ATR User Manual: Hybrid Tuning for Noobs to Early Advanced - Noddy's Guide

[btstarcher]

Thanks for this. Are you having it proofread by the tuners? Or are any of them assisting you?

[Inquisitive]

@btstarcher; Sadly not, although Shamie and Agent_Orange solicited peer review, only phate has commented. I have corrected his specific negative comment, but have no clue as to what “quite a bit of incorrect information” means. He doesn’t recommend “using this guide just yet”, but has made no attempt to improve it.

I did quote many of the tuners, except where it appeared that everybody talked about it as though it was common knowledge. This is essential information for anyone starting to use ATR.

I wrote it after a lot of reading and uncovering nuggets of wisdom about different individual settings divulged by the tuners before actually trying it myself and documenting as I went along. So, although the tuners are happy to share on a specific question, reading through everything at once in a guide such as this might be a bit daunting for them. The first section, Initial Settings and Explanations, is a bit basic for advanced ATR users, but provides a foundation for even those advanced in other areas of mechanical knowledge, just not conversant with the way Cobb approached this subject. Also, by taking the stock setup, it allows one to see exactly how Cobb made improvements. To this method was added what the eTuners have experimented with for further gains in the Tuning section. As you know, Cobb works with the (tuner) community for feedback, improvements and beta testing. I would say that rather than the tuners having a short span of attention, that they read through many posts and make a bigger impact where less demand is required of their time. It must be remembered that many of them will tune your vehicle for a fee, whereas this guide is for those willing to experiment themselves for free…and now I border on the edge of being flamed myself.

[phate]

There are way too many efforts similar to this for everyone to get on board with helping. The fact that so much of this "guide" is put together by someone who doesn't have much experience with the platform shows. A LOT of the information is cobbled together using quotes from different places, and it reads exactly like that. Some of the information is old and shouldn't be included. Just seems like the foundation of this document isn't really there, so many of the knowledgeable folks might not be willing to participate.

[Inquisitive]

Many thanks @phate; - I wish that I had found some of these similar efforts before I started my journey. It is true that this guide reflects the changing opinions over time. It also represents what one will find by reading the various threads and using different search engines. IMO life has not always presented unanimous opinions, but has rather shown a healthy debate in that there is more than one way to accomplish one’s goals. I think what is most evident is that there is a need for a similar guide. First prize would have been if Cobb had provided it.

[Inquisitive]

I have read the entire MSF wiki, typos (extra spaces within words) and all. I have made minor tweaks to explanations in this guide, where appropriate (removed VVT reverse logic – can’t find the OP anyway).

The wiki:

• Takes a more clinical view;
• Has some old AP / Genwon sections no longer relevant (Throttle Tables – many examples);
• References MS6 (Ignition Timing Limit (Min) (Throttle Closed / Throttle Open / Low ECT));
• States some product vendor names without brief descriptions; and
• Does not seem to be complete yet.

It is difficult being everything to everybody. Great effort so far though

@Enki; why do you say it is cool to change Load Target Comp. - High RPM (BETA) from 0.20 to 0.00 and Load Target Comp. - Injector Base Offset (BETA) from 0.00 to 20.00? Can you provide the thread links to this discussion?

For the wiki’s Cobb ATR stub (not explained yet) at http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/wiki...title=COBB_ATR, you could use mine or my link until you can replace it with something better, http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...-early-170894/

Version 1.01.h

• Boost leak like symptoms from running too rich (high MAF settings) in Troubleshooting Concepts
• Expanded PnP in Glossary
• Verified against MSF wiki
• Added Beta Releases section with auto on / off in version 1.7.1.1-8864 example
• Re-sequenced modification sections to align with practice
• Added MSF wiki comments: CL Max D, Idle speeds, VVT, WGDC, Troubleshooting, CAI, SRI / TIP, VVT settings in Forged Pistons
• Added HTP to SRI / TIP
• Added Exhaust / Header Wrap
• Added AutoExe TMIC and CP-E FMIC
• Changed TiGraySpeed6’s definition in Fully Bolted
• Moved WMI up the mods list significantly, moved notes before products
• Added PNP Section
• Lots of BSD noted in signatures
• Added GM to 3 bar MAP and AEM to 3.5 bar MAP
• Modified BT’s BNR 3
• Added context to Nitrous negative, note fuel cells are not recommended for turbos, expanded Zex
• Added five vendors of coil-overs
• Added three vendors of shocks and related products
• Added five vendors of sway bars and one bump steer
• Added one OCC vendor
• Added two spark plug vendors
• Added Enki’s link for E29 setup

[Enki]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Enki; why do you say it is cool to change Load Target Comp. - High RPM (BETA) from 0.20 to 0.00 and Load Target Comp. - Injector Base Offset (BETA) from 0.00 to 20.00? Can you provide the thread links to this discussion?

Per Google search: ATR 1.9.1.0-5046 is out with Load Tuning > 80% IDC resolution...

It's a load cap removal.

If you want access to edit the wiki, I'll make you an account. Just PM me a request and I'll fill it ASAP.

[Inquisitive]

Version 1.01.i

• Set Load Tables > Load Target Comp. - High RPM (BETA) to 0.00 & Load Tables > Load Target Comp. - Injector Base Offset (BETA) to 20, to prevent load restriction (cld12pk2go, David@Cobb) and related note in Troubleshooting
• Added vendors, URL and associated distributors to Glossary
• Signature percentage modification headings and sorted vendor percentage sub-headings

From MSF signatures, each modification heading will have the percentage of the sample population. For example, if out of all the Genpu MS3 owners surveyed so far, 81% have an SRI, then the heading will be:

SRI 81%

Within SRI, the highest number of SRIs per vendor will be expressed as a percentage. If 43% of all SRIs were purchased from Corksport (CS), then Corksport will be moved to the top of the SRI list, usually just after the description, and state Corksport 43%. The next highest number of purchases will follow. In this case, Cobb will follow with 26%. This is not indicative of a quality ranking, just popularity and possibly price point per quality, etc. We are starting to get into the fuzzy world of personal preferences, bragging rights, street cred, etc. Having the same kit might not represent a competitive advantage, but it just might allow you to compete.

Statistics: is the sample representative? What degree of confidence, etc.? One could ask is the MSF representative of all Genpu MS3 owners? What I can say is that the percentages will probably change as the sample size increases. Do not use the numbers as absolutes, but rather as indicators of a trend.

[Inquisitive]

@Enki;

The MediaWiki language is not exactly standard hypertext mark-up language (html), but the basic constructs are easy enough to figure out - much easier than ATR, which is an on-going process.

MSF wiki

Mazdaspeed Forums Mazdaspeed 3/6 Wikispeedia

The menus appear to flow better now from Main page to COBB ATR to the ATR Table Descriptions wherein each table description now reflects the current ATR version’s list of tables and now contains useful Tuning Tips. The Glossary addition should also be helpful. Also, typos, grammatical and formatting errors have been corrected. I hope I didn’t add too many – referring to the initial login password.

[Enki]

The ATR help description tables are direct carbon copies of the actual pdf. If there are errors in it, they exist in the helpfile as well.

Great work though, thanks!

[Inquisitive]

Version 1.01.j

Added 142 vendor web links to Glossary
Added leaks to BPV

MSF Wiki

Added 142 vendor web links to Glossary
Added stages to Build Paths and Stages
Changed Parts & Modifications Menu to reflect Stages and provided ECU link (from Main page)
Created RMM, Exhausts, Bypass Valves and OCC pages
Added to Intakes and HPFP pages

[Inquisitive]

Version 1.01.k

Updated percentages and added some new categories (tyres, muffler / resonator / EGR delete, further breakdown of bars)

BPV leak and running too rich in BPV

Added Supercars to BNR, CHRA, ISC, Performance Autowerks, Racing Beat, StopTech, Synapse, TB Performance, TWM Performance and Ultra Racing vendors and clarity to SU in Glossary


MSF Wiki

Created: (Brakes) Aftermarket, ICs for MS3, WMI, MAP, Intake Gasket Kits, Big Turbo (BT), ECBS, EGR Delete, Short Shifter

Updated: “Build Paths and Stages” for new webpages above, RMMs, HPFP, Exhausts, OCC to reflect new percentages

Updated Glossary (same as above)


I have some eTuner 19% stats as well, but not sure if I should publish the breakdown.

[Inquisitive]

V 1.01.l

• Updated percentages (increased sample size, but also cleaned up MS3 that may not have been GenPus, added e85 percentage)
• Look who tops the BT leader board
• Saw a Hallman Pro RX EBCS and iRotors mentioned, but can’t find much on them
• Whiteline has added a RSB and FSB to their line-up.
• Added more wheels and extended lugs
• Included a section on eTuners
• Intercoolers: CX has their own core now, TR has their own piping, PG offers TR core instead of Godspeed, added AutoExe , Forge, CS FMIC
• Added new section: Bang for Bucks (value comparison)
• Added Track to TP / RP and moved some products to Long / Full DP
• Added CP-E Resonator Delete to TP / RP
• Added Speed Daddy to CBE, XForce to DP and CBE
• Expanded PNP and moved IM to follow as considered “either or”
• Added to Glossary: Speed Daddy, Steedspeed, XForce, Freektune, Stratified, Richtune, Boost_creep, phate, snailD, purpledrank, ms3blackmica, atvfreek, NJSPEED3

MSF wiki

Mazdaspeed Forums Mazdaspeed 3/6 Wikispeedia

• Updated Glossary, Parts & Modifications Menu
• Created “Bang for Bucks”
• Updated popularity ranking: RMMs, Exhausts, ICs for MS3, etc.

[altaprecision]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive With special thanks to @rfinkle2; Rob – thanks for all the links To eTuners Instead of flaming noobs, rather refer them to this manual. However, I need your assistance in providing the correct advice. In attempting to summarise what you have said, I may have missed the relevant points or not understand what you were saying. I have also made many assumptions. This was just my frustrating account. Oh! I have probably missed quoting some sources correctly. Please let me know to whom the credit should go. Also, I request your assistance on where data-logs can assist with diagnosing mechanical problems. To Noobs Enjoy (hopefully). This manual should save you at least 600 pages of reading. Please provide me with feedback where more clarity is needed. To Cobb The attached material is free to use without consent from the author and this link may be used (hint) in better presenting your great products (no really). However, recognition should be given to this Forum if the material is used as part of a publication.

EXCELENT

[Inquisitive]

Version 1.01.m

• Removed “laughing gas” as non-medical nitrous has added sulphur to deter human recreational use
• Added “Turbo Graphs, Compressor, Turbine Sides, Quick Comparison table and More Details” titles and sections to Big Turbo (thanks to @Enki; and @SlickRide2013; )
• Another DIY project added to Downpipe (DP) v cabin smells at idle
• Expanded SU to Street Unit
• Spark Plugs – one step coolers remove 70º to 100º C (158º - 212 º F) of cylinder heat
• Added Beaner , EFR, LCV2 & LCV3, Unicorn, vid, Whale Penis to Glossary

[Inquisitive]

I expected the percentages to stabilise as the sampling size grew, but I cannot rule out that the population is changing (moving target). That is, more Genpu owners are actively adding more mods beyond just those coming out of warranty. An historical view might be instrumental to the next generation “Gentree”, “Genfree” or “Gentry”.

Revision 1.01.n

• Changed Version to Revision Control History to comply with ANSI standards @aackthpt; )
• To Glossary added vendors: AQ Motorsports, Brembo, Custom Exhaust Specialists, DGR, Fortune Auto 500, MGP, Mishimoto , Pedders, Quantum AutoSports, Techna-Fit, Tial, Torque Solution, XS Power and
added terms: Dissing, Down and back yo, Flame, Troll(ing)
• Added length of vacuum hose to DIY-2
• Updated percentages from a greatly expanded base sampling
• Added TS (Torque Solution) delrin to RMM
• Added Kozmic Motorsports to DP
• Noted more gutted cats
• Gave Long DPs their own percentage of total and removed overlaps
• Added AQ Motorsports, CES (Custom Exhaust Specialists) Racing (Australia) and QAS (Quantum AutoSports) (Germany) to Long DP
• Added VAST(?) to CBE
• Gave Axle-back Exhaust (ABE) their own section
• Added Tial QR to BPV
• Found more info on the Synapse Synchronic BOV
• Added GReddy and CX Racing to BOV
• Sourced more peak pressure ratios and max lb / mins for BTs and added the HTA35R; BNR S4 not expected to early next year
• Added DGR Road Magnet, Fortune Auto 500 and Pedders Sports Ryder eXtreme XA Adjustable to Coil-overs
• Added Road Magnet Performance Lowering to Springs
• Added Speedline to Front Strut Bar
• Added Sure and Street Unit Passenger Motor Mount
• Added Mishimoto Black to OCC
• Added Kozmic to EGR Delete
• Added Zack and EONON to Intake Gasket Kits
• Added more info on CP-E to Exhaust Manifold; note DNP is discontinued and especially note the warning about XS Power
• Added Akebono to Disc Pads
• Added StopTech and Techna-Fit to Brake Lines
• Created Calipers section; note MGPs are just covers for show
• Added substantially to Tyres and Wheels
• Added HID (High Intensity Discharge) Colour Temperature Chart

[aackthpt]

Finally got around to looking through this a bit more and loving it. I can't comment on technical issues, but I'm going to read through it further and will have some grammar and wording corrections, and probably questions that may help refine it over time.

[fz6brian]

In the ignition timing section this guide suggests pasting economy map values in for a safer base tune. I noticed on the genone v233 economy map has increased timing in a lot of cells compared to the stage 0 map. I'm not sure that is a safer starting point with the higher boost targets. Not sure if the gen2 maps are different.

[Inquisitive]

@fz6brian;

You need to consider the environment: MAF calibrated, fuel, boost target with WGDC, VVT and timing. With timing the general rule is to advance timing until KR is seen, then back off two degrees for a “safe tune”. To test this, I took the Economy map with no other changes and slowly added timing. At two degrees, I saw KR from 1000 to 3500 RPMs. My assumption is that Cobb will continue pushing the envelope for pockets of power wherever safe considering the various conditions of fuel (see Lex on 91 RON in Canada v different States). The Economy map is more aggressive in some areas, but the OEM is more aggressive in other areas. So, is the Economy map the safest and most economical (as its name suggests)? No - on both accounts - This is why I recommended removing a degree of timing to Cobb’s Economy map as the starting point for higher boost targets where “safe” aggressive pockets have already been found by Cobb. Following Dano’s higher boost recommendation, you will need to remove more timing in specific cells as you see KR (or consider one step colder plugs, spraying meths and / or using some e85).

[Enki]

Should it be 2 degrees across the band or would a percentage (say 15-20%) be better?

[Inquisitive]

@Enki;

Coming from you, why do I think this is a trick question?

This forum often talks about two degrees. Personally, I back off a half degree in the Power V band (RPM / load) for small increments of KR just above two, re-flash and test.

You also don’t use e85, but run a very BT. Have you found percentages work better?

[Enki]

Not a trick question, I'm asking; I can see the logic in both methods for various reasons.
@Lex; @phate; @rfinkle2; anyone care to chime in?

[Inquisitive]

Version 1.01.p

• Added ABE, AFI, ARP, BA11s, BA-1100 November , Bagged, BF, Borg Warner, Bouquets, Bust(ing) your chops, DK, Esp, facepalm, gf, HS, Humphrey, Hypnotic Tuned, JDM, meh, ricer, Shell, smh, South Bend, Test Pipe, Ultimate Racing, Ultra Racing and YMMV to Glossary
• Low octane reduction logic (aggierandy)
• Added results table for retarding ignition in More Economy
• Updated percentages and popularity order
• Added Sections: Main Studs, VVT Kit, 4-Point Ladder Brace
• ECU made by Mitsubishi (theurgy)
• Added JBR to CAI
• Sizing advice given in SRI / TIP
• Added Full Race to DP
• “pshhhh” noise in BPV / BOV
• Added Sure Charge Tubes to IC
• Added Humphrey to ECBS
• Added EM to table in Bang for Bucks
• Added MD to WMI
• Advice given for Forged Pistons
• Corrected operating side of surge line in Compressor Side
• Added HKS and Megan to Coil-overs
• Added Sensen to Front Strut / Tower Bars
• Added Minerva Motorwerkz to PMM and TMM
• Added SSP to and un-tick P0403 advice given in EGR Delete
• Firing order given in Spark Plugs
• Added AFI, OBX and JDM to Upgraded exhaust manifold
• Added Posi Quiet to Disc Pads
• Added South Bend to Clutch
• Added Work Emotion CR Kai, DR-31, Privat Akzents to Wheels

I think that the JDM exhaust mani looks sexy, but the OBX’s use of SS T-321 should better withstand cracking than JDM’s SS T-304.

Those having access to Shell Rotella T6 5W40 should feel privileged to have such a high grade (API: CJ-4, SM; ACEA: E9), low-cost oil available to them. Globally, the Rimula brand name is used, but where I am, it is a much inferior grade that is offered. Shell Global = groan

I am testing a simpler "Calibrating your WOT AFRs calculation"…something like =IF(ActualAFR>TargetAFR,( TargetAFR / ActualAFR),( ActualAFR / TargetAFR)) in Excel to determine the multiplier for the exact matching MAF voltage and then using horizontal interpolation. It looks promising so far.

@fz6brian; see the results table for retarding ignition in More Economy for further explanation than was provided above. Due to variances, I would have liked to had time for more runs to ensure I have identified the median, but you may value the preliminary findings.

Correction - it looks like someone is using ethanol now. Anyway, I have nearly finished updating the Wiki. I would have finished if I hadn’t dropped my bike (Gixxer) this morning.

[Slick6]

Under the "Calibrating your WOT AFRs" section on page 63, I think the MAF calc should be actual AFR divided by target AFR, not target/actual.

From what I understand, if your targeted AFR is 11.6 and your actual AFR is 11.8, you would want to tell the ecu that there is more air coming in so that it adds more fuel. In that case, the MAF calc should be greater than one. Or, if you're running rich, you want to tell the ecu that less air is coming in so your MAF calc should be less than one.

[Inquisitive]

@Slick6; You are correct, for a limited number of iterations. My problem was in serially applying Actual AFR (AFR) divided by the Targeted AFR for load resulted in ultimately going too lean and Targeted AFR divided by the Actual AFR (AFR) for load calculations resulted in going too rich. Both producing KRs. I was hoping to find a single calculation to keep the MAF g/s within range and only the bounded sets, so far, work for me.

Oh! The equation above won’t work as it always produces values less than one for use as the multiplier…back to the drawing board for me.

[fz6brian]

@Inquisitive;
Thanks for pointing me to the more economy section. I kinda glossed over that because I'm not really concerned with fuel economy in this car. I just saw your boost targets without really looking at the wastegate tables.
Sorry about the bike. I've put two down. As long as you're ok you can get another or fix that one.

[Inquisitive]

@fz6brian;
Pleasure

Silly of me really, I live six blocks from the (same) Atlantic Ocean. The T-intersection is one block away. Sea spray and painted lines don’t mix. I nearly low-sided when the rear started slipping and accelerated to make the bike stand up, then rather high-sided when the front tyre found grip. We slid enough to wear a hole in the fairing, broke the rear brake peg and bent that side’s crash bobbin. I just had a grade one (AV) shoulder separation and probably a mild concussion judging from the scrape marks on my helmet. So, yes, we will both ride again shortly – thanks.

All of this was much better than when I flipped end-over-end (stoppie gone wrong) the same bike while trying to avoid two Sunday riders at track day. Half the price of the bike in repairs and four months on crutches later for me, but such is the nature of bikes. I’m addicted to the adrenaline.

Sorry for the thread-jack. This is just what is on my mind at the moment or maybe I’m still concussed. I trust that your experiences found you and your bikes in a better state.

[Inquisitive]

@Enki; in response to your KR percentage question

In a good PM conversation with @f-castrillo; , who incidentally believes in only changing one variable at a time to identify and eliminate the root cause of KR, it is our contention that the general consensus is that “the KR reported in the data-logs was actual timing removed, i.e. 2 KR is 2 degrees of timing retard.” This was later confirmed in a PM from @Lex; , “the knock retard is the number of degrees that timing is reduced by after all other compensations due to the ECU registering knock through the knock sensor.”

Therefore, this is a direct, albeit inverse, one to one 100% relationship and not a fraction or multiple as implied by a percentage variable multiplier. That is, a variable (percentage) multiplier won't work. The full value must be deducted.

It you were looking for a formula, it would be:

x = y - KR

where “y” is the old ignition value in the RPMxLoad area identified in the data-log and “x” the new ignition value. f-castrillo further recommends “interpolate previous cells up to the new values to make the curve even”.

[Enki]

That's not really what I was asking. I was asking if it's better to scale down the timing curve by a flat rate or by a percentage of total timing after you've found knock threshold and removed it (and are thus, sitting at MBT with no knock).

[Lex]

With knock and timing you are not dealing with percentages such as when dealing with fuel and air so scaling by a percentage is not the correct approach. Walk the ignition timing down by 0.5-1* using the KR readings as a guide until you are below the knock threshold.

However remember that it's not just timing that plays in the knock equation and it is influenced by boost, temperatures, fueling, etc.

MBT and the knock threshold are also not always the same. MBT is the optimum amount of timing for making the most torque regardless of where the knock threshold sits. The goal is to reach MBT before reaching the knock threshold. This requires quite high octane fuels/E85.

[Enki]

Again, that's not what I'm asking.

From what I understand, the common practice is to remove an additional 2 degrees of timing across the RPM band for saftey, once you've found MBT and are running knock free.

My question is should it be a flat rate or percentage of total timing across the band that gets pulled? 2 degrees is a lot at 3k rpm, but not much at 7k.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Enki Again, that's not what I'm asking. From what I understand, the common practice is to remove an additional 2 degrees of timing across the RPM band for saftey, once you've found MBT and are running knock free. My question is should it be a flat rate or percentage of total timing across the band that gets pulled? 2 degrees is a lot at 3k rpm, but not much at 7k.

It actually is what you are asking .

If you are 1* below your knock threshold at 3000 RPM or 7000 RPM, it will still take one degree to reach your knock threshold regardless of total timing advance.

Timing advance is not a quantity like fuel and air and percentages are not relevant when working with it.

[Enki]

So a flat rate should be used then.

[Inquisitive]

IMO - It has to be a flat rate. The same percentage multiplier across the band will take too little off the small numbers and too much off the big numbers.

For example, if you were to take an extreme example by pressing M using .8 across the entire load band in the 3500 RPMs (say the Stage 3 Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock)), the 3 at load 2 will only drop to the insufficient (to remove any seen KR) 2.4, but the 55 at load 0.13 would drop significantly (performance robbing) to 44.

If you had rather used a flat rate of “-“ four times to retard by two degrees, the 3 at load 2 would be safely moved to 1 (usually effective to remove or significantly reduce KR), but the 55 at load 0.13 would only drop to 53.

[Enki]

I was talking about just the WOT sections. Do you really remove 2 degrees from the entire map?

[Inquisitive]

Funny, as an aside – I typed the above just after 3 am on 26 Dec, but the MSF server time stamped it for Christmas as I am several hours ahead of you.

Anyway, the answer to your question is “No”. The above was just a non-real world extreme example. I only do a flat rate in the Power “V” band RPM / load where KR is detected in the data-log for Ign Table - High Throttle/OL (No Knock) and both Max ignition tables. Under WOT, under no conditions am I ever outside of the Power “V” band despite variations in load even at different ambient temperature, BAT, etc. I don’t do the interpolation as the above operation usually moves the figures closer to the lower load values. If the Power “V” band didn’t appear to transition (fit) well, then I might consider interpolating above and below.

By way of example, if I detected KR of 2 at a load of 1.94 and 5000 RPMs, I would “-“ four times from load of 1.88 to 2.00 at 5000 RPMs as this is my Power “V” band at this RPM.

[jdmage_mx5]

So far this has been a good read. Between it, Cobbs ATR guide and general browsing of this forums the idea of tuning is not as cloudy as it once was. Still scary as hell, I have been bouncing the idea of self tuning around for months now but too afraid to take the jump.

I have reached a point where I can't throw more money at the car until the block is built so now I'm getting bored with the car. My thoughts were if I start tinkering with tuning it I would still be able to enjoy messing with it instead of loosing interest. Just have to get over my fears and start taking baby steps in ATR.

[Inquisitive]

That is good news. Many members jump to eTuners first, but many others of us want to know what each change affects, love tinkering, are individualistic / independent DIY, impatient waiting for attention or just can’t afford an eTuner. There’s nothing wrong with taking baby steps, especially with this very powerful tool. Once you have built confidence, you can always rely upon the eTuners for the final tweaks gained through their many years of experience and volume of tunes, but then you will understand what they are doing.

However, it must be said, going down this path is addictive. At this stage I may have changed from weekly re-flashes to flashing every tankful to obtain meaningful comparison data for just retarding the ignition, but I still have to show restraint in not changing several things at once when I play with the minimum time run maps in-between the retard maps.

[Inquisitive]

Version 1.01.q

• Added IDIOT, CBV, DC Sports, Edge Autosport, Fujita to Glossary and removed SU & Sure “available from” links
• Corrected: idle drops by 25 RPMs (not 500) per 0.5 degrees ignition retard
• Added cold idle speeds & Econ-4 results in More Economy
• Updated modifications’ percentages and popularity order
• Added failures to Injector Seals
• Added Haltech’s SURE and Street Unit warnings
• Added PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) Section, rewrote PCV Plate and added PCV Cover Breather Sub-Section
• Added products to CAI, PMM, OCC, Injectors, Calipers Tyres and Wheels
• Added that BOV / BPV need to be re-oiled, OEM is made of plastic and the top glue seal can leak
• Note that the Steedspeed EM has been discontinued
• Added technical information to Oil and Pros & Cons to E85
• Added Intro to PMM & TMM
• Added to JBR & CP-E TMM product descriptions

[Inquisitive]

@Enki;

Cobb probably used a spring tension gauge / meter when measuring the K04’s waste-gate actuator spring. When I play with different ignition timings based on the OTS Economy map, I consistently am able to hit 12.47 psi with zero waste-gate commanded. My question is, can this be used as a fair, direct measurement of waste-gate spring tension or is this just a proportional proxy?

[Enki]

Not really. If the canister is hot, it will push less. Freezing cold, way more. There have been "factory freak" turbos capable of pushing way more than that stock. Also elevation plays a factor in how much you make with 0% wgdc.

The only way to know for sure what your spring pressure is, is to test it.