ECMlink Help with tuning SD. What next?

[steve]

That's what I usually do but I started doing that back when I was hex editing the stock code. There are those who advocate leaving the direct map set to stock and only using the global.

 

[We're on Boost]

It seems to be running fairly well but we did seem to have some really concerning knock at ~3000rpm (log 11 below).

Yes, in log 11, when I compare overall conditions at 57.9 sec and 208.2 sec, everything is pretty similar except for 1 thing - lots of knock getting started at 57.9 sec, but no knock at 208.2 sec.
I looked in Direct Access to see if your open loop thresholds are too high, but no, they are stock.
I looked at your timing to see if it's too much advance, but no, it's less advance then stock.
I think it really looks like what @dwb had in his "crazy knock" thread that I think we mentioned once. Where his was because of noisy (bad) hydraulic lash adjusters. His was even worse.
His would also mostly go away after long running of the engine, which yours seems to be doing.
His would start at around 2500 or 2700 rpm, around in there. Yours starts at 2700 rpm.

It only seems to be a problem if we jump on the throttle fairly quickly and start to hit boost before 3k. If we roll into the throttle, it will hit similar boost levels at similar RPMs and very little knock, so we did get a log more throttle with higher RPMs. (log 12)

I don't know what to think about this but I looked at your "BaseTipInTPSAdj - it is stock values so probably ok.
Then I displayed "TPSDelta" in your log 11 and the raw values are never higher than 1. Almost always they are 0. So adjusting the tip-in would probably not even do anything anyway. Your tip-in rates are not high enough to trigger much of a squirt.

 

[justacanuck]

Yes, in log 11, when I compare overall conditions at 57.9 sec and 208.2 sec, everything is pretty similar except for 1 thing - lots of knock getting started at 57.9 sec, but no knock at 208.2 sec.
I looked in Direct Access to see if your open loop thresholds are too high, but no, they are stock.
I looked at your timing to see if it's too much advance, but no, it's less advance then stock.

Exactly. I don't think I should need to pull any timing out. If anything, it could be more aggressive. Should we perhaps try the 1G timing map?

I think it really looks like what @dwb had in his "crazy knock" thread that I think we mentioned once. Where his was because of noisy (bad) hydraulic lash adjusters. His was even worse.
His would also mostly go away after long running of the engine, which yours seems to be doing.
His would start at around 2500 or 2700 rpm, around in there. Yours starts at 2700 rpm.

Yes, it seems more and more this may be the case. Between 128sec - 137sec it was knocking repeatedly. Maybe the oil pressure is a little low, at this rpm range... but it was also seeing 32degrees of timing advance.

I should have mentioned, the intake cam is advanced ~6 degrees as well. Not sure if that is a good idea. That is how it was set when we got it. Could advancing the intake cam timing that much create any of these problems? Any advantage/drawbacks?

I don't know what to think about this but I looked at your "BaseTipInTPSAdj - it is stock values so probably ok.
Then I displayed "TPSDelta" in your log 11 and the raw values are never higher than 1. Almost always they are 0. So adjusting the tip-in would probably not even do anything anyway. Your tip-in rates are not high enough to trigger much of a squirt.

I was wondering about that too. It doesn't seem to get too lean really.

 

[We're on Boost]

Exactly. I don't think I should need to pull any timing out. If anything, it could be more aggressive. Should we perhaps try the 1G timing map?

I guess if you have 1g pistons (7.8 to 1) it should be alright to try the 1g timing map. I was looking at it in your log with right click "toggle stock values" on the timing map, and the stock values are a lot more advanced then what you have in there now. You've tried the Evo8 timing map already. The stock 1g max oct timing looks pretty high to me for higher than stock boost on pump gasoline, so I'd be really careful. Maybe you'd see some actual knock if you do that .

Maybe the oil pressure is a little low, at this rpm range... but it was also seeing 32degrees of timing advance.

32 degrees should be ok at such a low load, I think it was 0.25 load which isn't even on the map really.
We don't know anything about your oil pressure do we? Then there is the thing about using a 2g head on a 6-bolt block, with how the oil gets to the head, which people usually do a mod for.
But if you were to measure oil pressure from that port that is on the front passenger face of the head where there is a small pipe thread port with a plug in it (British/Japanese pipe thread so be careful) then you would sort of know if there is enough oil pressure in the head to do the HLA's properly.
I say sort of because if you look at where dwb tried to do that in his "crazy knock" thread, with a gauge that reads to 100 psi, it didn't work out too well . The pressure there at warm idle is only going to be like 10 psi or so, maybe less. Hiroshi usually says just take the oil fill cap off with the engine idling and see how much oil is flinging around inside the valve cover. If it makes a mess and throws some oil out at you, then there's enough oil pressure in the head . I don't remember right now where Hiroshi had that discussion with somebody but I don't see it in dwb's thread.
There is a pic in that thread in post #56 of the oil port on the head that I'm talking about, and the same post mentions the "oil pressure mod to the head" which I don't remember what it is right now except that it's for when you have a 2g head on a 6-bolt block, which uses 1mm larger diameter head bolts so there's less room for oil to travel up around the head bolt that is in that corner of the engine, to the head. Or something like that.

 

[justacanuck]

I guess if you have 1g pistons (7.8 to 1) it should be alright to try the 1g timing map. I was looking at it in your log with right click "toggle stock values" on the timing map, and the stock values are a lot more advanced then what you have in there now. You've tried the Evo8 timing map already. The stock 1g max oct timing looks pretty high to me for higher than stock boost on pump gasoline, so I'd be really careful. Maybe you'd see some actual knock if you do that .

Yeah, if I try that map, I'll probably take a few degrees out and work my way back up to the stock values if it seems happy.

32 degrees should be ok at such a low load, I think it was 0.25 load which isn't even on the map really.
We don't know anything about your oil pressure do we?

No. not really.

Then there is the thing about using a 2g head on a 6-bolt block, with how the oil gets to the head, which people usually do a mod for.

If we ever take the head off, I will definitely perform that modification. In the meantime, I think we might switch to 10w40, and add some ZDDP. It might help quiet down those lifters a little bit, at least until we can install new lifters.

But if you were to measure oil pressure from that port that is on the front passenger face of the head where there is a small pipe thread port with a plug in it (British/Japanese pipe thread so be careful) then you would sort of know if there is enough oil pressure in the head to do the HLA's properly.
I say sort of because if you look at where dwb tried to do that in his "crazy knock" thread, with a gauge that reads to 100 psi, it didn't work out too well . The pressure there at warm idle is only going to be like 10 psi or so, maybe less. Hiroshi usually says just take the oil fill cap off with the engine idling and see how much oil is flinging around inside the valve cover. If it makes a mess and throws some oil out at you, then there's enough oil pressure in the head . I don't remember right now where Hiroshi had that discussion with somebody but I don't see it in dwb's thread.

I read through that thread again. I believe we will pursue new lifters, but probably not until the weather gets a lot better.

 

[Justin DuBois]

1G timing maps are quite aggressive - and I would not use them unless you have lower compression 7.8:1 stock 1G pistons. You want a lot of timing down low to give you some help with the lower CR. If you have 2G 8.5:1 pistons or better - the EVO8 maps are a good start, but need adjustments for smaller turbos as the higher boost levels at lower RPM are off in no man's land and the timing gets pulled too far back but they are pretty safe.

 

[justacanuck]

1G timing maps are quite aggressive - and I would not use them unless you have lower compression 7.8:1 stock 1G pistons. You want a lot of timing down low to give you some help with the lower CR. If you have 2G 8.5:1 pistons or better - the EVO8 maps are a good start, but need adjustments for smaller turbos as the higher boost levels at lower RPM are off in no man's land and the timing gets pulled too far back but they are pretty safe.

I would think it still has 1g pistons, but we were told the head was swapped over to the 2G head with some extensive porting. I'm not sure what the 2G head might do to the expected compression ratio. Any ideas?

When we got the car, it had a factory ECU with SAFC and MAFTranslator so it obviously would have had the 1G timing map and it seemed to run quite strong, so I feel like it should be reasonably safe to try.

As soon as we got the ECMLink upgraded ECU installed, I only started with the tuning process using the Evo8 timing maps because I wanted to be careful with the timing, at least until we had a chance to get the fuel setup dialed in appropriately. I think we are at that point now...

 

[Diamond Star Werks]

I should have mentioned that we also eliminated the aftermarket manual boost controller which was located between the boost reference nipple and wastegate actuator. It does seem to release a small amount of boost pressure (i.e a slight audible difference) but I don't think the actuator actually moves as much as it should due to what I suspect is a non-factory spring tied to the assembly which was probably installed helped keep it closed (it sounds like it is blowing off at least some air, at almost any boost pressure).

Total boost achieved does not appear to have changed after bypassing the manual boost controller, although it also does feel like it make less power, so I am just guessing that the boost just builds up a little slower without the manual boost controller? (or possibly the wastegate is crippled with that extra spring installed? i.e. partially being held shut)

An MBC, at least the Hallman style, is gonna have a small hole on the port side for the actuator. This is normal. Other style MBCs will work similar to the factory one by bleeding off pressure going to the wastegate actuator to increase boost. This is normal. The factory one simply reverts the bled off air back into the intake pre turbo post MAF to keep already read air in the system

 

[justacanuck]

An MBC, at least the Hallman style, is gonna have a small hole on the port side for the actuator. This is normal. Other style MBCs will work similar to the factory one by bleeding off pressure going to the wastegate actuator to increase boost. This is normal. The factory one simply reverts the bled off air back into the intake pre turbo post MAF to keep already read air in the system

I am a little confused by this... does the factory setup have a manual boost controller located between Boost ref and wastegate? Or does it just have a line straight from boost reference direct to the wastegate actuator?

This is the MBC we pulled out and installed a line between boost ref and wastegate instead. It does have some little holes on the side that would obviously vent to atmosphere, if indeed they actually vent.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Diamond Star Werks]

I am a little confused by this... does the factory setup have a manual boost controller located between Boost ref and wastegate? Or does it just have a line straight from boost reference direct to the wastegate actuator?

This is the MBC we pulled out and installed a line between boost ref and wastegate instead. It does have some little holes on the side that would obviously vent to atmosphere, if indeed they actually vent.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

No factory used electronic boost control. They had a line between turbo pressure and the wastegate with a T that ran to the factory boost solenoid. The solenoid was duty cycled to bleed off pressure to the actuator to control boost. The outlet port of the solenoid was routed to a nipple on the intake pipe between the MAF and compressor inlet.

ECMlink Boost Control With Stock Boost Control Solenoid (BCS)

Want to use ECMlink to control boost?Here's how you do it using the stock boost control solenoid (BCS). I am using the 1G solenoid, which looks a bit different than the 2G solenoid. The principal is the same for both solenoids, just make sure you route your vacuum lines correctly, and put...

www.dsmtuners.com

 

[steve]

I am a little confused by this... does the factory setup have a manual boost controller located between Boost ref and wastegate? Or does it just have a line straight from boost reference direct to the wastegate actuator?

The factory boost control works by limiting the rate that the air pressure from turbo can reach the wastegate (via the restrictor pill in the vacuum line) and by bleeding some of that pressure off using the boost control solenoid back to the intake after the MAF. When the BCS is closed the wastegate is activated as soon as the boost pressure is greater than the spring pressure in the WG. When the BCS is open the pressure to the WG is lowered by a small amount due to the leak via the BCS so that the boost pressure is higher that the WG spring.

I believe you have an old Turbosmart gated boost controller there. It works by blocking the boost pressure from reaching the wastegate. There is a spring and a gate inside and the passage to the wastegate is blocked until the boost pressure exceeds the spring tension on the gate. Once it exceeds it, the gate opens and the WG gets boost pressure to open. As soon as the boost pressure drops off the gate closes again and the a vent on the WG side releases the trapped air so that the WG can close. Otherwise once the gate closed there would still be pressure holding the WG open.

 

[justacanuck]

No factory used electronic boost control. They had a line between turbo pressure and the wastegate with a T that ran to the factory boost solenoid. The solenoid was duty cycled to bleed off pressure to the actuator to control boost. The outlet port of the solenoid was routed to a nipple on the intake pipe between the MAF and compressor inlet.

ECMlink Boost Control With Stock Boost Control Solenoid (BCS)

Want to use ECMlink to control boost?Here's how you do it using the stock boost control solenoid (BCS). I am using the 1G solenoid, which looks a bit different than the 2G solenoid. The principal is the same for both solenoids, just make sure you route your vacuum lines correctly, and put...

www.dsmtuners.com

Wow. Lots of information! Thanks.

 

[justacanuck]

It's been a while, I can hardly remember where I left off exactly, but I was going to try some different timing, and get slightly more aggressive with the AFR ratio.

We did some routine maintenance as well:
- Changed transmission oil, and adjusted the clutch pedal. Works much better now.
- Replaced the old ugly and dry air filter with a new washable K&N filter and we took a log with, and without, the new filter to ensure this wasn't changing our results. Filter made no change.
- Changed oil to 5w40 Rotella T6 instead of the generic 10w30 we were running previously. The 10w30 only had a few hundred kilometers on it, but it was looking a little dirty. Fresh high-quality oil certainly wouldn't hurt anything.

We proceeded to load a new AFR fuel map. Did a pull. Found it was still a little too rich on the top end.

I figured slightly too rich would be a good time to work on the timing a bit. Loaded a slightly more aggressive timing map. We previously thought low oil pressure could be leading to that phantom knock issue. We ran this new timing for a while, watching carefully for knock, and tuned out a bit of knock on the edges of the timing curve where it changes quite drastically, and compared to known safe timing tables for regular sanity checks while making the changes to ensure I wasn't doing anything stupid. I think we might have solved the "phantom" knock issue by reducing the timing in a few spots. I am inclined to believe now that it was some real knock, because I believe we have finally eliminated most of it.

Here is the timing map, and the commanded AFR table we have arrived at.

Previous logs had indicated that we were about 3% rich at WOT using -20.4 global.

I updated global fuel to -23.4 and did another pull. Still too rich. (Log ending with -06 attached)

Updated the fuel even further, to -25.4, and did another pull. Same issue. Changes do not seem to reflect in WOT results. (see log ending with -12 attached)

IAT was slightly different between these pulls but I expected the global fuel settings change would have made a significant difference, in the expected direction, at WOT.

I should also mention, it's running great, and smoother than ever. But our best power at ~5k WOT was a little better when AFR hit 11.0, instead of the 10.1 which we had in the old(er) AFR table. I don't think I should have to change my global fuel back another 3% to get on target. That would be almost 8% global fuel difference from the previous day's testing.

I don't get it... I thought changing global fuel would help get this to match up. What am I missing? Is it just the IAT temp difference between these runs that did not give us the expected results? (hot air made it richer than expected, despite my global fuel changes?) I might not have mentioned this before, but we have an AEM FPR. Maybe it isn't behaving like the ECM expects?

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Justin DuBois]

It's been a while, I can hardly remember where I left off exactly, but I was going to try some different timing, and get slightly more aggressive with the AFR ratio.

We did some routine maintenance as well:
- Changed transmission oil, and adjusted the clutch pedal. Works much better now.
- Replaced the old ugly and dry air filter with a new washable K&N filter and we took a log with, and without, the new filter to ensure this wasn't changing our results. Filter made no change.
- Changed oil to 5w40 Rotella T6 instead of the generic 10w30 we were running previously. The 10w30 only had a few hundred kilometers on it, but it was looking a little dirty. Fresh high-quality oil certainly wouldn't hurt anything.

We proceeded to load a new AFR fuel map. Did a pull. Found it was still a little too rich on the top end.

I figured slightly too rich would be a good time to work on the timing a bit. Loaded a slightly more aggressive timing map. We previously thought low oil pressure could be leading to that phantom knock issue. We ran this new timing for a while, watching carefully for knock, and tuned out a bit of knock on the edges of the timing curve where it changes quite drastically, and compared to known safe timing tables for regular sanity checks while making the changes to ensure I wasn't doing anything stupid. I think we might have solved the "phantom" knock issue by reducing the timing in a few spots. I am inclined to believe now that it was some real knock, because I believe we have finally eliminated most of it.

Here is the timing map, and the commanded AFR table we have arrived at.

Previous logs had indicated that we were about 3% rich at WOT using -20.4 global.

I updated global fuel to -23.4 and did another pull. Still too rich. (Log ending with -06 attached)

Updated the fuel even further, to -25.4, and did another pull. Same issue. Changes do not seem to reflect in WOT results. (see log ending with -12 attached)

IAT was slightly different between these pulls but I expected the global fuel settings change would have made a significant difference, in the expected direction, at WOT.

I should also mention, it's running great, and smoother than ever. But our best power at ~5k WOT was a little better when AFR hit 11.0, instead of the 10.1 which we had in the old(er) AFR table. I don't think I should have to change my global fuel back another 3% to get on target. That would be almost 8% global fuel difference from the previous day's testing.

I don't get it... I thought changing global fuel would help get this to match up. What am I missing? Is it just the IAT temp difference between these runs that did not give us the expected results? (hot air made it richer than expected, despite my global fuel changes?) I might not have mentioned this before, but we have an AEM FPR. Maybe it isn't behaving like the ECM expects?

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

2-19-12 log shows -25.4 global fuel,
Your AFR targets at 5K are 10.9:1, and the wideband is reading 10.3:1. The calculated difference using WBFactor is -5.8%

A small global adjustment, subtracting about 5-6% global fuel will lean out the calibration overall, and get you better AFR alignment with your targets.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[justacanuck]

2-19-12 log shows -25.4 global fuel,
Your AFR targets at 5K are 10.9:1, and the wideband is reading 10.3:1. The calculated difference using WBFactor is -5.8%

A small global adjustment, subtracting about 5-6% global fuel will lean out the calibration overall, and get you better AFR alignment with your targets.

I really appreciate that you took some time to check out the logs, any my long post log, but it seems you might have missed a key point: I was only ~3% lean previously, with global fuel set at -20.4. I removed 2%, then another 3%, for 5% total already, and we are STILL ~5-6% too rich.

Any other ideas? It really seems like I am missing something...

Also curious what you think of the AFR targets? I feel like the 2.2 load factor target of 10.9 is fairly reasonable, but do you think a target of ~12.5AFR, at load factor of 1.2, a little too lean to be safe?

 

[Justin DuBois]

I really appreciate that you took some time to check out the logs, any my long post log, but it seems you might have missed a key point: I was only ~3% lean previously, with global fuel set at -20.4. I removed 2%, then another 3%, for 5% total already, and we are STILL ~5-6% too rich.

Any other ideas? It seems like I am missing something...

Keep going - Use the same boost settings, Try and do the same warmup, and use the same stretch of road to be consistent. Your WB is telling you its Rich, so take out more fuel - (go more negative on Global Fuel) Do this until you see alignment. Mind your IAT's - the more similar you run each time, the more consistent your moves will be.

 

[justacanuck]

Keep going - Use the same boost settings, Try and do the same warmup, and use the same stretch of road to be consistent. Your WB is telling you its Rich, so take out more fuel - (go more negative on Global Fuel) Do this until you see alignment. Mind your IAT's - the more similar you run each time, the more consistent your moves will be.

Thank you for the encouragement.

I looked back at one of those previous logs, from 2 weeks ago, when I got leaner than anticipated at 5000rpm. I had global fuel at -24.6 but we also had VE at 84.5 @ 5k rpm back then. I guess this explains my confusion, or at least some of it . Because of that lean event, we decided to reset SD table, and restart with global fuel settings. When I subsequently reset the VE table, I also smoothed it out, and pushed the peak VE further up in the RPMs, over a broader range.

Now we have got the top left side of our SD table setup nicely, and it puts Airflow/rev at close to 0.25gm/rev, if I change global again, should we re-start tuning the SD table configuration again? Would it make more sense to just change the peak VE area down by 5-6% ? Keep in mind, we also have this "Cyclone" intake which I don't think is working yet, but when we do finally manage to get it working properly, I would expect it's proper function should push VE higher, at least at these higher RPMs.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and advice.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Thank you for the encouragement.

I looked back at one of those previous logs, from 2 weeks ago, when I got leaner than anticipated at 5000rpm. I had global fuel at -24.6 but we also had VE at 84.5 @ 5k rpm back then. I guess this explains my confusion, or at least some of it . Because of that lean event, we decided to reset SD table, and restart with global fuel settings. When I subsequently reset the VE table, I also smoothed it out, and pushed the peak VE further up in the RPMs, over a broader range.

Now we have got the top left side of our SD table setup nicely, and it puts Airflow/rev at close to 0.25gm/rev, if I change global again, should we re-start tuning the SD table configuration again? Would it make more sense to just change the peak VE area down by 5-6% ? Keep in mind, we also have this "Cyclone" intake which I don't think is working yet, but when we do finally manage to get it working properly, I would expect it's proper function should push VE higher, at least at these higher RPMs.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and advice.

"Ya got to run before you can walk... ? reverse that."

Yeah - the data tells you what to do. You're setting a global calibration point, that might change as you dial in your setup. Fuel pressure and Global fuel play off each other. Its in the calculator for global fuel.

One thing to have in the back of your head - if your fuel pressure isn't stable, setting global fuel calibration will be a moving target.

At your current boost level at 5000rpm, at that cell in the VE table it is near 99%. The two ways to affect AFR/WB alignment at this point is - Global Fuel, or physically changing Fuel Pressure. Assuming you have the base fuel pressure set, and the rising rate is 1:1 and working - then this Max pressure high spot should be adjusted with Global Fuel. Additional VE table adjustments away from the peak can be made to align everything else.

 

[justacanuck]

"Ya got to run before you can walk... ? reverse that."

Yeah - the data tells you what to do. You're setting a global calibration point, that might change as you dial in your setup. Fuel pressure and Global fuel play off each other. Its in the calculator for global fuel.

One thing to have in the back of your head - if your fuel pressure isn't stable, setting global fuel calibration will be a moving target.

At your current boost level at 5000rpm, at that cell in the VE table it is near 99%. The two ways to affect AFR/WB alignment at this point is - Global Fuel, or physically changing Fuel Pressure. Assuming you have the base fuel pressure set, and the rising rate is 1:1 and working - then this Max pressure high spot should be adjusted with Global Fuel. Additional VE table adjustments away from the peak can be made to align everything else.

That makes sense. thank you.

I should get a fuel pressure gauge we can log with...

 

[Justin DuBois]

That makes sense. thank you.

I should get a fuel pressure gauge we can log with...

Having a digital gauge with peak hold works wonders. Logging would be great - I'm still working on having that.

 

[justacanuck]

At your current boost level at 5000rpm, at that cell in the VE table it is near 99%. The two ways to affect AFR/WB alignment at this point is - Global Fuel, or physically changing Fuel Pressure. Assuming you have the base fuel pressure set, and the rising rate is 1:1 and working - then this Max pressure high spot should be adjusted with Global Fuel. Additional VE table adjustments away from the peak can be made to align everything else.

We set global to -31.6 and it is getting closer to target. It ran pretty lean in a few spots, mostly at very low RPMs so I tuned out some of the intermittant knocking. Got a really good pull attached. Looks like we put out ~300ftlbs between 4-5k

I also found this article https://dsmfaq.com/downloads/TUNE_1G_V3_SD_ECMLINK_NOMAF_1.5.pdf that says,

Next, select your (BoostEst) and MAP sensor to see how well they lined up. If
your (BoostEst) and MAP are not coinciding at 5-6Krpm, then I would adjust the
SD table to get them to.

Of course adjusting you global will affect your fuel trims so you will
need to possibly touch up your Deadtime and idle SD table cell to get trims and
the .25 airlfow/rev back in line. Continue to do this until you get your real boost
to match your (BoostEst) within 1psi between the 5-6K rpm range.

I are getting really close, so rather than continuing to pull even more fuel out of the global settings, I think I'm ready to adjust to top portion of the VE table, to help align BoostEst, with actual boost. This also leaves me some room for potential upcoming improvements (Cyclone shortrunner that I don't believe is working yet) that could push VE higher in that range.

The new table I have prepared still goes to 99.5, but only at the very bottom of the grid. BoostEST was about 2lbs higher at ~5500, which corresponds with approximately the middle of the 99.5 area of the VE table. I pulled the "high end" back by about 3% , and the rest of the table nicely, adding ~2% in the midrange. Baby steps.

I'll try and get another log today. I have proactively pulled a few degrees of timing back at max boost/rpms, just to be safe.

 

[Justin DuBois]

Getting better - Take a look at you're "HPbyAir" - It looks smooth - but low, and that correlates with the timing.

Try for 10's in HPbyAir - and use timing to increase it until you reach a knock limit.

 

[justacanuck]

Getting better - Take a look at you're "HPbyAir" - It looks smooth - but low, and that correlates with the timing.

Try for 10's in HPbyAir - and use timing to increase it until you reach a knock limit.

I was already logging it but didn't have any idea what HPbyAir could be used for.

Where exactly do you think my timing might be lower than optimum?

It seems like it is pretty much on the ragged edge already because I had to pull timing back in several spots to stop knocking. I believe our entire setup might be ~3-4 degrees more advanced than it looks. I am sure we set base timing very close to -5 BTDC, but it seems to me that it is acting more like it is set at -2 BTDC. So, I thought our timing was very nearly as advanced as it can be.

Approaching 10s for HPbyAir might require a slightly more aggressive AFR, or at least getting closer to our existing AFR target(s)?

 

[Justin DuBois]

What oct fuel are you using?
When you set your base timing, did you toggle the diagnostic mode so that the ECU is forced to hold 5deg?

 

[justacanuck]

What oct fuel are you using?
When you set your base timing, did you toggle the diagnostic mode so that the ECU is forced to hold 5deg?

I believe the best we have readily available in our area is rated at 93 (there are a very few stations around here with 94Oct)

Yes, we toggled the diagnostic mode in ECU when checking the base timing. It looked like it was very slightly advanced when I started. We therefore moved the cam sensor, ever so slightly, to get base timing closer to 5 degrees BTDC. (unless I am misunderstood how base timing is supposed to be set)

Also, not sure if I mentioned this before, but our intake cam has a custom timing gear and it is set to ~6 degrees of advance (this may or may not be a true reflection of the actual cam position because I have not "degree'd" (?) the cam myself. I understand there may some variation in manufacturing tolerances, particularly between different manufacturers.

Based on the final numbers I am reaching, before onset of knock, I suspect we are still a few of degrees further advanced than what I could detect with our really old timing light (I suppose it may also be possible that the balancer/pulley is slightly out of alignment?)