Gen 2 Cobb ATR discussion

[Ckmazdaspeed3]

Dustin, you are exActly right regarding Te oil feed line. The funny thing is that silver demon did not have to do this (file a bolt down), yet it was clocked the same way for him. I wish we had a tool to measure my oil feed line because scott sent us a picture including his measurement, and it would be interesting to see if Joel was right. Hopefully that is are last major setback.

Also, fagwagon stopped by and said that he had to do the same on his (now joels) 3076

[djuosnteisn]

And super skater had to as well. For me, i didn't have to do anything when running with the oem turbo flange, but once i went t3 (still stock placement) i had to.

[xxdjfate76xx]

5th and 6th gear pulls... im hitting 100 dooty, i should probably lower the boost to 18.5 what do you guys think?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by xxdjfate76xx 5th and 6th gear pulls... im hitting 100 dooty, i should probably lower the boost to 18.5 what do you guys think?

I wouldn't even sweat that for a second. Those are great maf g/s #'s in the second log.

Are your closed loop maf calculations OK once the tune settles?

One thing you can do in the DBW tables is change all of the 80 values up to 100.

That will give you a more consistent throttle position value and like 1-2 g/s more. lol!

[xxdjfate76xx]

I have to redo the MAF calibration, it's not 100% because this log was way after 50 miles of driving.. But thanks for the info, and yea I was surprised at the gs readings as well lol

[indianaryan]

Originally Posted by xxdjfate76xx 5th and 6th gear pulls... im hitting 100 dooty, i should probably lower the boost to 18.5 what do you guys think?

I think you mean 3rd and 4th gear pulls...

The WGDC isn't 100% for very long. If it was me I wouldn't worry about it. Your MAF g/s looks great. Your LTFT's are off between shifts, but it's probably not a huge deal.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by xxdjfate76xx 5th and 6th gear pulls... im hitting 100 dooty, i should probably lower the boost to 18.5 what do you guys think?

You don't have a dp ?

[xxdjfate76xx]

Yes I have a catless one ... Which DBW tables do I alter, all 3?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by xxdjfate76xx Yes I have a catless one ... Which DBW tables do I alter, all 3?

I did all 3 of mine.

[PapaSmurf]

how da fuck are your g's so high?!?!?! Im jealous... do you not have a FMIC?

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 how da fuck are your g's so high?!?!?! Im jealous... do you not have a FMIC?

His LTFT's right before open loop are -9 ish, which means his wot maf #'s are probably 20-30 g/s on the high side. This is why you have to take g/s with a grain of salt.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn His LTFT's right before open loop are -9 ish, which means his wot maf #'s are probably 20-30 g/s on the high side. This is why you have to take g/s with a grain of salt.

makes sense.

thanks DJ my new mexico brothah

[atvfreek]

Here are 2 MAF cal's. One is the Cobb SF+FMIC. If you notice at around 4.5v it's about 30g/s higher than the CS+TMIC map I'm running. Same volts but reads higher g/s. My car usually tops out between 4.5-4.6 volts.

FWIW Micablue, your car seems the fastest out of any recent logs I've seen. You are going from 60-100 in 4th in less than 6 seconds where my car is slightly over 6 sec. But your map is DJ influenced correct?

[djuosnteisn]

What's important is what your wot AFR targets are. If they match your logs, then your g/s are about as accurate as they can get. But even still, they should be taken with grains of salt. Ricer math is some salty rice.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by atvfreek Here are 2 MAF cal's. One is the Cobb SF+FMIC. If you notice at around 4.5v it's about 30g/s higher than the CS+TMIC map I'm running. Same volts but reads higher g/s. My car usually tops out between 4.5-4.6 volts. FWIW Micablue, your car seems the fastest out of any recent logs I've seen. You are going from 60-100 in 4th in less than 6 seconds where my car is slightly over 6 sec. But your map is DJ influenced correct?

Honestly the only thing he messed with where boost targets and AFR Targets.

Ive done the timing myself/WGDC/Boost Dynamics and Calc load. Which was all pretty simple imo.

[atvfreek]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn What's important is what your wot AFR targets are. If they match your logs, then your g/s are about as accurate as they can get. But even still, they should be taken with grains of salt. Ricer math is some salty rice.

This ricer math is indeed very salty. Lol. My map targets 11.7 and is usually 11.76 throughout. I may lean it out just a tad more.

Originally Posted by MicaBlueMS3 Honestly the only thing he messed with where boost targets and AFR Targets. Ive done the timing myself/WGDC/Boost Dynamics and Calc load. Which was all pretty simple imo.

Seems like you've done a good job on it man. It seems like it rips pretty hard.

[xxdjfate76xx]

Thanks guys, for analyzing the logs.. Reason why I included the associated MAF readings in the log, I figured it was off.

[Nataphen]

I wonder if all these guys with crazy high g/s on the gen 2s have just had bad MAF cals. Someone with an intake, TP, and OTS tune was showing over 300 g/s on several logs. That didn't make sense to me, but the bad MAF cal would explain that. 270-280 in the cold is much nearer to the results I've had.

MAF cal is the first thing that I checked when I got ATR, and I've made a few slight adjustments, but not at WOT. I've always seemed to hold my WOT targets very well.

[PapaSmurf]

Originally Posted by Nataphen I wonder if all these guys with crazy high g/s on the gen 2s have just had bad MAF cals. Someone with an intake, TP, and OTS tune was showing over 300 g/s on several logs. That didn't make sense to me, but the bad MAF cal would explain that. 270-280 in the cold is much nearer to the results I've had. MAF cal is the first thing that I checked when I got ATR, and I've made a few slight adjustments, but not at WOT. I've always seemed to hold my WOT targets very well.

I think your right nataphen.

on a side note, im going to try and hit the dyno either friday or sometime next week. Im hoping for atleast 280whp

The dyno ill be jumping on is the local heart breaker, awd mustang dyno, ive seen two ms3's dynoed on it and im pretty sure ill be around 280whp.

[Ziggo]

If the actuals = the target it's as close as it can get. Without leaks the only other influence would be the fuel injectors themselves. Injectors that on average, deliver more fuel than their model would indicate will require the maf calibration to be lower than actual to compensate and make target = actual.

Any chance you guys are hitting some sort of voltage cap?

[Nataphen]

I'm thinking that my car is about spot on. My logs are showing about what I would consider typical airflow of a similarly modded and well calibrated gen 1. I haven't looked at other gen 2 logs in a while, but some of those guys were showing 300 g/s without being near fully bolted. One fully bolted gen 2 was somewhere around 320 g/s.

I don't recall their AFR targets VS. actual, I just remember thinking that those numbers seemed abnormally high for a k04.

[Ziggo]

It is high, but it really is temperature dependent. If they were logging below freezing its possible. The limit of the K04 is about .24 m^3/s. The actual mass flow is dependent on the density of air. It works out to ~282g/s @70*F and 305g/s @30*F

[PapaSmurf]

I usually hit around 274-275g's with 70 degree weather.

Those 300+g's have to be in cooler weather, it would make sense the weather was cooler cause AP beta testing and the AP release date were in the winter months.

[Nataphen]

I knew that cool weather would make a big difference, but IIRC, some of those logs weren't showing really low IATs. I could just be a little fuzzy on details though.

[Ziggo]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn This is a bad idea. The max load tables set the upper limit of how much load the ecu can calculate, it's not a load control, it's a logic limit. If you set the max load tables too low, you could potentially introduce the famed "load cap" scenario, possibly screwing up proper wot fueling, and leaning the car out. IMO, load cap was the leading cause of blown motors back in the day. The max load values should be set to something very high, like 3, 4 or 5. Something unachievable. If a person is worried about hitting too high of a load, he needs to use proper WGDC values, and boost dynamics / load dynamics to keep it low.

Damnit DJ I knew I wasn't crazy. I was back into the load section of my tune this morning and I spotted the tables I was referring to. There is a Calc. Load Max A & B that sets the load cap value, but there is also the TRL Max A&B that set the maximum load value. I dunno if they are still active, but I hope so.

[Todd98SE]

So after about 5-6 revisions with the BD table zero'd out I hit my WGDC's to be close to my boost targets. I then knocked my WGDC down by 5 points (which equals about 20% if I use the 2X=9 math) and re-enabled my BD table using rfinkle2's numbers. Here is the resulting 3rd gear log.

I did have to go back and richen my AFR to almost stock stage 2 OTS numbers because I was getting knock >2 in the top end. I may try to lean out the midrange later on and see what happens.

At this point I think I can start trying to figure out the timing and add a little advance on the top end. Does anyone have any recommendations for what rpm and load to start adding timing? .5 degree increments?

Thanks,

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE So after about 5-6 revisions with the BD table zero'd out I hit my WGDC's to be close to my boost targets. I then knocked my WGDC down by 5 points (which equals about 20% if I use the 2X=9 math) and re-enabled my BD table using rfinkle2's numbers. Here is the resulting 3rd gear log. I did have to go back and richen my AFR to almost stock stage 2 OTS numbers because I was getting knock >2 in the top end. I may try to lean out the midrange later on and see what happens. At this point I think I can start trying to figure out the timing and add a little advance on the top end. Does anyone have any recommendations for what rpm and load to start adding timing? .5 degree increments? Thanks,

Some observations:
- Fueling is very rich. I would recommend aiming for 11.6-11.8. You mentioned that you were getting knock up top. Have you calibrated your MAF? What are your WOT commanded AFRs?
- Wastegate duty seems rather high for the amount of boost you're running. What mods do you have?

Unfortunately, I can't open your ATR map as I have a gen 1...

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak Some observations: - Fueling is very rich. I would recommend aiming for 11.6-11.8. You mentioned that you were getting knock up top. Have you calibrated your MAF? What are your WOT commanded AFRs? - Wastegate duty seems rather high for the amount of boost you're running. What mods do you have? Unfortunately, I can't open your ATR map as I have a gen 1...

It may very well be fine to target high 11's, but keep in mind that is a 91 octane map.

[BlueStreak]

A good point. I'm used to seeing 93 octane maps.

Even so, Todd should be able to lean it out further (~11.4-11.5) without seeing knock (IMO) which is why I asked about his commanded vs. actual AFR and MAF calibration.

Richening the AFRs to combat knock (what were the original AFRs?) then looking into adding timing seems like he'll run into the same knocking issues.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak A good point. I'm used to seeing 93 octane maps. Even so, Todd should be able to lean it out further without seeing knock (IMO) which is why I asked about his commanded vs. actual AFR and MAF calibration.

Agreed.

FWIW, I have not been able to increase timing much from the ots maps.

I'm not 100% sure why, but my pump gas only car doesn't like timing. I need meth.

[Todd98SE]

Maybe I am just screwed on San Diego 91 oct. gas. I made some recommended changes and will run it this afternoon to see how it works.

Mods are: CP-E nano, CP-E TIH, CP-E CDFP, Ultimate racing catted downpipe and catted racepipe, stock catback. Will add CP-E TMIC if they ever ship.

1) Brought boost up to 18.5 from 3k to 5.5k tapering to 17 at 7k rpm.
2) Brought WGDC back up 5 points to ensure I meet targets, if I overboost I'll cut it back slightly.
3) Leaned out AFR to 11.4 from 2.5k to 5.5k tapering to 10.65 at 7k rpm.
4) MAF cal. is good but I will do another another one just to check.

I attached the revised tables for reference. How do these look?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE Maybe I am just screwed on San Diego 91 oct. gas. I made some recommended changes and will run it this afternoon to see how it works. 1) Brought boost up to 18.5 from 3k to 5.5k tapering to 17 at 7k rpm. 2) Brought WGDC back up 5 points to ensure I meet targets, if I overboost I'll cut it back slightly. 3) Leaned out AFR to 11.4 from 2.5k to 5.5k tapering to 10.65 at 7k rpm. 4) MAF cal. is good but I will do another another one just to check. I attached the revised tables for reference. How do these look?

Excellent.

The only other thing I might do (and this is very minor) is horizontally interpolate your 18.5 psi boost target in the left direction (2cells), just to ensure smooth boost onset. Other than that, I like your conservative approach, and think that the k04 is capable of giving 18.5 psi in the meat (like you have in the 3-5.5k range).

Interested in hearing how and if / it feels better.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Excellent. The only other thing I might do (and this is very minor, is horizontally interpolate your 18.5 psi boost target in the left direction (2cells), just to ensure smooth boost onset. Other than that, I like your conservative approach, and think that the k04 is capable of giving 18.5 psi in the meat (like you have in the 3-5.5k range). Interested in hearing how and if / it feels better.

Good idea, it was close before anyway but is slightly smoother now.

Maybe I can find a reason to leave the office for a few and get a 3rd gear run in.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak A good point. I'm used to seeing 93 octane maps. Even so, Todd should be able to lean it out further (~11.4-11.5) without seeing knock (IMO) which is why I asked about his commanded vs. actual AFR and MAF calibration. Richening the AFRs to combat knock (what were the original AFRs?) then looking into adding timing seems like he'll run into the same knocking issues.

Originally Posted by Todd98SE Maybe I am just screwed on San Diego 91 oct. gas. I made some recommended changes and will run it this afternoon to see how it works. Mods are: CP-E nano, CP-E TIH, CP-E CDFP, Ultimate racing catted downpipe and catted racepipe, stock catback. Will add CP-E TMIC if they ever ship. 1) Brought boost up to 18.5 from 3k to 5.5k tapering to 17 at 7k rpm. 2) Brought WGDC back up 5 points to ensure I meet targets, if I overboost I'll cut it back slightly. 3) Leaned out AFR to 11.4 from 2.5k to 5.5k tapering to 10.65 at 7k rpm. 4) MAF cal. is good but I will do another another one just to check. I attached the revised tables for reference. How do these look?

Just to clarify things, here before you proceed Todd.
Before leaning out your AFRs, you should check to make sure that your commanded AFRs are equal to actual AFRs. Ideally, you should do this with the richer target you had (looked like 11.0 or so).

My reasoning stands that you should be able to run leaner, however, given the fact that you were experiencing 2+ KR in the upper RPMs, I would not run leaner until you have verified that your fueling is correct through a proper MAF calibration and cross referencing commanded AFRs and actual AFRs.

The revised tables look fine though I would add that they don't mean much until we have verified what I mentioned above. Are there more OL or WOT fuel tables for the Gen2s?

Finally, judging by your mods, I would say that you WGDC is quite high given the amount of boost you're running. Unless of course, its super super hot in San Diego at the moment.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak Just to clarify things, here before you proceed Todd. Before leaning out your AFRs, you should check to make sure that your commanded AFRs are equal to actual AFRs. Ideally, you should do this with the richer target you had (looked like 11.0 or so). My reasoning stands that you should be able to run leaner, however, given the fact that you were experiencing 2+ KR in the upper RPMs, I would not run leaner until you have verified that your fueling is correct through a proper MAF calibration and cross referencing commanded AFRs and actual AFRs. The revised tables look fine though I would add that they don't mean much until we have verified what I mentioned above. Are there more OL or WOT fuel tables for the Gen2s? Finally, judging by your mods, I would say that you WGDC is quite high given the amount of boost you're running. Unless of course, its super super hot in San Diego at the moment.

Gen2's have OL/WOT no knock A&B tables and an OL/WOT knocking table.

Sorry, I forgot to mention actual AFR's were hitting targeted almost exactly. I was targeting 11.0 tapering to 10.6ish at the top end. Could the WGDC have anything to do with the fact that I kept both cats (even though they are "high-flow") instead of deleting one along with the stock catback exhaust? I noticed it is much more common to delete at least one cat if not both on most stage 2 cars. That 3rd gear log was done this morning in about 60 degree weather.

I wonder if the high rpm knock was just noise? I have the knock sensor active to 6700 rpm and with all 3 CP-E motor mounts maybe it gets noisy at the top end. I will see if repeats again today.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE Gen2's have OL/WOT no knock A&B tables and an OL/WOT knocking table. Sorry, I forgot to mention actual AFR's were hitting targeted almost exactly. I was targeting 11.0 tapering to 10.6ish at the top end. Could the WGDC have anything to do with the fact that I kept both cats (even though they are "high-flow") instead of deleting one along with the stock catback exhaust? I noticed it is much more common to delete at least one cat if not both on most stage 2 cars. That 3rd gear log was done this morning in about 60 degree weather.

Those values (wgdc) are consistent with what gen2 (and my) logs reflect with a test pipe and stock cat in the downpipe.

[BlueStreak]

Do you have the Knock Retard Offset Table? This table presumably tames what the ECU determines to be knock based off the knock sensor up to a certain threshold (the threshold being set by this table). It is not known if the values in this table are in fact timing degrees or some other value.

I can't remember where it was mentioned, but DJ bumped up his higher RPM/Load values to 1.1. I went ahead and bumped mine up from .8 to 1 to offset some of the higher RPM/load knock readings. This has taken care of my random knock events in my pulls.

In all of my map revisions after changing the offset values, I take any knock readings as legitimate as high rpm/load knock only occurs when I play with timing now.

This may be something for you to look in to.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak Do you have the Knock Retard Offset Table? This table presumably tames what the ECU determines to be knock based off the knock sensor up to a certain threshold (the threshold being set by this table). It is not known if the values in this table are in fact timing degrees or some other value. I can't remember where it was mentioned, but DJ bumped up his higher RPM/Load values to 1.1. I went ahead and bumped mine up from .8 to 1 to offset some of the higher RPM/load knock readings. This has taken care of my random knock events in my pulls. In all of my map revisions after changing the offset values, I take any knock readings as legitimate as high rpm/load knock only occurs when I play with timing now. This may be something for you to look in to.

@BlueStreak, I don't know how I missed this... but THANK YOU SIR.

We do have the above table!

I've noticed something really interesting concerning timing advance, but not spark advance.

The load axis in the spark advance tables is limited to 2.0, but the intake valve (vvt) advance has a load axis as high as 2.25.

Just thought that was of note.

[XLT_66]

Originally Posted by Nataphen Make sure that your CL max throttle is a little lower than what you set your APP to in 1-2, or your car will never enter OL fueling and you will be very rich. Also make sure that your AFR targets are where you want them in those ranges.

How is this supposed to work? Currently I have my APP in 1st set to 50% Max and 60% in 2nd gear. I also have all the Closed Loop - Max Throttle A-E tables set to 100 in all cells.

You're suggesting that move my Closed Loop - Max Throttle A-E tables to something like 45% in all cells?

If I have my CL Max Load tables set to a 1.25 load, wouldn't I just exit CL then and not worry about what % the throttle was at?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by XLT_66 I also have all the Closed Loop - Max Throttle A-E tables set to 100 in all cells. You're suggesting that move my Closed Loop - Max Throttle A-E tables to something like 45% in all cells? If I have my CL Max Load tables set to a 1.25 load, wouldn't I just exit CL then and not worry about what % the throttle was at?

According to Dano in his boost tuning thread, changing the CL - Max Throttle A-E tables to 100 in all cells forces the ECU to ignore throttle position when exiting to OL. The ECU then defaults to the load exit values.

Link