4.368
18.9609375 4.524
18.9609375 4.680
18.9609375 4.836
18.9609375 4.992

The only way for these sensors to read below 10:1 is with negative voltage I guess;) http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/wink.gif

DeatschWerks_Dave
04-28-2005, 09:59 AM
killjoy, what WBO2 is that from? It is interesting that only values between 1v and 3v is actually used. I assume it has something to do with the non-linear operation of the pump cell. I will have to make a chart of voltage vs afr reading on my zt-2 and see what it looks like.

WikedSicc
04-28-2005, 10:38 AM
OK Killjoy, you are making this fun for me. I do not know where you came up with your values, but they sure are incorrect. I will take it upon myself to post the correct values. This is taken from the AEM efi basics. Enjoy.

http://www.driftsauce.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=575.0;id=226;image
http://www.driftsauce.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=575.0;id=227;image

Looking between these two conversion tables you will notice that 1.4 volts is .68 lambda, which then is equal to a 9.96 A/F.

Considering you said that a wideband O2 sensor reads from 0-5volts (which is correct) don't you think by the time you neared zero you would be well past 9.5:1 ratio.

Do some research, find correct information.

I am having problems attaching these, so you will have to click the link.

Turbob15sentra
04-28-2005, 11:15 AM
Running 9.5:1 A/F is retarded... Not only are you losing power, but you are putting enough fuel in to wash the oil from the cylinder walls. Hell, my 700+hp drag motor, at 30psi of boost and nitrous ran 10.5:1 A/F on the spray, and 20 degrees of timing. We made mid 400's on 93 octane.. at 23* of timing and 11.2:1 A/F.

And guess where I tuned it? Polk Performance in Little Rock.. If you are a DSM guy.. then you know Don at Polk. Don helped tune it, because I had never made that much power before. He would say that 9.5:1 A/F and 5 degrees of timing, is crazy...

Travis

BlackBomber
04-28-2005, 11:21 AM
Running 9.5:1 A/F is retarded... Not only are you losing power, but you are putting enough fuel in to wash the oil from the cylinder walls.



BINGO! I stated this in my post. it is a good way to ruin a perfectly good motor.

infamous240
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Apparently he thinks he can fool 93 Octane into thinking it has a better knock resistance than it really does.
Continuing to argue with him is obviously futile.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/frown.gif

killjoy
04-28-2005, 01:04 PM
I can't see the links because I don't have a "driftsause" account. Got the ratings from an engine managaement page. I would like to see the other ratings. The ratings were from Bosch LSU4 sensors. Is that not what AEM's have?

On a side note, i have to agree with others when saying 9.5 is just absurd. My car was at high 9 early 10 when first started to tune back in the safc days and it was hell to drive. Got like 12 mpg and it broke up all the time except in boost, LOL. But go ahead and do it and prove us wrong. You only fit the sterotype of DSM guys more:

"DSM owners are all great mechanics because they are used to fixing their own cars."

tErbobOOst
04-28-2005, 03:09 PM
Here are the pics he was trying to post

http://www.driftsauce.com/files/lambda%20vs%20afr%20copy.jpg

http://www.driftsauce.com/files/lambda%20vs%20o2%20copy.jpg


I'm glad you guys are all backing me up. I think 9 A/F is way to rich as well.

However, enthalpy, did I or my friend read your statement wrong? Can you make more power on 93 octane with this A/F less timing and lots of boost, or would more power be made with a better A/F proper timing and less boost?

WikedSicc
04-28-2005, 03:32 PM
I am not speaking out of my ass here. It is done. It works. The statement about the dsm's turn people into mechanics. WTF is that supposed to mean. Does this mean "240" people can't work on thier cars? Does this mean "DSM" people do everything incorrect? Last time I looked in drag racing, there are no competitive 240s out there. I am not making any posts talking down to people because of the car they own. You say I fit a sterotype of a "DSM" guy. Would that mean you fit the sterotype of a "240" guy, cheap, car isn't fast, no idea how to tune? NO, because first off this is irrelevant, and secondly it is extremely ignorant to make these assumptions. Leave your assumptions for thermodynamics classes.

Running this rich to compensate for knock is not rediculous. It would be different if this hasn't been proven, but it is works. I also do not know why this was posted on a nontuning comprehensive site. 3/4's of these posts are not contributing any useful information, or solid facts to back up thier claims.

The original poster is making these claims w/ no knowledge of tuning. He is just like most of you making claims because this is what he hears is incorrect. He has not witnessed them work and play out accordingly. Anyone that knows anything about tuning knows its more or less a guessing game. No two cars are the same. Different variables change motors in different ways.

As for this statement " Can you make more power on 93 octane with this A/F less timing and lots of boost, or would more power be made with a better A/F proper timing and less boost?". I assume you guys trust enthalpy's opinoin, if not correct me. He clearly stated that what is being done will sometimes yeild greater power, but is dumb becuase you are not utilizing the full potential of your setup. You need to up the octane. Yes, there is no arguing this. The octane will stay at 93 though. So yes, it will yeild more power. Also, there is no such thing as a "proper timing". Timing is made in regards to the A/F ratio that is at hand. There is no "standard" of timing. There may be for timing at different A/F's, but there is no "proper" timing. He once again makes statments that prove the lack of knowledge. Beleive what you guys want, I can't change that, nor did I have the goal of doing that. This isn't "pretty adavanced", and this doesn't belong on this forum. Facts are facts. It made more power, and it worked. Plain and simple.

infamous240
04-28-2005, 03:59 PM
I am not speaking out of my ass here. It is done. It works. The statement about the dsm's turn people into mechanics. WTF is that supposed to mean. Does this mean "240" people can't work on thier cars? Does this mean "DSM" people do everything incorrect? Last time I looked in drag racing, there are no competitive 240s out there. I am not making any posts talking down to people because of the car they own. You say I fit a sterotype of a "DSM" guy. Would that mean you fit the sterotype of a "240" guy, cheap, car isn't fast, no idea how to tune? NO, because first off this is irrelevant, and secondly it is extremely ignorant to make these assumptions. Leave your assumptions for thermodynamics classes.

Running this rich to compensate for knock is not rediculous. It would be different if this hasn't been proven, but it is works. I also do not know why this was posted on a nontuning comprehensive site. 3/4's of these posts are not contributing any useful information, or solid facts to back up thier claims.

The original poster is making these claims w/ no knowledge of tuning. He is just like most of you making claims because this is what he hears is incorrect. He has not witnessed them work and play out accordingly. Anyone that knows anything about tuning knows its more or less a guessing game. No two cars are the same. Different variables change motors in different ways.



Other than saying "It works, it's being done, it works." YOU have no facts to back up your claims. There are plenty of theories and real world results that prove what you are doing is a waste of time, effort,fuel and an EMS. Driveability, power, and fuel efficiency all suffer when using your tuning "method".
The fact is you have no dyno chart to prove your method is making any more power than it would be properly tuned, while I can post dozens upon dozens of dyno charts from all makes and models of cars showing that the optimal targets for tuning are an 11-12.5:1 a/f ratio, PROPER timing and the highest boost that the a/f and timing maps will allow per octane rating.
AMS isn't doing it your way with their cars. Jim Wolf isn't doing it your way with their ECU's. Enthalpy isn't doing it your way with his ECU's. I'm not doing it your way, and neither is anyone on the AEM EMS board. There is a reason for this! Hell just read the EMS EFI Basics manual and it will TELL YOU the general rule for target A/F's and timing, which aren't even close to what you are attempting to do.

Will the car run the way you are tuning? Well apparently yours will. Will it run optimally? Hell no. Will that stop people from trying to do things your way anyhow? Apparently not.

So your car "Works". Good job. Let us know when you have some dyno charts or some trap speeds to compare your car to others with similar setups.
The truth is we could hit you upside your head with pages of documentation and you wouldn't buy any of it.

killjoy
04-28-2005, 04:04 PM
Haha, you made my day. First of all, stereotypes exist because they are based on some fact. I have nothing against DSM's. They just break down a lot thats all:) I hate Mustangs though. Just fyi. Also, my car got many parts and dynotime from Extreme Motorsports in MD. If you drive a DSM and don't know who they are then you just flat out suck. They own the worlds fastest Talon.

Oh and if you think all 240's are slow then why don't you find the little prick who stole mine, we'll race, and I will whip your ass.

Stereotypes are pretty funny though. Lots of 240's are slow. And i don't go to any classes. i don't have a college degree, so you are out of luck there.

Enthalpy
04-28-2005, 04:23 PM
Look man,

I'm not going to tell you that your method does not work.

it does. and yes you can run more boost by going silly rich and running very little timing. and yes i know DSM guys like to do it. and yes i know that that one guy did like 30 psi on 93 octane. I know all this.

HOWEVER

what you fail to realize is this. just becasue it CAN be done doesnt mean it shoudl be done. takign the same car and running 30 psi on 93 and switching it to VP c16, or VP import, or Philips B33 and re-tunign it to more ideal timing and AFR numbers WILL make more power. there is absolutely no arguement to be had here.

which means the only reason that you are having this arguement is to say that you can make additional power over what conventional wisdom would say.

but the people on this borad are tellign you that it is a waste of time becasue you are under utilizing your investment into your car.

which brings me back to the first statement i made in my original post.



your first problem is that you are dealing with a DSM owner. they have to do sh!t backwards because they are too cheap to buy dyno time for AWD cars. so they street tune and tune by knock counts only. which is the most rediculous way to tune.



the whole reason you are trying to do this is because you are too cheap to buy race gas. why woudl you want to make LESS power at the same boost than you could with a better fuel? oh yeah...becasue you are too cheap to buy good fuel.

so lets recap...

lots of fuel and low timing = crap thermodynamic efficiency and [censored] power per boost level.

+

cheap DSM owner

=

bullheaded ignorance.

case closed.



I am not speaking out of my ass here. It is done. It works. The statement about the dsm's turn people into mechanics. WTF is that supposed to mean. Does this mean "240" people can't work on thier cars? Does this mean "DSM" people do everything incorrect? Last time I looked in drag racing, there are no competitive 240s out there. I am not making any posts talking down to people because of the car they own. You say I fit a sterotype of a "DSM" guy. Would that mean you fit the sterotype of a "240" guy, cheap, car isn't fast, no idea how to tune? NO, because first off this is irrelevant, and secondly it is extremely ignorant to make these assumptions. Leave your assumptions for thermodynamics classes.

Running this rich to compensate for knock is not rediculous. It would be different if this hasn't been proven, but it is works. I also do not know why this was posted on a nontuning comprehensive site. 3/4's of these posts are not contributing any useful information, or solid facts to back up thier claims.

The original poster is making these claims w/ no knowledge of tuning. He is just like most of you making claims because this is what he hears is incorrect. He has not witnessed them work and play out accordingly. Anyone that knows anything about tuning knows its more or less a guessing game. No two cars are the same. Different variables change motors in different ways.

As for this statement " Can you make more power on 93 octane with this A/F less timing and lots of boost, or would more power be made with a better A/F proper timing and less boost?". I assume you guys trust enthalpy's opinoin, if not correct me. He clearly stated that what is being done will sometimes yeild greater power, but is dumb becuase you are not utilizing the full potential of your setup. You need to up the octane. Yes, there is no arguing this. The octane will stay at 93 though. So yes, it will yeild more power. Also, there is no such thing as a "proper timing". Timing is made in regards to the A/F ratio that is at hand. There is no "standard" of timing. There may be for timing at different A/F's, but there is no "proper" timing. He once again makes statments that prove the lack of knowledge. Beleive what you guys want, I can't change that, nor did I have the goal of doing that. This isn't "pretty adavanced", and this doesn't belong on this forum. Facts are facts. It made more power, and it worked. Plain and simple.

WikedSicc
04-28-2005, 05:22 PM
Enthalpy, you bring up many valid points. These points however are scraped due to the constraints of what we were talking about.

1. The basis of this conversation was only on 93 octane.
2. I at no point said this would or wouldn't have any bad effects.
3. I at no point said this is the best way to tune.

The entire conversation was making the most power on a 93 map. Thats it.

Once again you confirm what I had said.

"I'm not going to tell you that your method does not work.

it does. and yes you can run more boost by going silly rich and running very little timing."

You are confirming exactly what I said. IT WORKS.

On a side note, I am not too cheap. I will not run a map like this at the track. I will not run a map like this to daily drive. I am not too cheap to purchase race gas, I will be using it at the track and any real races. I am not too cheap to purchase dyno time. I will be on the dyno, but after I do my best on a street tune. This way I will have all the real world conditions and then can tune accordingly to the torque curve and scrap all the bull**** numbers the dyno spits out.

This is not pure ignorance due to the fact I am not saying this will produce the maximum potential on a motor.

I stated that this will produce more power on a 93 octane map. It does.

As enthalpy says, "case closed".

MATT_BACK_VASS
04-28-2005, 05:36 PM
I think what enthalpy is trying to say is



1) you wont run that at the track
2) you wont run that at the street
3) where will you run it ? nowhere ? THEN WHY BOTHER!

| / _

WikedSicc
04-28-2005, 06:03 PM
My god! Do you not read my post. I said that this was a conversation purely based on making the most power on 93. That's it.

tErbobOOst
04-28-2005, 06:31 PM
Enthalpy I full respect your knowledge, but you are pissing me off with your DSM stereotype bull****. DSM owners are no less cheap than 240 owners (atleast S13s), and this is coming from someone that has never owned a DSM, but does have MANY DSM owner friends. We are all cheap in our own way. Dont be ignorant.

It seems as though you are backing up his argument, that the best way to make power ON 93 OCTANE would be to tune to a 9 A/F with lots of boost and little timing, as opposed to less boost with a better AFR and "proper" timing. However, you are not completely clear on this point.

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MAKE POWER ON 93 OCTANE?! Nothing else, just max power under WOT.

I would not run race gas on the street, and MANY people have different tunes for the street and track and driving on the street with race gas is a waste of money. This has nothing to do with being cheap, it has to do with being realistic.

tErbobOOst
04-28-2005, 06:31 PM
Post deleted by tErbobOOst

WikedSicc
04-28-2005, 06:38 PM
I think what you mean is which way will yeild the most power. Best is what this entire thread has been interpeting differently. He already said however that this method will yeild more power. Once again, case closed.

infamous240
04-28-2005, 08:54 PM
I think what you mean is which way will yeild the most power. Best is what this entire thread has been interpeting differently. He already said however that this method will yeild more power. Once again, case closed.



No one here has said that your method will yeild more power. What everyone here has said is that it WORKS. Meaning that your car can run and feel fast using that method. No one has said that it will make more power or that it is anything other than the wrong way to tune your car.

Kookz
04-28-2005, 09:06 PM
I think what you mean is which way will yeild the most power. Best is what this entire thread has been interpeting differently. He already said however that this method will yeild more power. Once again, case closed.



No one here has said that your method will yeild more power. What everyone here has said is that it WORKS. Meaning that your car can run and feel fast using that method. No one has said that it will make more power or that it is anything other than the wrong way to tune your car.

Clearly you didn't read what Enthalpy wrote.

klattr1
04-28-2005, 09:18 PM
please go back to DSMTuners forum.

slow6brick
04-28-2005, 09:31 PM
make it stop, god this is insane...if in situation x would y be better than z...tell hell with it. run real world stuff, this in theory deal is garbage or under wot only, no one drives that way, quit the bickering

cwdmark
04-28-2005, 09:37 PM
your first problem is that you are dealing with a DSM owner. they have to do sh!t backwards because they are too cheap to buy dyno time for AWD cars. so they street tune and tune by knock counts only. which is the most rediculous way to tune.


what's funny is that he has admitted he is cheap, but hasn't even brought up the fact that he tunes on knock counts.

93 gas, 30psi, no timing, street tuning on knock counts, 9.5:1 a/f..... and we wonder why dsm's never last more than an hour!!

http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/grin.gif

killjoy
04-29-2005, 08:22 AM
And why did you think that coming to a Nissan forum, people might be just a little biased.....Hmmm.....thought for the day.

tErbobOOst
04-29-2005, 08:29 AM
And why did you think that coming to a Nissan forum, people might be just a little biased.....Hmmm.....thought for the day.



He didnt come to this board, I did.

Enthalpy
04-29-2005, 08:31 AM
tErbobOOst = DRFTspec180
Enthalpy1200 = me

this should clear some stuff up....

DRFTspec180: how you doin?
Enthalpy1200: good ...how you doin?
DRFTspec180: good...i'm on freshalloy, SN tErbob00st...i started the thread about the tuning question
DRFTspec180: i just wanted to clear up your standing on the whole thing
DRFTspec180: u said what he is trying to do WORKS...we fully realize that it will run like that, and we also realize that the proper way to do things would be to use higher octane fuel, but for a daily driven car thats not very realistic (atleast for most people)
Enthalpy1200: ok
Enthalpy1200: so what is the point of the thread
DRFTspec180: now is the way he is saying to do things, a 9.5 A/F with lots of boost, going to make more, less, or the same amount of power then a 12 A/F with proper timing and less boost?
DRFTspec180: the question i just asked is pretty much the point of the thread
Enthalpy1200: it depends how much more boost
Enthalpy1200: becasue say 18 psi is your limit on 93
Enthalpy1200: but he is runnign 30 psi on 93 with his method
Enthalpy1200: yes he will make more power
DRFTspec180: well real world example (wat is currently being done)...22 psi vs 30 psi on a FP3065 turbo
Enthalpy1200: that is why i said it works
Enthalpy1200: because i have seen it
Enthalpy1200: and it works
Enthalpy1200: and i knwo the reference car
DRFTspec180: the black GSX?
Enthalpy1200: yes
DRFTspec180: wow ur good, haha
Enthalpy1200: i follow lots of [censored]
Enthalpy1200: i have dsmn friends here locally
Enthalpy1200: but the point is
DRFTspec180: is the problem of washing the cylinder walls w/ too much fuel a problem at this A/F or is everyone overexaggerating?
Enthalpy1200: what good is being able to do it ona dyno...if it is too unstable to use on the street
DRFTspec180: well as far as i know, he has never been on a dyno...he has only street/track tuned
DRFTspec180: and daily drives it at that A/F
Enthalpy1200: ummm...not the car i was thinkign of then
Enthalpy1200: becasue the guy i was thinking of has dyno plots to prove it
Enthalpy1200: 510-530 whp
Enthalpy1200: somewhere in that range
DRFTspec180: well i'll find out, but i believe he never has dynoed
Enthalpy1200: and he used the same stupid method
DRFTspec180: was this GSX from chicago area do u know?
Enthalpy1200: but my point is...
Enthalpy1200: the mixture becomes SO unstable at that point that any fluctuation in gas quality and BOOM
Enthalpy1200: dead motor
Enthalpy1200: any fluctuation in intake temps...and BOOM
Enthalpy1200: dead car
Enthalpy1200: it works
Enthalpy1200: but it is incredibly stupid to do
DRFTspec180: alright, that sounds reasonable
Enthalpy1200: becasue it puts your setup on the ragged edge of failure
Enthalpy1200: PLUS
Enthalpy1200: if these cheap ass DSM owners would just go buy racegas they woudl find 50+ more HP easily
Enthalpy1200: and i say that
Enthalpy1200: because they are the ONLY people tryign this [censored]
DRFTspec180: dude, running race gas on the street is not very practical
Enthalpy1200: they have this back ass quest to make the most hp on 93...
Enthalpy1200: dude...
Enthalpy1200: ruinning 500whp on the street isnt ever practical
DRFTspec180: i dont see why not
DRFTspec180: w/ AWD it can be extremely fun
Enthalpy1200: have you ever driven a 500+ whp import on the street?
DRFTspec180: no, but i've been in one w/ close to 500
Enthalpy1200: ok...i have one
Enthalpy1200: and let me tell you
Enthalpy1200: ANY time you opent he thing up at 500 whp it is highly illegal
DRFTspec180: haha, i c
DRFTspec180: what car is this? 180?
Enthalpy1200: becasue before you know it you are over 120mph
Enthalpy1200: yes
Enthalpy1200: and that isnt really leagal now is it
DRFTspec180: not at all
Enthalpy1200: ok...
DRFTspec180: plus i would assume whatever method u are using to make 500 hp isnt legal anyways (no cat, ect)
Enthalpy1200: so we have now established that 500+ whp isnt legal or practical ont he street correct?
DRFTspec180: well i guess practical wasnt the right word then...
Enthalpy1200: well it isnt practical
DRFTspec180: i wouldnt mind having a 500 whp car on the street...wether it be legal or not...its fun to have that kind of power when u want it
Enthalpy1200: and it isnt legal
Enthalpy1200: HHAHAHHA
Enthalpy1200: ok man
Enthalpy1200: trust me from someone who has been there
DRFTspec180: but race gas at $4 a gallon is not very cost effective...it has nothing to do with being cheap
Enthalpy1200: at $4000 per motor...i think the insurance is very cost effective
Enthalpy1200: and besiudes
DRFTspec180: plus i think there is something about making that much power on pump gas...almost bragging rights
Enthalpy1200: premium is like 2.50 a gallon where i live
DRFTspec180: yea here too
Enthalpy1200: ok...so is the extra 1.50 that much
Enthalpy1200: plus
DRFTspec180: and where u gonna fill up w/ race gas? i know by me it isnt exactly easily found
Enthalpy1200: do you really want ot drive around boosting 30 psi on 93 opctane after what i told you about instability?
DRFTspec180: no deff not
Enthalpy1200: ok
Enthalpy1200: so save the 30 psi for when you want fun
Enthalpy1200: and add race gas that day
DRFTspec180: and my friend agrees, he he not going to tune that way either, and knows it isnt the most effiecent way, or safest way to make power...but our arguement was purely what would make more power
Enthalpy1200: well like io told him
Enthalpy1200: that method will make more power
Enthalpy1200: because you are adding 100 hp worth of air
Enthalpy1200: and takign out 50-70 hp worth of thermodyunamic efficiency with [censored] tuning
Enthalpy1200: so you may get a 50 whp gain
DRFTspec180: well that makes perfect sense
DRFTspec180: thanks for clearing that up for me
Enthalpy1200: no problem
DRFTspec180: and thanks for proving me wrong...now i have to go face my friend, haha
Enthalpy1200: oph...dont worry...
Enthalpy1200: i'll post this for everyone
DRFTspec180: hah, alright

NOSTALGIC_HERO
04-29-2005, 09:00 AM
see scott, what you SHOULD have done in the beginning, was make the reason for these guys as EASY TO UNDERSTAND AS POSSIBLE..

any more difficult and they take offense (for what reasons? i can think of many, but thats beside the point)





Enthalpy1200: because you are adding 100 hp worth of air
Enthalpy1200: and takign out 50-70 hp worth of thermodyunamic efficiency with [censored] tuning
Enthalpy1200: so you may get a 50 whp gain
DRFTspec180: well that makes perfect sense
DRFTspec180: thanks for clearing that up for me
Enthalpy1200: no problem




simple, easily quanitifiable terms. maybe next time we can make little cubes signifying air. and then we take away the cubes and put them in the "bad tuning" box .. what do we have left??

DeatschWerks_Dave
04-29-2005, 11:58 AM
It sounds to me that the whole problem with this thread is that a THEORETICAL question was misrepresented as a PRACTICAL question.

Could have been an interesting topic. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/frown.gif

nismodave
05-01-2005, 10:27 AM
Oh and if you think all 240's are slow then why don't you find the little prick who stole mine, we'll race, and I will whip your ass.



That has got to be one of the FUNNIEST statements I have ever seen. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif

slow6brick
05-01-2005, 10:50 AM
again, too much in theory and not enough real world logic. and i agree dsm owners are well...i'll just leave it at that. i like the saying enthalpy told me once about dsm "Got Tools" cause tuning that way you will need them. and turboboost, running race gas is practical, i ran it everyday for 5 days straight on my 500whp+ sr20 when the super bowl was here. had fun bustin everyones ass and laughing about it. enthalpy used to drive trogdor and race gas only for weeks at a time. its practical when you have tons of money invested in your setup. and one last thing, you think 500+ is cool for the street until you put it on the street...just like enthalpy told you. blip the throttle and over 100mph instantly...i dont know about you but here in FL you do that and get caught = possibly being arrested and car impounded. so that doesnt sound like fun to me...350-400whp is plenty for a street tune

BlackBomber
05-01-2005, 06:10 PM
350-400whp is plenty for a street tune



what is funny is that blipping the throttle at this power level spells instant 100mph as well LOL. I can't imagine what 500 would be like.

duncan351
05-01-2005, 08:28 PM
To the DSM guy who is trying to prove the "BEST METHOD TO MAKE THE MOST POWER ON PUMP" you should include the word "SAFLEY". If the dam thing is unstable, which it is @ 30 psi, then this isn't the way to make the most power. Hell anybody can make power for a minute. That's no accomplishment at least not here with us. Making big power and keeping the same motor running for 2+ years with 50K plus miles, now that's accomplishment and worth talking about.

Its comments like yours the reason I tell people to not do everything you read on these dam forums. Hell its hard enough to keep a motor together for an extended period of time @ 30psi on Race gas. Then you want to talk about pump. Hell no!! You come holler at us after using that method of yours a year later. Tell me if you're still on the same engine. Therefore if its not safe then its not realistic. So this is not the way to make the most power on pump because it just isn't safe.

killjoy
05-01-2005, 08:35 PM
350-400whp is plenty for a street tune



what is funny is that blipping the throttle at this power level spells instant 100mph as well LOL. I can't imagine what 500 would be like.



What is scarier is punching it and breaking tires loose at high speeds. After you correct from instinct you have a whole new respect for your car as well as tingles down your spine.

Or when you turn traction control off on a C5 and punch it turning a corner and face oncoming traffic. That sucks too. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/wink.gif

WikedSicc
05-01-2005, 11:40 PM
http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif
I do not understand why you guys can not get the basis of this discussion. It was a theory conversation. I then brought in examples of it being proven. All it was is that this way you can make more power on 93. That is it.

You guys get angry when you are proved incorrect, and then tell me my way is stupid because of its effects. Effects were not brought into this conversation.

Swallow your pride, 90% of you were proven wrong. Stop trying to pull up irrelevant topics so you can say you were correct if we were talking about them.

PS: "Oh and if you think all 240's are slow then why don't you find the little prick who stole mine, we'll race, and I will whip your ass."

You say DSM owners are too cheap to run race gas on a daily basis.....what about being to cheap to have an alarm system good enough so that your car won't get stolen???? If my car breaks, it is still in my possesion in the end of the day.

killjoy
05-02-2005, 08:16 AM
Ummm, yeah what sucks is that the moving company had the keys, smart ass, so your 1000 alarm wouldn't have saved your maf emulator let alone the whole car. Don't ***** at me cause you drive a 13 second fwd car. I didn't make you buy it.

tErbobOOst
05-02-2005, 09:12 AM
Ummm, yeah what sucks is that the moving company had the keys, smart ass, so your 1000 alarm wouldn't have saved your maf emulator let alone the whole car. Don't ***** at me cause you drive a 13 second fwd car. I didn't make you buy it.



hahahaha, if only you knew what he really did drive.

killjoy
05-02-2005, 11:05 AM
What...is it a big bad 3000GT?

SequenceGarage
05-02-2005, 12:55 PM
I've got to add to this thread. The one thing I don't see suggested here is balance.

So 12:1 at 22psi isn't enoug boost
9.5:1 at 30psi is too much boost

So run 10.2-10.4:1 at 27psi

You have less air going into the bad air box (those naughty air blocks - haha i love that analogy)

And you have a mixture with much greater stability. Fuel washing oil off the cylinder walls (which may or may not be hearsay i personally do not know) would be lessoned or eliminated.

Would the power be above or below either setup? Thats what the dyno is for. But above all for a race car or a street car (in my opinion) as enthalpy said, you need saftey. I think this is why many DSMs blow up. While trying to avoid stereotypes, more often than not I see DSM owners thinking more boost is the solution, where as really it is lowering the engines overal efficiency. More strain on the entire engine that simply isn't worth the little bit of power your are extracting!

Which brings me back to my original point. Balance is key. How much strain per hp is worth it? Well thats up to you. Maybe dsm dude has a new motor and doens't care if this one lasts 3 runs. Maybe 240 dude wants to keep his car for 3 seasons of auto-x solo1 and drift days.

Personally I want a car that is tuned for ideal timing, and ideal fuel. If it starts to knock, lower boost and/or compression if higher octane is not an option. If higher octane is an option, higher octane it is.