The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support Morrison Fabrications
Please Support STM Tuned

ECMlink I'm confused, can't seem to reach the 300whp goal on E16G

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Kryndon

Proven Member
944
591
Jan 10, 2014
Bulgaria, Europe
I went to the airstrip and did 9 pulls from 1st through third, using third gear as my main reference as it has a 1:1 ratio and offers the most accurate figures. I have also configured the HP/TQ settings to match my car. I tried:

1. 28.2psi and no knock @ 9* timing and 10.8AFR, that netted me about 240 whp if ECMLink is correct.
2. 24.8psi and some knock @ 9* timing and 11.7AFR, that netted me about 249 whp.
3. I also tried less boost and a bit more timing (20 psi 11* timing), that was even lower.

I am going off the BoostEST readings from 5000-5500 RPM since I was alone in the car and couldn't look at my boost gauge while ripping on it. But from memory that 28.2 psi run the gauge showed 26 or so psi?
Also, I am getting insanely high flowrates. Between both those runs I was getting 42-45 pounds of air which should be netting me a lot more power than 240. My MAF is calibrated good and so are my globals. Am I just being too safe on timing advance or am I missing the bigger picture?

Car does feel quick, 0-60 in 4.8 sec but the turbo seems to be spooling way slower than what most other people are getting. I will attach the very last log I took which is the 28.2 psi run which had a slower accel time of 5.3seconds 0-60.

My build sheet is up-to-date, I haven't posted the bigger format since this isn't specifically asking about the log but rather the potential of the evo 16G and why I can't make the power most people do?
 

Attachments

  • log.2021.11.07-09.elg
    30.7 KB · Views: 19
I went to the airstrip and did 9 pulls from 1st through third, using third gear as my main reference as it has a 1:1 ratio and offers the most accurate figures. I have also configured the HP/TQ settings to match my car. I tried:

1. 28.2psi and no knock @ 9* timing and 10.8AFR, that netted me about 240 whp if ECMLink is correct.
2. 24.8psi and some knock @ 9* timing and 11.7AFR, that netted me about 249 whp.
3. I also tried less boost and a bit more timing (20 psi 11* timing), that was even lower.

I am going off the BoostEST readings from 5000-5500 RPM since I was alone in the car and couldn't look at my boost gauge while ripping on it. But from memory that 28.2 psi run the gauge showed 26 or so psi?
Also, I am getting insanely high flowrates. Between both those runs I was getting 42-45 pounds of air which should be netting me a lot more power than 240. My MAF is calibrated good and so are my globals. Am I just being too safe on timing advance or am I missing the bigger picture?

Car does feel quick, 0-60 in 4.8 sec but the turbo seems to be spooling way slower than what most other people are getting. I will attach the very last log I took which is the 28.2 psi run which had a slower accel time of 5.3seconds 0-60.

My build sheet is up-to-date, I haven't posted the bigger format since this isn't specifically asking about the log but rather the potential of the evo 16G and why I can't make the power most people do?
Assuming the weight you used to calculate HP is accurate, I suspect your timing. Attached is my timing table for comparison. I run Speed Density, and at 24psi on a MHI Big 16G (evoIII turbo) I run E25 to control knock, and about the same AFR as you. My HP by air is in the 10's. My peak HP is somewhere around 5500-6000rpm at ~380hp.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Thanks; your table looks much more uniform and blended in. I adjusted mine slightly but with lesser timings still as I am on 93RON. I will drop the boost down to 24-25 psi and see where that takes me.

What does this HPByAir metric really tell you? I checked mine and it's around 5-6. Are you saying I can be getting more bang out of the air I'm pulling? Also is that 380 whp you're getting? If so, that's insane. There definitely must be something wrong on my car. Do you think you can send me a log of yours over PM so I can compare more fully? I know all our cars differ but with basic 16G setups and suitable supporting mods I reckon the power figures should be within the same ballpark.
 
Yes I can but it will take some time.

HP by air tells you just that, Somewhere I heard 10 is a good target to find, and it guided my timing adjustments, which coincided with an increase in HP.

I do have a 1G top end with lots of love given to the valve intake runners, 1G stock CAMs.

Regards fuel, to run all the timing, Ethanol in the mix helps control knock. I try to use as much pump gas as I can so in Cali E10 91oct 4gal + E85 1Gal = E25 94oct 5gal

At the wheels - as calculated by ecmlink
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Last edited:
What is your correcting factor set at? Also, 28psi on 93 octane with a16g sounds like too much. Try lowering the boost to low 20’s and increase timing until you see knock
 
Yeah, 28 psi is a bit much. I’m not sure how the turbo can hold that kind of boost past 6000 rpm. I had a 68hta on a stock engine that would fall to 18 psi at redline. My current big 16g car holds about the same at redline, 100% duty cycle.

For those two reasons I would start looking at breathing restrictions after you smooth out the timing map.
 
Thanks guys. Maybe I'm being too naive and expecting too much from this turbo. I was under the impression that the evo 16g starts entering its optimal efficiency at 22 psi and up to 28-30 again depending on whether you're running corn juice or reg gas. In my case I'm using 93 which is more similar to the 91 in the States, so I guess I need to back the boost down. I just went over all 9 logs again and you're right, I get peak boost at 5k exactly and it gradually drops down to 20psi at redline in all logs regardless of chosen boost level. I am running a 2.5" downpipe with an external O2 housing, so I guess that could be a factor. As far as the intake system it's a 2.5" aluminum piping from turbo to TB elbow with only 4 couplers so that's plenty of flow already. The only thing I can think of is the stock rubber intake snorkel between MAF and turbo inlet. I hate it but I will be replacing it with a bigger straight pipe once I install the MAP kit which should be real soon. I've polished my intake runners as well as combustion chambers which should help somewhat.

What is your correcting factor set at? Also, 28psi on 93 octane with a16g sounds like too much. Try lowering the boost to low 20’s and increase timing until you see knock

Which correcting factor are you referring to? For the HP estimates I have drivetrain losses set to 0 so it measures WHP. For sealevel I have it at 0 since I live at the coast. For speed correction I left it at 1 although I'm running 225/50/17 tires which make my speedo read higher than actual by maybe 1-2 mph.

I'm gonna drop the boost down to 22 psi and reduce timings at peak boost then gradually increase them by 1 deg in each subsequent load cell up to redline, but I really wanted to keep a leaner AFR, definitely over 11.0:1.
 
5K is a pretty ridiculous rpm to achieve full boost on an e16g. I recall them being in the 3k range. My 700hp-capable turbo makes 30psi at 4600 and has very aggressive cams. I suspect something is mechanically wrong. Besides what's wrong, you might switch to speed density and opt for an Injen-style intake. There are some pretty detailed build threads from long ago where people made some great numbers (400awhp) on an e16g and detailed what parts worked for them. I have some email exchanges with Curt Brown a couple years ago where he told me about his 500hp 16g setup and what he recommends for that style of turbo.
 
Just for clarification, does your car have an automatic transmission? The manual transmission DSM 3rd gear is not a direct 1:1, in case you're running some power calculations based on it. Auto would definitely bring the numbers down, too.
 
Something is off and I can't tell tbh. Here is my tune when I had b16g w 1000cc's on 2g MAF.

Could your timing be off?
Off how? I have noticed on almost every timing cell selected by the ECU, I'm actually getting from 0.4 to 1* less timing in the log. Sometimes my coolant temp goes over 95C which I know is when the ECU starts pulling 1* timing for every 3 other degrees, but it can't be this all the time since I've also done pulls at 89C and it behaves the same.

I just compared both of our logs and I can't believe how identical most of it is. I highlighted in gray all the values that we have EXACTLY the same at the same loads and peak powers, but you can clearly see I'm making 45 less whp than you. What am I missing? Yours is at 82C but frankly that seems way too low for optimal operating temps for our engines. Whereas mine still climbs to 97 unless I turn on both fans. My log below is the last one I did today that brought me up to 270 whp with some boost decrease and timing increase. Also I noticed my BoostEST is definitely inflated. At the market 26.1 psi my boost gauge was actually showing 20 psi. (P.S I adjusted your HP smoothing factors to make it the same as mine for reference).

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


@Vegas Smith After some tweaking like I said above, I made it spool quicker so peak boost is now at 4600.

@Canadian_CD9A She's a Canada spec manual TSi and you're right, the 3rd gear ratio is more like 1.1 to 1 which is still closer than the 4th gear at 0.888 to 1. Also 3rd is easier to get pulls logged in the city and rural roads but it still gets real fast till redline.

@Stapl3 Why is this necessarily bad? All the guides I read and videos I saw, the instructions were to keep adjusting the MAFComp sliders based on the WBFactor %values. I actually have them down to 22% at those high frequencies, otherwise I will lean out greatly. I'm on a stock 2G MAF which I recently cleaned properly and it's unhacked, with a KN panel filter in front of it. And how come the power estimates would be off based on mafcomp values? I'm not arguing here I just want to understand.
 
@Stapl3 Why is this necessarily bad? All the guides I read and videos I saw, the instructions were to keep adjusting the MAFComp sliders based on the WBFactor %values. I actually have them down to 22% at those high frequencies, otherwise I will lean out greatly. I'm on a stock 2G MAF which I recently cleaned properly and it's unhacked, with a KN panel filter in front of it. And how come the power estimates would be off based on mafcomp values? I'm not arguing here I just want to understand.
HPbyAir is estimated HP divided by airflow in lb/min. You're lying to the ECU about your airflow by 30+ %, treating the airflow sliders as a global fuel slider. Don't expect any accurate numbers there.

Basically when they're all up like you have, adjustments at 30% during peak VE, you need to look at your fuel setup being pretty damn off.
 
HPbyAir is estimated HP divided by airflow in lb/min. You're lying to the ECU about your airflow by 30+ %, treating the airflow sliders as a global fuel slider. Don't expect any accurate numbers there.

Basically when they're all up like you have, adjustments at 30% during peak VE, you need to look at your fuel setup being pretty damn off.
I understand now. But that's very odd. I'm running an EVO 9 gold pump which I recently rewired to get higher voltages to it. I also installed an AFPR which I've set at 43.5 psi (3 bar) and I paired it with FIC 1000cc injectors. When I input all those fuel stats into the global fuel calculator, it gave me -55.5% global fuel, which I have left at that and do not touch, since most people and guides say to never touch it again. Why would I mess with fake injector and fuel scalings otherwise? I only mess with the global inj deadtime to dial in STFT at idle and the 0-50-100Hz ranges.

What sort of issue could I potentially have with all these fuel components to cause an issue impacting my maf scaling?
 
I understand now. But that's very odd. I'm running an EVO 9 gold pump which I recently rewired to get higher voltages to it. I also installed an AFPR which I've set at 43.5 psi (3 bar) and I paired it with FIC 1000cc injectors. When I input all those fuel stats into the global fuel calculator, it gave me -55.5% global fuel, which I have left at that and do not touch, since most people and guides say to never touch it again. Why would I mess with fake injector and fuel scalings otherwise? I only mess with the global inj deadtime to dial in STFT at idle and the 0-50-100Hz ranges.

What sort of issue could I potentially have with all these fuel components to cause an issue impacting my maf scaling?
You're putting all your faith on the 20 dollar analog fuel gauge being 100% accurate and your injectors flowing exactly as advertised. Each could be 10% off. Instead, you could use arguably the most accurate sensor in the car paired with a computer, to ultimately tell the computer what it wants to see anyways.

Adding airflow on the mafcomp table is really just adding fuel. If you're having to add ~30% airflow like you are, then you're using the sliders to make up for either the injectors flowing less than you think or the fuel pressure being lower than you think.
 
You're putting all your faith on the 20 dollar analog fuel gauge being 100% accurate and your injectors flowing exactly as advertised. Each could be 10% off. Instead, you could use arguably the most accurate sensor in the car paired with a computer, to ultimately tell the computer what it wants to see anyways.

Adding airflow on the mafcomp table is really just adding fuel. If you're having to add ~30% airflow like you are, then you're using the sliders to make up for either the injectors flowing less than you think or the fuel pressure being lower than you think.
So, in a sense, all else not taken into account, increasing the MAF sliders would have the same general effect as decreasing my global fuel (closer to 0%)? So, technically, I can drop my -55.5% global fuel to let's say -40% which would make my injectors act like 750cc and then go back to the maf sliders and get them down to 0 or even under? That would also bring my airflowperrev down which I've read is critical to be 0.25 g/rev at idle but nobody explained why that value in particular and whether increased idle RPMs play a role in it.

Also, I have not only sealed up the small boost leak that all regulators have at the adjustment stud threads, but I have also made sure to adjust it with the vacuum off and installed fresh vacuum lines + clamps. At cold start it reads dead on 43.5 psi and at warm idle it drops down to about 30 psi which is normal as the vacuum pulls up on the diaphragm and allows more fuel through.

I understand what you're getting at but I would suspect my tune/settings first before I look at my hardware. Tony's global fuel seems to be at -53.9% and injectors acting like 900cc units. Yet our fuelflows are identical. I just really don't know what to suspect.
 
If I were you, I would add fuel via global or base fuel pressure, while adjusting and lowering the mafcomp sliders until the 1800-1900hz slider was at zero. I would completely ignore the fuel pressure gauge and within reason the global % number as well.
 
Also, I have not only sealed up the small boost leak that all regulators have at the adjustment stud threads, but I have also made sure to adjust it with the vacuum off and installed fresh vacuum lines + clamps. At cold start it reads dead on 43.5 psi and at warm idle it drops down to about 30 psi which is normal as the vacuum pulls up on the diaphragm and allows more fuel through.

Are you referring to the afpr? The psi shouldn’t change at all, regardless of engine temp.
 
Are you referring to the afpr? The psi shouldn’t change at all, regardless of engine temp.
This is correct. You can also turn the pump on via link and set base fp this way.
A slight leak at the adjustment screw for afpr is normal.
I was thinking your timing might be off because instead of 9* at the top end, it was 8.2. I recall now that you can’t adjust timing on a 2g like you can on 1g’s
 
It wouldn't know either way if it was 1g or 2g. The ECU is completely blind to the physical adjustment of the sensor. I suspect it's using the value one column to the left a little bit, dragging it down from the targeted 9*.

Another thing I notice OP is because your airflow is so inflated it's kicking you down the timing table pretty far. Further than I'd expect. So if you do try to get the sliders more in reality, keep in mind that you may shift upwards on the timing table where your values are more aggressive and some changes would need to be done there. Edit: as to why it's kicking you down the table, is because the table up and down is based on loadfactor. Loadfactor is airflow based (mass airflow per revolution divided by displacement), which you are telling the ECU is 30% more than reality.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to the afpr? The psi shouldn’t change at all, regardless of engine temp.
What I meant was on a cold start because the RPMs are high and injector pulsewidths are longer, the gauge will read base pressure even with the vacuum line attached. As the RPMs drop and engine warms up, it will start to pull strong vacuum and pull the AFPR diaphragm up, allowing more fuel to flow past it, thus less pressure. Most AFPRs are 1:1 rising rate so it's all to do with manifold pressure/vacuum. Also I believe the gauge is liquid filled which can get iffy at different temps.

Stapl3, that's exactly it. The way the timing table seems to work is it takes the average between adjacent cells as it passes from one to the other. So an 8* cell going right into an 11* cell would give an actual timing of about 9.5*. Subtract the 1* of timing that the ECU is pulling due to coolant temps and I'm already down to 8.5* when in reality I want 11*. So I'd need to inflate some cells by 1-2* over to compensate. Also you have a very good point about the loadfactor and having to readjust the cells. Will definitely watch out for that!
 
Stapl3, that's exactly it. The way the timing table seems to work is it takes the average between adjacent cells as it passes from one to the other. So an 8* cell going right into an 11* cell would give an actual timing of about 9.5*. Subtract the 1* of timing that the ECU is pulling due to coolant temps and I'm already down to 8.5* when in reality I want 11*. So I'd need to inflate some cells by 1-2* over to compensate. Also you have a very good point about the loadfactor and having to readjust the cells. Will definitely watch out for that!
The ECU will interpolate the 4 cells around the one highlighted. It might use one cell at 20%, the other at 50%, other at 15%, etc. This is obviously changing by the millisecond. Calan figured out how these were weighted when explaining linktools, but man that was like a lifetime ago.
^ This also applies to the mafcomp, SD table, DA target AF tables. Which illustrates why smoothing the adjustments and values is so important.

As for setting base fuel and leaving it, I'm completely against that and again, am only interested in the ECU being happy so I'll give it what it's expecting to see based on the logged wideband and the ECU expectations compared to that. I literally don't have any gauges in my car because of this method.

Another thing to consider is the accuracy of the 43.5 on the gauge. Years ago I swapped around about 4 gauges just out of curiosity and they all gave just a hair different reading. Then I used a 5v sensor and that gave me something a little different, but was that even accurate? Scaling, voltage to it, etc. Ultimately I realized it didn't matter. All that mattered was the ECU seeing what it wanted, to which I used the WB sensor compared to afratioest. WOT pulls though peak VE is literally all you need to get the fuel system calibrated near perfect. The only purpose of a fuel pressure gauge would be in-cabin to see if pressure is holding up top. But even then, it's useless IMO.

When you put the base fuel at 43, then global at the injector calculated %, and go 'yep, that's it', you're more than 9/10 times going to be off resulting in using the mafcomp to pick up the slack, with makes you more off ultimately. Remember, the number on the gauge and the number scribed on the side of the injectors are ONLY numbers. Do not take them as gospel.

The Talon I'm messing with now I'm using 650s at 80psi base fuel with amazing results. Don't get hung up on 42.5 or whatever. It's meaningless.
 
Last edited:
The Talon I'm messing with now I'm using 650s at 80psi base fuel with amazing results. Don't get hung up on 42.5 or whatever. It's meaningless.
What kinda fuel pump is the car running that can keep up with that much base fuel pressure? And why such high base pressure? 650’s all you had laying around?
 
Modified 450 with a BAP.

Higher the pressure, the better. Injectors are sharper, spray pattern is improved. win win.

I knew my fuel system could do 120psi. 16g would boost maybe into 30s sometimes, so I removed 40psi knowing that and started at 80 base. There's been no downsides.

650s just due to size and I had them. I've a shoebox of injectors :|
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top