Some interesting before and after FC flashes.

[www.cp-e.com]

So I thought this was pretty cool, and wasn't sure if this had been displayed in this fashion before.

Here are two screen shots from the SB logs. One with our Full Control Flash (throttle) one with out.

With out FC flash:

(Note, not that it needs to be said, however, yes I was pressing the gas pedal all the way down)



It's interesting to note that the throttle isn't even all the way open at its peak voltage. It's only about 3.6V at peak, which assuming 4.5V is 90%, is only open a peak of 70% for a portion of time.

With FC flash:



There is a brief interruption of throttle at the beginning of the pull, however if you look at the scale of the graph this holds 90-100% the entire way.

I know the FC has been around for a bit, however its nice sometimes to see a graphical representation of what you're paying for!

Here are the dyno comparisons between the two.



If you see the peak value of 268 (Wheel corrected on our MD-500), directly below that is the dotted red line at 220 (without the FC flash). That's a solid 48 HP at that RPM point.

Just cool info, IMO.

-Sander

[superskaterxes]

what were the mods/car on that dyno?

[TRex]

I have always been curious of CPE's thoughts on this Cobb document stating holding full throttle duty cycles all the way to read line does not increase power output...thoughts CPE?

[www.cp-e.com]

That is a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the theory and objective of DBW, however, it is somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison of stock vs. flashed throttle mapping.

They are making evaluations that are interesting however, not completely applicable to our discussion here. COBB is saying that the power gain is negligible between 50% and "100%" (which to note, on their relative throttle graph is only approximately 75%) throttle. I am displaying the power difference which is definitely quantifiable between stock throttle mapping (which is as low as 40-44% at 6200 rpm) and our Full Control flash (which is approximately 90-95% at that same data point). Our comparison is over a dynamic change, not a static comparison between two values.

Also to note, this is the same car, on the same day, on the same dyno.

I am not attempting to dis-credit COBB's research, however, on our dyno the differences were fairly remarkable.

Originally Posted by TRex I have always been curious of CPE's thoughts on this Cobb document stating holding full throttle duty cycles all the way to read line does not increase power output...thoughts CPE?

[TRex]

In your post you said we are assuming 4.5V means 100% plate opening...how did you arrive to this?
Also aren't you comparing apples to oranges as well by showing a car with the stock throttle limit and then again with out the restriction? Did you not introduce a different throttle map?


Back to the cobb document, it is believed that if we can open the throttle plate more we can make more power correct? They showed that there is no difference between 50% TPP and 75% TPP (which is the recognized stock max)...But they did take the 75% all the way to redline...that doesn't happen on the stock map...why would we believe that their is a difference between 75% and 100% when it was shown already at one point that opening wider and staying open all the way didn't yield any results?

Also a question regarding safety. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the FC flash is merely to force the TP open to 100% when APP is at 100%? No other changes made to ECU logic (fuel, spark, ect...). Am I correct in this? If that is the case how can I be sure that the stock fuel/spark tables can compensate for this increase air flow at the top end? I'm assuming that it was programmed to see no higher than 75% but when all of the sudden we are forcing it open 100% how do I know the turbo isn't over running itself (which imo is one of the reasons for the stock map throttle plate close off) or my fuel trims can compensate and not cause a lean condition.

I am speaking merely of a stock turbo car...I do see the benefit of running the TP wide open on a BT car as BT's can handle the increased air flow (along with compensating fuel and spark). The little K04 is almost maxed out as it is, I see the throttle plate closing down as a safety net.

Could you post more data on these particular runs? Stock turbo? mods? AFRs? and the like?

Also also, can you comment on if on the stock map under every case when you go WOT you see 75% TPP? Or does it change...i.e. the ECU picks the best TPP position based on load conditions for optimal air flow? Where you will see TPP at 65% one day and 75% another day ect. (Note I am talking before throttle plate close down at red line)

(Please don't take any of this as attacks or trying to disprove you or anything, I am trying to educate myself about how all of this works)

[06Speed6]

There is a definite difference between the stock throttle mapping and completely open throttle mapping.

[SRTie4k]

The fact that you use a Mac to tune does absolutely nothing to further your cause.

[djuosnteisn]

If both tunes were trying to maintain a given boost pressure in the intake manifold, one could argue that an open throttle could potentially help a smaller turbo more than a big turbo.

A semi-closed throttle plate will create a pressure drop, much like a shitty intercooler. And in order to achieve a given boost in the IM, the turbo will need to output that much more to compensate for the throttle plate drop.

A big turbo will have no real issue with this, as a couple psi more is no big deal and doesn't budge the operating point too far from high efficiency islands on the compressor map.

But a small turbo (which is already no the ragged limits) needs to spin much much much faster to make up those few psi. Aside from much hotter charged air, it also results in much higher exh mani pressures, and decreases the VE of the motor. This is why you can actually make less power by running too much boost on a small turbo.



...so not sure if OP was using SB to tune before and after the flashes, but if it was, and targeting the same boost pressure on both maps... that may explain the difference in results between cobb and cp-e.

*one more thing...

Cobb's study was done with an otherwise stock car, and an otherwise stock tune. We know the mazda ecu targets a given load, rather than boost. So if it was meeting the target already with a partially closed throttle plate, why would one expect to see gains even with a fully open plate. I haven't read that document in quite a while (and don't have time right now), but does cobb show boost curves with both throttle setups? If not, I would venture to guess that the high throttle tune resulted in lower boost, in order to maintain the target load.

Much like how MAP performance resulted the same hp with a ported intake manifold, but at 2 psi less boost, on before and after dyno runs.

[TRex]

^thanks for the explanation that puts a lot into view...

so in my own words...
If I am targeting X boost in my map, by letting the throttle plate open wider I am helping my turbo achieve that X boost more efficiently which results in more HP....did I get that right?

But, in the Cobb document because they were more than likely using load targeting and not boost targeting, they were not gaining any HP due to the fact that they were already at the target and no increase of air flow was needed.

So is it fair to say that if you are doing load based tuning...the FC flash or any throttle mapping beyond 75% may or may not be necessary or produce results?

The Cobb document does not log any boost levels...

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by TRex ^thanks for the explanation that puts a lot into view... so in my own words... If I am targeting X boost in my map, by letting the throttle plate open wider I am helping my turbo achieve that X boost more efficiently which results in more HP....did I get that right?

Perfect. This is the sole premise behind any flow mods. I can go into further detail if you want, about how exhaust mods help (post / pre turbo), and intake stuff), but you def seem to have a good handle on it.

Originally Posted by TRex But, in the Cobb document because they were more than likely using load targeting and not boost targeting, they were not gaining any HP due to the fact that they were already at the target and no increase of air flow was needed.

yup

Originally Posted by TRex So is it fair to say that if you are doing load based tuning...the FC flash or any throttle mapping beyond 75% may or may not be necessary or produce results? The Cobb document does not log any boost levels...

Yeah, but most people who run the flashes are tuning with the SB, which is a boost targeting system. And the flashes are incompatible with the AP, so i don't think anyone would be mixing and matching the tuning methods.

[TRex]

Great, I understand now...was just a little confusing when I was looking at to sets of data without knowing the difference in parameters between them

[www.cp-e.com]

I'm sorry, Ive been busy on the dyno today. I will comment on your questions when I get back home. djuosteisn covered most of it though, I probably should have been a little more clear from the get go on a few items.

Thanks,

-s

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com djuosteisn covered most of it though..

Were you tuning with the SB before and after the flash suite? Also, did you guys include the secret sauce in that throttle flash? Cause i know lou will usually include it in most flashes now a days. Lastly, what were the tune differences between the two dyno pulls, if any (was it same boost, same AFR, same timing etc... with only the throttle opened up)?


Thanks for posting up some dyno info and quantitative results as well. Your lucky to have a dyno to play around on all day lol. I just get to play with soldering irons and a keyboard.... hahaha.

[www.cp-e.com]

So, to start with, I'm going to try and answer the questions you guys have. But if I seem to miss any, please ask again, I won't be offended by any means.

- As far as the mods on the car, it is a mostly stock Gen 2. Exhaust, Top Mount Intercooler, Stock turbo / manifold, Intake and an SB (with flashes and with out). HKS SSQ, recirculated.

We have 93 Octane in MD, and this is what is in the car.

- I derived 100% from 4.5 from the general theory of automotive 5 volt potentiometers. Most cars use a voltage range from 0.5 - 4.5 as a representative voltage range, with the remaining 0-0.5 range and 4.6-5v used for diagnostic reasons of detecting a sensor fault. I must admit, that I was slightly incorrect in this assumption. See below:


(Source, Alldatapro.com)

This is a test parameter, indicating when the APP is completely pressed down that the TP1 should be 4.7-4.9V. Automotive TPS sensors are generally always 5V references, so it can not possibly read above 5V. The TP1 voltage value of 4.7-4.9V is safe to assume at 100% throttle, maybe not my previous assumption of 4.5V (which is based on most of my previous experience of Bosch PFI systems). But even if 4.7-4.9V is assumed as 100%, 4.5% would be approximately 90%.

- I should state that my only purpose in making this thread was to show the throttle plots, because I just think that kind of stuff is nice to see in a qualitative graph format, I wasn't even going to post the dyno chart in fear of this happening, however, I'm glad that we're being open to discussion regarding this.
Here are the data points on the graph. They are somewhat different in the timing curves but not enough to warrant the discrepancies in power. I had to be fairly conservative with these to accommodate for possible lower octanes. And, these are just intended to be base maps, nothing really earth shattering.

djuosnteisn covered the load table "lookup" discrepancy between the AP and SB in a very logical way, and I appreciate that!

With flashes:



With out flashes:



Dyno with AFR:



There are slight differences between these, but the boost, timing, AFR, and RPM are within reasonable similarities to show the main difference being the throttle opening.

I hope that answers some of your questions. Thanks.

-Sander

djuosteisn, I sure do like having a dyno to play with, it really lends to determining what does what, and helps you figure out why!

[the_caruch]

djuosnteisn covered the load table "lookup" discrepancy between the AP and SB in a very logical way, and I appreciate that!

I'm a bit confused.

Does the standback itself still tune based on load? or boost?

Reason I'm asking is that i always see these AP logs people post with the absolute load WAY above what I'm running with my current tune and setup. (mods in sig, K04@18psi)

Here is a graph of what my logs looks like for rpm and abs load. Would getting the cp-e flash eliminate the ECU doing a load table lookup? Does Lou put his "secret sauce" in each cp-e flash?

The dark blue numbers on the graph are hard to read but i spike at 210% and then within 1 second i drop down 50% load and continue to drop until i shift.

[www.cp-e.com]

Originally Posted by the_caruch I'm a bit confused. Does the standback itself still tune based on load? or boost? Reason I'm asking is that i always see these AP logs people post with the absolute load WAY above what I'm running with my current tune and setup. (mods in sig, K04@18psi) Here is a graph of what my logs looks like for rpm and abs load. Would getting the cp-e flash eliminate the ECU doing a load table lookup? Does Lou put his "secret sauce" in each cp-e flash? The dark blue numbers on the graph are hard to read but i spike at 210% and then within 1 second i drop down 50% load and continue to drop until i shift.

There is a vocabulary discrepancy with the word "Load" sometimes. Load in some engine management systems can be a variety of different variables. The SB does not use a calculated load parameter like the AP does (and Mazda for that matter), a percentage value. The SB uses a user specified input as the "Load" axis, MAF, MAP, or TPS.

Much simpler way to evaluate 2D tables.

The load capping that the ECU does is based off of calculated load and a time interval. Our flash alters the time and load interval.

[the_caruch]

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com There is a vocabulary discrepancy with the word "Load" sometimes. Load in some engine management systems can be a variety of different variables. The SB does not use a calculated load parameter like the AP does (and Mazda for that matter), a percentage value. The SB uses a user specified input as the "Load" axis, MAF, MAP, or TPS. Much simpler way to evaluate 2D tables. The load capping that the ECU does is based off of calculated load and a time interval. Our flash alters the time and load interval.

The standback uses the choices you pick in these drop down boxes (attached) to base it's calculations off of.



If i understand correctly the Mazda ECU, even with the SB, will target the stock load values. And that you must get the flash to have that adjusted like you said(along with the other improvements).

Gotta get that flash!

[FORZDA 1]

Originally Posted by the_caruch ....Gotta get that flash!

or an AP for a lot less $$$ and have way more flexibility ....

[TRex]

Not to restate the obvious but the flash just completely (or makes really really high) the load cap?

[www.cp-e.com]

Originally Posted by the_caruch The standback uses the choices you pick in these drop down boxes (attached) to base it's calculations off of.

Yes, I am aware of that. However what I was stating is that the SB does not have a percentage based Load calculation like the stock computer does. Sorry If I was unclear.

The Flash can make the load cap higher, and it can also lengthen the period of time before the load threshold is triggered to cut the fuel.

[the_caruch]

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com Yes, I am aware of that. However what I was stating is that the SB does not have a percentage based Load calculation like the stock computer does. Sorry If I was unclear. The Flash can make the load cap higher, and it can also lengthen the period of time before the load threshold is triggered to cut the fuel.

Oops, sorry about that Sander! i know you are aware of that. I put it in there so i could understand.

Thanks for the info!!

[djuosnteisn]

The SB completely takes over control of the boost control solenoid, and such it controls the boost entirely. It's similar to a standalone in that regard.

But i have seen logs on cars running a SB without the flashes, and the ECU still attempts to limit the load by closing the throttle as it does in stock form as well, even though your trying to force the load by running more boost. This is the main reason cp-e introduced the full control flash, to make the throttle stay completely open while the pedal was matted. It works wonderfully, and removes a giant restriction (partially closed throttle) from the intake path. AP has this same ability... 2 ways to kill the same cat.

IMO, evey SB should be complemented with a full control flash to take full advantage of what it has to offer. Or the SB should be modified to directly control the throttle in a similar fashion that it drives the BCS.

[MPSdriver]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn IMO, evey SB should be complemented with a full control flash to take full advantage of what it has to offer. Or the SB should be modified to directly control the throttle in a similar fashion that it drives the BCS.

which will be achieved once the TC3 unit comes to the market?

[djuosnteisn]

TC3 will be a complete standalone... controlling everything from fueling, to the spark event, to throttle interpretation, to knock sensor interpretation etc etc etc.

IMO it'll end up running in conjunction with the oem ecu, and just feed the ecu dummy signals to keep it happy and make it think it's constantly idling (or something to this effect). That way the ECU can still manage all the can activity with other modules on the car, and you don't lose the form, fit and function of a nice modern vehicle. It'll also allow the ECU to respond to OBDII queries and stuff, to help with passing emissions.

OBDII emissions tester - "do you have any CEL's?"
OEM ECU - "oh, no no no... i've just been idling for 10k miles."



With the right setup, the skies the limit on the tc3. It basically gives the designer complete control to accommodate any fancy dancy race car ideas he can come up with.

Not sure when it's slated for release, but i've heard good things on the progress...

[Dano]

not trying to start an AP vs SB/Flash shootout here just wanting to clear up terms/ learn something.

Didnt know it you guys covered this but. All this throttle closing can also be eliminated w the AP DBW tbls.

That is to say you can run~76-77 TPS. Vs 68ish or less on stock or Cobb OTS mapping

Does the FC flash give you more TPS than 76ish?

Just think perhaps saying 100% open may be the same as 77TPS

Yes? No?

[djuosnteisn]

It definitely does. Both solutions have abs control over the throttle.

[CosmicArkie]

Stupid noob question....

What are the differences (results) in the various SB display chart choices - rpm vs tps or rpm vs map/maf, etc?

Type slowly and use small, simple words please.

[www.cp-e.com]

Originally Posted by CosmicArkie Stupid noob question.... What are the differences (results) in the various SB display chart choices - rpm vs tps or rpm vs map/maf, etc? Type slowly and use small, simple words please.

You can basically determine which input (in the pull down menu) that you want to base your changes off of, on the x-axis. For example, some might feel that boost is better controlled with TPS as an x-axis as opposed to MAF voltage.

The SB provides you this choice.

[djuosnteisn]

Some input selections are more appropriate for certain tables, as opposed to others.

For instance... for the boost target table, you wouldn't want to use MAF or MAP signals.... cause those depend on boost. It's best to use TPS (throttle) as the input.

For fueling (MAF table), it's more effective to use an input that is more directly related to the loading of the car, like MAP or MAF voltage. If you were to use TPS, theoretically you could hit that same TPS vs RPM point in the MAF table at various boost levels, and it'd make for a somewhat erratic and inconsistent fueling map.

For fuel pressure, again, it's smarter to use a load based input like MAP or MAF. So that your only increasing fuel pressure when the car is in boost and high airflow.

And lastly, for spark timing, it would be best to use MAP or MAF (MAF probably being the best) vs RPM, for the same reasons above. That way your tweaks are consistent with what the ECU's base logic is doing.

[www.cp-e.com]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn For fueling (MAF table), it's more effective to use an input that is more directly related to the loading of the car, like MAP or MAF voltage. If you were to use TPS, theoretically you could hit that same TPS vs RPM point in the MAF table at various boost levels, and it'd make for a somewhat erratic and inconsistent fueling map.

Dustin is completely right for the record.

However I thought it would be interesting to point out an exception to this rule (NOTE: This does not apply to ANY turbocharged car, unless you can do 4 dimensional mapping like some of the Motec ECU's can do). On naturally aspirated engines with large camshafts or individual throttle bodies, the engines do not develop much vacuum. If the engine does not develop vacuum, there will not be much of a variance of a MAP sensor (assuming speed density load referencing), therefore not being much good as a load axis. This is a good example of an application where TPS as a load axis is a good idea. This is also called "Alpha-N" mapping.

/end of random rant.

-Sander

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com This is also called "Alpha-N" mapping. /end of random rant. -Sander

I tuned my neighbor's buell with alpha-n and it worked great. Near instant throttle response. (ps... why does the boobies emoticon look she has a mustache??)

/end of enjoying Sander's random rant.

[CosmicArkie]

Thanks you guys for the good info. After several days of mulling it all over in my little pea brain its starting to make perfect sense.

Now the question is, how much difference does the rpm vs tps and the rpm vs map/maf actually make? Last spring while playing with my SB I left all the displays at the default rpm vs tps because I didn't have a clue. I tweaked fueling to get closer to stoic and backed out a little timing to clear up a couple of consistent spikes of KR.

If I change the displays to rpm vs map for the fuel and timing, should I start over with a clean slate or log and see what it looks like? I never played with the pressure because there never was an issue there.

Thanks again for your patience.

Jim

[www.cp-e.com]

Originally Posted by CosmicArkie Thanks you guys for the good info. After several days of mulling it all over in my little pea brain its starting to make perfect sense. Now the question is, how much difference does the rpm vs tps and the rpm vs map/maf actually make? Last spring while playing with my SB I left all the displays at the default rpm vs tps because I didn't have a clue. I tweaked fueling to get closer to stoic and backed out a little timing to clear up a couple of consistent spikes of KR. If I change the displays to rpm vs map for the fuel and timing, should I start over with a clean slate or log and see what it looks like? I never played with the pressure because there never was an issue there. Thanks again for your patience. Jim

It would likely be wise to start from scratch, TPS based load axis' don't really work with turbocharged cars. I would change it to MAF reference and start with a 0 table and go from there.

[the_caruch]

Originally Posted by CosmicArkie Thanks you guys for the good info. After several days of mulling it all over in my little pea brain its starting to make perfect sense. Now the question is, how much difference does the rpm vs tps and the rpm vs map/maf actually make? Last spring while playing with my SB I left all the displays at the default rpm vs tps because I didn't have a clue. I tweaked fueling to get closer to stoic and backed out a little timing to clear up a couple of consistent spikes of KR. If I change the displays to rpm vs map for the fuel and timing, should I start over with a clean slate or log and see what it looks like? I never played with the pressure because there never was an issue there. Thanks again for your patience. Jim

Look at my attachment i had a few posts ago. You should run it like that. That's what Jake set mine at when he was helping me.