dyno results are in...

[GTJake]

Weird, my entered value for the spark advance is 29* and it the altitude table it's 30*, but I'm seeing 42* advance when datalogging. This is at .8 load. At .005 load it's set to 42*. Here's a pic...

Jake

 

[greg@berkeley]

weird. what's your global spark adder scalar set at? is your base timing 10 degrees?

 

[GTJake]

Base timing 10*. The scalar for the spark_adder_global is 0.

Jake

 

[Killercanary]

Greg, GREAT numbers. You guys are making my combo look bad with all your >300rwhp and the torque you are all making is sickening! I think you guys need to help school me with the timing tables and such so I can try out a few things with my old school eec tuner. Anyone care to help me out?

 

[final5-0]

The final spark values on our pcm's are derived form many tables, scalers, & even functions. I have disabled my borderline & mbt spark tables cause they were messing with what I wanted for a final spark curve.

The Tweecer site has a very good write up on how various tables, scalers and such come into play to give you the final spark values you see in your datalogs and it explains it much better than I could.

As for the global adders for fuel & spark, I have not used them much. I usually just change only the points I need to.

As for the load values, I agree with Greg about the harder your car is working, the higher or upper load rows in the tables are being used to give the values. It is a fact that there are various opinions about which load column (load or load%) is being used to arrive at the final values.

Later
Grady

 

[jetuomi]

Greg, GREAT numbers. You guys are making my combo look bad with all your >300rwhp and the torque you are all making is sickening! I think you guys need to help school me with the timing tables and such so I can try out a few things with my old school eec tuner. Anyone care to help me out?

hey, I'll drop you a line with screen shots tomorrow of my spark tables but here is what I run for now @ the highest load % (92.99% in my case).. also my dist. is at 13* timing so my #'s are + 3..

spark_base_table.
rpm 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000
spk 16 18 24 26 30 32 30 30 32 32

spark_MBT_table.
rpm 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000
spk 16 22 29 30 33 33


my 6037 performers are ported and the intake side is very clean and my combo really seems to like this timing, these are with 87 octane gas too.. I'm slowly adding more up top, I'd like to dyno to figure out where my torque peak is but I'm guessing its around 4500-4800..

also, I'd like to ask, what's the diff between std. and raw #'s, on my dyno the STD #'s are the ?raw? numbers? SAE is the adjustments, so I don't really see the argument above..

finally, great #'s !!! could you share a bit about what you learned in that 75 minutes of tuning??? TX !!

 

[Stangfreak95]

Great numbers

OT: HIJACKING

I know I'm annoying with this, but by this dyno, tell me his SHIFTPOINTS..
Thanks

 

[greg@berkeley]

Weird, my entered value for the spark advance is 29* and it the altitude table it's 30*, but I'm seeing 42* advance when datalogging. This is at .8 load. At .005 load it's set to 42*. Here's a pic...

Jake

jake, as far as i know, th altitude table isn't used in our 94-95 cars. the table i use is the spark_base_table. that table does the trick for me.

thanks to everyone else who replied! i'll reply with some (hopefully) useful information tomorrow as i'm dead tired right now.

 

[zenboy99]

Wow! Why did he spin your car out so far? He only took mine to like 5900.

Thats what I was thinking too. Great numbers though, very similar to mine. If you do decide to drag somewhere in the Minneapolis area let me know, I'm up there about once a month.

 

[tmoss]

As far as "STD" numbers go, you guys are arguing sematics, because the "STD" number represents the atmospheric conditions that existed that day at that time at the dyno - if they are input to the dyno by a weather station. Oth3r wise they have to be input manually. Did your dyno have the weather input automatically from a weather station at the dyno? They are a tweak to the actual raw number, but they are correct for the atmospheric conditions on that day. And you will find that SAE does has two different correction factors to two different temperatures. Do your homework or go the the full thread I posted for the full explanation.

 

[greg@berkeley]

so tom, if std are the actual numbers for the current conditions (and yes, the dyno has a weather station away from the heat of the car and any fan and the exhaust is taken out of the room through hoses), what do the raw numbers represent? i know you are a very knowledgeable source here, and i've learned some things from your other posts, but on this one i'm going to have to agree w/my tuner. he owns a dyno, so i'm assuming he knows what he's talking about. also, it just makes sense that raw numbers are RAW, and the other numbers are corrected to different conditions. if you want, i can find out what weather conditions each standard (std and sae) are corrected for.

no flames here, i'm just arguing what i believe to be true.

 

[greg@berkeley]

killer, thanks! as far as timing goes, i learned that having the timing advanced 34 or 35 degrees across the board is not good. i gained be lowering the timing to 27 degrees at 2000 and gradually increasing the advance to 32 at 5000. as the tuner said, it's always a good thing when you can make more or keep the same power at lower timing values.

also, it's good to disable the borderline (bdln) table by setting all values to 55 since i'm told (but can't confirm) the tweecer uses the lowest value between the bdln and base tables (and very possibly the mbt table like grady said, but i can't confirm this from my experience). the altitude table doesn't come into play for our cars as far as my experience has gone.

one more important thing to know when tuning fuel tables is to change the wot fuel multiplier function to read 1 for every rpm value. that way, datalogs will more directly reflect the fuel tables. this was one of the first things we did on the dyno.

again, i'll be gone for the rest of the day, but i can try to answer any questions late tonight.

 

[greg@berkeley]

Great numbers

OT: HIJACKING

I know I'm annoying with this, but by this dyno, tell me his SHIFTPOINTS..
Thanks

my tuner said i should be shift very close to 6000. the idea is to get the most area under the curve for each gear. someone here has a spreadsheet that calculates shift points based on dyno graphs...

 

[greg@berkeley]

As far as "STD" numbers go, you guys are arguing sematics, because the "STD" number represents the atmospheric conditions that existed that day at that time at the dyno - if they are input to the dyno by a weather station. Oth3r wise they have to be input manually. Did your dyno have the weather input automatically from a weather station at the dyno? They are a tweak to the actual raw number, but they are correct for the atmospheric conditions on that day. And you will find that SAE does has two different correction factors to two different temperatures. Do your homework or go the the full thread I posted for the full explanation.

LET US FINALLY PUT THIS TO REST.

i just got off the phone w/a dynojet rep. on their 1-800 number. he said that STD and SAE are both correction factors for different standard atmospheric conditions. STD is outdated because it isn't really used anymore by any major manufacturer/magazine/etc. He didn't have the actual temp/pressure/humidity values for the standards, but he did have the SAE formula (revision June 1990), which is as follows:

CF=1.18*29.22/BDO*TO+460/537-0.18

where
CF=correction factor
BDO=dry ambient absolute pressure
TO=intake air temperature

i suppose this means the standard pressure is 29.22mmHg, but the rest doesn't make immediate semse to me.

he said there very well may be another standard that can be applied to dynos, but the standard dynojet uses is the same as the one used by all major manufacturers and magazines. he also said that they didn't even have the STD formula in thier manuals because it is so uncommonly used today, but it would be something like the above formula w/different numbers.

 

[GTJake]

Greg what kind of load do you see at WOT?

Jake

 

[94DreamGT]

LET US FINALLY PUT THIS TO REST.

i just got off the phone w/a dynojet rep. on their 1-800 number. he said that STD and SAE are both correction factors for different standard atmospheric conditions. STD is outdated because it isn't really used anymore by any major manufacturer/magazine/etc. He didn't have the actual temp/pressure/humidity values for the standards, but he did have the SAE formula (revision June 1990), which is as follows:

CF=1.18*29.22/BDO*TO+460/537-0.18

where
CF=correction factor
BDO=dry ambient absolute pressure
TO=intake air temperature

i suppose this means the standard pressure is 29.22mmHg, but the rest doesn't make immediate semse to me.

he said there very well may be another standard that can be applied to dynos, but the standard dynojet uses is the same as the one used by all major manufacturers and magazines. he also said that they didn't even have the STD formula in thier manuals because it is so uncommonly used today, but it would be something like the above formula w/different numbers.

There ya have it folks...straight from the mouth of a fella who works at the company who makes the chasis dyno equipment. I'm tending to believe him.

Sorry Tom...looks like STD isn't what was "actually" made...it is just another correction factor that tends not to be used anymore. Look at any magazine, visit an event, or go to any shop...people use SAE. Only benefit I would see to stating STD numbers if they were higher than SAE and you're trying to overinflate your numbers. Like I said, my STD #'s were like 310/340...but no one uses that so its pointless to compare.

 

[greg@berkeley]

Greg what kind of load do you see at WOT?

Jake

jake, on my last dyno run, i saw 84 load (120% load) at 2600, up to 99 load (126% load) at 4700, and back down to 84 load (120% load) at 6000. compared to a datalog from a few weeks ago on a backroad, those numbers are close to equal in the 4000 and up range, but up to 6 high at 2600 (that is, my real world numbers were 6 lower at 2600). if i did a datalog tomorrow, it might more closely match the dyno numbers.

brian (the tuner) said that the eec does not interpolate, but instead takes the lower value. for example, if the load is 74, the eec will use the spark value for .7 load, not .8 or an intermediate value. based on this and the load values i see at wot, i changed my fuel and spark numbers so that they are the same for load values of .7 and higher.

 

[greg@berkeley]

There ya have it folks...straight from the mouth of a fella who works at the company who makes the chasis dyno equipment. I'm tending to believe him.

Sorry Tom...looks like STD isn't what was "actually" made...it is just another correction factor that tends not to be used anymore. Look at any magazine, visit an event, or go to any shop...people use SAE. Only benefit I would see to stating STD numbers if they were higher than SAE and you're trying to overinflate your numbers. Like I said, my STD #'s were like 310/340...but no one uses that so its pointless to compare.

and if the word directly from dynojet weren't enough, let's think about this ourselves:
my SAE numbers were 334/309. on that day, the temp was in the mid 80s and it was pretty humid. therefore, my actual power would be lower than the corrected sae values (i think they are 70 degrees and dry air), right? well, my STD numbers 341/315. that alone proves that std numbers are not the actual numbers. in fact, my RAW numbers were 1 or 2 less than my SAE numbers.

 

[final5-0]

jake, on my last dyno run, i saw 84 load (120% load) at 2600, up to 99 load (126% load) at 4700, and back down to 84 load (120% load) at 6000. compared to a datalog from a few weeks ago on a backroad, those numbers are close to equal in the 4000 and up range, but up to 6 high at 2600 (that is, my real world numbers were 6 lower at 2600). if i did a datalog tomorrow, it might more closely match the dyno numbers.

The two maf datalog options can be a good thing to look at cause if you move more air you make more hp provided the maf transfer is not outa whack or you are pig rich on the big end.

Example: When I was running the stock maf/tb I pulled about 820 killa grams.
After the 80 mm maf & 65 mm tb with a rough maf transfer and the
af ratio kinda close, 6200 rpm in 3rd gear showed about 935 killa
grams.

I would like to compare with you other guys but I can't work on my final af ratio cause I gotta get my inj stuff dialed in to work good with the larger maf & tb first.

brian (the tuner) said that the eec does not interpolate, but instead takes the lower value. for example, if the load is 74, the eec will use the spark value for .7 load, not .8 or an intermediate value. based on this and the load values i see at wot, i changed my fuel and spark numbers so that they are the same for load values of .7 and higher.

I also have the two top rows of the spark table values the same. Maybe I just don't understand the interpolate thing but I thought it was that the pcm would use values between two cells that you did not have in them.
I don't claim to be any kind of tuning guru but I'm not so sure about that statement. It may be that way on the fox body pcm's but for our pcm's I think that is not the case. When I look at say spark, I don't see it suddenly jump to the next spark value in the next cell of the table. It seems to me to be smooth and I'm pretty sure the folks I consider to be knowledgeable from the tweecer sites have said that the Cabaza strategy does interpolate. I'm not gonna say I disagree with your tuner but I have seen a lot of people think that the 94-95 pcm's work like the fox body pcm's. Just a thought on my part cause I'm not sure.

 

[greg@berkeley]

Example: When I was running the stock maf/tb I pulled about 820 killa grams.
After the 80 mm maf & 65 mm tb with a rough maf transfer and the
af ratio kinda close, 6200 rpm in 3rd gear showed about 935 killa
grams.

I would like to compare with you other guys but I can't work on my final af ratio cause I gotta get my inj stuff dialed in to work good with the larger maf & tb first.

at 6200rpm in 4th on the dyno i saw 950 kilograms/hour.

I also have the two top rows of the spark table values the same. Maybe I just don't understand the interpolate thing but I thought it was that the pcm would use values between two cells that you did not have in them.
I don't claim to be any kind of tuning guru but I'm not so sure about that statement. It may be that way on the fox body pcm's but for our pcm's I think that is not the case. When I look at say spark, I don't see it suddenly jump to the next spark value in the next cell of the table. It seems to me to be smooth and I'm pretty sure the folks I consider to be knowledgeable from the tweecer sites have said that the Cabaza strategy does interpolate. I'm not gonna say I disagree with your tuner but I have seen a lot of people think that the 94-95 pcm's work like the fox body pcm's. Just a thought on my part cause I'm not sure.

actually, i think you might be right, grady. the comp certainly interpolates some values (like the maf transfer above), and if your datalogs show smooth curves, it must be interpolating. my tuner probably assumed it worked like the older comps. thanks for posting that.