Mysterious power flatline from 5k rpm - tuner is stumped

[CowsWithGuns]

Am I onto something here? Another blokes picture of a VCT gear (btw, is this what you would call a cam phasor?) looks like this. Note the position of the red dot to the bolts and the timing mark.

Mine looks like this, pardon the image quality.

 

So the bolts are in a substantially different position, and my red dot is below the timing mark - theirs is above.

 

Like... this is the issue right guys???? 

 

[GTSBoy]

Yeah, it might be. But it is.... a massive deviation from the correct position, if it is the case. Surprising that there hasn't been tappity tap tap noises from inside.

I didn't think you could do this with the VCT actuator, which is why I pointed to the exhaust cam.

And we wouldn't call it a cam phasor in this application. The VCT is really only on-off and moves between two positions. A phasor is meant to control to a vernier position anywhere between max and min.

[fletch rb30]

I don't think the location of the dot on the neo actuator matters.

It's just to differentiate between DET (red 20degrees) and DE (green 30 degrees)

[Lithium]

On 02/02/2024 at 2:28 PM, Kinkstaah said:

Unless the 7064 is a dog on 98/mismatched, it's not a commonly run turbo.... I remember a 7163 running out of puff/nosing over at high ranges on a SR20, though that was due to Poncams running around. I don't wanna be 'that guy' but a 3076 is also a bigger turbo, compressor size, though the 7064 has a larger turbine wheel. Point being the 3076 may not be the most likely thing to match it against. Someone point @Lithium here.

Sorry, got no notification of the mention and just happened to stroll in for a nosy around while having lunch - will be brief (for me :D)  because I don't have heaps of time right now but reading through all the comments, I'll address things I haven't noticed specifically mentioned yet:

1) This won't in itself cause enough of a problem to "be the problem" but it's worth mentioning that I'm *pretty sure* that the 3076 dyno plot in the comparison will not be running a factory plenum.   I think people forget or don't even realise how much of a different the typical GReddy-esque plenum makes on power delivery and the resulting power-per-psi you can make.  Stock plenum falls over much earlier in my experience.

2) Can we confirm that it is DEFINITELY holding a full 18psi to redline? There is mention of WGDC increasing to maintain it, but how often I see comments that something is tuned for xpsi and the curve actually drops off towards the end.   I've had experience with an EFR7064 and they work decent enough on an RB25, not the "best" at all these days but you should definitely be able to get a better result than this.  The one I was involved with ran a .83a/r open T3 IWG setup and took a lot of pissing around to stop the flapper blowing open, which depending on what the boost curve is doing could cover some of the WGDC going to the moon.   The EMAP may not even be THAT bad, just the BW actuator setup doesn't necessarily play nice.   Even dropping a couple of psi as the rpm increase could really put a damper on the curve.

3) In terms of using "it's not at max rpm" to confirm its not got a boost leak or anything like that, not necessarily a rock solid method with a 7064 which is more of a "I want high pressure ratios" turbo.   At a PR ~2.2-2.3 (for 18psi at sealevel) we're looking at 120,000rpm *MAX* if you're staying within the happy-enough working area of the compressor.  I treat anything <60% compressor efficiency as a point where the efficiency of everything starts becoming noticeably worse, EMAP starts ramping up more aggressively etc.   If you were at 130,000rpm for sake of argument, and assuming you're in a pretty happy place because 153,000rpm is meant to be the "speed limit" then unfortunately it's a trap a lot of people have fallen into with EFRs.   This combo SHOULDN'T be off the map there, at least that badly, so if you are 120,000+rpm then I'd not rule out pressure testing the boost system.   Probably still wouldn't hurt if it hasn't been done.

4) In terms of your turbine wheel observation @Kinkstaah - it's a trap.   The Borg wheel aero make them not comparable size vs size with Garrett ones, the EFR7064 turbine wheel flows a fair bit worse than a GT30 imho/experience.   Also spools better, though.   Which brings me to another observation, the dyno plot looks laggier than the T3 .83 EFR7064 a mate has on his RB25 which could be a hint.  Maybe.

5) I'm not assuming your tuner (or anyone else) is useless - their investigation and frankness actually is pretty encouraging but I always feel obliged to mention *ANY* thought I have as its always worth ruling everything out.   Are you 100% sure the e-throttle is physically at max WOT?   This doesn't look outrageously unlike a part throttle "turbo" dyno pull, both in shape of the curve and also the data you're reporting back.

Plenty of people who aren't the dumbest have missed things like this (like me) and it can be worth ruling stuff like this out when there are no other clear smoking guns.

I gotta scuttle off now, but those are some "obvious" things that jumped into my head that I haven't seen mention of.

 

 

[CowsWithGuns]

6 hours ago, Lithium said:

I gotta scuttle off now, but those are some "obvious" things that jumped into my head that I haven't seen mention of.

Awesome input Lithium, much food for thought. You caught me pants down forgetting that approaching turbo speed limit at low PR takes me to efficiencies so low they don't get mapped . I'll be getting dyno log data hopefully on Tuesday.

1) I'm pretty sure it's running the stock plenum because it's running the stock throttle body. They mentioned checking it because my 60mm bosch looked tiny (but its actually stock size internally). I'll ask directly out of interest.

In all honesty, when I agonised over getting a plazmaman plenum (or not) the forums implied to me that any aftermarket plenums are all super doo-doo with extra poo, and are only worth considering (for performance reasons) if chasing peak power gains well beyond my 300kw benchmark. I concluded the plazmaman is the least poo of the steaming pile but still not desirable for a street oriented car. I guess you beg to differ?

For the rest of the points, I may have to ask some stupid questions so forgive me - this is my first project car so I'm rife with uncertainty.

2) This can be verified by confirming MAP is at 18 psi the whole way?

3) Will check the logs for speed data (and double check I didn't put in the wrong scaling number ), but the system has been boost leak checked both by me and tuner: I did 30psi with a soap spray bottle, and by the tuner with smoke and low pressure (8psi).

4) When I saw that graph, I was suprised that I'm not seeing a faster spool (and hence more low rpm power) than the 3076 - which I expected with this turbo. Do you suggest/agree that the whole graph may be underperforming, rather than just 5k+ rpm?

5) No idea. If I or the tuner physically inspect the TB behaviour with engine off (or just snapping it open at idle), and then see if this aligns with the sensor data, would that be satisfactory for the rest of the rev range?

 

I have a general question - if I have an IWG that has the flapper blowing open that isn't treated by increasing duty cycle, how do you fix that properly? Is it just a case of bigger springs and/or more preload or is there a 'trick'?

While you're around about lithium, could you share what turbo setup you would recommend for my goals if the 7064 is not it? It's too late for me now but I'm still curious. FWIW I wanted the 7163 0.85 IWG... but maybe I should get over it and fork out for the EWG life like everyone else 😛

 

Edited February 5 by CowsWithGuns

[r32-25t]

Is the exhaust a custom built job or a bolt on Japanese brand 

[Lithium]

14 hours ago, CowsWithGuns said:

1) I'm pretty sure it's running the stock plenum because it's running the stock throttle body. They mentioned checking it because my 60mm bosch looked tiny (but its actually stock size internally). I'll ask directly out of interest.

In all honesty, when I agonised over getting a plazmaman plenum (or not) the forums implied to me that any aftermarket plenums are all super doo-doo with extra poo, and are only worth considering (for performance reasons) if chasing peak power gains well beyond my 300kw benchmark. I concluded the plazmaman is the least poo of the steaming pile but still not desirable for a street oriented car. I guess you beg to differ?

For the rest of the points, I may have to ask some stupid questions so forgive me - this is my first project car so I'm rife with uncertainty.

2) This can be verified by confirming MAP is at 18 psi the whole way?

3) Will check the logs for speed data (and double check I didn't put in the wrong scaling number ), but the system has been boost leak checked both by me and tuner: I did 30psi with a soap spray bottle, and by the tuner with smoke and low pressure (8psi).

4) When I saw that graph, I was suprised that I'm not seeing a faster spool (and hence more low rpm power) than the 3076 - which I expected with this turbo. Do you suggest/agree that the whole graph may be underperforming, rather than just 5k+ rpm?

5) No idea. If I or the tuner physically inspect the TB behaviour with engine off (or just snapping it open at idle), and then see if this aligns with the sensor data, would that be satisfactory for the rest of the rev range?

I have a general question - if I have an IWG that has the flapper blowing open that isn't treated by increasing duty cycle, how do you fix that properly? Is it just a case of bigger springs and/or more preload or is there a 'trick'?

While you're around about lithium, could you share what turbo setup you would recommend for my goals if the 7064 is not it? It's too late for me now but I'm still curious. FWIW I wanted the 7163 0.85 IWG... but maybe I should get over it and fork out for the EWG life like everyone else 😛

 

Haha the numbering thing is making things a lot easier to follow - I miss the days when it was easy to just quote selective bits of a post to make context easier to follow.

1) Ok interesting, I'm used to seeing stock plenum setups fall over earlier.  Not going to question it if its stock, though you can run aftermarket plenums with stock throttle body fine.   I wasn't saying it NEEDED to happen, there is definitely a sacrifice down low if you go a FFP and I'm at this stage definitely not saying its a thing you need here - just breaking down all the bits of what is going on as often there isn't "just one thing" if you're not getting the power curve you were expecting.  
 

2) MAP is absolute pressure, so strictly speaking yes - 18psi + ambient pressure, so 32-33psi area absolute or ~18psi boost/gauge pressure to redline is what you're looking for.  

3) Be interesting to know whatever further data you can get from logs but it DOES sound like you guys have been pretty thorough with boost leak testing

4) I would expect better spool than what is coming across on that dyno plot, from memory we saw around 300rwkw on a hub dyno with the .83 IWG on stock exhaust manifold, freddy FFP, BP98 RB25 on a Dynapack hub dyno.  What fuel are you running, and is it a Mainline rolling road you're being tuned on?   If so, that probably translates to about 260-270rwkw, and we WERE initially stuck at around 260kw when we had wastegate control problems (flapper being blown open).

5) I probably asked a redundant question here, sorry... I missed the point where you said there was no significant pressure drop across the TB.   If that is the case at max rpm then this is very unlikely an area to be worrying about.

 

In regards to the bonus round questions, we initially tried to be clever and fit a two port actuator with lower base pressure to the EFR and that didn't seem to be "enough" - I guess in hindsight the fact that we were still using a 3port solenoid and the fact it was clearly mostly back pressure causing the issue this was not the way.   The problem was solved in that situation by just going to a much stiffer spring/actuator.

In terms of what I'd have suggested, can you confirm the fuel and dyno (rolling road?) that you're using?  And this is for 280-300kw with nice driveability?

Edited February 5 by Lithium

[GTSBoy]

7 minutes ago, Lithium said:

I miss the days when it was easy to just quote selective bits of a post to make context easier to follow.

You still can. Just highlight the bit you want to quote, and then press the quote button that ops up next to it. Rinse and repeat.

[Lithium]

2 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

You still can

Well shoot.  Thanks!   My walls of text may get a bit less painful now   

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

14 hours ago, CowsWithGuns said:

when I agonised over getting a plazmaman plenum (or not) the forums implied to me that any aftermarket plenums are all super doo-doo with extra poo, and are only worth considering (for performance reasons) if chasing peak power gains well beyond my 300kw benchmark. I concluded the plazmaman is the least poo of the steaming pile but still not desirable for a street oriented car. I guess you beg to differ?

FWIW, Tao from Hypergear made over 500kW at the rear hubs with a stock plenum/intake manifold. I've done 407kW at the rear wheels with a stock plenum/intake manifold.

Moving to a sexy looking Plazmaman plenum, I've a bit of boost response down low. Could make 1bar by 4100rpm before now it's about 4400rpm.

[Lithium]

15 hours ago, CowsWithGuns said:

Awesome input Lithium, much food for thought. You caught me pants down forgetting that approaching turbo speed limit at low PR takes me to efficiencies so low they don't get mapped

You are FAR from the first person to overlook this.  I've been in this club, though learned from it some time ago

Very loose plotting of a generic "2.5 single turbo" on pump gas against an EFR7064, adding in compressor efficiency (and taking a random guess for the off the map one) and then adjusting the turbine expansion stuff to suit and it definitely paints a picture of excessive EMAP partly aggrevated by running off the comp map: https://www.borgwarner.com/go/CRTINK

While still being unsure whether to treat this if it's an ethanol or pump gas / 98RON setup - did the tuner mention knock being an issue?

Edited February 5 by Lithium

[CowsWithGuns]

8 hours ago, r32-25t said:

Is the exhaust a custom built job or a bolt on Japanese brand 

Custom shitshow by yours truly: 4" dump to 4" oval underneath, to 5" body highflow cat, to 3" catback. Backpressure measured by tuner and backpressure is 'low'.

2 hours ago, Lithium said:

In terms of what I'd have suggested, can you confirm the fuel and dyno (rolling road?) that you're using?  And this is for 280-300kw with nice driveability?

Mainline hub dyno on unknown 98, I don't recall where I filled last. Does this matter? Is BP or whomever higher octane than other brands? And spot on, the goal is best drivability in the 280-300kw range on 98.

2 hours ago, Lithium said:

In regards to the bonus round questions, we initially tried to be clever and fit a two port actuator with lower base pressure to the EFR and that didn't seem to be "enough" - I guess in hindsight the fact that we were still using a 3port solenoid and the fact it was clearly mostly back pressure causing the issue this was not the way.   The problem was solved in that situation by just going to a much stiffer spring/actuator.

I don't think I clarified this before actually - it's currently running 14psi spring in the turbosmart 2 port IWG actuator, using the stock Pierberg boost controller, using a T to connect to both ports. Rocked up to the tuners with a 4port and 7psi spring, they immediately said get rid of that because it has insufficient resolution for my low boost.

2 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

You still can. Just highlight the bit you want to quote, and then press the quote button that ops up next to it. Rinse and repeat.

Winning - employing new tech now

1 hour ago, Lithium said:

While still being unsure whether to treat this if it's an ethanol or pump gas / 98RON setup - did the tuner mention knock being an issue?

No comments on knock, the tuner was perturbed by the high WGDuty% to stop boost falling off, and the low power in general.

1 hour ago, Lithium said:

Very loose plotting of a generic "2.5 single turbo" on pump gas against an EFR7064, adding in compressor efficiency (and taking a random guess for the off the map one) and then adjusting the turbine expansion stuff to suit and it definitely paints a picture of excessive EMAP partly aggrevated by running off the comp map: https://www.borgwarner.com/go/CRTINK

I did something very similar when I was staring at the cheap 7064 for sale. This made me think I might have a nasty fall off past ~6000 rpm until the rude surprise

So tuner has recommended I throw in the towel as further diag will be expensive guess work. I'll get all the logs and data I can (they are doing a final tune check/run now) and post them up here, and slowly do my own diag at home.

[Lithium]

2 hours ago, CowsWithGuns said:

Mainline hub dyno on unknown 98, I don't recall where I filled last. Does this matter? Is BP or whomever higher octane than other brands?

Nah I was more checking whether E85 or petrol, which makes a big difference.  Ok Mainline hub, that shouldn't be THAT low reading.

2 hours ago, CowsWithGuns said:

it's currently running 14psi spring in the turbosmart 2 port IWG actuator, using the stock Pierberg boost controller

I would have expected this to be sufficient for what you're trying to do

2 hours ago, CowsWithGuns said:

'll get all the logs and data I can (they are doing a final tune check/run now) and post them up here, and slowly do my own diag at home.

Yeah this seems the wisest at this point, if you are able to get more data to scrutinize then that MAY build a better picture.   At this point I don't think I'll add too much until some data is available to try and build a better picture of what might be going on unless you have any other specific questions?

In terms of turbo match you shouldn't be far off with what you have imho, an EFR7163 (with a bigger hotside) would be a nicer match probably, and some more modern things like Garrett G-series may be a better balance for a bigger engine but at this stage while the turbo match may not be OPTIMAL... I suspect there is something not performing as well as it should be in the setup.  <250kw @ hubs on 98 isn't right.

 

 

[CowsWithGuns]

On 2/6/2024 at 1:45 PM, Lithium said:

until some data is available

Data acquired!!

VE Table

VE Map

Ignition Table

WOT Dyno Run from ECU log

Had a crank no start upon arrival due to a hilarious shorting issue, which was prompty resolved by the tuner (their fault, their instant resolution :D). Since I'm paranoid about everything now I noticed the log initially tracks the RPM fluctuations then becomes a flat line. I guess this is a normal noise filtering process but don't know, can anyone confirm it's normal?

Also attached is the complete tune file, the ECU log with the last dyno run, and my PC log of my drive home just to be extra comprehensive.

Feedback from tuner:

• Unusual rich spot at 4500 rpm during WOT. It isn't clear why, but the tuner suspects the wastegate flapper is blowing open for a moment... that doesn't entirely make sense to me, but regardless as it contradicts any sensible VE patterns he chose to leave it alone.
• VE curve shits the bed at high RPMs (following the torque curve) compared to other comparable R34s, implying it is not signal issues but mechanical issues like airflow.

Tune review:

Now that I've got the car back, happy to say I was at JDM Motorsport Brisbane and am pleased with them, despite this unresolved problem. I got the car back and the driveability and 'fine details' feel excellent in street conditions. Accel enrichment, idle, throttle etc feels spot on and the communication was 10/10... definitely more costly than the average shop though.

The peak boost RPM in the data looks lazy compared to what I expected from a small twinscrolled EFR, but coming from the GT3582 it still feels like heaven on earth for street duties.

Current diagnostic plan

When time permits I will make a degree wheel and verify TDC and camshaft positions. I'm suspicious because my VCT 'off' crossover point was 6500 rpm on the dyno logs I saw on screen. This seems very high given theres graphs like below online (though I believe this is a non neo RB25). Pending further wisdom, I conclude that gaining power from idle to 6500 with VCT enabled means camshaft position is scuffed. Also GTSBoy and Fletch said so 😁

7-2-24 drive home from JDMM.llgx ECULog887 - contains WOT run.llgx 7-2-24- JDMM Tune.pclx

Edited February 7 by CowsWithGuns

[Lithium]

Just had a squiz at tune and logs over brekky but don't have a lot of time for yarning.  Still mostly head scratching but things I felt compelled to mention:

It's been ages since I've tuned a pump gas RB25 but I'm pretty sure the timing looks a bit soft, not necessarily crazy soft but enough that if my memory serves correctly - RB25s I've tuned (and others I've seen tunes for) would lose noticeable power if your timing map was applied to them.  Not saying as a criticism, but an observation.   The tuner could have either been competing with knock, or generally "not confident in the setup", but one way or another that alone could explain some of the lower power at the top end.   

There clearly is stuff going on, I'm not pointing at timing as possibly being the problem - just added that to the discussion.

Also, you aren't logging turbine speed... do you have a sensor or was there just one used for tuning?

And what gear were you accelerating in with those logs?  It didn't look THAT bad lag wise, and looking at the datalog from the dyno - most dyno operators I know of let the engine accelerate at 500-600rpm/s for a dyno sweep but your tuner has run it WOT from 2000rpm to 6000rpm in ~4 seconds, or almost 1000rpm/s.  When you consider the "action zone" for boost threshold is 2500-4000, yours is given about 1.5s to build target boost when most RB25 dyno plots you'd be comparing with may well be given closer to 3 seconds.  A good part of double the time to hit target boost in that rev range makes a difference, and may account for a bit of the less spool... if it's driving quite nicely then maybe the "lag" could be a red herring, though I could be overestimating this difference.  I personally do most of my tuning in the 5xxrpm/s range so that's what I use to build expectations of spool.

You could try giving it beans from low rpm in 3rd or even 4th gear to get a solid picture of the actual boost threshold.

 

 

[CowsWithGuns]

3 hours ago, Lithium said:

Also, you aren't logging turbine speed... do you have a sensor or was there just one used for tuning?

The ECULogging has not been ideally set up so it didn't catch the new turbo speed sensor(I was hoping to harvest PC logs from the tuner but those don't exist). I snapped some pics that may be meaningful from my drive so far, but it's pretty lackluster data. Traffic and all that. When I get a chance I will try to a full range pull in 3rd so I can fill my compressor map accurately.

 

3 hours ago, Lithium said:

It's been ages since I've tuned a pump gas RB25 but I'm pretty sure the timing looks a bit soft

For some context this is the map I got from the old tune on same engine and ECU, with the big turbo and old bolt ons. Don't look too dissimilar to my untrained eye so probably a good sign for both maps that it's what the car wants? Edit: I recall now I retarded the whole boost map by 1 degree for the drive to the tuners on the new build, hence most of it looks like it got hit by a -1. Now resisting a strong urge to +1 every cell that hasn't changed since the tune... which now that I look at it is... all of them? Not filled with optimism that this is optimised now, as you pointed out Lithium! And yes, I vibed from the tuner that he's not confident in the setup, there was an implication that it's not worth it until the root issues are resolved.

This was the tune that I considered catastrophic and I spent an eternity f**king around to get it driveable (I'm talking clutch in stalling, zeroed accel enrichment table etc), but the WOT felt good and obviously didn't have knock or I wouldn't be here to talk about it

The VE table looks nice but it didn't follow the torque curve as it also nosed off. The whole thing relied on closed loop lambda to function. Hey, at least it forced me to learn a lot, mainly that road tuning by holding brakes is miserable, and there's more margin for error than I thought

 

3 hours ago, Lithium said:

And what gear were you accelerating in with those logs?  It didn't look THAT bad lag wise, and looking at the datalog from the dyno - most dyno operators I know of let the engine accelerate at 500-600rpm/s for a dyno sweep but your tuner has run it WOT from 2000rpm to 6000rpm in ~4 seconds, or almost 1000rpm/s. 

The ECULog is a mystery to me. I only had a couple, seems to fill up really fast and I have no context for any of it. And limited sensor data. I believe that was the last pull (based on ECU log history) so it was probably a final check of some sort.

3 hours ago, Lithium said:

A good part of double the time to hit target boost in that rev range makes a difference, and may account for a bit of the less spool... if it's driving quite nicely then maybe the "lag" could be a red herring, though I could be overestimating this difference. 

I noticed the boost controller doesn't turn on until 3000 rpm - not loving that. When I redid my previous boost map on the old tune (mind you, heavily relying on closed loop) I had great spool gains by setting it to 90% (the stage 1 control) until a few psi below my target. The current boost map is open loop only, though it's otherwise spot on. I will dabble with turning on closed loop control and add 3 stage with some gentle PID settings, and then reassess my boost threshold and spool on the low end. But to be clear, it definitely doesn't FEEL bad and I agree it's a red herring here. Probably. Hard to gauge as my car experience is 'this car now' and 'this car before' lol

Edited February 8 by CowsWithGuns

[Lithium]

28 minutes ago, CowsWithGuns said:

For some context this is the map I got from the old tune on same engine and ECU, with the big turbo and old bolt ons. Don't look too dissimilar to my untrained eye so probably a good sign for both maps that it's what the car wants?

This was the tune that I considered catastrophic and I spent an eternity f**king around to get it driveable (I'm talking clutch in stalling, zeroed accel enrichment table etc), but the WOT felt good and obviously didn't have knock or I wouldn't be here to talk about it

I noticed the boost controller doesn't turn on until 3000 rpm - not loving that. When I redid my previous boost map on the old tune (mind you, heavily relying on closed loop) I had great spool gains by setting it to 90% (the stage 1 control) until a few psi below my target. The current boost map is open loop only

Comparing a few points on the maps, it doesn't look like your timing map has been touched from the "catastrophic" version.  I just ask questions for data, not accusing or judging anyone - just trying to get to the bottom of whats going on, but did the tuner bail without doing anything with timing when he saw the WGDC?   

My limited experience with "stock plenum" and modest size turbo RB25s is that they liked VCT do be disabled in the 5000rpm range, where your VE/torque rolls.  Your timing is quite soft, and if he didn't touch it from the old tune because the WGDC was going high then I'm not saying it's a thing... but I'd not rule out the possibility that things would have changed a bit when you got closer to MBT area.  Like there could potentially be 5deg more timing in areas of this map if it's not knock limited, that could make for a very different performing car.    

The spring COULD just prove to be too soft for 18psi, when we were tuning the EFR7064 setup before upgrading to a much tighter spring we hit the exact same kind of thing you're seeing in terms of WGDC and we just watched the actuator, and after 5000rpm it started pushing open.  Obviously EMAP is getting up, I wouldn't push this turbo any harder than you are - but with the data I have so far I feel like soft timing, late VCT disengagement and a soft spring could absolutely explain a fair bit of what you're seeing.   

The boost control could also be refined a bit to as you say, make it faster on the road in terms of bringing the turbo on a bit quicker and also holding better - I can understand why this stuff wouldn't have been refined if there was cause to think there is an issue to be resolved somewhere, but there is a definite nagging thing for me that the timing is potentially soft enough that if it wasn't near MBT or knock limited then you may not be getting as accurate a picture of how well things are working as you might think.   

The EFR7064 and stock plenum combo is always going to roll over more than a bigger turbo/FFP setup (like most are these days) but if you guys pulled the plug because of the WGDC and that turns out to just be flapper blowing open a bit thing before checking how "on" the timing is, then I can't help but wonder if this thread would have existed if the timing was optimised at the current state or even at a slightly lower boost level before calling the party off.  

I am not saying that I've decided that's whats happening, but I'd be lying if I wasn't thinking that it is a possibilty - at least without having more data or info on why timing wasn't touched IF it wasn't touched.  Definitely open to be called out for talking nonsense or pointing out where I may have missed something

[Kinkstaah]

I'm with Lithium on this one. What I'd actually love to see:

a) More timing. Like 5 degrees+++ everywhere more timing. The old adage was "20 degrees at 20psi". You're nowhere near it. This is NOT a licence to just throw 5 degrees in and send it lol.

b) An overlay of two runs, one with VCT off the entire run, and one with VCT on the entire run. This is usually how people decide the switching point. I know you said it was done at the tuner, but seeing those graphs would be very interesting.

If one of the results from b) looks really strange, or the VCT switch over point is strange (like 6000+ rpm? or at 1000 rpm?) then that would be where you start looking as to how your cams have been physically set up.

[CowsWithGuns]

38 minutes ago, Lithium said:

I am not saying that I've decided that's whats happening, but I'd be lying if I wasn't thinking that it is a possibilty - at least without having more data or info on why timing wasn't touched IF it wasn't touched.  Definitely open to be called out for talking nonsense or pointing out where I may have missed something

Thanks Lithium, I see what you are saying. This is the point where I get stressed because how do you diplomatically contact a tuner and express these ideas. Cars are much easier than people, especially when money and reputation is involved  This one will be on me to figure out though.

On the more fun technical side of things, can improving the timing table (approaching MBT) influence the VE map? If I understand correctly, timing will not influence the actual cylinder VE, but it will improve my torque. This is where I get a bit lost, because I thought the VE table will match the torque curve (if everything is working right); but timing also shifts the torque curve without changing the real VE? I'm only referring to 'modelled' tuning as that's all I've played with. IDK what 'traditional' even means.

Anyway, what I'm thinking is lets say my timing is perfectly advanced to knock limit or MBT. My lambda should not change, so my VE would not change - but my VE still seems to fall off HARD, and my VCT disengagement point is very high. Are these things related or separate in your eyes?

[Lithium]

4 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

This is NOT a licence to just throw 5 degrees in and send it lol.

+1.  I would love to know why more timing wasn't put into it, and it may clear a lot up but NOT a thing to do without the right gear

6 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

An overlay of two runs, one with VCT off the entire run, and one with VCT on the entire run.

At least for me, this also done when timing is "near" as if the timing is soft enough etc the picture you get may be misleading