First logs..Not sure if they are good or bad

[mickeyd2005]

For partial throttle logs when the target AFR > 12, I use the following chart to eyeball the AFR to make sure that I am in the right ballpark. This allows us to use the front O2 sensor to estimate what is going on in the partial throttle region.

 

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r69/mickeyd2005/frontO2vsWBO2.jpg

[LittleBlueGT]

However, if you keep bumping this thread with incorrect information then I am going to keep responding.

 

I love it.

 

FWIW Mike:

 

I did a big log yesterday at around 4000 rpm, and 1.2 load. The target AFR was about 13.0. The front O2 registered (big average) 12.9, the front O2 measured (same big average) 12.4.

 

I may try and graph out the relationship between the two vs MRP, but stuff like that in excell (while I usually figure it out) takes me a while.

[j255c]

Im far from as knowledgeable as you guys are. My car was tuned by him and it runs quite well and im impressed with it to date. Doesn't everyone share a different tuning method. Some like to run less timing up top and more boost and vice versa, some like to run richer to make more torque and be able to ramp timing in the lower rpms, some like to run leaner, etc?

[Infamous1]

Im far from as knowledgeable as you guys are. My car was tuned by him and it runs quite well and im impressed with it to date. Doesn't everyone share a different tuning method. Some like to run less timing up top and more boost and vice versa, some like to run richer to make more torque and be able to ramp timing in the lower rpms, some like to run leaner, etc?

Yes in deed, but and this case the fueling wasn't setup in the correct manner. The way it was scaled worked in alot of situations but is not how it was intended to be setup. This caused bad results in the high rpm low load area on the OP's vehicle. However after resetting the learning it stilled proved the timing also needed to be attended to. However that could also be just from the timeframe from when the tune was performed.

[SeeeeeYa]

Im far from as knowledgeable as you guys are. My car was tuned by him and it runs quite well and im impressed with it to date. Doesn't everyone share a different tuning method. Some like to run less timing up top and more boost and vice versa, some like to run richer to make more torque and be able to ramp timing in the lower rpms, some like to run leaner, etc?

 

Besides the fact that highlighted sentence makes my head itch inside , if you meant that there are different ways 'tuners' employ to get a particular mechanical combination operating at maximum output.... no, not in my opinion.

 

Sure, there are differences between tuning methods, but largely because not all those doing the tuning are created equal. Some are smarter than others, some are more educated than others, some are more experienced than others, but in the end it is not the tuner that defines the outcome... it is the car. Reduce it to a one cylinder device with the simplest of provisions for running and six hundred so-called tuners will not produce six hundred different outputs.

 

But give those same six hundred "tuners" a new computer controlled, turbocharged Legacy GT and the outcome changes. The differences that will occur will reflect the intelligence, education, and experience of those six hundred at tuning, but in the final analysis it is the Legacy GT in question that holds the answer, not those tuners.

 

Furthermore, that final outcome will reflect how those 'tuners' balance the complex set of compromises they face. These Tuners we are discussing here are not developing a one lap qualifier. That Legacy GT, for example, has to not only make power enough to make the owner happy and impressed, it shouldn't blow up.

 

As you can see from the responses of those learned individuals who've commented in this thread there is, in fact, a science involved here. It has been largely hidden in the past, but is now being developed and exposed thanks to the excellent and unselfish work of the opensource people. Heretofore, minor gods on mini thrones have wielded their magic shrouded in closely guarded mystery in order to safeguard their kingdoms. They spout rhetoric to befuddle and amaze those who journey from far and wide for their magical powers. Business, however, not magic, rarely science. Sorting out the charlatans, hucksters, and quacks from those who know what they are doing is rarely done by those under their influence.

[Ridgeracer]

Yes in deed, but and this case the fueling wasn't setup in the correct manner. The way it was scaled worked in alot of situations but is not how it was intended to be setup. This caused bad results in the high rpm low load area on the OP's vehicle. However after resetting the learning it stilled proved the timing also needed to be attended to. However that could also be just from the timeframe from when the tune was performed.

 

Timeframe?.....are you refering to when the tune was done?...as in time of year and weather conditions?

[Infamous1]

Timeframe?.....are you refering to when the tune was done?...as in time of year and weather conditions?

Time when the tune is done mainly. With dealings with my own car I have found the tune requires attention every now and then. Weather conditions so much don't matter since tuning is done in a somewhat closed enviroment. However if the timing wasn't takin to the ragged edge this would be a non factor. I always recommend "freshening" up the tune, I usaually do every week or so

[j255c]

Time when the tune is done mainly. With dealings with my own car I have found the tune requires attention every now and then. Weather conditions so much don't matter since tuning is done in a somewhat closed enviroment. However if the timing wasn't takin to the ragged edge this would be a non factor. I always recommend "freshening" up the tune, I usaually do every week or so

 

Indeed, i nag him online all the time about my tune and datalog atleast 3x a week. Hes constantly making small changes to my setup.

[caramall2]

Old thread...I know. But has all the tuners (Mickey, Infam, LtBlue, etc.) on it ;-) Good info by the way.

 

Using RR Inj tab to fix latency and scalar, but also using REAL maps in Cobb for tweaks.

 

- What's the conversion from RR latency to "Cobb's special" latency values?

- What's the conversion again from regular scalar (cc) to "Cobb's special" scalar values (e.g. 5200, etc.)?

- What's stock injector cc again?

 

I know it's posted somewhere but can't find. Not sure if I can use Cobb's spreadsheets (need to relook). Also swamped today :-0

 

Thanks!

[LittleBlueGT]

Just use this for the scalar:

 

new scalar in ST/5200 = 520.59/cc/min from injector tab

 

or:

new scalar in ST = 2707068/ cc/min in injector tab

 

I think that should work.

 

 

 

For the latency use this:

 

ms * 1.56 = COBB (messed up, likely ECU direct value)

 

 

Mike, please let me know if I am wrong. I gotta do some injectors for a friend with ATR next week.

[caramall2]

Thank mucho!