paulabreu's logs

[Fack_Dude]

@SomeGuy you do compression test lately? Come and join the fail boat. Haha

[SomeGuy]

@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.

[paulabreu]

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
datalog6.csv

[SomeGuy]

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]

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]

Also, I'm putting the stage 0 map now just to be safe

[SomeGuy]

Oops missed that....you had one spot in the log below 1600 again.

[paulabreu]

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]

The real question is why is your fuel pump having such a hard time

What mods do you have?

[paulabreu]

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]

So you should not be having fuel pressure issues

[loki]

It also may just be momentary dips...

[paulabreu]

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]

Driving normally is nothing

[SomeGuy]

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]

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]

91 fuel has slightly more energy in it and thus slightly lower fueling requirements (very minimal though) so it might help a bit.

[Kiyomi]

^^ ROFL.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

91 fuel has slightly more energy in it and thus slightly lower fueling requirements (very minimal though) so it might help a bit.

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 (1–2%) when compared to oxygenated and reformulated blends.[57]

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]

Does Esso's new 93 have zero ethanol?

[SomeGuy]

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]

So I pulled 2 more logs tonight

datalog14.csv
datalog15.csv

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]

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.

[paulabreu]

Did another log tonight after installing a CP-E TMIC
datalog1.csv

[mickey_g]

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