Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Modified PULP map and I don't do the 4500 + . The reason the light load areas are so advanced is because that's where it seems to make best part throttle torque , on E70 . Not spiking now . I will agree the timing is mild around 1 bar but that is dyno tuning territory in my opinion . I think the PULP tune was pretty tame and until I added a fair bit of light load timing felt quite flat . 

I have heard this engine rattle twice in 10 years and 88000K so I highly doubt it'll go bang . Bores looked good at 90 and ~160K . At idle no breathing out the oil filler hole at all .

Like I said lets see other peoples E70/85 timing maps , and AFR target tables .

 

Appreciate that you're sharing the important bits.  Couple of constructive observations:

Your ECU interpolates between cells quite effectively.  The MAP row 95kpa on AFR target is largely redundant.  Looks nice, does very little IMO except divert attention.   I get the gist of the 115kpa row, but unless your logging shows that the engine often hovers around that point, and the fuel and ignition mapping is done to reflect/capitalise that, maybe not a lot to gain.

Similarly with the ignition map showing a row at 90kpa.  I take a pragmatic approach, and if logging shows you rush through that zone very quickly or don't actually spend "that much" time at that load point, don't add complexity to the map. Get rid of it.

You're on ethanol.  Add 3 degrees of timing across all cells from 140-200kpa (and play carefully).  If you're running decent advance sub 100kpa then quickly take it away as boost rises, it's going to feel flat.  You know it's going to need a dyno session with someone who is at least moderately competent at some point to get ignition right, across the full load range.

Run an AFR log or two, with steady accel, and then with decent throttle above 50 percent.  The data streams will show rate of change of throttle, boost, and accel enrichment + how closely actual AFR follows the target.  To say the accel enrich values "look big" could be mistakenly ignoring that it potentially needs more. 

Finally - Have an experienced driver who doesn't know your tune pedal the car in those situations, and get their honest impression about "feel" once it's tuned more satisfactorily.  It may be better than you're thinking, and over analysing the performance of an old car.

 

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...