Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

In the process of tuning rb20det to standard specs. car is very slugish on standard base ignition timing also has been converted from auto to manual running standard auto ecu.

car has following mods

-unopened rb20det

-rb25 turbo

-walbro 255 pump

-pod with custom box and air duct

-12psi

-fmic

-3" exhaust no cat strait to rear muffler

-yellow jacket coil packs

-new iridium plugs gapped down to .8 from 1.1

i put the timing to the auto's 20 deg btdc with aac unplugged and idle @700rpm like this you put your foot down and it makes alot of noise but isn't pulling very well compared to if its on 30 deg btdc which it really gets up and goes (with no pinging). 20 deg, kick cluch in second will bog! 30 deg kick in second lets loose and abit of third? do i have to maybe gap the plugs back to 1.1 to bring ignition back to 20???

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/392159-slugish-15-20deg-timing/
Share on other sites

I assume your using the wire loop at the rear of the engine? Cheap timing lights tend to read double or half while using it.. i can't remember. Best place to get a timing signal is from coil #1

I assume your using the wire loop at the rear of the engine? Cheap timing lights tend to read double or half while using it.. i can't remember.

DOUBLE. So you probably only have 10 BTDC.

Most accurate is to insert a spark plug lead between #1 coil and #1 plug, and time it "old school".

You are running good coils and fairly stock power, so I would suggest you open the gap back out to around 1mm.

timing was done with ignition lead between coil 1 and plug. also just moved it to 25 and i can live with thepower it has there but any thing under and its really boggy till your up around 6000rpm. This is all assuming the orange mark is 0 and 7th mark is 30 btdc?

Edited by domo88

my thought is if i make the spark gap bigger it will ignite the fuel quicker therefore i can make it fire closer to tdc (more retard) at the moment the spark is weaker and to ignite the fuel properly its having to fire that much more early or advaced. does this sound right?

no worries well its running well where it is and not pinging so i'll leve it there till i get money for nistune and get it on dyno. also when i had the timing backed off it was super fuely and poping when going down gears wich is nothing different when running rich but when i was pushing the accelerator and was running slugish and bogging down at 6000rpm it hit fuel cut??? my theory is that because it was running so rich the computer tryed to compensate for it by trying to correct a/f mixture with more air and maxed out the afm making it hit fuel cut??? this is possible? coz hasn't done it since got it running right... cheers for replys

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...