[ruphianh]

Originally Posted by keikdasneak

My money is on Shiv... I have not heard of any Procedes blowing up engines. Shiv knows what he is talking about.

+1

My car hauls. Thanks, Shiv.

[Ilma]

I've had AFR readings in the 13's before and I didn't feel comfortable about that psychologically because everyone on here keeps pushing 11's to 12's as safe.

But quite honestly, the car felt great and I think it actually made nicer power delivery.

As much as seeing high 11's to low 12's gives me a kind of comfort zone.......I do think the car does feel a little on the rich side at times.

But I don't know anything about anything. so don't listen to me.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Ilma

I've had AFR readings in the 13's before and I didn't feel comfortable about that psychologically because everyone on here keeps pushing 11's to 12's as safe.

But quite honestly, the car felt great and I think it actually made nicer power delivery.

As much as seeing high 11's to low 12's gives me a kind of comfort zone.......I do think the car does feel a little on the rich side at times.

But I don't know anything about anything. so don't listen to me.

Yeah right... you know more than you give yourself credit for

[jason335777]

Do you think the newest maps are safer? I thought this thing was plug and play and it autotunes to safe power levels? I didnt think I had to tweak anything. I havent had one problem though. No codes, or anything running bad.

[nitehawk]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Nothing. Is where the DME takes it from after all. But in the case of piggybacks which adjust AFR targets by biasing the signal voltage, the readings won't be accurate unless they are compensated for. Also, a Dynojet has its own wideband o2 sensor unit that integrates with with their Dynojet computer. Importing AFR from 3rd party wideband sensors is very difficult due to logistics and sensor calibration differences.

OK thanks...so is that where "wideband" sensors such as the Innovate LM-2 come into play? They're third party sensors that could give accurate readings on piggybacks?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by jason335777

Do you think the newest maps are safer? I thought this thing was plug and play and it autotunes to safe power levels? I didnt think I had to tweak anything. I havent had one problem though. No codes, or anything running bad.

The newer maps run richer at low RPM. The newest maps for the Rev2.5/3 even more so. But saying that the newer maps are "safer" would be a gross oversimplification if not a completely unsubstantiated statement.

That said, there is no harm in updating to a more recent map/fw. If you like it more, keep it. If not, go back to what you are currently running.

Originally Posted by nitehawk

OK thanks...so is that where "wideband" sensors such as the Innovate LM-2 come into play? They're third party sensors that could give accurate readings on piggybacks?

Yes. But you don't have to use a 3rd party sensor to get an accurate AFR reading on a piggyback since it is possible to "back out" the wideband bias effect and calculate actual AFR.

cheers,
shiv

[jason335777]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

This forum cracks me up sometimes

Jason-- Your AFRs are perfectly safe. The Map0 run tested on the dyno runs richer than a truly stock tune since the Procede is still physically installed and still applies the AFR target offset. If you ran the car without the Procede, you'd see the stock tune run considerably leaner than what is shown in your baseline (15-15.5:1 in the low end/midrange).

Forgive some of the lesser informed people on this forum who will try to convince you that your engine is suffering and on the verge of meltdown. I think they forget that you are only running 10-12psi down low, not the 16-18psi that some people are now running to make the same (or less) power. That said, the new maps run considerably richer down low than the old map you are running. But that was done mainly to satisfy those who, after 4 years, suddenly feel that running richer is mandatory.

Your dyno curve looks solid and smooth. Enjoy your car. I think those are the strongest Tune-Only results we've ever seen on this forum.

Shiv

Thanks for chiming in SHiv. I didnt see your post before my last reply. As I said, this car runs great (granted a little clutch slip here and there). I've been running this 12-17 tune since I got it (didnt like the dic one it came with). I plan to put the latest maps on though.

I had this car to the track twice, and my best run was a 12.8. The car feels absolutely amazing, and I get on it every time I'm in the car. You feel the surge big time right away, and its way better than stock. I'm totally impressed with the gains I got. I didnt realize that map 0 was any different than stock. I trust what Shiv says about this dyno result being safe. Keep in mind this was a tailpipe sensor, so perhaps it isnt as accurate. I need to run a USB cable, and then I will get some real logs and send them to shiv or posts them. Thanks for the comments!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by jason335777

Thanks for chiming in SHiv. I didnt see your post before my last reply. As I said, this car runs great (granted a little clutch slip here and there). I've been running this 12-17 tune since I got it (didnt like the dic one it came with). I plan to put the latest maps on though.

I had this car to the track twice, and my best run was a 12.8. The car feels absolutely amazing, and I get on it every time I'm in the car. You feel the surge big time right away, and its way better than stock. I'm totally impressed with the gains I got. I didnt realize that map 0 was any different than stock. I trust what Shiv says about this dyno result being safe. Keep in mind this was a tailpipe sensor, so perhaps it isnt as accurate. I need to run a USB cable, and then I will get some real logs and send them to shiv or posts them. Thanks for the comments!

Map0 will make the exact same power as the stock tune. But it will run a little richer down low and in the midrange. If you really cared about it, you can see why by peeking at the AFR offset table (with the user tuning interface) and let the Procede trace the active cells during a run.

Glad your enjoying things

btw, i went to school at CMU. I have very fold memories of Pittsburgh!

[nitehawk]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

btw, i went to school at CMU. I have very fold memories of Pittsburgh!

OT but if you dont mind me asking, what did you study?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by nitehawk

OT but if you dont mind me asking, what did you study?

I majored in Internet Debate with a minor in Passive Aggression. j/k... I doubled in Econ and Physics

[nitehawk]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I majored in Internet Debate with a minor in Passive Aggression. j/k... I doubled in Econ and Physics

LOL, I do think you would be an awesome laywer

[thebigragu99]

Omg!! To much politics on here .Shiv Honestly as far as I can see the afrs a bit lean!! Wouldn't this cause high egts?? Correct t me if I'm wrong .

[Skydive]

Shiv...

You ought to be pleased that this thread came along. It makes one thing particularly clear. At least three of your recent naysayers are just naysayers. Folks who are are both reasonable and reaonably smart about tuning as a whole rather than just single parameter bandwagoneers can plainly see that these guys are out to make themselves feel good by speaking ill of your work.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by thebigragu99

Omg!! To much politics on here .Shiv Honestly as far as I can see the afrs a bit lean!! Wouldn't this cause high egts?? Correct t me if I'm wrong .

Nope, you will not get anything close to uncomfortably high EGTs at lower engine speed. Max EGT will happen at max RPM. Where this engine will be seeing 11-12:1 AFR. Also, ignition advance (or lack thereof) is a bigger contributor to climbing EGTs. Which is the advantage of running a low boost/high ignition timing scenario all other things equal.

No politics. Just facts.

Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Skydive

Shiv...

You ought to be pleased that this thread came along. It makes one thing particularly clear. At least three of your recent naysayers are just naysayers. Folks who are are both reasonable and reaonably smart about tuning as a whole rather than just single parameter bandwagoneers can plainly see that these guys are out to make themselves feel good by speaking ill of your work.

Naysayers are easy to deal with because they don't pretty come to the plate with anything tangible. They just spew hate. The only real downside is that they waste the time and bandwidth of others. But if other forum members can benefit from the resulting discussions, as hard to sift through as they can be, it's all good in the end

Cheers
shiv

[jason335777]

[Joshboody]

There is a very apparent witch hunt these days pertaining to AFR. Correct me if I’m wrong, but 12:1 is more like a carburetored AFR target. We enrich the mixture mainly to make sure all the air and fuel are able to mix… considering the mixing dynamics, which get tougher with rpm. Carburetor to fuel injection to port injection to direct injection all have improved mixing dynamics reaching a more homogeneous A/F mixture… meaning X air molecules to Y fuel molecules. If we had 14.7:1 throughout the cylinder then there would be a consistent, complete burn with stable tuning. But we are trying to avoid the situation of lean pockets which create heat and can spontaneously combust A/F mixture prematurely causing detonation, thus the increased fuel volume to make sure it’s distributed throughout the cylinder. We need much less fuel with DI considering the improved atomization and spraying directly into the cylinder.

Now some will say that the richer mixture is needed to cool the cylinder, but I have recently understood that the difference between 13:1 and 12:1 is only about 5-10deg F due to the very low latent heat of evaporation of gasoline. So where does the richer mixture help like with flashes targeting 1 million psi of boost in the mid-range… it’s burn rate. Slows it down and along with the retarded ignition, they can run these boost levels, thus it’s necessary for them…. BUT not if you tune the car correctly. But, if desired, we can now target these richer mixtures by adjusting the mapping with the newer maps and circuitry.

Anyway, a little rant from myself. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Also I would be curious to see the AFRs of the 1M... it hits about 13psi in the mid-range (I think) and probably close to 14:1 ratio I bet.

[onesuperboi]

I can buy the reasons why you don't have to run rich, but why are you making your new maps run richer and you upgraded your board to be able to run more fuel. It seems to be inconsistent to what you are saying. If its not necessary, than why do it or change?

[boom]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

I can buy the reasons why you don't have to run rich, but why are you making your new maps run richer and you upgraded your board to be able to run more fuel. It seems to be inconsistent to what you are saying. If its not necessary, than why do it or change?

It's spin and deflection aka smoke and mirrors...

[badass335]

From what I gathered, the new board which could run richer was for upgraded turbos. I could be wrong though..

[cwn23]

There is definitely some cloak and dagger going on but At this point as long as it's addressed that's all I am concerned with.

[EastBayE90]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

There is a very apparent witch hunt these days pertaining to AFR. Correct me if I’m wrong, but 12:1 is more like a carburetored AFR target. We enrich the mixture mainly to make sure all the air and fuel are able to mix… considering the mixing dynamics, which get tougher with rpm. Carburetor to fuel injection to port injection to direct injection all have improved mixing dynamics reaching a more homogeneous A/F mixture… meaning X air molecules to Y fuel molecules. If we had 14.7:1 throughout the cylinder then there would be a consistent, complete burn with stable tuning. But we are trying to avoid the situation of lean pockets which create heat and can spontaneously combust A/F mixture prematurely causing detonation, thus the increased fuel volume to make sure it’s distributed throughout the cylinder. We need much less fuel with DI considering the improved atomization and spraying directly into the cylinder.

Now some will say that the richer mixture is needed to cool the cylinder, but I have recently understood that the difference between 13:1 and 12:1 is only about 5-10deg F due to the very low latent heat of evaporation of gasoline. So where does the richer mixture help like with flashes targeting 1 million psi of boost in the mid-range… it’s burn rate. Slows it down and along with the retarded ignition, they can run these boost levels, thus it’s necessary for them…. BUT not if you tune the car correctly. But, if desired, we can now target these richer mixtures by adjusting the mapping with the newer maps and circuitry.

Anyway, a little rant from myself. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Also I would be curious to see the AFRs of the 1M... it hits about 13psi in the mid-range (I think) and probably close to 14:1 ratio I bet.

+1000 Very well put. We used to tune our carburated small block Chevy to 12:1 for safety. For some reason others believe that all engines are created equal since 1960 and we have not advanced at all.