This is really interesting for me to see -- I'm more or less doing the same sort of thing, but in California on 91 Octane gas. My timing curve tracks yours almost exactly, but about 4 degrees less across the board.

 

how is the tune going now?

 

Bump -
+1 on a very good write up! This thread (and related spin-off threads) are of great value & very interesting. My timing map tracks pretty close to yours, except I'm a degree or two less in most places. And my corresponding fuel map is slightly richer in some places. Do you still have the intake, plenum, headers, HFC, and exhaust for breather mods? That's what I have, minus the headers at this point.

Also, good to know my AEM AFR gauge is compatable with the TurboXS Tuner module. The Tuner is next on my list so I can log AFRs with the rest of my tuning parameters... :-)

 

Thanks for all the compliments. I try to be precise and accurate in the information that I post.

Here are the mods I had when I dynoed
Injen short ram
Crawford V5 plenum
Crawford headers
High flow cats
Borla true dual exhaust
Volk 19" (listed to to power waste on rotational mass)
and other parts unrelated to power

Here is what I have added that has NOT been dynoed (yet)
Z1 13lbs flywheel
JWT clutch
BBS RGR rims (listed due to better rotational mass as compared to old Volks)

More things I have noticed since my previous postings
My logs showed that I never went into the 100% load column. So, I never tuned this column. This is why I could set timing stupid high in the 90% column and it would never be used by the UTEC. The UTEC averages the load cells to smooth out the maps. So, it looks at 90% and 100% as it gets to the upper MAF range for 90%. Since my 100% column was not tuned properly, the average always turned out to be lower than what I had in the 90% column. Short story: make sure to enter real and correct values into the 100% column. Same goes for the 30-40% columns which I also never hit.

Since I tuned in 53 degree weather and mild humidity, my maps assume one set of temperature values. Since then, it is now the middle of summer. So, I am running richer than before. This makes sense because the hot air is less dense. I have also heard that the UTEC temperature compensation can work decently well on an NA car. So, instead of developing a summer map, I am going to try the temp compensation

Well, it is also time to dyno again since I discovered my timing problem (detailed above), added a clutch and flywheel. The clutch and flywheel should not effect the maps, but I want to see what they have done for the power curve. I feel as though it is positive, however it is hard to "feel" 10-15hp on a 260whp engine.

That is all the comes to mind. I am also experiencing a couple other small issues that I am working. These are real small problems that are just things that I need to work out. Not worth posting without details and solutions.

Oh, one last thing. I have tracked the car twice since I installed the UTEC. The UTEC definitely woke up the car. I faced an unmodded Track Z at the track on both occassions (two different cars). On both occassions, I definitely pulled on both. On the front straight at Beaver Run, I could pull 3-4 cars easily from turn exit to turn entrance. Since I do this for track performance, that is all I care about. I'm happy with it.

 

Great writeup with excellent detail! These are a good to follow for anyone into tuning.

I want to ask, since you are NA are you tuning by MAF or MAP? If MAF, do you notice that you need to reset your ECU frequently (battery flash) to keep the ECU from tuning out the UTEC's adjustments?

 

Smoky,

I am tuning by MAF. From what I understand, the TurboXS MAP sensor is not designed to handled vacuum to 0 PSI (i.e. NA). It is just not accurate enought to destinguish between various vacuum levels. So, it is not really am option. If someone has figured this out, HELL, let me know. I would much rather use speed density due to a few different reasons.

That being said, I do not see the ECU tuning out my fuel curve. From what I can tell, everything is stable. I have seen the ECU go all whacky on stock timing when I change my fuel maps, but the UTEC easily overrides that.

However, I do need to do a general status check with some logging. I have noticed my air fuel falling very slightly, but I think this is due to summer temperatures. I am going to do some logging and attempt to correct this with temperature compensation. Even if the ECU is causing the mixture to richen by "learning", it is minor and really won't effect the power. I believe most of the NA power from the UTEC lies in the timing and the ability to smooth everthing out. Compared to the stock maps, you can get things really smooth with the UTEC.

Hope that helps. PM me any time (everyone) if you have detailed questions and need a relatively fast response.

 

That's good experience to hear. I know a couple folks who are exploring the use of MAP on NA applications. But nothing back about that yet.

As the temps are warming, how many degrees variation do you figure you are getting before the UTEC needs a compensation or even a retune? In Dallas I was looking at about 15 deg before it became noticeable. But down here in Louisiana where I live now, I notice the a/f is not nearly as stable anymore, and gets worse much more rapidly now. I think I just need to tune for the humidity down here.

 

+1

I've noticed since adjusting my TPS Threshold to 25 that my UTEC only engages the maps at 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%. I've never hit the maps outside of these load points....

But one thing of interest is that setting the TPS Threshold to a lower value engages the maps starting at 40% much quicker. Setting the TPS Threshold to a higher value delays engagement of the maps starting at the 40% load point.... Interesting...

I think peptidbond may be right about the MAP sensor's inability to accurately read vacuum conditions of an NA build.

From the Open Loop Fueling Menu, I'm running in Open Loop Fueling mode = 1. This allows me to configure the tune much like a MAP tune without using the MAP Sensor. But I'm running Mass Air instead of Speed Density.

The beauty of enabling Open Loop Fueling, is that you can tell UTEC when to engage the Fuel/ Timing Maps from a TPS/ RPM standpoint. Since the UTEC is using it's own internal maps to drive the injectors & run timing, the ECU can't over-ride the UTEC... Hence, the tune should remain reletively static until I tweak it some more...

By taking the ECU out of the picture in load points 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% I was getting some shift knock. But I was able to smooth it out by setting the Open to Closed Loop Delay from 0 to 2.

Here's a log I did yesterday on my lunch break showing all the load points it hit as I was tuning the shift knock out. I haven't installed my TXS Tuner module yet, so the AFRs aren't in this log - So it just defaults to 'rich' for now.

 

I am not sure yet what to do with temperature compensation since I have not tried it (something recently got in the way, see below). However, you are right, the humidity should definitely play a role in the correct.

Well, BAD NEW! Just yesterday I had a header go bad. Unfortunately for me, this means I have 20 hours of work to do on the car this weekend. Thankfully, I sourced a new header set and don't have to wait for manufacturing. I will give more details on this later.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what brand/ type of header did you have that went bad?

 

Ummm....how should I say this gently.

Before I name the brand, let me be very, very, very clear about somethings:
1. The headers were mild steel
2. I live in Cleveland = lots of snow and lots of salt. Plus, I drive year round.
3. I wrapped the headers in exhaust wrap.

So, the exhaust wrap would get wet with salty water. Then the water would evaporate and leave the salt behind. In the summers, rain would wet the headers and the salt was still there. Add in my constant tracking and this makes for a very bad situation.

The headers were Crawford and I am the very first person to ever have a set go bad. Sucks for me.

If you wonder if I blame the headers, the answer is NO! In fact, I bought a new set of Crawfords and installed them the very next weekend. I just didn't use exhaust wrap.

Oh, I was also the only person running exhaust wrap on a winter driving vehicle. I blame the exhaust wrap.

 

...great write-up ! Subscribing...

 

lots to be learned here, i am starting my own tuning journey very shortly, thanks!!

subscribing

 

Curious why you didn't JetHot coat them this time?

 

I did, sort of.

So, the headers go dead and I call Doug. Doug says it will be a week before they can ship a new set. So I could have been screwed. Then, I remembered by good friend in Columbus (PerfZ here and elsewhere) had just won a set at Zdayz and had not installed them yet. One call to him and his set were shipped to me next day air. They were Jet Hot coated.

Doug just finished building my set (with Jet Hot) and sent them to my friend in Columbus. In the end, I am running a set with JetHot and I did not have to wait for the build. Furthermore, my friend is getting back his set and has a guarantee from me to help him with the install.

Big shoutout goes to PerfZ for the amazing help!