I think I'm going Lean up top?

Alright so I installed the Mak Inlet and did a few pulls. I'm not the best at interpreting the datalogs on these cars. Can someone comment?

I was having the same issue trying to up the timing with Lund for 100 octane as well.

This is 93 octane final tune log with Mak Inlet (REV4).

http://www.datazap.me/u/venumous/pc...0-8-9-15-16-20&trim=0&tmin=434.53&tmax=441.63

When we were adding timing, we got up to Rev 7 and started to see this (I think the same thing anyway). He asked me to go back to Rev 6 and log and said it looked good. Here is that Rev 6.

http://www.datazap.me/u/venumous/pc...a=0-8-14-16-20&trim=0&tmin=471.80&tmax=481.79

Whatever the issue, assuming there is one, I'm having the Sai Li system installed Friday and retuning so I'm thinking that should take care of it. Almost has to be the pump or BAP (only 4.8k mi on car with 3k boosted).

I cant see your logs but at wot u want to see anywheir from .78 to .80 on your measured a/f.Again thats wot pull.

Tommy V said:

I cant see your logs but at wot u want to see anywheir from .78 to .80 on your measured a/f.Again thats wot pull.

Click to expand...

6800 up I'm 0.81 to 0.84 at 7300 plus.

.81 is ok .84 is gojng a little lean.do u use sct if so i can give u my email and i can look at the whole log for u.

venumous said:

6800 up I'm 0.81 to 0.84 at 7300 plus.

Click to expand...

If u take 14.7 and times that to what ever u measured a/f is ,thst will.tell u what your a/f ratio is.

Tommy V said:

.81 is ok .84 is gojng a little lean.do u use sct if so i can give u my email and i can look at the whole log for u.

Click to expand...

PM me your email good sir.

REV 4 seems to be slightly lean 2-3% everywhere and after 6700 it really starts to it gets up to 14%. The fuel trims take care of it and keep measured lambda under control.

REV 6 seems to be going rich everywhere increasing with RPMS 2-8%. Again Fuel trims keep measured lambda around the target.

You want Lambse(commanded lambda) and measured lambda to be the same, When they are your fuel is dialed in. You will notice fuel trims are almost equal to the difference of Lambse and measured lambda.

Fuel needs to be correct to get the most out of timing. Besides the lean top end I like REV4 fuel better than REV6.

Times lambda by 14.08 for E10.

markmurfie said:

REV 4 seems to be slightly lean 2-3% everywhere and after 6700 it really starts to it gets up to 14%. The fuel trims take care of it and keep measured lambda under control.

REV 6 seems to be going rich everywhere increasing with RPMS 2-8%. Again Fuel trims keep measured lambda around the target.

You want Lambse(commanded lambda) and measured lambda to be the same, When they are your fuel is dialed in. You will notice fuel trims are almost equal to the difference of Lambse and measured lambda.

Fuel needs to be correct to get the most out of timing. Besides the lean top end I like REV4 fuel better than REV6.

Times lambda by 14.08 for E10.

Click to expand...

So you're saying the tune is still safe? Rev 4 was actually the final tune for 93 before I started doing anything. And the Rev 4 you're looking at is from today with the Mak Inlet.

Yes below 6700 on REV 4 looks OK. REV6 looks like it needs a little more work. Safe is relative, you are maxing out the MAF value at 86.68. Coincidental this happens right at 6700 as well. Normally the tuner then would have to use the MAF frequency and Guess at the LB/min value. This is probably why it started going so lean, from a low guess. It looks like they started messing with the entire MAF curve, which is weird considering it was just octane rating thats changed and you just wanted more timing. Timing looks unchanged as both seem to be getting to a limit around 17*. Besides all the background stuff the only real difference in Air/fuel/spark between the logs is the knock sensor activity. Not what I would expect from an increased octane tune.