Only 9-10* of total timing, yet I have it set at 18?

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:50 am

Out tuning my car last night, and it feels ok....but I think it is lacking some power. So I take a look at spark advance.....Cruising its in the 35-40s but when I hit WOT it drops down to 16-17.....and slowly drops to 9 or 10* at peak RPM's. I have a MSD 6BTM with the boost retard, but it is set at 0*. Loosing 9* of timing at WOT sounds like alot to me, whats the deal? Is this normal? What can I check to get my power back? Thanks.

P.S. I am on the J4J1 calibration now.

DrDirt · Post by **DrDirt** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:58 pm

Possibly you're initially hitting the 16-17 degrees that is set in your WOT Spark Advance vs RPM and then the WOT Spark advance vs ACT or WOT Spark Advance vs ECT is pulling some more as things heat up. Just a guess.

We probably need to hook up one of these days and compare notes and problems. :D

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:02 pm

Sounds good to me! Im trying to get this thing tuned by Saturday for the PBFBody track rental. Ill take a look at my tune to check on what you said. Is it bad that it is pulling timing like that or should I change it? 9* total isnt very much, is my car running too hot?

DrDirt · Post by **DrDirt** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:56 pm

Shoot me a copy of your tune and a datalog. I've only fooled around with the A9P but I'll take a look and see if anything looks strange. If my email isn't in the profile, it is on TR.

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:30 am

Where is the act sensor mounted, before or after the blower? If after the blower then that is probably why timing is being reduced.
Bob

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:02 pm

Its actuallly not even in the intake track. I had to swap MAF's and do some custom fab work and the only way I could do it for now is its zip tied next to the anderson power pipe. I figure air next to the filter cant be warmer then air in the filter. How can I fix this, this weekend is the track rental and I want my timing back! Isnt there a way to force the computer to use one table? Like enter 55 for all values or something?

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:34 pm

Well, without seeing your tune I don't know for sure what is going on. As far as "55 ing" the timing tables, I talk about that in the FAQ section under tuning a supercharged car. If you followed that advice then I would think you are just making a mistake in one of the spark tables.
Send me your current tune if you like, I'll take a look at it asap.
Bob

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:34 pm

You have mail! Anyone else wanna take a look? (Grady you have a PM on stangnet and Dr.Dirt, you have a PM on here!)

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:58 pm

I dont know if this will work, but its a try,

http://rapidshare.de/files/11399288/J4J1__MAFC.CCF.html <Thats my Tune

http://rapidshare.de/files/11399329/WOT ... 18.DB.html <Thats my Datalog

http://rapidshare.de/files/11399349/Twe ... l.doc.html <This is a Tuning Manual I put together.

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:10 am

Don't see anything on the download page except log in info, etc.
I also do not have any mail from you?
Bob

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:16 am

Hold on, think I got it..
Bob

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:02 pm

Got a look at your datalog, first thing I see is your load is too high everywhere, at idle and under boost. You should see around 20% load at idle but have 43%. Under boost you hit 200% which is probably why your timing is going strange although I did not see you get to 9 degrees, instead you hit 14.75 degrees under boost which is probably safe but not what you were commanding in the timing tables.
As far as load goes, I can think of 2 ways to correct that. The first is to put your "batt inj comp" values back to stock, then reduce your maf values until you get close to stockish values at least in the lower ranges. Once you do that you can adjust the "batt inj comp" values to get your fuel trims in line. Reducing the maf values will cause the eec to compute lower load values.
Or..you can try increasing the "sea level load scaling" values higher until you get the correct load values at idle, etc. You don't want to hit 200% load under boost. 140% would more normal unless you are running a lot of boost.
Bob

Chris Mureen · Post by **Chris Mureen** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:09 pm

Bob,

I'll argue with you a little on this in that hitting 200% of load doesn't hurt anything. It only affects the ability to apply grandular timing adjustments at boost levels above 200%. It won't cause the problem he is seeing.

I rescaled my load by one other approach and that was by changing engine displacement. Mine is now set as a 331 cu engine! Easy way to rescale the entire load functions.

Usually lower timing that surprises folks is because of the "adders" that can reduce timing based on fuel, ACT, or ECT.

Chris

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:57 pm

Ill try that, how much power do you think im loosing with the 14.7 degrees of timing compared to 18? Do you think the car is safe to race tomorrow at the track? I just printed your write up on tuning a supercharged car and well be messing with what you said at the track as soon as I find a power inverter.

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:22 pm

Chris Mureen wrote:Bob,

I'll argue with you a little on this in that hitting 200% of load doesn't hurt anything. It only affects the ability to apply grandular timing adjustments at boost levels above 200%. It won't cause the problem he is seeing.

I rescaled my load by one other approach and that was by changing engine displacement. Mine is now set as a 331 cu engine! Easy way to rescale the entire load functions.

Usually lower timing that surprises folks is because of the "adders" that can reduce timing based on fuel, ACT, or ECT.

Chris

I was waiting for that, Chris

I hear what you are saying, but I looked at his datalog and could not find a reason for the timing going lower than commanded in his case. I saw his act temps staying around 50 degrees and could not find any timing "adders/subtractors" that were active in his case. In fact, with such low act's he should be getting more timing rather than less.
The 200% load comment was just a guess on my part though..
Bob

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:49 pm

Should I just try to make up for it with the Global Spark Adder for the track day?

pthornton · Post by **pthornton** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:32 pm

Nevermind.

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:20 pm

pthornton wrote:Nevermind.

??? Speak your voice man! I need all the help I can get!

sailorbob · Post by **sailorbob** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:20 pm

Re the ACT sensor positioning;

on_ice wrote:Its actuallly not even in the intake track. I had to swap MAF's and do some custom fab work and the only way I could do it for now is its zip tied next to the anderson power pipe. I figure air next to the filter cant be warmer then air in the filter.

Am I missing something obvious here :? The air temperature sensor is reading under hood temperatures and not what's going into the engine. Very wrong.

final5-0 · Post by **final5-0** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:43 pm

on_ice wrote:You have mail! Anyone else wanna take a look? (Grady you have a PM on stangnet and Dr.Dirt, you have a PM on here!)

Just now saw this thread!

Like Bob, I did not see the spark dip down as low as 9 at wot.

Do you think the msd is holding a bit of spark back?

Grady

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:00 pm

sailorbob wrote:Re the ACT sensor positioning;
on_ice wrote:Its actuallly not even in the intake track. I had to swap MAF's and do some custom fab work and the only way I could do it for now is its zip tied next to the anderson power pipe. I figure air next to the filter cant be warmer then air in the filter.
Am I missing something obvious here :? The air temperature sensor is reading under hood temperatures and not what's going into the engine. Very wrong.

No, its reading temps from right next to the filter, which is in my fenderwell behind my foglight. Eventually itll make its way back into the intake track....but I dont think it is making much of a difference right now.

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:01 pm

And no it didnt dip down to 9 in this datalog, but in another it did when it was warmer out and I had a different MAF curve on there. Any other guesses before the track rental?

sailorbob · Post by **sailorbob** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:16 am

on_ice wrote:I dont think it is making much of a difference right now.

Hmm, it's almost certainly nothing to do with your current problem, but it should be positioned after the Vortech asap so that you get a true ACT reading.

86GT · Post by **86GT** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:08 am

The general rule of thumb on the HP per degree of spark is 4. Every degree of spark is worth 4 horsepower.

This is a figure that Kenne Bell goes by.

Chris Mureen · Post by **Chris Mureen** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:27 pm

86GT wrote:The general rule of thumb on the HP per degree of spark is 4. Every degree of spark is worth 4 horsepower.

This is a figure that Kenne Bell goes by.

Really?! Wild!. So I gain only 4 hp by going from 18 to 19 degrees at WOT? This isn't consistent with what I have seen on cars.

Chris

86GT · Post by **86GT** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:08 pm

Chris Mureen wrote:
86GT wrote:The general rule of thumb on the HP per degree of spark is 4. Every degree of spark is worth 4 horsepower.

This is a figure that Kenne Bell goes by.
Really?! Wild!. So I gain only 4 hp by going from 18 to 19 degrees at WOT? This isn't consistent with what I have seen on cars.

Chris

This is what Kenny Bell posts on there site. What have you seen?

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:28 pm

Bump, car is still having issues. I went to the track to get some datalogs and it does dip down to 9* in one of them. When the car was somewhat cool it would trap at 113, and when its hot the best was 106. Thats compared to the 114.5 it went before the heads/cam.

boss96 · Post by **boss96** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:22 am

I know it was talked about above but did you get your load values straightened out?
Bob

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:18 am

I did try it, by raising my cubic inches to 331. It still pulled timing so I set it back to stock. Im not 100% clear on what you said, but ill whip out my other laptop later and take a look at it.

on_ice · Post by **on_ice** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:30 am

boss96 wrote:Got a look at your datalog, first thing I see is your load is too high everywhere, at idle and under boost. You should see around 20% load at idle but have 43%. Under boost you hit 200% which is probably why your timing is going strange although I did not see you get to 9 degrees, instead you hit 14.75 degrees under boost which is probably safe but not what you were commanding in the timing tables.
As far as load goes, I can think of 2 ways to correct that. The first is to put your "batt inj comp" values back to stock, then reduce your maf values until you get close to stockish values at least in the lower ranges. Once you do that you can adjust the "batt inj comp" values to get your fuel trims in line. Reducing the maf values will cause the eec to compute lower load values.
Or..you can try increasing the "sea level load scaling" values higher until you get the correct load values at idle, etc. You don't want to hit 200% load under boost. 140% would more normal unless you are running a lot of boost.
Bob

Ok, im looking at my laptop and I can not even find "batt inj comp" anywhere on CalEdit. And I cant find "sea level load scaling" either, are you talking about "Sealevel Load Scaling vs RPM"?

Only 9-10* of total timing, yet I have it set at 18?

Who is online