tuning programmable engine management systems

[sjf911]

I have experimented with MAF in my boosted application. What I have found is that MAF fueling alone it is difficult to get the AFR's reliably that most people want to run under boost. MS allows you to "fudge" fueling by adding a component of speed density while under boost to allow you to get to your target AFR's.

[Tippy]

Good to hear I wasn't crazy. I've read that even with lower air temps (although still higher than ambient) from an efficient IC, you still need lower AFR's for boost vs NA.

[scarceller]

Tippy,

The very first calculation done on AirFlow is to divide it by RPM/2 so that we know exactly how much of the air is injected by 1 engine cycle. This removes RPM and time from the equation. Once we do this we know exactly how much air is ingested by 1 cycle. We also know the the amount of air a cyl can injest without boost and this theoretical value is known as VE=1.0 the ign and fuel tables in a turbo motor have a row for 100% load so the first set of rows run 0-100% and these can be assumed to be just like normal aspirated motor. But in the turbo application we build the maps with rows beyond 100% for example 100-150% it's these extra rows where we add extra fuel and remove ignition respectively. We don't have WOT maps at all since they make no sense in a turbo setup, we simply have rows that are indicative of cyl filling ability, and any row above the 100% indicates boost conditions.

Or think of it this way, a cyl not under boost has a theoretical max ingestion ability usually calculated like this: 3.2L engine with 6 cyl - each cyl will ingest how much air per cycle assuming VE=1?

3.2L / 6cyl / 2revsPerStroke = 0.267L/cyl

so anything higher than 0.267L can only result under boost.

Originally Posted by Tippy

My thinking has always been this:

If a naturally aspirated engine flowed, let's say 1000 CFM of airflow, that engine required a given amount of fuel.

Now, if a boosted engine flowed the same exact 1000 CFM of airflow, it would require more fuel due to the higher cylinder pressure to minimize detonation.

So, that theory goes back to a MAF system still needing a MAP to my thinking.

I could be wrong and please someone correct me if so. This might be an old school way of thinking from roots blowers with no intercooler vs todays more efficient intercooled turbos.

[joeblow]

Unfortunately it is much more complicated than that. Each engine has many more dynamics involved which makes each one require far different tuning. Things such as cylinder efficiency, air flow dynamics, combustion chamber heat (hot spots), valve timing, plug temps, fuel content/formula, day to day air density, etc....

I guess one example of how complicated this can all be is with an engine I tuned a few years ago on an engine dyno. It was a 964/993 based block with 3.9 ltrs displacement, individual throttle bodies and twin turbos. It was a road race engine and made 550HP at 1.8BAR of boost which was already showing signes of detonation at that level.

I removed the Electromotive junk and installed EFI TECH (the Italian version), and started tuning. Once she was basic tuned (overall fuel and ignition maps) we were making 625HP with the same boost levels but 100 lb/ft TQ more in most the mid range power band. This could have been just the difference of how we tuned vs the other shop that did the Electromotive but that is debatable (we never even looked at what they were doing).

The fun part is this...we then did individual cylinder by cylinder tuning of fuel/ignition map called trimming, then also cyl to cyl fuel timing as well (when the injector started to open, not just open time). These are things that average EFI cant do. End result was that even with individual and identical throttle bodies there was significant tuning differences from cylinder to cylinder in both what they needed for fuel as well as timing (imagine what you average intake manifold is doing). Why? Well even with seemingly perfect air flow per cyl. there are many more dynamics involved such as cyl to cyl temperature differences, cross engine air pulses, exhaust dynamic back pressure pulse differences etc...

End result was the ability to run 2.0 BAR of boost, and power now at 800HP and 200 lb/ft TQ more almost everywhere in the power band with zero detonation.

Of course the EFI system, sensors, and install/tuning was $20K

Originally Posted by Tippy

My thinking has always been this:

If a naturally aspirated engine flowed, let's say 1000 CFM of airflow, that engine required a given amount of fuel.

Now, if a boosted engine flowed the same exact 1000 CFM of airflow, it would require more fuel due to the higher cylinder pressure to minimize detonation.

So, that theory goes back to a MAF system still needing a MAP to my thinking.

I could be wrong and please someone correct me if so. This might be an old school way of thinking from roots blowers with no intercooler vs todays more efficient intercooled turbos.

[Lorenfb]

"That's all we tuners really do, is validate or correct stock ignition on the dyno. It's not snake oil, it's a science that's used by OEM tuners."

"science" - what a joke! It's just engine basics - more timing = more torque.
"validate or correct stock ignition" Right, "correct", i.e. 'push' the timing!
Now how much science is involved in that? Like I've been saying for many years now,
'tuners' are like snake oil salesmen, i.e. It's all in the hyperbole (BS for many)!

Bottom line: Any engine management system (EMS) which doesn't include knock control
as ALL present day OEM EMSs do, belongs in a high school auto shop class for teaching
engine basics!

[scarceller]

Loren,

Let me ask a question: Your 88 Carrera you show in your signature you run it bone stock? You have absolutely no performance changes?

Originally Posted by Lorenfb

"That's all we tuners really do, is validate or correct stock ignition on the dyno. It's not snake oil, it's a science that's used by OEM tuners."

"science" - what a joke! It's just engine basics - more timing = more torque.
"validate or correct stock ignition" Right, "correct", i.e. 'push' the timing!
Now how much science is involved in that? Like I've been saying for many years now,
'tuners' are like snake oil salesmen, i.e. It's all in the hyperbole (BS for many)!

Bottom line: Any engine management system (EMS) which doesn't include knock control
as ALL present day OEM EMSs do, belongs in a high school auto shop class for teaching
engine basics!

[Lorenfb]

"Your 88 Carrera you show in your signature you run it bone stock? You have absolutely no performance changes?"

My 88 3.2 has a number of mods. The best one is the carbon fiber shift knob.

[scarceller]

Loren,

I'm asking specifically about engine mods your not an easy person to communicate with. Hello

Originally Posted by Lorenfb

"Your 88 Carrera you show in your signature you run it bone stock? You have absolutely no performance changes?"

My 88 3.2 has a number of mods. The best one is the carbon fiber shift knob.

[shbop]

Originally Posted by scarceller

Loren,

I'm asking specifically about engine mods your not an easy person to communicate with. Hello

Sal, This has been an informative thread. Please don't take the bait. I know it's low hanging fruit, but it takes this whole thing in another direction, and we have all been down that road before.

[scarceller]

Jon,

Yup, I've seen this before.

Thanks for the advice.

Originally Posted by shbop

Sal, This has been an informative thread. Please don't take the bait. I know it's low hanging fruit, but it takes this whole thing in another direction, and we have all been down that road before.

[Tippy]

Loren,

If "tuning" a Carrera 3.2 is frowned upon, what does a person do when they have significant mods done to the engine, ie. turbo/supercharging?

[jpnovak]

Sal and Loren,

Where do you place the knock sensor on a 3.2 Motronic car that does not have one stock? There are no cylinder bosses like the 3.6 variants. Are there certain locations that work better than others?

The most accessible place is the linkage console stud by cyl#3. It may not be the best choice but it is located away from the valve train (noise) and directly on a crank journal boss.

This will be useful for those who are installing aftermarket systems to meet the needs of internal modifications and have to tune the motor to match.

Thanks

[scarceller]

Tippy,

A simple exhaust change can benefit from a revisited tune. Anything that alters air flow can benefit.

Most folks interested in this thread fall into this camp, this i why Loren's comments can really derail these threads.

Originally Posted by Tippy

Loren,

If "tuning" a Carrera 3.2 is frowned upon, what does a person do when they have significant mods done to the engine, ie. turbo/supercharging?

[Tippy]

Originally Posted by scarceller

Tippy,

A simple exhaust change can benefit from a revisited tune. Anything that alters air flow can benefit.

Most folks interested in this thread fall into this camp, this i why Loren's comments can really derail these threads.

I totally understand, but Loren always says to leave the factory stuff in place.

So I posed the question to Loren, what do you do when turbo/supercharge a C3.2?

Leaving everything stock Motronic wise boosting these will have a jug dragging the ground in no time at all.............

How do meet his criteria of leaving the Motronic stuff alone but still making big power???

[joeblow]

Originally Posted by Tippy

How do meet his criteria of leaving the Motronic stuff alone but still making big power???

You dont....

[Tippy]

I know......it was rhetorical

[joeblow]

Originally Posted by Tippy

I know......it was rhetorical

I know, I was emphasizing

[WERK I]

Originally Posted by Lorenfb

"Your 88 Carrera you show in your signature you run it bone stock? You have absolutely no performance changes?"

My 88 3.2 has a number of mods. The best one is the carbon fiber shift knob.

Loren,
I respect your vast knowledge, but could you please tone down the rhetoric?

Thanks

[Lorenfb]

"what do you do when turbo/supercharge a C3.2?"

My comments were with regard to basically stock engines which most here on
Pelican Parts have and where AFR tweaking yields little to no improved torque.
Major changes, e.g. cams, turbo/supercharge, CRs, major intake/exhaust, etc.
are another story.

Most/all 'performance' tuning posts for stock engines claim AFR tweaking yields
torque improvements which is not factual when the initial AFRs were in the
11 to 14 range. The real results come from the 'pushed' timing which anyone who
has basic engine knowledge knows that increasing the timing advance always
'wakes-up' the engine, i.e. takes no great science or expertise there.

"The most accessible place is the linkage console stud by cyl#3. It may not be the best choice but it is located away from the valve train (noise) and directly on a crank journal boss."

Right. But the difficult part is getting the proper algorithm designed, which is a very
difficult task and is specific to each engine. One would need to characterize the
actual knock/pinging/detonation signal from engine noise and convert it digitally,
(a digital filter), e.g. using the Fast Fourier Transform.

Since the late '80s starting with the 959, Porsche used knock control to allow maximum
advance timing while avoiding detonation. The 928/964/993 can selectively retard problematic
cylinders in three degree increments to a max of nine. That way the overall engine torque is not
compromised because of a few cylinders. So using knock control allows more aggressive timing
to max torque and not compromise engine reliability to the same extent as what 'tuners' do with their 'pushed' timing on the 911 3.2 engine.

[Tippy]

Thanks Loren. I too, remember reading (here) knock control on an air-cooled is a major feat to get right due to the inherent noises that are not dampened through coolant, thin, single walls of aluminum vs thicker, dual walls that water-cooled engines have, etc., which create a lot of false readings and noise.