BlueStreak's ATR Tuning Journey

[BlueStreak]

After reading Dano's Boost Tuning 101 thread a solid 5 times, I have decided to give tuning a shot on my own. While on this journey in search of teh fastz, I figured I'd document it here for my learning and for anybody else that is interested.

Some Relevant History
I spent the past weekend with a few friends prepping my car for the spring/summer months. We installed CPe SAFEseal injector seals (a PITA install (http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/forum/f11/injector-seals-63858/index15.html#post786154)), Autotech Fuel Pump Internals and Devil's Own Stage 2 Meth Injection Kit. Other less relevant parts included re-lowering the car and installing new rotors and pads.

The Starting Point
I began with the COBB Stage 2 + SF 93 Octane Map (I am running Petro Canada 94 Octane fuel) and tweaked it right off the bat using knowledge gleaned from Dano's Boost Tuning 101 thread; boost based tuning was activated, fueling was modified, boost targets smoothed and closed loop exit instructions were modified. Ignition timing was left alone for now.

Click here (ftp://www.taketwocreations.com/downloads/BlueStreak%20-%20Stage%202%20-%20Hi%20Boost.ptm) to download the map.

Boost Targets Snapshot
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5576437333_85f6024f49_b.jpg
Some Notes:
- COBB's Stage 2 + SF 93 Octane Base Map targets 19PSI starting at 2250 RPM. I was dubious about having such high boost being targeted at low RPMs so I modified the table to target 19PSI at 3500+RPM then smoothed the transition horizontally.
- I need to smooth the boost curve vertically a little more as there is an abrupt jump in boost after 62.5% throttle position. I can feel this when quickly rolling onto the throttle; it feels like a light switch at the transition point. I don't like it.

Initial Datalog
And so the fail begins.
3rd gear datalog.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5577022834_2ecb14374f_b.jpg
Before I begin outlining the fail, I'd like to point out that the Autotech HPFP Internals work great. The install was relatively easy as well.

Now the fail.
- At no point during the pull does the car hit 19PSI or even come close. If you look at the WGDC, you can see that it pretty much maxes out for a good chunk of the pull and barely boosts above 18PSI at the highest point.
- There is some KR in the upper RPMs. According to the Devil's Own controller, meth was spraying.
- Mass Airflow wasn't that great and decreased as RPMs increased.

Thoughts and Action Plan
Seeing as how a few days before, the engine was in pieces and I messed around with parts on the intake tract (TMIC, boost tubes, intake manifold, meth nozzle etc.), I am certain I have a boost leak somewhere. I imagine it to be relatively small since the turbo can push 17-18PSI albeit at a high WGDC. I'll be checking all connections, couplers and the meth nozzle location.

Another possibility is that my stock BPV is throwing in the towel at those boost levels. I can't say for sure on this one since others (such as FORDZA 1) have used the stock BPV at higher PSI.

With respect to the KR in the upper RPMs, this could be due to the boost leak (someone can chime in if they believe otherwise). I will do a quick check to ensure meth is spraying when the car is boosting.

Also, I'm going to make a boost leak checker to see what is going on and will report back on my findings and progress on the tune.

NOTE:
I will be leaving for Cuba for a week (go Canada!) on vacation and will work on getting my car online upon my return. Expect a progress update sometime in the middle of April.

Cheers,

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Oops, forgot to mention that the references to "Dano's Boost Tuning 101" and FORDZA 1 are from MSF.org.

Where's the edit button!? Haha.

[Fobio]

boost leak won't cause knock, IMO...esp if your meth is working...that knock is cause for concern. one thing tho is that your KR starts when the stock knock sensor goes deaf ~5700rpm.

one thing of note is your g/s looks way low for your state of mods...

boost targets in boost tuning is also a function of the boost dynamics table. this table, from my experience is specific to every car...the up-to-date development on MSF/Dano's thread is to neuter the Boost Dynamics table and have it just run targetted boost...

Boost is also a function of WGDC table...you may want to look into that as well, but since you're already hitting 90% cycle duty, I wonder how much room you have there to adjust.

[BlueStreak]

I upped the knock sensor cutoff in ATR to 6700 RPM to get a better picture of what is going on. I am scratching my head at the KR in the upper RPMs especially since meth is being sprayed. I'm going to double check the meth system to ensure it is working as intended.

Agreed, g/s is way below what it is supposed to be. Prior to installing the aforementioned parts over the past weekend, I was able to similar g/s with only 16PSI on a neutered COBB Stage 2 + SF 91 Octane map (didn't have the HPFP upgrade at the time). I suspect a boost leak somewhere.

[BlueStreak]

I decided to implement some tune fixes in the mean time before checking out the situation with the hardware.

Vertical Boost Smoothing
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5576901123_4d215b004f_b.jpg

I also changed the ignition tables to the COBB Stage 2 + SF 91 Octane values to see if I can get rid of the high RPM KR. Once I get the boost issues sorted, I will revert back to the 93 Octane values and tackle any issues that arise.

[Fobio]

I decided to implement some tune fixes in the mean time before checking out the situation with the hardware.

I also changed the ignition tables to the COBB Stage 2 + SF 91 Octane values to see if I can get rid of the high RPM KR. Once I get the boost issues sorted, I will revert back to the 93 Octane values and tackle any issues that arise.

First part...I never felt the need to "smooth" boost or interpolate in that range...let us know what results you find.

Second part...sounds like a fine plan to flush out possible causes.

[BlueStreak]

*UPDATE*

The thought of going on vacation before trying to fix the boost leak was bothering me so I hopped over to Home Depot and bought the parts necessary to make a boost leak checker. Upon attaching it to the TIP and running compressed air through the system, I noticed a huge leak at my BPV. It turns out I didn't reinstall the o ring on the flange from the install weekend a few days ago.

After putting it back on, I went for a spin and had a quick look at the AccessPORT. Boost now reaches ~19.5 PSI and the car pulls much harder. WGDC is also in the 80s.

Also, I received a notification that my SteedSpeed manifold is on the way so I will be installing it (and the CPe TMIC) upon my return before continuing my tuning journey.

Thoughts On Vertical Boost Smoothing
The vertical smoothing has taken a lot of the "light switch" feeling at the top end of the throttle position which is nice. It could, however, be smoother. Since we lost a few rows of resolution when setting boost targets with ATR, I figure I could spread the boost curve a little more than I have in my previous post without any adverse effects. I will be doing this in mid April.

The reason I want to smooth out the vertical boost values is that I compete regularly in autocross events and I need the smoothest possible powerband to maintain optimal power-on traction.

Until next time,

Dave

[Fobio]

so is your KR fixed?

I wonder if that leak is the cause of KR...

and are you achieving your goal with the boost smoothing?

from my experience, you really want to smooth out the transition @ 3000 from 15 to 19 psi...if you autox (I'm assuming you have done it with this car), that is the lowend of the sweet spot, and you don't want a jump from 15 to 19 horizontally...

for the power this car produces, I doubt, you'll run it like a vtec in the upper rpm range...so for smoother operation, I might run 17.xxpsi @ 3500 and leave the 19 @ 4000.

[BlueStreak]

I can't say for sure if the boost leak was the cause of KR since I changed the timing to the COBB Stage 2 + SF 91 Octane values. During my pull, I got a max of 1.x KR which I'm alright with. It could be the knock sensor being a PITA for all I know. Oh and I'm still spraying meth. I'll have a better idea once I turn it off.

My apologies on not being able to post a datalog. I'm on my personal laptop that has an expired version of office and unfortunately, I'm unable to clean up the CSV file for reading. I will be posting the cleaned up tables/screenshots from my office computer (self employed).

The vertical boost smoothing has yielded smoother boost onset when quickly rolling onto the throttle. I'm not 100% satisfied with it though. I did, however, remember that APP translation becomes "exponential" at higher APP inputs so that may also be the issue. I'll have a look at that as well.

That's a good suggestion on pushing max boost targets one cell to the right. I'm going to give the current horizontal interpolation a go at the first autox event of the season and will see how it works out. If its too aggressive, I'll push it back one column as you suggested.

[BlueStreak]

*UPDATE*

I used my spare time over the last two days to install the SteedSpeed Exhaust Manifold that arrived at my door while I was on vacation.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5612825919_016f575c3a_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5613407556_83342457b4_z.jpg

After everything was buttoned up, I disconnected the meth and took the car out for a spin and decided to datalog a 3rd gear pull.

Note: In my last post, I took care of the rather large boost leak I had at the stock BPV; I forgot to reinstall the rubber o-ring.

Prep for fail... (Approximately 10 degrees celcius ambient.)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5613416248_acc8630129_b.jpg
Tada! :bang

Some relevant notes:
- AFR is stinking lean. This was masked earlier by the fact that I had the meth system turned on. With it off, I am a full point leaner than with it on. Furthermore, I was commanding 11.7AFR during WOT with the mixture richening to 11.5AFR by redline. (A hidden opportunity here. Read on.)

- Mass Airflow is anticlimactic to say the least. It also wrong.

I'm just speculating here but I think my MAF readings are off because of all the hard part swaps I did over the last few weeks...

- Calculated load is below what it should be (should at least nick the 200s on spool up).
- KR is going a little crazy toward redline. If you look at the spark advance, timing is rather aggressive.

The timing tables are RPM and Load based. Since load is lower than it is supposed to be, the timing being added by the ECU too aggressive given the RPMs, boost, BATs, AFR and *actual* load.

- On a positive note, I am now able to reach my boost targets after fixing my boost leak (as stated earlier). Also, looking at the WGDC, there is more room to up the boost at the 58xxRPM mark as it is in the 80% region. (Another opportunity here that I won't capitalize on until I install the CPe TMIC next week).

Solution
Seeing as how the actual AFR readings (~12.8) were much leaner than commanded (~11.7), I upped the g/s in the MAF calibration tables by 8.5% (12.8/11.7 = 1.085) at the appropriate voltage range.

While I was at it, I decided to lean out the fuel mixture to 11.8AFR during WOT with the mixture richening to 11.6AFR by redline.

Then I went out and did another 3rd gear datalog... (Approximately 5 degrees celcius ambient.)
*drum roll...*
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5613484774_871063dc4c_b.jpg
WIN! :headbang

Some relevant notes:
- Actual AFR is reading exactly as what is being commanded.
- Mass Airflow is reading alot more accurately.
- Calculated load now nicks the 200s on spool up and tapers appropriately.
- KR readings are insignificant. Also note the timing is less aggressive now. This was rectified simply by calibrating the MAF properly. Now the ECU can apply the correct timing values given the RPMs, boost, BATs, AFR and load.
- The car is overboosting now. I guess I'll have to play with the WGDC and boost dynamics tables which is rather foreign to me at the moment. I'll have to read up on it before diving in. I won't, however, take care of this issue until I install the CPe TMIC as it may change again. Heck, maybe even my MAF readings will change again.

That being said, there is still lots of WGDC room to add more boost. I will definitely be taking advantage of this in the future.

Next steps
- Install CPe TMIC.
- Verify and calibrate MAF if necessary.
- Add boost.
- Add timing.
- Reconnect meth.

I think I covered everything for now. Hope you didn't fall asleep. Haha.

Cheers,

Dave

[Fobio]

you got your steedspeed already!?!

you really should try and make it out for dyno day.

[BlueStreak]

Yeah. Had to wait a month for it to get here, though. I ordered mine at the beginning of March.

I'm interested in making it out to one of the dyno days. I just have to check with the missus as to what is going on on those weekends. *cue whip sound* Haha.

[Fobio]

are you running straight meth? I run 50/50...blue/green windshield washer fluid...

a few days ago, I added 1L of straight meth into the mix and then topped off with WWF...I still get PT knock around the 3200rpm range...right now, I figure after 90k km, it's doing a lot of cleaning.

[BlueStreak]

I run 75 meth/25 water. Mind you, I have the meth system turned off right now until I get my tune sorted out.

The datalogs in today's post are with meth turned off.

[Fobio]

do you plan to run straight meth down the road?

I will try and quantify the difference maybe down the road...I figure the stock WWF tank is about 3L...if I can add 1L of meth to it and top it off, then it's about 66/33.

I prefer to run 50/50 and not tune timing for the meth and only use it for keeping BAT down, rather than fuel. But right now, I will run the 66/33 mix for cleaning purpose.

[BlueStreak]

At this point, I don't think I will go 100% as I don't know what adverse effect (if any) there will be on the washer fluid pump/piping. And like you, I don't plan on tuning for meth but will use it for insurance purposes.

How were your BATs compared to IAT with 50/50? With 75/25, I found BATs = IAT.

[Fobio]

At this point, I don't think I will go 100% as I don't know what adverse effect (if any) there will be on the washer fluid pump/piping. And like you, I don't plan on tuning for meth but will use it for insurance purposes.

How were your BATs compared to IAT with 50/50? With 75/25, I found BATs = IAT.

50/50, my BAT = IAT @ WOT....what size nozzle are you running? I run a M5/DO5.

[BlueStreak]

I run the D05 as well. Hmmm... seems like there isn't an added benefit to cooling with the extra meth.

[SpelingChampian]

I run the D05 as well. Hmmm... seems like there isn't an added benefit to cooling with the extra meth.

Well, we got to get your system running in peak order first lol! I have a small tank that we can fiddle around with to see what the different mixtures do!

[BlueStreak]

*MINI UPDATE*

While waiting for my CPe TMIC to arrive next week, I thought I'd play around with timing. Roughly 2 degrees were added from 1.25 Load + and above 4K RPM in the datalog below.

3rd gear. 5 degrees celcius ambient. No meth.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5621554091_7fb74244bb_b.jpg

In the previous posted datalog, I hit a max of 266g/s at 6100 RPM. Now I hit 271g/s at 5800 RPM. The increase is definitely noticeable and 3rd gear is juuuuussstttt starting to break traction when going WOT. Calculated load is also significantly higher throughout most of the rev range.

Before the TMIC goes in, I will revert back to the COBB OTS timing and run a datalog. I will then install the TMIC and run a datalog to show back-to-back results within the same weather conditions. The changes I made in this post were just for shits and giggles to pass time last night as I was bored and wouldn't consider this as part of my ATR tuning journey.

Cheers,

Dave

[BlueStreak]

*MINI UPDATE*

I had a look at the "Throttle - Req. Load - X Gear" tables and cross referenced them to my previous datalog.

It turns out that Calculated Load was equal to the load targets set in the ATR tables themselves. Where Calculated Load overshot the load targets set in the ATR tables, the ECU closed the throttle in an attempt to meet those load targets (as evidenced by my previous datalog from 29xx RPM to 37xx RPM).

I went back into ATR and raised the load targets for 3rd and 4th gear to the following.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5228/5634315065_b2226f076b_b.jpg
These changes will allow/force the ECU to target higher loads should the engine be capable of doing so given boost, fuel, ignition timing etc.

Before doing a datalog, I reverted back to the COBB Stage 2 + SF 93 Octane timing values for safety purposes since in my previous map, I upped timing considerably across the higher RPM range.

Rationale
Seeing as how there was a possibility that the ECU would be able to target higher Loads, it would then apply different timing advances that I didn't want to chance as having a high degree of knock. At this point, I'd rather sneak up on optimal timing values than pass them and risk damaging the engine.

4th gear. 2 degrees celcius ambient. Meth on.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5634876004_1198f1236d_b.jpg
Note: I had to make this a 4th gear pull since 3rd gear couldn't hook up given the ambient temperature and possible increased torque at lower RPM. The meth was on since I hook it up after making tuning changes and forgot to turn it off for this datalog.

Observations
- Calculated Load is now higher in the low to mid RPM.
- Boost reads higher in the mid-high RPM and is ~1 PSI higher than targeted. I will fix this once the TMIC goes on as I expect any changes to the WGDC will be different pre/post TMIC swap.

Conclusion
- The "Throttle - Req. Load - X Gear" tables have a material effect on tuning and must be altered accordingly. Thanks to rfinkle2 from MSF.org for shedding light on this matter. I appreciate it.

For those who prefer to see things graphically, I added a graphical representation of the datalog below.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5189/5634295385_2303f36171_b.jpg
I must say, I really like the curve of the Mass Airflow values up top. At the lower end of the RPM band, it is a little squiggly. I'll take care of that in future revisions.

The TMIC will be going on tonight/tomorrow. I will be providing before/after datalogs on the hardware change (prior to tuning changes) by Friday at the latest. Tuning will then continue. I for one am hopeful to get as close to 300g/s as possible once complete.

Cheers,

Dave

[Fobio]

Observations
- Calculated Load is now higher in the low to mid RPM.
- Boost reads higher in the mid-high RPM and is ~1 PSI higher than targeted. I will fix this once the TMIC goes on as I expect any changes to the WGDC will be different pre/post TMIC swap.

Conclusion
- The "Throttle - Req. Load - X Gear" tables have a material effect on tuning and must be altered accordingly. Thanks to rfinkle2 from MSF.org for shedding light on this matter. I appreciate it.


^^^just to clarify, you are referring to boost based tuning?

not to take anything away from your logging, but I'm hesitant to cross-pollinate tuning observations with the Gen2's...just the fact we use different tabls give cause for concern personally.

having said that, I did tell Christian that I liked my load curves before boost tuning, and I run the same TRL tables as I have before, which were optimized for ~20psi anyway...so in a way, it was super easy for them to tune my car. anyway, this is what I have to offer.

looking at your log, the significance doesn't strike me in the load that you hit (peak) but rather, how long it sustained it for....maybe 500+ more rpm? however, the tapering still looks similar to when youtaper boost yourself...I remember the talk about commanding a flat load curve and see what happens. I guess not too much happens...

it`s hard to quanitify, other than on a dyno...but I might give it a try, maybe. I also wonder if you can keep adjusting til you do achieve a flat load curve...hahaha...wouldn`t that be something! could be quite unsafe tho...lol...

[MajesticBlueNTO]

interesting that your car is limited to the TRL table and the ecu closes the throttle position.

here's one of my 4th gear logs from last week with the throttle position pegged at 73%:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3900/wot4thstreetvsatr.jpg

between 3500 and 5000 rpm, the values of calc load are above 2.0, with the load the rest of the way being higher than what is listed in the TRL 4th table.

[Fobio]

As expected:


BTW rfinkle contacted Christian about the possibility that the load tables could still affect boost targets even with the boost toggle in use. It appears that this is only happening on the 2010 ECU but I guess it could affect the 08.5 + as well. It doesn't appear to affect the 07-08 ECU as evidenced by mine and Ziggo's results.

Bmorris may have new data that shows high values in any load table could affect boost targets on his 07 MS6 ECU.


Originally Posted by rfinkle2
Dano,

In the interest of being on the same page, this is a more definitive answer from the cobb forums from Christian...

Join Date Jun 2003
Posts 66,666
rfinkle2, we have seen that some cars respond to the settings in the Req. Load X Gear tables. I know...it is odd that not all respond in this manner. I have personally tuned several cars that did not respond to any setting changes for these tables. Being that we cannot consistently confirm that these tables have an affect on all cars, we are looking into the ECU logic to see if we can get a more definitive answer.

We will be sure to post up some additional details once we've spent some more time in discovery. At this time, we are focused on getting the 2011 AP out first, then we will look into this further. Thanks for bringing this up, this is something on our radar. We've found that setting the Req. Load X Gear tables similar to what the car achieves negates their effect on the boost control. This is the best that we can suggest for now.

Thanks,
Christian.

[BlueStreak]

[/I]Fobio;761074]^^^just to clarify, you are referring to boost based tuning?

Correct. Boost based tuning is enabled via the Edit>Advanced Parameters>Toggles (Base)>Use Boost Based Dynamics (Boost Control) checked off option.


not to take anything away from your logging, but I'm hesitant to cross-pollinate tuning observations with the Gen2's...just the fact we use different tabls give cause for concern personally.


At first, I didn't think TRL X Gear tables had an effect on my tune but after a studying a previous 3rd datalog and cross referencing it to the TRL 3rd Gear Norm BAT table, I found this:

WOT Run from 2500RPM to Redline. 3rd gear. 5 degrees celcius ambient. No meth.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5621554091_7fb74244bb_b.jpg

Here is the original COBB Stage 2 + SF OTS TRL 3rd Gear Norm BAT Table.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5638220895_974796dcfe_b.jpg

If you look at Calculated Load at 29xx RPM, it jumps to 2.1 from 1.64 from the previous entry. Also notice that the throttle closed by 3% for roughly 1K RPM (I did not touch any of the DBW Tables in the mean time). When the throttle did finally go and stay fully open, calculated load was within ~.05 units of requested load.

After seeing this, I raised the TRL 3rd and 4th Gear Norm BAT table targets to the following:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5228/5634315065_b2226f076b_b.jpg

The resulting datalog from this change...
WOT Run from 2600 RPM to Redline. 4th gear. 2 degrees celcius ambient. Meth on.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5634876004_1198f1236d_b.jpg

The throttle now stays fully open throughout the run and calculated load floats above 2.0 for ~1800 RPM. Furthermore, boost increased to 20PSI+ (1+ PSI higher than commanded) from 43xxRPM to 55xxRPM which was not commanded in the boost targets table. I suspect the ECU increased boost in an attempt to meet the load targets.

Now, there are some variances within the datalog parameters. Namely 3rd gear vs. 4th gear and ambient temperature being colder in the second datalog by 3 degrees. I tried doing the second pull you see here in 3rd gear but couldn't get the car to hook up and therefore defaulted to 4th. These variances may have an effect on why the datalogs look markedly different.

Hopefully it won't be wet out so I can get to the bottom of this. I will run a datalog with the existing tune using the 2.1 load targets and then another with 1.5 load targets across the board to see what happens.

Here is a response from Christian regarding the TRL X Gear targets on the COBB Forums.

rfinkle2, we have seen that some cars respond to the settings in the Req. Load X Gear tables. I know...it is odd that not all respond in this manner. I have personally tuned several cars that did not respond to any setting changes for these tables. Being that we cannot consistently confirm that these tables have an affect on all cars, we are looking into the ECU logic to see if we can get a more definitive answer.

We will be sure to post up some additional details once we've spent some more time in discovery. At this time, we are focused on getting the 2011 AP out first, then we will look into this further. Thanks for bringing this up, this is something on our radar. We've found that setting the Req. Load X Gear tables similar to what the car achieves negates their effect on the boost control. This is the best that we can suggest for now.

Thanks,
Christian.

There is a chance that I have a freak ECU. Haha.

[BlueStreak]

There was some discussion around the TRL X Gear Tables (on MSF.org) being active when using boost based tuning. By the looks of it, the TRL X Gear Tables are active in some MS3s and not in others. It is not yet known as to why this inconsistency exists.

At any rate, I did some sensitivity testing on my car and found that the TRL X Gear Tables do affect the behaviour of the (my) engine. My findings are quoted below from another thread.


It stopped raining tonight so I took the car out for a datalog run.

Test Conditions
- 3 degress celcius
- Meth on
- 3rd gear

Low Load Targets
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5310/5639053353_99545ca922_b.jpg

Corresponding Datalog
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5639612796_b1862e14a6_b.jpg

High Load Targets
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5228/5634315065_b2226f076b_b.jpg

Corresponding Datalog
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5639612842_5aceb46085_b.jpg

Looks like in some instances, the TRL X Gear Tables do in fact materially affect Calculated Load by primarily modulating boost.

EDIT: I believe the low load datalog was completed faster than the high load datalog because the low load datalog was done on a downhill on-ramp merging onto the highway (10 degree downward slope or so).

Cheers,

Dave

Here's a message from Christian on the COBB Forums confirming this inconsistency. Thanks to rfinkle2 from MSF.org for posting the question.


Join Date Jun 2003
Posts 66,666
rfinkle2, we have seen that some cars respond to the settings in the Req. Load X Gear tables. I know...it is odd that not all respond in this manner. I have personally tuned several cars that did not respond to any setting changes for these tables. Being that we cannot consistently confirm that these tables have an affect on all cars, we are looking into the ECU logic to see if we can get a more definitive answer.

We will be sure to post up some additional details once we've spent some more time in discovery. At this time, we are focused on getting the 2011 AP out first, then we will look into this further. Thanks for bringing this up, this is something on our radar. We've found that setting the Req. Load X Gear tables similar to what the car achieves negates their effect on the boost control. This is the best that we can suggest for now.

Thanks,
Christian.

I wouldn't say this is an outright problem. If your car is still affected by the TRL X Gear Tables, you will have to tweak them accordingly so the engine meets its boost targets (in addition to WGDC and BD).

I'm wondering if this is a hidden gem for those still affected by the TRL X Gear Tables. I'm thinking they could be used to tame boost in colder weather therefore negating the need for a "cold weather" boost tuned map.

It would work something like this:
- Create a boost based tune that works well on your average hot day.
- Modify the TRL X Gear Tables accordingly to fit the calculated load curve.
- In colder weather, the ECU will cut boost in an attempt to meet the TRL X Gear Table values assuming it doesn't have to reduce boost by more than ~1.5PSI or so.

[BlueStreak]

*UPDATE*
The day has finally come. My CPe TMIC took place of the stock intercooler. Good riddance!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5047/5642406106_f1b17173e6_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5048/5641839159_459ac2d590_z.jpg

Onto the datalogs, shall we?

Stock TMIC, 3rd gear, 9 degrees celcius, meth on.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5642420616_c3a4d87f10_b.jpg

CPe TMIC, 3rd gear, 5 degrees celcius, meth on.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5062/5641836373_6d0385daea_b.jpg

Disclaimer (i.e. excuses. haha)
- Ignore the screwy AFRs. I messed around with the meth settings before datalogging. It is currently spraying more meth down low than before which is why things go quite rich at the beginning of the pulls.
- The temperature variance is a little larger than I wanted. The datalogs are roughly 1 hour apart. I took my time installing the CPe unit and checked for boost leaks post install.

Observations
- BATs are 3-5 degrees fahrenheit cooler with the CPe TMIC. I'm sure the variance was minimized with meth as BATs in the 50-60s are super super cool.
- Average boost is higher across the board with the CPe TMIC. This will be tamed with TRL X Gear and WGDC revisions. I will, however, be targeting 20PSI from now on.
- Average WGDC is marginally lower (~2%) with the CPe TMIC despite the higher boost.
- The CPe TMIC outflows the stock unit up top quite a bit. See the Mass Aiflow (g/s) and MAF Voltage columns for more info. The stock TMIC was never capable of steadily flowing 270+g/s.

Overall, I'd say the upgrade is quite the win!

Tomorrow, I'm going to spend a few good hours tuning and will report back with my results.

Cheers,

Dave