Gen 2 Cobb ATR discussion

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by bewsted Tuned in for results son!

Attached. Looks like I can add another degree and see what happens! Good shit man, thanks for the heads up. Also, note the logged 14º up top on the one log OH! DUDE! I found an E85 station 5 miles from me!!! On Fort Benning. Fuck yeah.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo How have you guys been tweaking the higher load sections of the Max Ign A/B tables? Did you match it to the High throttle/OL tables, or did you make the Max tables a little more advanced than the High Throttle/OL tables to allow the ECU to advance timing further in cooler temps?

I just match the limit table to my ht no knock tbl.


Tappin

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 I just match the limit table to my ht no knock tbl. Tappin

What about the knock tables? Have you been matching it to the no knock tables for consistency's sake? Or is your No Knock table slightly more advanced than the Knock table? The ECU pulls timing when KR is reported, so I don't really see the need for the no knock table, TBH. Correct my logic if I'm wrong, though.

I'm seeing less than 1 count of knock in my logs now, I had to pull an extra 2-3 degrees of timing in the areas that I bumped the AFRs up to 11.8. I just ordered SURE's IM/TB TIGs, contemplating the EGR delete, and I think I'll be done with engine mods (for now). I'm tempted to dyno now lol.

[Dano]

Knock tables are v102 OTS so I haven't touched them....I rarely see KR so there's no need spending time tweaking them.

did you happen to log g/s and load before and after the AFR shift at the same AMB temps? It'd be interesting to see if they dropped or went up with less timing but leaner AF.

This would be evidence to support which method of knock reduction nets the most power.

Richer AFR and more timing

Leaner AFR and less timing.


you pulled 2* so that's quite a bit I would think. You may want to find some middle ground and pull 1* and shift AFR to 11.6-11.7.

I've tuned 3 guys now from cali with shitty 91 oct and it does suck for you guys...had to run less than Cobb OTS timing in some areas. You just have to see what makes YOUR car happy

[bewsted]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 Knock tables are v102 OTS so I haven't touched them....I rarely see KR so there's no need spending time tweaking them. did you happen to log g/s and load before and after the AFR shift at the same AMB temps? It'd be interesting to see if they dropped or went up with less timing but leaner AF. This would be evidence to support which method of knock reduction nets the most power. Richer AFR and more timing Leaner AFR and less timing. you pulled 2* so that's quite a bit I would think. You may want to find some middle ground and pull 1* and shift AFR to 11.6-11.7. I've tuned 3 guys now from cali with shitty 91 oct and it does suck for you guys...had to run less than Cobb OTS timing in some areas. You just have to see what makes YOUR car happy

Solution is...Get the fuck out of cali LMAO!

[Dano]

Or hose it down w WMI. Lol


Tappin

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by bewsted Solution is...Get the fuck out of cali LMAO!

i actually chuckled out loud reading that lol.

Anyways, I'm not seeing much KR anymore with my current map, but I'm going to backtrack a little bit in the interest of seeing if a slightly richer AFR (11.6:1) across the board combined with slightly more advanced timing will net me more MAF g/s than running leaner with less timing.

I'm setting the areas above 1.38 (a little higher than my CL-OL transition point) back to OTS timing, and pull/retard from there. I'll also be changing the Ign BAT vs ECT tables back to OTS. I hope I can get this done in 2-3 map revisions, as I was mostly content with the current map, but the idea of richer AFRs + more timing was bugging me.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo i actually chuckled out loud reading that lol. Anyways, I'm not seeing much KR anymore with my current map, but I'm going to backtrack a little bit in the interest of seeing if a slightly richer AFR (11.6:1) across the board combined with slightly more advanced timing will net me more MAF g/s than running leaner with less timing. I'm setting the areas above 1.38 (a little higher than my CL-OL transition point) back to OTS timing, and pull/retard from there. I'll also be changing the Ign BAT vs ECT tables back to OTS. I hope I can get this done in 2-3 map revisions, as I was mostly content with the current map, but the idea of richer AFRs + more timing was bugging me.

I went through that exact scenario months ago and rich+advanced vs. lean+retarded yielded no significant changes in MAF g/s. I made a few posts about it in this thread if you want to go back and look at my findings. I am also on 91 and it really sucks. I wish I did it at the time but you might see significant data by measuring acceleration times in a wide rpm window rather than relying on MAF g/s number to quantify your results.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE I went through that exact scenario months ago and rich+advanced vs. lean+retarded yielded no significant changes in MAF g/s. I made a few posts about it in this thread if you want to go back and look at my findings. I am also on 91 and it really sucks. I wish I did it at the time but you might see significant data by measuring acceleration times in a wide rpm window rather than relying on MAF g/s number to quantify your results.

I'm going to do it anyway, only because it'll also let me clean up my tables a little bit (my previous tables were from my Stage1 maps, and a lot of BS has happened since then). I figured starting from scratch (nearly) will allow me to rule out any errors in tuning I may have made. Thanks for the heads up though

[Dano]

if you perform the runs on level ground, similar locations you can use Virtual Dyno to quantify the results...IIRC its basically using a time to distance calculation to generate the HP numbers.

Virtual Dyno Program

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I'm going to do it anyway, only because it'll also let me clean up my tables a little bit (my previous tables were from my Stage1 maps, and a lot of BS has happened since then). I figured starting from scratch (nearly) will allow me to rule out any errors in tuning I may have made. Thanks for the heads up though

No problem, looking forward to your results. The earlier discussion about rich AFR's possibly contributing to KR actually inspired me to start experimenting with my map again.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE No problem, looking forward to your results. The earlier discussion about rich AFR's possibly contributing to KR actually inspired me to start experimenting with my map again.

I went out and did five WOT pulls total - two 3rd gear pulls with my 11.8 AF + timing retard map, two 3rd gear pulls with my 11.6 AF + OTS timing, and a 4th gear pull with the 11.8AF map. I'm saving them and going to inspect them as we speak.

Dano does have a point that too rich of an AF can cause knock. However, the OTS maps have AFRs richer than 11.x, and COBB deemed those maps "safe", so take that for what you will.

[Todd98SE]

Yeah I wish we had a definitive AFR that we shouldn't go "under" but that would be too easy right. Not sure how hot if has been in your area but down in San Diego I get zero KR in the morning and then easily over 2 in the afternoon depending in how long the intercooler soaks.

I'm considering trying ITV24's to see if they change anything, I can always switch back to 22's when things cool off.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I went out and did five WOT pulls total - two 3rd gear pulls with my 11.8 AF + timing retard map, two 3rd gear pulls with my 11.6 AF + OTS timing, and a 4th gear pull with the 11.8AF map. I'm saving them and going to inspect them as we speak. Dano does have a point that too rich of an AF can cause knock. However, the OTS maps have AFRs richer than 11.x, and COBB deemed those maps "safe", so take that for what you will.

LOL at Cobb "safe" AF...the suits make them do that...no DISI on the planet needs to run 10.x AFR no matter what boost u r running.

not hating on Cobb at all but they have to take many things into consideration when they create their canned tunes. if you don't have your MAF just right that 10.x AFR could end up being 12.x. So they build in buffers throughout the tune.

When your MAF if spot on, thus the ECU knows exactly how much air is entering the engine, you can tune closer to exactly what you want to see.

For 93 + WMI at least a 12-12.4 AFR is becoming the norm. When we get a real upgraded IM with a better flow balance even leaner AFR will follow. I run 12.0 and need to go leaner but will wait for these 100+ temps to subside.

Keep at it and you'll get it dialed in.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE Yeah I wish we had a definitive AFR that we shouldn't go "under" but that would be too easy right. Not sure how hot if has been in your area but down in San Diego I get zero KR in the morning and then easily over 2 in the afternoon depending in how long the intercooler soaks. I'm considering trying ITV24's to see if they change anything, I can always switch back to 22's when things cool off.

I see the same, at or near 0 KR in cooler temps, but counts of KR skyrocket (2.0+) in warmer temps (i.e. 75F and up), especially after heat soaking. I ordered the IM and TB TIGs, so hopefully that will help keep BATs down after long cruises/repeated WOT pulls.

Here are the logs. They were done on a small incline, but I did my best to make sure the pulls were started at the same point on the road and RPM. From the looks of it, the v205 logs (11.8 AF + retard timing) net much higher MAF g/s than the v206 logs (11.6 AF + OTS timing). Granted, there's a fair amount of of KR in the v206 log, but even comparing the no-knock sections of the logs, the 11.6 map pushes out less g/s than the 11.8 map, and the 11.6 map is running more timing.

I may just end up sticking with the v205 map, unless you guys see a glimpse of hope for the v206 map.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE I'm considering trying ITV24's to see if they change anything, I can always switch back to 22's when things cool off.

keep in mind the cooler the spark the less power made. You want to run as hot a plug as possible without causing knock. Doubt your plug will help you. The air charge is just too hot when the IC is heatsoaked.

Have I said WMI yet today? It truly is a godsend.

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 LOL at Cobb "safe" AF...the suits make them do that...no DISI on the planet needs to run 10.x AFR no matter what boost u r running. not hating on Cobb at all but they have to take many things into consideration when they create their canned tunes. if you don't have your MAF just right that 10.x AFR could end up being 12.x. So they build in buffers throughout the tune. When your MAF if spot on, thus the ECU knows exactly how much air is entering the engine, you can tune closer to exactly what you want to see. For 93 + WMI at least a 12-12.4 AFR is becoming the norm. When we get a real upgraded IM with a better flow balance even leaner AFR will follow. I run 12.0 and need to go leaner but will wait for these 100+ temps to subside. Keep at it and you'll get it dialed in.

Agreed. I think this weekend I will bump to a 12.3 from my current 12.1 on 93 (No meth).

[wolly6973]

Can't wait to get moved to IL to get some sweet sweet 93!
I am tired of this 91 and having to run weak timing & afr.

[Dano]

don't you have E85 in NE? Just throw 3 gallons per tank in there and call it a day.

[phate]

Originally Posted by wolly6973 Can't wait to get moved to IL to get some sweet sweet E85! I am tired of this 91 and having to run weak timing & afr.

We all knew what you really meant

PS - where are you moving to?

[f-castrillo]

Has anybody successfully re-enabled the P0101 CEL in ATR? I don't want to have more than two DTCs disabled for emissions reasons. I have p0101 and the inefficient cat DTCs disabled, but I'm considering doing the EGR block off, which will require me to disable another CEL.

If I understand it right, P0101 is only thrown when the MAF readings are off for more than 8 secs, a problem we shouldn't encounter with a proper MAF calibration, correct?

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[f-castrillo]

Gonna try the 11.8 AFRs along with the OTS ign timing tables. Hope it's not too suicidal. This time, I'll try pulling from the BAT vs ECT tables before pulling the main timing tables. The car seems to hate BATs of ~114F and up.

[atvfreek]

Did dano suggest w/m lol. That and ebcs are my next to do's

Sent from my MB300 using Tapatalk

[jrotaryb]

Dumb question - is there a unit of measure conversion for the fuel tables in ATR? For example, I got some fuel table data from a forum member who will be helping me tune...his target AFR for one cell would be 14.680 (stoich) but my ATR is formatted differently. Mine reads as 1.000 for that cell...

So I assume I have to divide all of his AFR table data by 14.680 to put it in the proper format.

Make sense to anyone? My ATR is for a 2011 MS3. Is it different than 2010?

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by atvfreek Did dano suggest w/m lol. That and ebcs are my next to do's Sent from my MB300 using Tapatalk

Its looking more and more like I'm gonna have to go that route haha

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Z1 Performance Dumb question - is there a unit of measure conversion for the fuel tables in ATR? For example, I got some fuel table data from a forum member who will be helping me tune...his target AFR for one cell would be 14.680 (stoich) but my ATR is formatted differently. Mine reads as 1.000 for that cell... So I assume I have to divide all of his AFR table data by 14.680 to put it in the proper format. Make sense to anyone? My ATR is for a 2011 MS3. Is it different than 2010?

Under one of the configuration menus, there is a "Use Standard Units" box. Enable that

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[wolly6973]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 don't you have E85 in NE? Just throw 3 gallons per tank in there and call it a day.

I do, but it's not everywhere I go. Don't want to have to worry about not having it when I need to fill up.

My meth setup is almost operational now!

Originally Posted by phate We all knew what you really meant PS - where are you moving to?

Aurora

Originally Posted by f-castrillo Has anybody successfully re-enabled the P0101 CEL in ATR? I don't want to have more than two DTCs disabled for emissions reasons. I have p0101 and the inefficient cat DTCs disabled, but I'm considering doing the EGR block off, which will require me to disable another CEL. If I understand it right, P0101 is only thrown when the MAF readings are off for more than 8 secs, a problem we shouldn't encounter with a proper MAF calibration, correct? Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

I was getting that code for a while. Cleaned the MAF and all is well now.

[jrotaryb]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo Under one of the configuration menus, there is a "Use Standard Units" box. Enable that Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

I se the unit conversion in the accessport menu but not in ATR. Confused

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 keep in mind the cooler the spark the less power made. You want to run as hot a plug as possible without causing knock. Doubt your plug will help you. The air charge is just too hot when the IC is heatsoaked. Have I said WMI yet today? It truly is a godsend.

That's what I figured about the plugs, I may try anyway just for fun. WMI is not really an option for me at this point. Its just something else that can break, run dry, etc. I know it works and you guys have great success with it but its just not my thing. I was dead set on the BNR S3 but the GTX3071 thread has peaked my interest.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by wolly6973 I was getting that code for a while. Cleaned the MAF and all is well now.

its disabled by default in the OTS maps, is it known to be a huge issue? I just want the least amount of disabled CELs as possible, and the MAF one looks to be one I can re-enable

Good to know your CEL went away with a quick cleaning, though. How many miles did you wait to clean it?



Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[wolly6973]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo its disabled by default in the OTS maps, is it known to be a huge issue? I just want the least amount of disabled CELs as possible, and the MAF one looks to be one I can re-enable Good to know your CEL went away with a quick cleaning, though. How many miles did you wait to clean it?

I cleaned it as soon as I got the code. Had around 17k on the car.

[f-castrillo]

Alright guys, here's a 3rd and 4th gear log from the latest map (11.8 AFRs targeted across the board, OTS Stage2 CS+TIH+IC timing from 1.38 load and up). As expected, there's a fair amount of KR here; the 3rd gear log averages ~2.5 KR all around, while the 4th gear log starts off alright, but starts developing some massive KR by 5500-6000 RPM.

Normally, one would say to pull timing and call it a day. But now I want to try a balancing act of altering the "Ign BAT vs ECT % used", "Ign BAT vs ECT A/B", "High Throttle/OL", and the "Max Ign" tables.

I'm getting ready for work, so I don't have time to make any immediate changes to the map. But I figured I'd post here in hopes that someone could chime in on what tables would be good to start from first. I've pulled a ton of timing in the past, and altered the Ign BAT vs ECT tables much later, so I want to start from scratch and do things in a more orderly fashion.

Any takers? I'll be up most of the night lol

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo Alright guys, here's a 3rd and 4th gear log from the latest map (11.8 AFRs targeted across the board, OTS Stage2 CS+TIH+IC timing from 1.38 load and up). As expected, there's a fair amount of KR here; the 3rd gear log averages ~2.5 KR all around, while the 4th gear log starts off alright, but starts developing some massive KR by 5500-6000 RPM. Normally, one would say to pull timing and call it a day. But now I want to try a balancing act of altering the "Ign BAT vs ECT % used", "Ign BAT vs ECT A/B", "High Throttle/OL", and the "Max Ign" tables. I'm getting ready for work, so I don't have time to make any immediate changes to the map. But I figured I'd post here in hopes that someone could chime in on what tables would be good to start from first. I've pulled a ton of timing in the past, and altered the Ign BAT vs ECT tables much later, so I want to start from scratch and do things in a more orderly fashion. Any takers? I'll be up most of the night lol

So me and you basically have the exact same setup and run the exact same tune. I'm running a slightly tweaked version of the OTS timing maps since they work great in the morning and have just been slowly tweaking the ign BAT A/B tables to compensate for the afternoon BAT's. I still don't know what the hell ign BAT vs. ECT % used is for so I haven't messed with it. Remember wastegate IAT Comp. can also be tweaked to help with higher IAT's. I think together with the Ign BAT A/B tables you have a good strategy for keeping KR away when things get hot.

[mrmonk7663]

Quick question...I can't seem to make the "search" function search anything 3 letters or less...maybe i'm missing something...anyway, question is what is everyone using for the Max Load D table settings? I read Abilor's guide but my OTS settings are already lower from 0-4500. 5000-7000 are higher than the guide. Just curious what everyone was doing for this table, and if anyone was editing any of the other Max Load tables.

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE So me and you basically have the exact same setup and run the exact same tune. I'm running a slightly tweaked version of the OTS timing maps since they work great in the morning and have just been slowly tweaking the ign BAT A/B tables to compensate for the afternoon BAT's. I still don't know what the hell ign BAT vs. ECT % used is for so I haven't messed with it. Remember wastegate IAT Comp. can also be tweaked to help with higher IAT's. I think together with the Ign BAT A/B tables you have a good strategy for keeping KR away when things get hot.

How are you using the Wastegate IAT Comp table to assist with KR? I don't quite understand, haven't really tinkered with that table. Running higher percentages in warmer weather and lower percentages in cool temps, or vice versa? Because it applies a multipler to base WGDC, are you using it to run less boost in warmer temps, thereby producing less KR? Please enlighten me, as it's one of the first times I've really heard anybody mention that table.

Originally Posted by mrmonk7663 Quick question...I can't seem to make the "search" function search anything 3 letters or less...maybe i'm missing something...anyway, question is what is everyone using for the Max Load D table settings? I read Abilor's guide but my OTS settings are already lower from 0-4500. 5000-7000 are higher than the guide. Just curious what everyone was doing for this table, and if anyone was editing any of the other Max Load tables.

I have 1.25 as my Max Load D value, I haven't really seen anybody edit the other Max Load tables. And a more effective way to search the forums is by going to Google and typing "site:www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum ". For example, "site:www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum max load d table settings"

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo How are you using the Wastegate IAT Comp table to assist with KR? I don't quite understand, haven't really tinkered with that table. Running higher percentages in warmer weather and lower percentages in cool temps, or vice versa? Because it applies a multipler to base WGDC, are you using it to run less boost in warmer temps, thereby producing less KR? Please enlighten me, as it's one of the first times I've really heard anybody mention that table.

Yep basically it will run less wastegate/boost in higher IAT's as long as you make it aggressive enough. It really lacks resolution but the 104.0 degree column is right around where my afternoon knock starts to become worse anyway. So by setting the 104.0 degree line to .95 you would run 5% less wastegate than the base WGDC. I do not know how much of an impact if any the WG boost error comp. table would have on this as I haven't played with it enough either.

[mrmonk7663]

f-castrillo thanks for the response. So basically you increased the stock values from 1.10 and 1.0 to 1.25? Did you also decrease the values from 1.0 to .40 in the 5k+ range?

[f-castrillo]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE Yep basically it will run less wastegate/boost in higher IAT's as long as you make it aggressive enough. It really lacks resolution but the 104.0 degree column is right around where my afternoon knock starts to become worse anyway. So by setting the 104.0 degree line to .95 you would run 5% less wastegate than the base WGDC. I do not know how much of an impact if any the WG boost error comp. table would have on this as I haven't played with it enough either.

I'd be interested in knowing how the boost error comp and high/low limiter tables affect each other as well. If your WGDC IAT comp table makes you run 95% of your base WGDC, I would think the WG Duty Boost Error Comp table would compensate for the difference anyway.

Have you had any success with the IAT table, at all?

Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

[Bucker]

Originally Posted by f-castrillo I'd be interested in knowing how the boost error comp and high/low limiter tables affect each other as well. If your WGDC IAT comp table makes you run 95% of your base WGDC, I would think the WG Duty Boost Error Comp table would compensate for the difference anyway. Have you had any success with the IAT table, at all? Sent from my Thunderbolt (Tapatalk)

I would assume that the IAT comp table acts as a global multiplier of some sort in that it essentially makes the boost target .95 of the table values this WG Duty Boost Error Comp tables will adjust to meet the 95% target.

[WillyH]

Originally Posted by Dano2010 Did you know that too rich AF will actually cause knock? For me, I'd pull timing and run 11.8 AF across the board Time for WMI Also, don't know if you have performed the checks to see if the KR is real above 5.7K. Add octane or pull timing to see if it goes away. If not its false and you can change the sensor offset.

Can you please elaborate on how "too rich will cause knock"? Also, what is considered too rich? I would think that below 11 would be rich in my books.

My thinking is that the more fuel you put into the cylinders, the bigger the temperature drop and the less likely there will be pre-detonation due to hot spots, but lower than 11 AFR will leave leftover fuel that is unburned and reduce power, and even richer < 10 AFR can possibly not ignite (assumption).

I know that optimum AFR is around 12.5, and timing @ BTDC is ~ 25, but with having a turbo, running richer (without meth) due to the added heat, will keep things relatively cool.

We have to also keep in mind that running 91 octane gas is less than ideal for running higher timing and AFR's. To be safe, I think it would be best if f-castrillo left the timing alone and reduced his AFR's to ~11.4. The reduction of timing will have a larger negative effect on power band than dropping AFR's, and the episodes of KR will be reduced.

Also.......f-castrillo needs meth. From what i've read about meth, you can run crazy timing and AFR's close to 12.5. My stage 2 kit is going in sunday.