Timing map comparisons... (post them and discuss)

[bling5tatus]

Let's talk about timing maps here. I got this idea from the guy asking if his keydiver chip will need to be reprogrammed when he ups the CR of his pistons...

I know there are many knowledgeable people here, and I'm not looking to hear people say things like, "gosh everyone knows the obvious differences between 1g and 2g timing." What I would like to see here is a discussion about the different timing maps, a comparison of them, why you change them, how you change them to achieve a different goal, and how they affect the overall feel of the car. This can be a very educational thing for new people...

I'd really like to see pictures of a 1g timing map, a 2g timing map, and an evo8 timing map... and any others that may be important. Preferably on the same "scale" with the same number of rows/columns. I know this is going to take a little work for the evo8 map because it deals with probably more load points than a 1g/2g car does... but I think some quick math could extrapolate a similar table that would fit for a 1g or a 2g.

 

[toofast82]

Are you asking to see stock timing maps for the three, or our modified, or both?

 

[bling5tatus]

Yes, stock... and then modified ones too... so that people that aren't versed in this can understand what you're doing when you change a timing map to meet different needs.

 

[snowborder714]

There a few timing maps at the bottom of this page, which will need to be opened in V3.
v3configs [ECMTuning - wiki]

 

[LandoAWD]

1992awdlaser has posted the stock 1g and 2g maps here before...

 

[turbosax2]

Stock 1g and 2g can be found here:
The DSM ECU Timing Curve

 

[toofast82]

Stock 1g and 2g can be found here:
The DSM ECU Timing Curve

I seen that site, but the 1g map doesn't correlate exactly to my stock (e931) bin file
one example is from 5k up on last load map

5k 5.5k 6k 6.5k 7k
17 20 21 17 15- jeffgst.com
19 22 24 20 18- e931(stock bin)

Also I see the DsMap v2 base file seems to correlate what i believe to be the stock timing map.

The 2g timing map shown seems to match what I have for stock 2g maps for the 5th of 6maps in the file

 

[bling5tatus]

I would like for people to talk about their experiences... I don't need a primer on timing maps, I'm saying this could be helpful for other people....

Also, I'd like to see some talk about e85 in here since it can handle more timing and the timing maps associated with it.

 

[toofast82]

I would like for people to talk about their experiences... I don't need a primer on timing maps, I'm saying this could be helpful for other people....

Also, I'd like to see some talk about e85 in here since it can handle more timing and the timing maps associated with it.

I'll basically say my timing map is 13* at 3k and ramps up to 20* at 7k. This is about 20-21psi on 93octane. I'm about 5* less timing than stock 1g in the low range 2500-4500rpm to fight the knock. I'll be switching to E85 as soon as I get my Lc-1 back from Innovate. I've heard a good starting point is the stock 1gtiming for E85. I would think 5* more timing in those areas should be worth something without changing anything else.

 

[bling5tatus]

1g base timing map:

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

2g base timing map;

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

I don't know if the 2g map is accurate or would work well on a 1g. The 2g map from that page had 16 rows and 0 and 500 rpm at the beginning of the columns. I tried to adapt it as best as I could to match the 2g map and fit in a 1g table. I'm unsure if this is right though, so if anyone has any idea, let me know.

Also, I'd like to do an evo8 map that fits the 1g table as well just for grins... I know it's going to be a big pain because the evo maps are larger... so a lot of values will have to be "averaged" to work out.

 

[the_mork]

Ecuflash will interpolate the evo8 maps some, if you give me an idea of what you want the load axis to look like I can just cut off the high RPM areas and try to smoosh the rest together. I'll need a fair amount of insight into the left axis, I have no idea what 1-12 corresponds to.

Honestly the adapting should be easy. Find the load range on the evo8 map that corresponds to the number you are seeking and just pull the column (probably by copying it manually).

Here is a quick excerpt from evolutionm.net on tuning timing. The dots show what cells the evo hit during a full a pull.

Here is the timing map that I use on a lot of Evo 9s. Of course, every Evo is different and you will have to tweak this map to fit your need. Keep in mind that this map is set-up with 21-22 psi peak boost (3500-3700 rpm) and the boost holding @ 20.5 psi in the midrange and then tapering to 19 psi by redline. The AFR for this timing is 12-13 during spool-up, 11.6-11.7 during peak and gradually tapering to 11 by redline. It goes without saying, that if you run less boost, and a richer AFR then you can run more timing.

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

 

[bling5tatus]

Wow only 10 degrees sounds a little far fetched. I'm not saying I don't believe it, but compared to timing numbers that people report on fast 1g/2g ecu's this is a little low.... maybe that's because of extremely high boost?

I also was told by a reputable source that 1g ecus do not take into account sensor delay.

 

[the_mork]

Keep in mind that that is from a MIVEC car and I actually don't know if their base timing is 5* or not. It is also a lot of boost for the stock turbo and later on you see the fueling is fairly lean.

 

[the_mork]

Here is a stock 94170015 evo8 timing map.

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

 

[JayRolla]

I run e85 and a very aggressive timing curve. At about 3k rpms Im at 18* when boost is hitting. It slow ramps up too about 24* by 5k rpms and holds to redline. Ive gained over 40lb/tq in the lower rpms per ecmlink by adding more timing when boost hits and along the rpm curve. I do know that e85 loves timing. Ive added timing in my bro's car all the way to about 30* peak for testing and zero detonation.

For testing purposes I have ran a 2g timing map on e85. It felt real weak. Almost like the e85 needed higher timing just to get a good burn. Butt dyno and ecmlink showed a huge loss in tq and overall the car felt like a dog. Timing was only peaking around 16* and dropped below 10* when boost hits. Not sure if ecmlinks website for 2g timing on a 1g is off. My base timing may be off but it was set about 6 months ago dead on.

 

[toofast82]

I run e85 and a very aggressive timing curve. At about 3k rpms Im at 18* when boost is hitting. It slow ramps up too about 24* by 5k rpms and holds to redline. Ive gained over 40lb/tq in the lower rpms per ecmlink by adding more timing when boost hits and along the rpm curve. I do know that e85 loves timing. .

That's exactly what i'm looking for when I switch to E85

 

[Joesmoke]

I run e85 and a very aggressive timing curve. At about 3k rpms Im at 18* when boost is hitting. It slow ramps up too about 24* by 5k rpms and holds to redline. Ive gained over 40lb/tq in the lower rpms per ecmlink by adding more timing when boost hits and along the rpm curve. I do know that e85 loves timing. Ive added timing in my bro's car all the way to about 30* peak for testing and zero detonation.

For testing purposes I have ran a 2g timing map on e85. It felt real weak. Almost like the e85 needed higher timing just to get a good burn. Butt dyno and ecmlink showed a huge loss in tq and overall the car felt like a dog. Timing was only peaking around 16* and dropped below 10* when boost hits. Not sure if ecmlinks website for 2g timing on a 1g is off. My base timing may be off but it was set about 6 months ago dead on.

Bingo, The number one thing that people miss when they:
-switch to ethanol
-chemical injection (water water/meth)
-run race fuel

I cant imagine the 2g map (stock) with a slow burning mixture. That would be a dog!

Those always need more timing. The mixture just burns slower.

I either run a stock 1g map, or add a couple of degress of base timing in. This is with pure meth injection. The couple of degrees makes a difference.

 

[->PrOjEcTGS<-]

This is what I'm running for timing on a total of 10gph nozzles and 25psi on a S16g. I am running extended fuel and timing maps and this one is based off of the base 2g timing map. Also, I can probably get away with a couple more degrees of max timing.

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

 

[JeffGST]

I seen that site, but the 1g map doesn't correlate exactly to my stock (e931) bin file
one example is from 5k up on last load map

5k 5.5k 6k 6.5k 7k
17 20 21 17 15- jeffgst.com
19 22 24 20 18- e931(stock bin)

I am bringing this thread back because I see some of my data here, and so that I can explain why there are differences in your timing data and mine.

The reason is because of something called a "Propagation Delay Adjustment" in your timing data.
In the 1G ECU's, there is a time delay from when the ECU wants to fire the spark and when it actually happens.
The ECU includes the "Propagation Delay" right into the timing tables, so the values you have in the "E931 stock bin" are not what actually happens in the motor.

This is the exact delay that is factored in:

.4395 degrees per every 1000 RPM

Take the example from your table above.

7000 RPM - Your table with Propagation Delay = 18 Degrees BTDC
7000 RPM = My table with actual timing = 15 Degrees BTDC

7000 RPM * .4395 degrees = 3.07 degrees of delay

18 - 3.07 = Around 15 degrees

This is why your data and my data are essentially the same. It's just that my table is just what timing the motor actually gets, and your table is just when the ECU wants to fire the plugs.

 

[bling5tatus]

That's very good info! Thanks for posting that. I was also recently informed that the 1g timing may be a bit too aggressive for pump gas tunes. The factory used BCS and timing retard on knock to help the car be safer but still fast when those solutions were not needed. The 1g map is a good starting point for anyone using e85, but if using pump gas, I'd recommend starting with a 2g map and building your car's map on that... provided you have vacuum/pressure based timing control.

 

[wishihadatalon]

Does anyone ever use a dyno to tune their timing map? Or any gps software to tune it? I haven't but I have been reading a ton about how to get the perfect amount of timing and it simply can't be done on the road without a very expensive engine management that has some a high sample rate and some sort of gps function or some sort of data acquisition that includes a high sample rate gps. So I am mostly curious about the guys that say they are running aggressive timing maps and if they understand that you can reach a point (fuel allowing) where more timing doesn't add power, doesn't cause knock, but puts much more strain on your parts.

On my friends car, I am running 19 degrees of peak timing on e85 at 28psi. If I drop the timing back even 1 degree, there is an obvious difference in the butt dyno. That leads me to believe that because there is a large difference, I can continue to increase the timing amount but I am currently just playing it safe. We also run more timing around spool up. I realize that I could retard and help spool the turbo but I enjoy a smooth transition into boost and based on anything that I have ever seen, the amount of spool difference isn't worth the loss in power.

 

[JeffGST]

On my friends car, I am running 19 degrees of peak timing on e85 at 28psi. If I drop the timing back even 1 degree, there is an obvious difference in the butt dyno. That leads me to believe that because there is a large difference, I can continue to increase the timing amount but I am currently just playing it safe. We also run more timing around spool up. I realize that I could retard and help spool the turbo but I enjoy a smooth transition into boost and based on anything that I have ever seen, the amount of spool difference isn't worth the loss in power.

15 degrees BTDC on 91 octane
is not the same as
15 degrees BTDC on 100 octane
is not the same as
15 degrees BTDC on E85
is not the same as
15 degrees BTDC on C16

Guess which one of the above will make the most power??



























Answer = 91 Octane

The reason is because of the speed of the burn rate. The lower the octane the faster the burn, so you don't need as much timing to get a complete burn on 91 octane. The burn is so cool and slow on E85/C16 that you need to advance timing earlier just to get the same complete burn. Now since E85/C16 is a cool and slow burning fuel, you can advance timing much higher than 15 degrees to make more power.

So the bottom line is that you need to adjust the timing curve any time you change fuels. The optimal timing curve for 100 octane is not the same as C16. By just leaving the timing curve the same, you may actually lose power.

 

[bling5tatus]

Ha, I actually had the answer right in my head before I scrolled down. I'd like to see some timing "basemaps" posted here for various fuels if anyone wants to go through the trouble to do this.... of course I would like to see them in a 1g's table size.

Jeff - does that 2g table I converted up there to a 1g table's size look correct to you or is it off somewhere?

 

[wishihadatalon]

15 degrees BTDC on 91 octane
is not the same as
15 degrees BTDC on 100 octane
is not the same as
15 degrees BTDC on E85
is not the same as
15 degrees BTDC on C16

Guess which one of the above will make the most power??



























Answer = 91 Octane

The reason is because of the speed of the burn rate. The lower the octane the faster the burn, so you don't need as much timing to get a complete burn on 91 octane. The burn is so cool and slow on E85/C16 that you need to advance timing earlier just to get the same complete burn. Now since E85/C16 is a cool and slow burning fuel, you can advance timing much higher than 15 degrees to make more power.

So the bottom line is that you need to adjust the timing curve any time you change fuels. The optimal timing curve for 100 octane is not the same as C16. By just leaving the timing curve the same, you may actually lose power.

My question is does anyone know what they are doing with the timing when they just advance it because of the fuel? More timing doesn't just mean more power, tuning timing is about finding the correct amount for a proper burn which has to be done by comparing acceleration times. That is where the gps or dyno come in handy. My concern here is that tuning for knock on e85 with a smaller turbo will eventually result in failure because you more than likely will not get pre det so you will continue to advance your timing far past MBT which just puts high strain on your internals.

E85 burns faster than gasoline by the way. The only reason that you need more timing is because you have to add so much more fuel. Example, my fiance's car needed to have timing retarded during part throttle cruise to maintain good fuel economy on e85. Her car gets 28mpg on e85.

 

[JeffGST]

E85 burns faster than gasoline by the way. The only reason that you need more timing is because you have to add so much more fuel. Example, my fiance's car needed to have timing retarded during part throttle cruise to maintain good fuel economy on e85. Her car gets 28mpg on e85.

I should not have grouped E85 and C16 together.

E85 does burn faster than gasoline or leaded gasoline, but it is the cooling effect in the intake charge and the lower heat of combustion that allows you to advance timing further to achieve higher efficiencies. The fact that E85 requires more fuel than gasoline is irrelevant.

I do agree that there is a point of diminishing returns when advancing timing to far. E85 is extremely knock resistant, and any tuner can advance a motor well past the point where it will not make anymore power, and still not see any signs of knock. When I cracked my 2.0L block, I had no signs of knock retard on any of my logs. But I was also running 23-24 degrees of timing advance and 35 PSI of boost pressure on E85. The main culprit that cause my block to crack was internal rust cavitation, but I'm sure the excessive timing created combustion pressures that were very high.