'88 5-speed dyno log
#151
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Fred - I am probably biased, but I think the S3 cams are the best of the lot.
Your GTS/S4 setup looks to be better than the stock S4. More intake duration can mean broader peaks, with less knock potential, AFAIK.
It's too bad you don't have a dyno available. It really helps see what is going on - if you can get consistent dyno results.
Once I am done with chip tuning, I would like to put some S3 or Colin cams in my '88.
I am not using a ST, so I don't know which particular cylinder has a knock, just that a knock has been detected.
(I am logging the EZ knock output, with a code patch.)
Without testing one, I will probably knock 2-3° off of the WOT advance.
24# will be a requirement. Along with (-3° or) -4° cam retard.
Your GTS/S4 setup looks to be better than the stock S4. More intake duration can mean broader peaks, with less knock potential, AFAIK.
It's too bad you don't have a dyno available. It really helps see what is going on - if you can get consistent dyno results.
Once I am done with chip tuning, I would like to put some S3 or Colin cams in my '88.
I am not using a ST, so I don't know which particular cylinder has a knock, just that a knock has been detected.
(I am logging the EZ knock output, with a code patch.)
24# will be a requirement. Along with (-3° or) -4° cam retard.
#152
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Hi Ken:
Neat stuff. Just to make sure I understand your dyno chart above...
Are the blue, green and red lines with the same hardware (X-pipe, injectors etc.), just differences in cam timing, fuel and ignition mapping? Maybe you already specified that. Sorry if I missed it.
Amazing work, especially w/o using a Sharktuner.
Neat stuff. Just to make sure I understand your dyno chart above...
Are the blue, green and red lines with the same hardware (X-pipe, injectors etc.), just differences in cam timing, fuel and ignition mapping? Maybe you already specified that. Sorry if I missed it.
Amazing work, especially w/o using a Sharktuner.
#153
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Bill - I edited post above to show the overview of changes per graph.
Red is cam timing, new programming and tuning, past X-pipe and 24# for blue.
Red line has a couple knocks in the 3000s, but was otherwise knock free.
Note there are some advantages to not being limited to what can be done with a ST.
Red is cam timing, new programming and tuning, past X-pipe and 24# for blue.
Red line has a couple knocks in the 3000s, but was otherwise knock free.
Note there are some advantages to not being limited to what can be done with a ST.
#154
Rennlist Member
Ken,
Do you or any of the chaps on this list have any notional idea of what octane improvement is gained by throwing a jar of STP octane boost into a tank of 95 [89 your gasoline?] octane? The chaps in Dubai can get their super 98 brew but in Oman we do not have the luxury.
I note with interest your comment about not being able to run 89- presumably that is with your advanced state of tune. My work here suggests that stock programming struggles to run our 95 witch-**** brew.
Regards
Fred
Do you or any of the chaps on this list have any notional idea of what octane improvement is gained by throwing a jar of STP octane boost into a tank of 95 [89 your gasoline?] octane? The chaps in Dubai can get their super 98 brew but in Oman we do not have the luxury.
I note with interest your comment about not being able to run 89- presumably that is with your advanced state of tune. My work here suggests that stock programming struggles to run our 95 witch-**** brew.
Regards
Fred
#155
Rennlist Member
This is our '88 S4 (#413), stock everything except x-pipe with cats (19# injectors, cams at zero).
And Sharktuned, conservatively, for 91-octane: https://rennlist.com/forums/10465564-post54.html
Last edited by jcorenman; 06-10-2013 at 09:01 AM. Reason: correct link
#156
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I was referring more to variables, maps and code that are not exposed in the ST.
You'll note that my 006 X-pipe graph, is about the same as your baseline with X-pipe.
I have only just started tuning 'the hard way'. Hopefully there is more to be had, consistently.
#157
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
FWIW, the 020 graph had terrible fueling, because as well as the cam timing I was testing some new code.
High 11 AFRs, except for the jolt where the HP peak is.
When I went to fix it, I made a rookie assembly language error and made it way too lean (stupid base 16, 0-9 A-F).
By that time, the dyno guys wanted to go to lunch, and I had my cam timing results anyway.
Anyhu, 310 rwhp should be easy enough to get to.
High 11 AFRs, except for the jolt where the HP peak is.
When I went to fix it, I made a rookie assembly language error and made it way too lean (stupid base 16, 0-9 A-F).
By that time, the dyno guys wanted to go to lunch, and I had my cam timing results anyway.
Anyhu, 310 rwhp should be easy enough to get to.
#159
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I am logging >90% duty at 5700 rpm with 24#, ~12.5 AFR, half-rate off.
(1/2 rate is only a few % reduction and is a unnecessary complication, for me.).
Since the S4 seems to like it on the rich side, I kind of wish I had put in 30#.
Looking at Jim's S4 graph and the results of this past dyno, I wonder if I may have gone the wrong direction with the cam retard.
If I can get around 310 and keep the monster first torque peak, cams at zero is fine with me.
I would sacrifice some of the big torque for more HP, if it was worth it.
I am going to reset the cams, keep the mixture fat (<12.5), and dyno again with 92 octane.
It will be a good experiment, but mainly, I have to crush (or roughly match) Jim's results.
(1/2 rate is only a few % reduction and is a unnecessary complication, for me.).
Since the S4 seems to like it on the rich side, I kind of wish I had put in 30#.
Looking at Jim's S4 graph and the results of this past dyno, I wonder if I may have gone the wrong direction with the cam retard.
If I can get around 310 and keep the monster first torque peak, cams at zero is fine with me.
I would sacrifice some of the big torque for more HP, if it was worth it.
I am going to reset the cams, keep the mixture fat (<12.5), and dyno again with 92 octane.
It will be a good experiment, but mainly, I have to crush (or roughly match) Jim's results.
#160
And then put in 50% e85 in the tank and dyno to show people that even with a half of a tank of the spruce juice that you raise the knock threshold to "none" and you can advance away?
#161
Drifting
I am logging >90% duty at 5700 rpm with 24#, ~12.5 AFR, half-rate off.
(1/2 rate is only a few % reduction and is a unnecessary complication, for me.).
Since the S4 seems to like it on the rich side, I kind of wish I had put in 30#.
Looking at Jim's S4 graph and the results of this past dyno, I wonder if I may have gone the wrong direction with the cam retard.
If I can get around 310 and keep the monster first torque peak, cams at zero is fine with me.
I would sacrifice some of the big torque for more HP, if it was worth it.
I am going to reset the cams, keep the mixture fat (<12.5), and dyno again with 92 octane.
It will be a good experiment, but mainly, I have to crush (or roughly match) Jim's results.
(1/2 rate is only a few % reduction and is a unnecessary complication, for me.).
Since the S4 seems to like it on the rich side, I kind of wish I had put in 30#.
Looking at Jim's S4 graph and the results of this past dyno, I wonder if I may have gone the wrong direction with the cam retard.
If I can get around 310 and keep the monster first torque peak, cams at zero is fine with me.
I would sacrifice some of the big torque for more HP, if it was worth it.
I am going to reset the cams, keep the mixture fat (<12.5), and dyno again with 92 octane.
It will be a good experiment, but mainly, I have to crush (or roughly match) Jim's results.
#163
#165
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Back to cam zero...runs better, feels stronger, logs as faster...on 92 octane.
Not sure how I always get caught up in playing with the cam timing.
I'm going to blame Hilton.
Anyhu, during the hours of drilling PKT brackets, I 'saw' what an ideal WOT table should look like.
One that would automatically compensate for weather, gearing, weight, terrain (hills), etc.
WOT programming can essentially be done in a 'flat', RPM only table, because there is no throttle restriction.
Trouble is, weather, etc. change the MAF to RPM relationship, pulling the AFR up or down.
Stock maps have part throttle data mixed in so WOT AFRs are often erratic.
At full throttle, airflow and ignition are essentially fixed by RPM according to the cams and intake.
Weather etc. change the percentage up or down over the whole range, but the curve, RPM to RPM, stays pretty much the same.
EG. colder air makes MAF volts higher at the same RPM, so the map should compensate by returning a reduced value at that RPM.
EG. dyno roller weighs less than the car = less MAF at street tuned RPM = lean AFR, map needs richer.
I already had made a completely new (16-bit) base MAF table for WOT, so all I had to do was make a progressive slope from low MAF to high MAF.
The WOT table is overlaid over this base table as normal. To make adjustments, all I have to do is edit a single value in the WOT table.
Note that it is read diagonally, from upper right to lower left, as MAF and RPM values go up.
The upper left and lower right areas are never read.
I am still tuning the individual RPMs, but fueling is now very stable (like my S3s), even in the 5600-6000 range.
I guessed on the slope, but even as-is, the AFR change from gear to gear is minimal.
I am going to apply this to the EZ WOT map, next.
While setting this up, I realized that I had done this in the upper RPM ranges on my S3 chips without understanding why it worked.
My S3 chips are super consistent. Now I know why, specifically.
WOT overlayed
base slope w/o WOT
Not sure how I always get caught up in playing with the cam timing.
I'm going to blame Hilton.
Anyhu, during the hours of drilling PKT brackets, I 'saw' what an ideal WOT table should look like.
One that would automatically compensate for weather, gearing, weight, terrain (hills), etc.
WOT programming can essentially be done in a 'flat', RPM only table, because there is no throttle restriction.
Trouble is, weather, etc. change the MAF to RPM relationship, pulling the AFR up or down.
Stock maps have part throttle data mixed in so WOT AFRs are often erratic.
At full throttle, airflow and ignition are essentially fixed by RPM according to the cams and intake.
Weather etc. change the percentage up or down over the whole range, but the curve, RPM to RPM, stays pretty much the same.
EG. colder air makes MAF volts higher at the same RPM, so the map should compensate by returning a reduced value at that RPM.
EG. dyno roller weighs less than the car = less MAF at street tuned RPM = lean AFR, map needs richer.
I already had made a completely new (16-bit) base MAF table for WOT, so all I had to do was make a progressive slope from low MAF to high MAF.
The WOT table is overlaid over this base table as normal. To make adjustments, all I have to do is edit a single value in the WOT table.
Note that it is read diagonally, from upper right to lower left, as MAF and RPM values go up.
The upper left and lower right areas are never read.
I am still tuning the individual RPMs, but fueling is now very stable (like my S3s), even in the 5600-6000 range.
I guessed on the slope, but even as-is, the AFR change from gear to gear is minimal.
I am going to apply this to the EZ WOT map, next.
While setting this up, I realized that I had done this in the upper RPM ranges on my S3 chips without understanding why it worked.
My S3 chips are super consistent. Now I know why, specifically.
WOT overlayed
base slope w/o WOT
Last edited by PorKen; 06-18-2013 at 08:31 PM.