PDA

View Full Version : paulabreu's logs



paulabreu
07-30-2014, 06:45 PM
Hi everyone, got my AP v3 yesterday and decided to do my first log. Don't know if its done right or not but hopefully you guys can guide me in the right direction ( yes i've been reading all important post here and on msf :) )
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2ivmsqv.jpg

And here's the log used for this VD, oh I'm in running the Stage 1 91 v231 map. Only mod on the car is a Forge BPV v1, so basically stock.
11263

SomeGuy
07-30-2014, 06:53 PM
You want to use smoothing of 3. Skip the SAE correction unless you have accurate values. Your weight also looks rather significant unless you weigh 300lbs. Also by MSF standards you should use CF1.01 but that makes the numbers really depressing. Given your 60-100 time is around 9.5 seconds though it looks accurate. Here's what I get with your log.

http://someforum.net/Others/FixedLog.jpg

paulabreu
07-30-2014, 07:11 PM
You want to use smoothing of 3. Skip the SAE correction unless you have accurate values. Your weight also looks rather significant unless you weigh 300lbs. Also by MSF standards you should use CF1.01 but that makes the numbers really depressing. Given your 60-100 time is around 9.5 seconds though it looks accurate. Here's what I get with your log.

http://someforum.net/Others/FixedLog.jpg

Ouch that's is depressing haha but thanks!!!.

About the weight, I had my friend with me in the car plus car parts in the trunk so I figured an extra 300 would be right

SomeGuy
07-30-2014, 07:19 PM
For essentially stock it's not that bad, typically they're 220-230whp in stock form, which given the weight you had on board means you were right around where you should be. The Stage 1 map you're running didn't make any additional boost over stock anyway.

Fuel pump and intake should be next on your list.

mickey_g
07-30-2014, 07:54 PM
trying not going WOT so low in the RPM range...puts undue stress on the rods. Also as a precaution dont post logs with your speed. As for your numbers and vdyno setup SomeGuy explained it well

Hyperion
07-30-2014, 09:42 PM
Careful when doing 4th gear logs. You get going pretty fast... pretty fast

Kiyomi
07-30-2014, 09:48 PM
Careful when doing 4th gear logs. You get going pretty fast... pretty fast

:rolleyes

paulabreu
07-30-2014, 10:43 PM
For essentially stock it's not that bad, typically they're 220-230whp in stock form, which given the weight you had on board means you were right around where you should be. The Stage 1 map you're running didn't make any additional boost over stock anyway.

Fuel pump and intake should be next on your list.
That makes me feel good, I didn't expect any significant improvement without any mods but I'm glad it's running where it should be. Fuel pump and intake will be on the way soon hopefully :)


trying not going WOT so low in the RPM range...puts undue stress on the rods. Also as a precaution dont post logs with your speed. As for your numbers and vdyno setup SomeGuy explained it well
Thanks for the advice, will try and do another log with no weight in the car and without going WOT in the low rpms and see from there :)

SomeGuy
07-30-2014, 11:04 PM
trying not going WOT so low in the RPM range...puts undue stress on the rods. Also as a precaution dont post logs with your speed. As for your numbers and vdyno setup SomeGuy explained it well

He's not making even 250ft-lbs at 3000rpm, he's fine as it sits to go WOT down there but in general you're right. Although frankly with a good load based tune, you should be able to effectively limit torque at any RPM to protect the motor without this IMO stupid rule of never going WOT below 3000rpm.

Also, all logs are done on closed roads in mexico.

optiklenz13
07-31-2014, 09:49 AM
Definitely need internals next.. I noticed your HPFP dropped below 1600 3 times on your WOT run.. It dropped to 1588, 1595, and 1563 at 2810, 3079 and 3503 RPM's respectively..

I'm no expert but I'd hold off doing WOT runs until you get internals..

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 09:56 AM
Definitely need internals next.. I noticed your HPFP dropped below 1600 3 times on your WOT run.. It dropped to 1588, 1595, and 1563 at 2810, 3079 and 3503 RPM's respectively..

I'm no expert but I'd hold off doing WOT runs until you get internals..


Didn't even look at his logs lol He has a gen2? I'm surprised the AFR's don't reflect the drop below 1600, it should have gone stupidly rich at those points. He's also not making a ton of boost or flow and isn't running too rich (looks like around 11.3-11.4 AFR target) so I'm shocked the HPFP can't keep up when he's not modded really. Might be worth while bumping the target fuel pressure up a smidge to try to counteract it.


Otherwise, OP be careful. Fuel pump it now!

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 11:12 AM
Definitely need internals next.. I noticed your HPFP dropped below 1600 3 times on your WOT run.. It dropped to 1588, 1595, and 1563 at 2810, 3079 and 3503 RPM's respectively..

I'm no expert but I'd hold off doing WOT runs until you get internals..

That definitely my next purchase, I will go back to the stock map in the meantime just to be safe.


Didn't even look at his logs lol He has a gen2? I'm surprised the AFR's don't reflect the drop below 1600, it should have gone stupidly rich at those points. He's also not making a ton of boost or flow and isn't running too rich (looks like around 11.3-11.4 AFR target) so I'm shocked the HPFP can't keep up when he's not modded really. Might be worth while bumping the target fuel pressure up a smidge to try to counteract it.


Otherwise, OP be careful. Fuel pump it now!

Yes it's a gen 2 and I've been using 94 octane if that makes a difference :$. To be honest, now it's the first time I look at the HPFP numbers, going to add that to the AP gauges to monitor more.

Another question, on stock fuel pump, what AFR target should I be getting at WOT? I know that at idle is right at 14.85

optiklenz13
07-31-2014, 11:24 AM
Depends on your map, if you load the map you're running on ATR, it'll tell you your AFR targets at certain RPMs.. You want to look at the Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ.

Also, I noticed you said, you're running stage1 91 map, but you just mentioned you're running 94 octane gas?

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 11:33 AM
Depends on your map, if you load the map you're running on ATR, it'll tell you your AFR targets at certain RPMs.. You want to look at the Fuel OL/WOT Commanded EQ.

Also, I noticed you said, you're running stage1 91 map, but you just mentioned you're running 94 octane gas?

Thanks! I'll look at the map on ATR tonight.

And yes, that's correct, should I load the stage 1 94 map and do a log?

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 11:44 AM
There's a 93 map but it's more aggressive (more timing/boost/etc).

You're probably better off saving some money and running 91 gas until such time as you actually need 94.

Idle AFR's should be around ~14.7 slight variations are normal though. WOT AFR's are usually between 11.0-12.0 depending on map and some will taper down to ~10.8 towards redline.

fywdyl
07-31-2014, 12:29 PM
You want to use smoothing of 3. Skip the SAE correction unless you have accurate values. Your weight also looks rather significant unless you weigh 300lbs. Also by MSF standards you should use CF1.01 but that makes the numbers really depressing. Given your 60-100 time is around 9.5 seconds though it looks accurate. Here's what I get with your log.


CF1.01 is NOT MSF standard, it is an ESTIMATE of the SAE correction.

mickey_g
07-31-2014, 01:03 PM
Thanks! I'll look at the map on ATR tonight.

And yes, that's correct, should I load the stage 1 94 map and do a log?

May be try loading the safe mode 91 or stage 0 map and monitor FP like a hawk and see if the stock pump holds

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 01:10 PM
CF1.01 is NOT MSF standard, it is an ESTIMATE of the SAE correction.

Go tell them that...Post plots using something other than 1.01 and nobody will take the numbers seriously. SAE correction adjusts for air pressure and temperature, a constant 1.01 will in no way account for that ever. Please read:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm

Also, don't yell at me noob :P

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 02:09 PM
There's a 93 map but it's more aggressive (more timing/boost/etc).

You're probably better off saving some money and running 91 gas until such time as you actually need 94.

Idle AFR's should be around ~14.7 slight variations are normal though. WOT AFR's are usually between 11.0-12.0 depending on map and some will taper down to ~10.8 towards redline.
A got it now! I have to fill up today either way so I'll put 91 and do another log somewhere in Cuba.


May be try loading the safe mode 91 or stage 0 map and monitor FP like a hawk and see if the stock pump holds

Is that slight drop on the HPFP really bad?

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 02:44 PM
A got it now! I have to fill up today either way so I'll put 91 and do another log somewhere in Cuba.



Is that slight drop on the HPFP really bad?

Yes, although being in a gen2 it's less likely to cause ZZB. Typically if fuel pressure falls below 1600psi or so, the engine goes into protection mode and dumps more fuel in to keep you from going too lean (which is what the Gen1's did). This isn't good for the engine in any way.

91 fuel has slightly more energy in it and thus slightly lower fueling requirements (very minimal though) so it might help a bit. As well, the stock CDFP can handle a smidge more pressure so by upping your target fuel pressure you might be able to stave off the problem a bit longer.

A MAF calibration should be done as it has a big affect on fueling and trims and helps you meet targets accurately.

Finally get an HPFP and an intake and reap the real benefits of having your AP.

loki
07-31-2014, 02:48 PM
you're running a 91 oct map with Ultra 94

why not run the 93 octane map then

fywdyl
07-31-2014, 03:01 PM
Go tell them that...Post plots using something other than 1.01 and nobody will take the numbers seriously. SAE correction adjusts for air pressure and temperature, a constant 1.01 will in no way account for that ever. Please read:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm

Also, don't yell at me noob :P

Again, CF1.01 is an ESTIMATE, an assumption to account for an unknown SAE correction. I didn't say it works for every single case, but when you have a lack of SAE data, you can use CF1.01 to get a rough estimate.

I don't think you were around on MSF when the first few people started using VD to plot WHP/WTQ. They suggested to use a CF1.01 to account for SAE corrections. And then the noobs on MSF (i.e yourself included) misinterpreted the useful info and made it a MSF standard to bash "noobs" when they post VDs.

I admit, I don't post much on TM3, but that doesn't make me any more/less knowledgeable. Come visit us in TO once you sort out your "self-tune". We can def learn from each other.

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 03:03 PM
Yes, although being in a gen2 it's less likely to cause ZZB. Typically if fuel pressure falls below 1600psi or so, the engine goes into protection mode and dumps more fuel in to keep you from going too lean (which is what the Gen1's did). This isn't good for the engine in any way.

91 fuel has slightly more energy in it and thus slightly lower fueling requirements (very minimal though) so it might help a bit. As well, the stock CDFP can handle a smidge more pressure so by upping your target fuel pressure you might be able to stave off the problem a bit longer.

A MAF calibration should be done as it has a big affect on fueling and trims and helps you meet targets accurately.

Finally get an HPFP and an intake and reap the real benefits of having your AP.

And this is why I love tm3 :$.
Anyways, so do you recommend to up my target fuel pressure for now or just run safe mode/stage 0 map until HPFP?

And I'm going to try to do a MAF calibration, don't have any experience tuning but I could figure it out.


you're running a 91 oct map with Ultra 94

why not run the 93 octane map then

I thought of this but didn't really want to do it until upgrading HPFP at least, do you think I should and do a log and see?

mickey_g
07-31-2014, 03:08 PM
And this is why I love tm3 :$.
Anyways, so do you recommend to up my target fuel pressure for now or just run safe mode/stage 0 map until HPFP?

And I'm going to try to do a MAF calibration, don't have any experience tuning but I could figure it out.

Before you do anything on ATR read Abilor's tuning guide. It helped me loads

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 04:06 PM
And this is why I love tm3 :$.
Anyways, so do you recommend to up my target fuel pressure for now or just run safe mode/stage 0 map until HPFP?

And I'm going to try to do a MAF calibration, don't have any experience tuning but I could figure it out.

I thought of this but didn't really want to do it until upgrading HPFP at least, do you think I should and do a log and see?

Stage 0 is definitely the safest option. If you aren't comfortable with using ATR (which I can assume you aren't at this point) then changing fuel pressure targets can be risky if done incorrectly (as with any changes in ATR). MAF cal's just read all the guides for it, there's even videos out there walking you through step by step.

Also I would not recommend running the 93 maps, they target more boost than the 91 maps and hence will just put more strain on your already suffering fuel pump. You're best off running 91 right now.


Again, CF1.01 is an ESTIMATE, an assumption to account for an unknown SAE correction. I didn't say it works for every single case, but when you have a lack of SAE data, you can use CF1.01 to get a rough estimate.

I don't think you were around on MSF when the first few people started using VD to plot WHP/WTQ. They suggested to use a CF1.01 to account for SAE corrections. And then the noobs on MSF (i.e yourself included) misinterpreted the useful info and made it a MSF standard to bash "noobs" when they post VDs.

I admit, I don't post much on TM3, but that doesn't make me any more/less knowledgeable. Come visit us in TO once you sort out your "self-tune". We can def learn from each other.

Did you not read the link? CF1.01 is a static correction factor and in no way equates to what SAE does for accounting in changes of temp/pressure day to day location to location. What CF1.01 does do is estimate a more realistic power output from the car to line up with less optimistic dynos. The APH dyno (dynapack) for instance IMO reads really high compared to what I've seen out of other dynos (mustang dyno, dynodynamics, etc) based on every comparison I've ever read. Until we can get 3 or 4 different dyno's and some vd plots all in the space place on the same day and do back to back comparisons though it's all speculation.

That all said, it doesn't matter what you use when you're comparing to your own logs. As long as you keep the settings consistent they'll accurately tell you if you've gained/lost power.

LoL I was just giving you a hard time with the noob comment btw. I am not big on going to TO, you guys are welcome to come to KW (which happens even less often than me coming to TO for the record).


Before you do anything on ATR read Abilor's tuning guide. It helped me loads

That guide is a bit out dated at this point, there's some things that have been proven wrong in it although there is still a lot of good valid stuff. This guide is a newer (2014) version but is not quite complete.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/forum/f426/atr-user-manual-hybrid-tuningfor-noobs-early-170894/

You can also check out their wiki which has a few guides for tuning as well.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Sadly it's all work in progress so it just takes a lot of reading and understanding. I've been working on my own tunes for a couple years now and don't even know 1/10th of someone like Lex or whatnot knows. That's why pro tunes are worthwhile. What takes me 10 revisions they can do in 1.

Fack_Dude
07-31-2014, 04:37 PM
SomeGuy you do compression test lately? Come and join the fail boat. Haha

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 04:53 PM
SomeGuy you do compression test lately? Come and join the fail boat. Haha

LoL ignorance is bliss my friend...

FYI - as it sits if I do dynojet I'm making 295whp, so I'm not totally sucking at life. The new intake and some hints from a few good tuners has picked me up some significant power.

http://someforum.net/car/dynjoet278.jpg

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 06:03 PM
So I put the stage 1 93 map just to do another log while I still have 94 octane on the car and this is what i got
11264

http://oi62.tinypic.com/dre9nm.jpg

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 06:06 PM
Post the log that goes along with that plot...we're still worried about your fuel pressure.



Also, just for consistency sake, make sure if you compare two logs that they're on that exact same road in the exact same direction...the road you log on can play a big roll in the resulting numbers and you won't be able to do a true comparison.

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 06:08 PM
Post the log that goes along with that plot...we're still worried about your fuel pressure.



Also, just for consistency sake, make sure if you compare two logs that they're on that exact same road in the exact same direction...the road you log on can play a big roll in the resulting numbers and you won't be able to do a true comparison.

Log is posted above the picture, hmm makes sense. I will have to do another one tonight as I'm not close to that road yet

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 06:11 PM
Also, I'm putting the stage 0 map now just to be safe

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 06:38 PM
Oops missed that....you had one spot in the log below 1600 again.

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 07:16 PM
Oops missed that....you had one spot in the log below 1600 again.

Yea I noticed that, now last question, if I were to keep this map on and just daily it like this without going WOT, would I be ok? Or better off stage 0?

And thanks again for all the advice guys :)

loki
07-31-2014, 07:18 PM
The real question is why is your fuel pump having such a hard time

What mods do you have?

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 07:23 PM
The real question is why is your fuel pump having such a hard time

What mods do you have?

Just a forge bpv v1. So basically no mods

loki
07-31-2014, 07:24 PM
So you should not be having fuel pressure issues

loki
07-31-2014, 07:24 PM
It also may just be momentary dips...

paulabreu
07-31-2014, 07:25 PM
So you should not be having fuel pressure issues


It also may just be momentary dips...

Well I've been monitoring the HPFP on the AP since I left work at 4 and it stays above 1600 when I'm driving normally

loki
07-31-2014, 07:31 PM
Driving normally is nothing

SomeGuy
07-31-2014, 08:04 PM
Yea I noticed that, now last question, if I were to keep this map on and just daily it like this without going WOT, would I be ok? Or better off stage 0?

And thanks again for all the advice guys :)

If you stay out of WOT you'd be fine...heck, even if you do go WOT the dips you're seeing aren't hurting your AFR's. Stage 0 until fuel pump is the safe bet though.


So you should not be having fuel pressure issues

He is also running a stage 1 map though which even on stock intake/exhaust does try to push things a little more. He's not actually having issues yet because his AFR's don't drop, it should go rich when fuel pressure dips too low on a genpu. The suggestion of targetting slightly higher fuel pressure might help. Take all the 1669's or whatever the stage 1 OTS pressure is and make them 1700's or something.

fywdyl
08-01-2014, 11:06 AM
Did you not read the link? CF1.01 is a static correction factor and in no way equates to what SAE does for accounting in changes of temp/pressure day to day location to location. What CF1.01 does do is estimate a more realistic power output from the car to line up with less optimistic dynos. The APH dyno (dynapack) for instance IMO reads really high compared to what I've seen out of other dynos (mustang dyno, dynodynamics, etc) based on every comparison I've ever read. Until we can get 3 or 4 different dyno's and some vd plots all in the space place on the same day and do back to back comparisons though it's all speculation.

That all said, it doesn't matter what you use when you're comparing to your own logs. As long as you keep the settings consistent they'll accurately tell you if you've gained/lost power.

LoL I was just giving you a hard time with the noob comment btw. I am not big on going to TO, you guys are welcome to come to KW (which happens even less often than me coming to TO for the record).


I send you an e-hug.

If I ever visit friends in KW (I went to school there) I'll give you a shout.
paulabreu
I didn't get fuel pump issues until I installed a TMIC and when the weather started to get cold. That blip may just be a one-off.

Orangevirus
08-10-2014, 01:51 AM
91 fuel has slightly more energy in it and thus slightly lower fueling requirements (very minimal though) so it might help a bit.



http://i62.tinypic.com/10ibfo5.jpg

Kiyomi
08-10-2014, 09:28 PM
^^ ROFL.

MajesticBlueNTO
08-10-2014, 10:18 PM
91 fuel has slightly more energy in it and thus slightly lower fueling requirements (very minimal though) so it might help a bit.




http://i62.tinypic.com/10ibfo5.jpg

SomeGuy's statement isn't so far fetched.

Assuming 94 octane gas is 10% ethanol, due to the ethanol, it has a slightly less Energy Content than 91 (assuming 91 is either straight gas or less than 10% ethanol). we're talking energy content, not octane.

i hate quoting Wikipedia but it is the quickest summary of info:


Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle reduces miles per US gallon 34%, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline....

For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect is small (~3%) when compared to conventional gasoline,[56] and even smaller (12%) when compared to oxygenated and reformulated blends.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Fuel_economy)


You use slightly more 94 (assuming E10 or greater) than 91 (assuming 0 <= Ethanol < 10%) in terms of fuel consumption ... which is also why people have reported better fuel economy with Shell 91 (which has, or used to have depending on the gas station, zero ethanol content) vs. Ultra 94... but the difference is minor.

loki
08-10-2014, 10:22 PM
Does Esso's new 93 have zero ethanol?

SomeGuy
08-11-2014, 11:28 AM
SomeGuy's statement isn't so far fetched.

Assuming 94 octane gas is 10% ethanol, due to the ethanol, it has a slightly less Energy Content than 91 (assuming 91 is either straight gas or less than 10% ethanol). we're talking energy content, not octane.

i hate quoting Wikipedia but it is the quickest summary of info:




You use slightly more 94 (assuming E10 or greater) than 91 (assuming 0 <= Ethanol < 10%) in terms of fuel consumption ... which is also why people have reported better fuel economy with Shell 91 (which has, or used to have depending on the gas station, zero ethanol content) vs. Ultra 94... but the difference is minor.

Thanks for explaining for me, but this is essentially where it comes from...by adding stuff to make the fuel get 94 octane (ethanol or whatever) it decreases overall energy content.


Does Esso's new 93 have zero ethanol?

That would be interesting to see. I wonder if it has the same knock resistance as 94 (or close).

paulabreu
09-22-2014, 11:56 PM
So I pulled 2 more logs tonight

11470
11471

I have installed the following mods since the last log I posted:

Corksport Stage II TIP + SRI
Ultimate Racing turbo back exhaust ( downpipe high flow cat, and test pipe )

Currently using Cobb OTS Stage2+SF+TIH 93

SomeGuy
09-23-2014, 09:39 AM
I suppose we all have to start somewhere...smidge of knock, nothing to worry about. AFR's and fuel pressure look good, WGDC isn't too high so there is room to get your boost up still. Lots of airflow might mean your MAF cal is a bit off, given your boost/power levels I wouldn't expect you to flow 290+ g/s.

http://someforum.net/Others/paulabreulog.jpg

paulabreu
10-08-2014, 11:15 PM
Did another log tonight after installing a CP-E TMIC
11510

mickey_g
10-08-2014, 11:26 PM
Looks good. Nothing out of the ordinary...what map are you running? wondering since you are hitting ~20 psi of boost for a brief period of time