Advertisement

I think I'm going Lean up top?

venumous

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2016
Posts
957
Reaction score
215
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
16' Procharged GT
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).
 

Tommy V

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Posts
3,651
Reaction score
589
Location
Brookly park Md
First Name
Tommy
Vehicle(s)
2015 race red gt pp manual, recaros, 401al DOA "too much boost on 93", 2017 GT Auto
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.
 

venumous

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2016
Posts
957
Reaction score
215
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
16' Procharged GT
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.

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

Tommy V

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Posts
3,651
Reaction score
589
Location
Brookly park Md
First Name
Tommy
Vehicle(s)
2015 race red gt pp manual, recaros, 401al DOA "too much boost on 93", 2017 GT Auto
.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.
 

Tommy V

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Posts
3,651
Reaction score
589
Location
Brookly park Md
First Name
Tommy
Vehicle(s)
2015 race red gt pp manual, recaros, 401al DOA "too much boost on 93", 2017 GT Auto
6800 up I'm 0.81 to 0.84 at 7300 plus.
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.
 

venumous

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2016
Posts
957
Reaction score
215
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
16' Procharged GT
.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.
PM me your email good sir.
 

markmurfie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Posts
920
Reaction score
381
Location
Hawaii
First Name
Mark
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ford Mustang GT
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.
 

venumous

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2016
Posts
957
Reaction score
215
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
16' Procharged GT
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.

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.
 

markmurfie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Posts
920
Reaction score
381
Location
Hawaii
First Name
Mark
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ford Mustang GT
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.
 

Advertisement




Advertisement
 
Advertisement
Top