I strongly suspect that my AF/X ECU reverted to stock settings. I previously mentioned the 7800 redline. I just did my dyno work and came up with those numbers. Not bad but I was wondering more about the AF I'm showing. In my runs I am mostly under 13 to 1. I thought the AF/X leaned it out some, so if that's the case is stock in the 11's and 12's???.

Now I know that there may be differences because of mods but I want a baseline idea of what stock is. I did do a search and pretty much came up empty. Can someone at least point me in the right direction?

Thanks,
MB

Oh yeah, I didn't make those 6's up just because it is 6/6/06

I can say that the AFX/R I had never allowed me to get much past 7800rpm, but I can *definitely* tell a difference between things just by seat of the pants. Whereas, before, it would pull all the way to spark cut (7800) and still feel like it had more to go, back on the dumdum stocker, I can totally feel it pulling timing or something above 6000rpm. The car literally slows down while being just as loud.

Takes all the fun out of it.

EDIT:
This is to say I don't know that they revert back to stock settings, but I do suspect it's related to LTFT or something. I have no instrumentation to back that up, but it's a theory. Just wanted to say that, even with the 7800rpm limit, it's still worlds better than stock.

You know what, Brian? That's a good point. I may have gotten spoiled by having the AF/X all this time and losing that redline. Now I may be just nit picking at things to try and solve this problem (though I still look at the AF's and wonder about what stock should be). I wish I could post the dyno run (I can't seem to figure out the host-pics thing ) because the arcs are pretty much like what you want. Nice smooth upward arc to maybe 6500 peak. Then a slow gradual drop off to.....FUEL CUT! Aurgh! I should be over 150 at 8k. So when I shift, I drop right into my power again. Just the way it should be.

Yeah, as I recollect, stock had a pretty nasty drop off after the power peak. But that does not change the fact that the AF numbers seem to be pretty rich for a ECU that is supposed to pull fuel.

Thanks for the reminder though.
MB

Edit: I just realized that I can post pics on Tuners. If interested, see this link:
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=50387926#post50387926

Those are pretty good numbers really. I personally wouldnt run any leaner than 13:1 A/F, esp with the ecu adding a little timing. With those HP and torque numbers, it souunds like its tuned really well i think. If you richened up the fuel, you would prob notice the HP go down a little, while the torque went up. Richer A/F generally makes more torque and less HP, while leaner makes more HP and less torque. Torque really is the numbe to shoot for, in the longrun anyway. Get a Megasquirt installed and you can do whatever you want with fuel and spark timing

13.5 @108 MPH-2.2 60ft(stupid FWD!)
S16G @ 18 PSI/FMIC/Running on MegaSquirt II (Now with sequential
fuel injection)
My webpage: http://eclipsed4evr.home.comcast.net
-1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse RS-T- "Toy"
-1992 Plymouth Laser Turbo AWD(SOLD)
-2000 Honda CR-V(daily)

Never was a dyno queen, the only reason we used the dyno was for tuning comparisons (1 jet vs another jet, what timing spring to use on the distributor etc.). Peak horsepower really did not mean too much. But what we did look at is the curve itself. We would try to get horsepower to last as long as possible after the peak because torque would fall off quickly when it started to fall. Of course you needed to balance that with your torque drop off (as you say in your post) Torque is what gets you there and horsepower is what keeps you there.

That being said, your opinion is that 13:1 is a pretty good number, huh? If that's the case (as I look at my dyno sheet), then I guess I'm sitting pretty good. It's just that at around 4400 I get a jump in my A/F (up to around 14.1) and I get a corresponding jump in both Torque and HP. Then it drops back down as does the A/F. I was thinking that before I dynoed that I should be seeing more like 14 for NA. These numbers too dangerous? Yeah, 10.9 comp might cause some problems this lean but I was thinking that would be more where we wanted it.

If you are interested enough the dyno sheet is posted on tuners. Link in previous post.

And Brian has been selling the MSnS concept for quite awhile. He almost had me sold. It's just a little too complicated for me right now. Not too used to the computer stuff yet (but getting there).

I really appreciate the input. Any other input/opinions are gratefully accepted ,

MB

13.5 @108 MPH-2.2 60ft(stupid FWD!)
S16G @ 18 PSI/FMIC/Running on MegaSquirt II (Now with sequential
fuel injection)
My webpage: http://eclipsed4evr.home.comcast.net
-1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse RS-T- "Toy"
-1992 Plymouth Laser Turbo AWD(SOLD)
-2000 Honda CR-V(daily)

2016 WRX STi Limited (current)
2001 A4 1.8tqms (donated)
1991 GVR4 #1933 (sold)
old.dsmregistry.com/detail.php?carid=218 (dismantled)

I agree with 13:1 being just right, what's what we tuned my cougar to on the dyno, but I actually richened it to 12.5:1 to be safe since I'm running 11.5:1.

And I do remember my 2gnt had a spike right around 4400-4500 as well, I had to pull less fuel in that area when compared to the rest of the RPM range.

~Luke
Facebook
1969 Cougar - 11.91 - 380HP
2007 GSXR 750
1999 OZ - SOLD - 15.26 NA - 14.71 on 75 shot

All this talk about C3s and tuning NA MSnS makes me sad. So much shit to do and so much of that shit comes before Daisy, who is bleeding to death at the moment.

Just curious, Mark, where do you have you intake cam set? I haven't done shit in terms of actual tuning, so I'm just curious to hear what others are trying.

Thanks.

First off cougar, thanks for the confirmation on the spike at around 4400. That helps support the theory that it IS a design situation. Cool.

Brian, yeah, I feel your pain. Time is sometimes more valuable than money. I, as usual, did a bit of research about 2 years ago on the cam adjustment. What I have found (as you point out) is once the cams are degreed to 0 then do not touch the exhaust cam (ok just to clarify so that I don't get anihilated; this is my opinion based on my research). If you look at the dyno sheet next to the max read outs you will see numbers written in. Those are my intake cam settings. Oddly enough I found that 4 degrees advanced worked the best. I say oddly because that is the number that I was using for stock. Purely just coincidence but funny just the same.

Casbon, what's an idle, lol?! My safc will smooth that out for me a little but with the comp, the throttle body and the cams, idle is just a hopeful.
REALLY, REALLY interesting about Brian's old AF/X. Funny how his does the same as mine is now doing and yet it is not the ECU that is the problem. Yeah, I'm still burned up a little by this. I'm not asking Howell to do anything but fix the problem. I'll pay for it. But it does me no good when Gary says there is nothing wrong with the ECU. Those extra rpms are critical for 14.8 or 14.7 (which I believe I can get with the right launch). I'm actually putting a 190 walbro in there to erase any doubt that it is my fuel. Everything else is checked or changed. Frustration. Yeah, I know, get the MSnS, lol!

Thanks again for the input,
MB

~Luke
Facebook
1969 Cougar - 11.91 - 380HP
2007 GSXR 750
1999 OZ - SOLD - 15.26 NA - 14.71 on 75 shot

2016 WRX STi Limited (current)
2001 A4 1.8tqms (donated)
1991 GVR4 #1933 (sold)
old.dsmregistry.com/detail.php?carid=218 (dismantled)

The idle will depend upon other factors beside the cam. TB size, port job, comp, A/F ratio etc (plus I got a TPS problem).

Casbon, thanks for the log info. Yeah it does look like you are close to that same range as I am. In the 3rd gear pulls on the dyno, when we looked at it on the computer the cut outs were almost identical 78xx. So I really believe that there is something wrong with the ECU. I just got my 190 walbro so when I replace it that will remove any doubt that it could be something else (as I said I replaced or checked pretty much anything else that could be associated with it). At that point I will go back to Gary and see what he says. Obviously, if I get a fix I will let you know.

My afc is now in, but my Uego is not yet. So I worked off the dyno graph to get myself a better idle (better not good ).

Ok, Luke, I knew these computers would be a whole new world when I got into these and I gotta tell you, that is not a "normal" Hp curve to me. What we worked with in my "younger" years was a smooth increase in Hp and then a slow gradual drop off toward the end of the rpm range. The torque curve would intersect a little before peak hp then drop off. Hence the old saying of TQ will get you there and horsepower will keep you there. How you can keep that even a HP range is beyond me at the moment. I presume that is a standalone tuning set-up of some kind to do that. Extremely curious.

MB

I wired in my SAFC this past weekend...and it definately has helped smooth the idle out some. Unfortunately I don't have an EGT gauge so I really don't want to get in too deep of tuning the car right now...I've only adjusted fuel in the low-throttle settings and keeping the voltage around .90-.92volts.

Once I'm back from a mini-vacation at the end of this month in Chicago...I'll be purchasing a ZT-2 I thinks .


http://www.dsmregistry.com/detail.php?carid=1185

Even with the AFX/ECU you still get that dip in torque at about 3600rpm huh? That's too bad. Really interesting to see how much the torque curve follows the AFR curve. Good pics

Representing the Central Cali chapter of 2GNT!
(I think I'm the only member )

2016 WRX STi Limited (current)
2001 A4 1.8tqms (donated)
1991 GVR4 #1933 (sold)
old.dsmregistry.com/detail.php?carid=218 (dismantled)

Damn, I missed that discussion, I've been pissed about that dip since I bought the car! Somebody warm-up the ol' search engine for me!

Representing the Central Cali chapter of 2GNT!
(I think I'm the only member )

Yeah, finding that dip in the AF/X just helps support the theory of the design "flaw" (which I find interesting). I've got the safc on and the Uego done. I gotta get my logger and then I may take a shot at that area, just for fun. As it is, I don't use that rpm range for racing so it is just a curiousity. Got rained out friday and hope to go wednesday.

If I haven't said it, this post has been very helpful in my understanding of these cars. One step closer to MSnS

Just want to state up front, that I am not post whoring or double posting. This will also be in the racing section. I wanted to get this info onto this thread because I think it relates to the direction of the thread. Should someone find this in searching or are "following along at home" I think this will help educate them.

That being said, I went back to the track Wednesday and pulled a new low:

14.757@93.83 mph with a 2.259 launch

Yeah, pretty cool numbers, that I will lower (barring any weirdo stuff). But the point of this being the importance of torque numbers vs the importance of high HP numbers. While they are intertwined, some people will sacrifice their torque numbers to get a little higher horsepower numbers (this is an old argument. I don't really see it with these cars, though). When I did my recent dyno runs, I was able to up my hp by a mear 3hp. But I upped my torque numbers (along the whole band) from 6 to 13 ft/lbs.

The only things that were different was that I had a lower redline and the track was running pretty slow (due to sloppy weather). I would say in my unscientific way, that the torque gained was probably the difference.

MB