Help me read my logs

[StealBlueSHO]

Hey AJ!  Wanted to say thanks for the work on this issue, I was able to use this information to help someone over on SHOforum, all straightened out now   Thanks also to scott for bringing this topic to light, and FoMoCo for assisting with the analysis/asking the right questions.  :thumb:

LOL, that would be me over that SHOforum. Although, unfortunately I am still having an issue. I talked to Torrie and he said that I am having fuel pressures issues. However, looking at Scott's logs, mine are almost identical. I am going to go ahead and attach the two logs I have if you want to compare or have any thoughts...

My first tune based on MAP sensor I was pushing 20psi.. load was over 2.0... ambient air was around 50F. Torrie has dropped the boost a bit since then as the revisions are progressing...

Rolling-WOT-93B1-Modified - This is the problematic run, its gotten a bit better with each revision. I get knock and then fuel pressure drops, and the TB closes up a bit. This was a run from around 60mph to 80mph. I can duplicate this every time I do it.

WOT-from-Stop-93B1-Modified - This the cleanest WOT from a stop that I have. No knock, no TB closing, no MAJOR fuel drop.

What bothers me is that Torrie thinks I need to look at troubleshooting my fuel system... either fuel pump, module, or HPFP... but looking at Scotts logs seems to be similar, did Scott replace any of  those parts?

 

[SHOdded]

Pretty mild knock, as knock readings go.  I did see the load again exceed 1.8 (to nearly 2.0) during the WOT-from-Rolling log when it dumped fuel pressure.  Stayed under 1.8 for the WOT-from-Stop run.

 

[Scott4957]

I have not replaced any parts. I believe that fuel drop out is caused by a spike in load but feel free to mention my logs to Torrie, maybe he can explain in more detail why he thinks its an issue with the fuel system on your car but not mine. Maybe when AJ gets in front of a PC he can look at them side by side and tell you what the difference if any is.

And yes, I see now that boost and spark are the inverse of one another.

 

[StealBlueSHO]

Thanks Scott! I might have already mentioned it based on SHOdded's comments on the SHOforum.com   I am not sure why Torrie is worried about my fuel pressure versus not being worried about yours. The graphs look VERY similar.

SHOdded I thought that was a little weird too that WOT from a roll produced quite a bit more load than from a stop...


Torrie did send me another tune file based on those datalogs that I loaded but have not datalogged yet. Going to datalog those as well and see what, if any difference there is.

Seems like the trend is that most people are running 14-16psi for boost but any higher and they were going either ethanol mixtures or WM to assist the fuel delivery. But I could be reading that wrong.. maybe Torrie just tunes aggressive (which I asked for) and then backs it down until he finds that sweet spot... again.. I dunno..

 

[BiGMaC]

SHOdded I thought that was a little weird too that WOT from a roll produced quite a bit more load than from a stop...

Is it both with the grannies on and with them off... If traction control is off then the ECU may be closing you down a bit from standing start to keep wheel spin controlled.... Leading to more TQ from a roll.

 

[SHOdded]

Is it both with the grannies on and with them off... If traction control is off then the ECU may be closing you down a bit from standing start to keep wheel spin controlled.... Leading to more TQ from a roll.

Agreed, BiGMaC :thumb: , hoping AJ can shed some light on how this would look on datalogs ...

 

[ElvenSho]

If you guys had a choice between 93 e0 and 93 e10 which one would you pick to tune for best performance?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Edit: from what I was told ethanol allowes more timing which would mean 93e10 would make for a stronger car?

 

[StealBlueSHO]

Is it both with the grannies on and with them off... If traction control is off then the ECU may be closing you down a bit from standing start to keep wheel spin controlled.... Leading to more TQ from a roll.

Agreed, BiGMaC :thumb: , hoping AJ can shed some light on how this would look on datalogs ...

So, there is a PID for source TQ which I believe lets you know if the traction control kicks in or at least is an indicator it did. Torrie had me log that too just to make sure and it doesn't. I have a non-pp so I can only disable it so much.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Scott4957]

Seems like the trend is that most people are running 14-16psi for boost but any higher and they were going either ethanol mixtures or WM to assist the fuel delivery. But I could be reading that wrong.. maybe Torrie just tunes aggressive (which I asked for) and then backs it down until he finds that sweet spot... again.. I dunno..

That may be accurate for Meth as it will add fuel outside of the HPFP, but if fuel pressure is keeping you from pushing the car further on a tune then I don't think E will help much as you need more fuel with an E mix. It seems that 13 plus cars have some room for an E mix. I think if Torrie sent you another tune he is still feeling it out so there may not be an issue. Have you considered loading the stock tune and logging, then comparing to your tune logs or another stock log? Just a thought.

 

[StealBlueSHO]

I thought about loading the stock tune and datalogging which is what I should have done before tuning so I had a baseline. I just don't want to switch out all the spark plugs again... I probably should though if I still have fuel issues...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Scott4957]

I wouldn't worry about the plugs. Go back to the 2 bar if you have installed a 3bar of course.

 

[StealBlueSHO]

I wouldn't worry about the plugs. Go back to the 2 bar if you have installed a 3bar of course.

Awesome, I was just checking to see if the .030 gap would cause a problem. Apparently it does not between you and everyone else. Thank you for the input.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[StealBlueSHO]

Had a chance this morning to revert to stock and do some datalogging to get a baseline.. My fuel pressure stays above 14.2 MPA during the entire WOT-From-Roll-Stock.CSV and load jumps to 1.54 during the downshift but evens out to 1.3-1.4 during the run.

Not sure if this adds anything to whats going on during the runs with the tune. But at least I have baseline at stock..no fuel pressure issues at stock...

 

[ajpturbo]

I dont think not having a fuel pressure problem while stock helps anything...there is not enough load oe boost at stock levels to tax the fuel system

 

[StealBlueSHO]

I dont think not having a fuel pressure problem while stock helps anything...there is not enough load oe boost at stock levels to tax the fuel system

I agree, just more curious if there was an issue before the tune that I didn't know about.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[JDW1]

Cool id like to checkem out later...often knock sensors show activity at the shift not because of mechanical noise from the actual shift but load(boost) will spike and if the spark isnt retarded enough you can knock a little.....if your load spikes above 1.8 briefly the spark tables arent normalized meaning anything above 1.8 load the spark will be what it is for 1.8 but should be lower.....like if 1.8 load at 5k should be 13 degrees 1.85 load you would want maybe 11 degrees  but the spark tables only go up to 1.8 so u get that spark

And the increased load spike at the upshift is usually the culprit for fuel pressure drop

And a hot 3 bar tune u may be in the 1.6-1.7 load range with spikes near 1.8 or more....so u are right there i bet with torrie

And if he is using torque reductions for the upshifts..the ecu will pull spark to limit output...thats 1 way it controls tq on the shift so that could make u see spark being pulled with no knock

I highly doubt its mechanical noise from tranny causing knock...knock has a very specific sound frequency thats why i dont buy the wire mod for the knock sensor fixing anything...vibration from a rubbing wire wont do anything unless is worn bare then that's different

I had no idea our advance tables only go to 1.8 load, that's weak sauce.  What do the big power guys do?

 

[JDW1]

Also, can anyone give a kpa to psi conversion?  supposedly 1 kilopascal is .145 psi.  So if you converted his peak of 240ish in that one log that's an absurd 34.8 psi.  Why aren't our kpa numbers accurate or whats our kpa conversion formula?  This type crap frustrates me to no end.  Thanks in advance. 

 

[StealBlueSHO]

That is total absolute pressure inside the manifold... Subtract 14.7psi from the conversion.

At sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi or 1Bar... Generally speaking the sensors are not going to calculate that out. So it just gives you the total pressure including the atmospheric pressure... That's a rough explanation... Google 1Bar if you want to know more.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[JDW1]

That is total absolute pressure inside the manifold... Subtract 14.7psi from the conversion.

At sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi or 1Bar... Generally speaking the sensors are not going to calculate that out. So it just gives you the total pressure including the atmospheric pressure... That's a rough explanation... Google 1Bar if you want to know more.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

That's good to know.  I had no idea kpa factored in bar. 

 

[ajpturbo]

1.8 load is pretty good...especially if you are maintaining it near redline it would be over 20psi

1.7 is around 16ish psi below 4k i think