Fobio's MS3 w/ GT3071R and Big MAF

[Fobio]

Not like you guys need another GT3071R build thread...

Feel free to check out lenny/rodrigo's how-to, amongst many, many others...

What I can contribute may be my experience with tuning this thing, which I don't believe is done yet...here's my first dyno sheet.



Parts:

CP-e 3.25" Big MAF, CP-e Nviscid TIH, SteedSpeed Stock Mani, Grimmspeed 3-port EBCS, GT3071R w/ ported IWG, ~12psi WGA spring pressure, CP-e catted DP, CP-e CBE w/ resonator, Cobb AP v102 22psi load tuned on the street by myself.

[kmac]

Nice stuff , you got any pics?

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by kmac Nice stuff , you got any pics?

These are the only pics I've got of the parts...engine bay looks like everyone else's, except mine's kinda a mess...lol...not too proud of it, but I'll snap some this wknd.















And this is the reason why I started this to begin with...blown gasket...after over 300 logs, over 100 map revisions...about 90,000km of track, hwy, stop and go city traffic...



A pic of the car on track with a rich base tune...

[kmac]

Love, it . The flaming ass pic is great all my rx-7's did that. Good luck with everything I know u said your still dialing it in.

[driver311]

Good stuff man and great choice for a track car. I bet it rips.

[Lex]

Nice Vince! Looks like the turbo spools quite a bit later than the K04. How's the lag?

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by Lex Nice Vince! Looks like the turbo spools quite a bit later than the K04. How's the lag?

Since coming off the K04, I'm still hesitant to raise loads in the lower RPM's...but I will.

Right now, it hits 15 psi @ 3500rpm...but only 10 psi @ 3000rpm...I'd like it to hit >12psi @ 3000rpm. On the big track, the lag isn't so bad as most of the driving is done well over 3000rpm...on the smaller track, it's brutal. Whereas I used to be able to drive the whole small track in 3rd, I need to do a couple of turns in 2nd now. Ultimately, I want the car setup for the big track tho...I mean this car has a 'ring time, it's meant to run high speed tracks with terrain changes etc...

Climbing up the back Andretti (back) Straight at Mosport is pretty intense...it gets up to 210km/h pretty quickly, and can hit over 220km/h w/ a slight draft before I need to brake.

[802MS3]

Originally Posted by Fobio Climbing up the back Andretti (back) Straight at Mosport is pretty intense...it gets up to 210km/h pretty quickly, and can hit over 220km/h w/ a slight draft before I need to brake.

The club I ran with for the first time at NHMS (COMSCC), did Mosport as their first event of this year. hopefully I can make it if they run it again next year.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by opt_ms3 The club I ran with for the first time at NHMS (COMSCC), did Mosport as their first event of this year. hopefully I can make it if they run it again next year.

let me know if you make it up and I will try and join you guys. Must be a bunch of dedicated track dogs to make it all this way up north...would love to run with you guys.

I wanted to post pics of these logs but with the new higher resolution from the AP, they look stupid. But here they are attached...logs from 2 dyno pulls today.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Fobio let me know if you make it up and I will try and join you guys. Must be a bunch of dedicated track dogs to make it all this way up north...would love to run with you guys. I wanted to post pics of these logs but with the new higher resolution from the AP, they look stupid. But here they are attached...logs from 2 dyno pulls today.

Flow is on the low side - you should be well over 300 g/s to really say it's above and beyond a K04. Strange that the flow is that low on 21 psi. Looking at load as well - its very close to a maxed out K04 - something is off there.

[JS + MS3]

Very very nice man.

[802MS3]

nice dude. atp hooks it up. they make some legit shit. too bad it took so long for the tuning to catch up to them haha.

[efispeed]

how you going to eliminate that lag, i say grimmspeed pnp intake mani with vtcs delete. i want to go with a gt30 turbo but can not make up my mind of the 76 or 71. i know there isnt a huge difference but i know ill have a placebo of more lag in the 76 and so much less power in the 71

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by efispeed how you going to eliminate that lag, i say grimmspeed pnp intake mani with vtcs delete. i want to go with a gt30 turbo but can not make up my mind of the 76 or 71. i know there isnt a huge difference but i know ill have a placebo of more lag in the 76 and so much less power in the 71

the lag...I really don't know yet...it's not like I'm dyno tuning in a lab, nor do I tune when I'm on the track. I can keep raising requested load in that area of 2000 - 3000rpm...but it's not like I'm doing it scientifically in accordance to the turbo efficiency map and minute timing control. Having said that, I have smoothed out my timing tables, and pulled some timing in that range we well....some say to richen that spool-on area as well...being on a dyno would allow me to play with timing and VVT a bit more...

[Manny]

any in car vids of you on track?

[Tokay444]

Nice Vince.
I know you'll have that tune dialed by about this time next week lol.
My buddy trevor has a pro Canadian superbike ride for next year.
He was testing on an 09 gixxer and hitting 330 on the Andretti straight.
Can you say shit your pants fast?

[8.5MS3]

for what its worth i hit 275 g/s on the K04 @ 20psi and hit 29X whp

[Fobio]

so here's something I learned from Lex and cld12pk, which I'l lattempt to apply here to start on really tuning this thing for myself.

Originally Posted by Lex ^ It's simple - the y axis is absolute pressure (ie at sea level atmospheric pressure = 1 bar) and the x axis is the compressor flow. The islands define compressor efficiency - so you know that when you're flowing x amount at y pressure, you are z efficient. Flow is in lb/min but you can convert it easily to g/s: Pound Per Minute [lb/min] To Gram Per Second [g/s] Converter Remember that this is only the cold side of the turbo.

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Here is an example of the key elements on the compressor map: To further refine upon what Lex said: The y-axis is the absolute pressure ratio between the outlet of the compressor and the inlet of the compressor. So to get this you need to know the pressure drop in the intake to the turbo inlet. Most of the time I see this modeled with ~0.5 PSI when free flowing aftermarket intakes are used. So the inlet pressure is assumed to be 14.7 PSIa - 0.5 PSIa = 14.2 PSIa. You also have to add the pressure drop through the intercooler for the discharge pressure so you really cannot use manifold boost pressure. Assuming 1 PSIa for fairly free flowing IC yields the following at the turbo discharge for 23 PSI boost gauge pressure: 23 +14.7 + 1 = 38.7 PSIa The compressor's pressure ratio is then 38.7/14.2 = 2.72. Garrett has some pretty good turbo tech info here if you want all the math: TurboByGarrett.com - Turbo Tech103

so I will try to apply this to the GT3071R...



I'm running about 21.5psi on the log...pulling about 288 g/s logged...

21.5 + 14.7 + 1 = 37.2

37.2 / 14.2 = 2.61

288 g/s = 38lb/min



If I push this up to 24 psi...

24 + 14.7 + 1 = 39.7

39.7/14.2 = 2.80

...I'd still have lots of room to play with...so yeah, something's off...

[Lex]

Sorry I didn't get back to your PM ... I was trying to sort this out a bit in my head. The motor is an air pump. You have to efficiently pull air in as well as pump it out.

You can be at the same pressure ratio and have different flows depending on the motor's ability to flow air. We know that our motors should flow more air using this turbo at that boost level.

Given that the MAF is calibrated correctly, I would be looking at a restriction in the intake or exhaust.

Looking at cruizto's dyno, he's at 22-23 psi and makes ~370 g/s at ~430whp. So your 290g/s would calculate to 290/370*430 ~ 337whp which lines up with your dyno.

Nothing to scoff at but it seems that the motor should flow better at that boost level with this turbo. Any more 3071 logs at the same boost level you can compare with?

[BlueStreak]

Here's mine. We're kind've in the same boat. I'm hesitant to post a tuning thread until I get everything sorted out.

The car pulls substantially harder than when running the K04 but like Fobio said, g/s is g/s. More flow should be had.

Also, I need to tighten up my WGA to get it to spool quicker. I've been in the engine bay so many times over the last 2 weeks that I'm going to just drive the damn thing for a while before I get my hands dirty again.

EDIT: Meth was turned on, hence the screwy AFRs. It's direct port so (measured) BATs aren't affected.

/end threadjack

[Fobio]

For starters, this may help others attempting to run the 3.25" MAF:

Same for both MAF Table A & B...it's quite ambitious...lol...

Break points:

0 - 9.20
9.21 - 29.00
29.01 - 51.00
51.01 - 132.00
132.01 - 200.00
201.01 - 260.00

0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.03	0.05	0.10	0.16	0.23	0.30	0.41	0.53	0.68	0.81	0.98	1.17	1.37	1.60	1.84	2.10	2.39	2.71	3.06	3.44	3.84	4.48	5.01	5.64	6.21	6.89	6.70	7.41	8.21	9.26	9.97	10.75	11.63	12.59	13.59	14.72	15.94	19.32	20.84	22.42	24.03	25.69	27.46	31.35	31.63	31.99	33.20	35.39	37.69	40.09	42.62	45.22	50.99	53.98	57.06	60.29	63.62	67.08	70.66	74.39	78.28	82.30	86.44	90.64	94.89	99.25	103.71	108.29	113.01	117.84	122.84	128.05	133.40	131.97	135.00	140.40	145.92	151.52	157.19	163.01	168.95	175.06	181.30	187.71	194.30	201.05	208.08	215.35	222.80	230.44	238.28	246.31	254.52	262.91	271.51	280.29	289.22	298.33	307.63	317.15	326.86	336.77	346.90	357.24	367.83	378.63	389.65	400.89	412.36	424.05	436.00	448.18	460.59	473.25	486.15	499.31	512.72	526.38	540.29	554.47

I'm able to hit 297 g/s today...also flipped the switch over to boost tune and it feels smooth, while requiring some tweaking to my wgdc table. This is what I'm currently running as the WGD - BEC table:

0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.03	0.00	-0.05	-0.24	-0.40	-0.40	-0.40

Basically, this uses the BEC table to add 3% when it's under boosting by 1psi, to the WGDC table. The goal is to shoot for within 1psi of your target thru wgdc tuning and then allow this table to make minute adjustments to achieve a smooth boost curve.

Whereas my load tune got stuck around 2.02 calc load, the boost tune map immediately got me up to 2.20 calc load...the current boost tune spikes to 23psi and holds ~22.4 psi thru 6500rpm...

We're now throwing around the possibility that:

a) the steed mani flows less...the 3 locals stuck around 290g/s all run steed's stock mount mani w/ the 3071...hmmm...
b) we all have dirty valvetrain and should clean the intake tract along with valves...

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Fobio We're now throwing around the possibility that: a) the steed mani flows less...the 3 locals stuck around 290g/s all run steed's stock mount mani w/ the 3071...hmmm...

Is -cj- in the same boat? I wonder if going back to the stock mani will make a difference. I might give this a shot when I have a day to myself.

[vbt101]

I have an 3071 getting ready to go in. I'm running big MAF, ported IM and the DNP mani. I wasn't going to install it for another 2-3 weeks, but I'll post up when I do.

[zx2man]

Brian didnt lose hp when he went from the pg tubular mani to the ss. He did gain tq. And isnt Cruzito making 432 whp on his 3076 with a SS mani?

[11cruzito11]

Originally Posted by zx2man Brian didnt lose hp when he went from the pg tubular mani to the ss. He did gain tq. And isnt Cruzito making 432 whp on his 3076 with a SS mani?

I'm actually back on my PG manifold, my 389whp prior dyno was on the SS.

[zx2man]

Originally Posted by 11cruzito11 I'm actually back on my PG manifold, my 389whp prior dyno was on the SS.

Awww ok, well thank you for clarifying. Hopefully most of the hp you gained from the previous dyno was more due to tuning vs manifold design.

[Fobio]

I have quite a bit of info to share...

First, here's Christian's reply to my question about g/s...

You also need to think about your MAF calibration. With higher quality fuel, the MAF calibration is lowered. For instance, if you put C16 in the tank, you would then need to lower the MAF calibration to lean the car out. By doing so your g/sec value will be less, yet the car will likely be making more power. Make sense?

The way I read it now, is that g/s IS NOT just g/s...once it's scaled, it's just a number, and it's the CURVE that mimics the hp curve. Also, he told me that it's likely due to dirty valves...I'll look into it.

Second, I started to plot my progress on Virtual Dyno...since g/s can no longer be used to compare runs as I hoped...here's my first street log after my baseline dyno sheet:



Looks to be comparable to what the dyno stated. So I'll continue to use this baseline to compare to my future logs.

So...take away:

1. Not gonna blame parts, such as Steed's mani since others have done well by it.
2. Need to clean valves.
3. g/s is not g/s once MAF is scaled.
4. Using Virtual Dyno, which doesn't take into account for g/s or MAF V is a good way to measure differences made.

[manelscout4life]

Question, did you use the oil and coolant lines included with the kit?

Also, who did you order from?

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by manelscout4life Question, did you use the oil and coolant lines included with the kit? Also, who did you order from?

The turbo was bought used on MSF...from the lore of MSF, it's likely the turbo from the one not to be mentioned...palerider's build, through another member's hands.

It came with coolant and oil line, and I bought another line from ATP like lenny/rodrigo did.

[BlueStreak]

Hhhhmmmmm... What fuel does -cj- use? I'm on Sunoco 94.

I can kind've see how fuel grade would affect g/s through AFR calibrations since, as I understand it, oxygen sensors measure the amount of extra oxygen coming in the exhaust stream. If the fuel grade can improve the combustion, it would affect the oxygen in the exhaust stream.

EDIT: Oops, I meant Ultra 94.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak Hhhhmmmmm... What fuel does -cj- use? I'm on Sunoco 94. I can kind've see how fuel grade would affect g/s through AFR calibrations since, as I understand it, oxygen sensors measure the amount of extra oxygen coming in the exhaust stream. If the fuel grade can improve the combustion, it would affect the oxygen in the exhaust stream. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're all on Ultra94.

[Lex]

g/s is g/s ... in the sense that it is the correct measurement of air entering the motor past the MAF sensor as long as the MAF sensor is scaled correctly.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Lex g/s is g/s ... in the sense that it is the correct measurement of air entering the motor past the MAF sensor as long as the MAF sensor is scaled correctly.

Fight to the death between Lex and Christian? Haha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak Fight to the death between Lex and Christian? Haha.

well...we're all here to seek out the truth, so as to help us help ourselves...

[BlueStreak]

Of course. It was a failed attempt at humour.

Lex, the MAF is scaled according to the oxygen sensor by the ECU in CL and by us in OL. Assuming Christian is correct with fuel grade affecting g/s, it would make a difference. Just spit balling here.

By extension, people in California would read higher g/s since it is widely accepted that they have lower grade fuel, would it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fobio]

So here's after a bit of tweaking...I plan to get on the dyno again in a few more weeks.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

Here's my interpretation of what Christian said...

g/s is whatever value you want to get the car what you want to do. you can use it to scale/trick the ECU to do other things related to AFR. In his example, you'd lower g/s so that the car "reads" less air coming in and dumping less fuel, say reading 250 g/s when it's really sucking in 300 g/s - running leaner AFRs.

in other words, don't get too caught up in g/s when comparing power ....like I chatted with fobio before, he could increase g/s by 20% from 3.8v MAF volts on and say "w00t 350 g/s!!" but that would be slightly disingenuous... the true measure of air flow would be MAF volts as that is what the car measures, g/s is just a translation from a look up table based on MAF volts.

Another thing to remember, when using Ultra 94, the ethanol in the gas causes a higher oxygen output in the exhaust stream...essentially adding air to the AFR, reducing the need to up g/s in the MAF cal


....off course, i could be way out in left field with my interpretation seeing as how 11cruzito11 does have more power (and g/s?) with the PG mani

[Lex]

Alright, let me clarify.

The MAF is scaled such that the commanded AFRs are in line with the actual AFRs.

Fuel does affect how the sensor reads AFRs. Ethanol fuels are oxygenated and require a calibration with higher g/s for the two to match.

So yes, there is a fuel component in there since the only feedback we have that the MAF is calibrated correctly is that the actual AFR matches commanded in OL and LTFTs are low in closed loop.

However, I did a quick calculation between cruzito's g/s and dyno numbers and fobios. They match quite well in that the relationship is there.

fobios dyno / cruzito's dyno = fobios g/s / cruzitos g/s.

Doing the same trick, I calculate my peak dyno numbers to be in the 290-300hp range based on my lowly 260-265 g/s on the K04.

Consistency is important here - so how do these numbers compare to what you were seeing g/s wise out of the K04 assuming fuel used is pretty much the same.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by Lex Alright, let me clarify. The MAF is scaled such that the commanded AFRs are in line with the actual AFRs. Fuel does affect how the sensor reads AFRs. Ethanol fuels are oxygenated and require a calibration with higher g/s for the two to match. So yes, there is a fuel component in there since the only feedback we have that the MAF is calibrated correctly is that the actual AFR matches commanded in OL and LTFTs are low in closed loop. However, I did a quick calculation between cruzito's g/s and dyno numbers and fobios. They match quite well in that the relationship is there. fobios dyno / cruzito's dyno = fobios g/s / cruzitos g/s. Doing the same trick, I calculate my peak dyno numbers to be in the 290-300hp range based on my lowly 260-265 g/s on the K04. Consistency is important here - so how do these numbers compare to what you were seeing g/s wise out of the K04 assuming fuel used is pretty much the same.

After reading your post for the 5th time...lol...I undertsand what you're saying.

FWIW, in the winter time, I've logged 290g/s on the K04. I also did about 300whp on the dyno pulling about 270's g/s...

[Fobio]

tuning is so adictive...I'll likely settle on the output of the green lines, and claim a easy 360whp/390wtrq... the map that netted 400+wtrq gets a bit of 1.8 - 2.1 WOT knock intermittently.