DIrtyTorque's odd corner.

mrbeige wrote:Going back to your offer of a 'how-to' for MS wasted spark, I think that would be very useful! Doooo it!

Good news on the MPG front as well. I'd imagine that the more accurate timing would have given you better MPG as opposed to the more valves.....

How does it feel on the bum dyno as it stands now?

Bum dyno feels good,specially mid to top end.
Overtakes on the A/B roads nicely.
Still not hitting the afr targets properly so the VE table still needs work.
Once i get a good fuel balance at WOT should be even better.
I'm want to tune the spark MAP on a dyno,to try and get the best from the car.

Should be more to come in power and mpg as the engine is running overly rich on moderate to heavy boost.

On the efficiency thing.
I put it to you that a 16v engine will be more fuel efficient for the same reason as they make more power.
Less pumping losses because of increased intake/output flow and better useage of the available combustion materials(air & fuel).
I read today that jezzag60 also noted improved MPG on his engine which retains the VW ignition components.
Efficiency and improved performance are often just different sides of the same coin.
No?

dirtytorque wrote:Bum dyno feels good,specially mid to top end.
Overtakes on the A/B roads nicely.
Still not hitting the afr targets properly so the VE table still needs work.
Once i get a good fuel balance at WOT should be even better.
I'm want to tune the spark MAP on a dyno,to try and get the best from the car.

Should be more to come in power and mpg as the engine is running overly rich on moderate to heavy boost.

Any places you know that will let you use there dyno? Or would you just give it to someone that has one and is happy to use MegaTune?

dirtytorque wrote:
On the efficiency thing.
I put it to you that a 16v engine will be more fuel efficient for the same reason as they make more power.
Less pumping losses because of increased intake/output flow and better useage of the available combustion materials(air & fuel).
I read today that jezzag60 also noted improved MPG on his engine which retains the VW ignition components.
Efficiency and improved performance are often just different sides of the same coin.
No?

I agree, although, I don't think that my 16v was as good on fuel as say my Mum's 8v GTI, but then, a heavy right foot prolly doesn't help.

mrbeige wrote:
I agree, although, I don't think that my 16v was as good on fuel as say my Mum's 8v GTI, but then, a heavy right foot prolly doesn't help.

was it a 9a?
Don't know how good their efi systems are tbh.
I think the subjects interesting.I'm going to read up a bit more and try and prove/disprove what I said.

I want to be involved.I'm not just handing over the keys.
I know at least two places that will happily let me sit in the car with my laptop while they operate the rolling road and take readings etc.
I'll just have to pay for the privilege.

Paying to sit in your own car, now there's a novel idea!

Keep the updates coming mate, not that I understand this MS stuff!

dirtytorque wrote:was it a 9a?
Don't know how good their efi systems are tbh.
I think the subjects interesting.I'm going to read up a bit more and try and prove/disprove what I said.

I want to be involved.I'm not just handing over the keys.
I know at least two places that will happily let me sit in the car with my laptop while they operate the rolling road and take readings etc.
I'll just have to pay for the privilege.

It was a 9A yeah. Basically the 9A was a slightly enhanced (if you can call it that) version of the K-jet, namely Ke-jet. From what I can gather the main reason for it was to meet Euro I emissions regulations, thus fitted with a CAT (rev limit is fuel cut rather than spark). There is also some closed loop fuelling at idle, but that's pretty much it I think.

Drove Grenade Valver to work today and put Jbob in the garage for a rest.
The mornings drive consisted of a few stops to try different thing but mainly collecting data logs.
Was quite disatisfied with the drive to work tbh.I have been driving the standrd g60 and in comparison the red car felt a bit gutless in areas where a g60 engine shouldn't be.Which is obviously a poor show.
Best thing I ever did getting that other g60.Good benchmark.
Anyway at work I re did my afr table to make it smoother so that it would be easier for the computer to hit the afr targets.Used megalogviewer to analyse the logs again to adjuest the fueling VE table again to home in on meeting the required afr targets.
dumb down the accel enrichment,especially for smal throttle openings.It was adding to the overly rich mixtures on acceleration and make the car bog down.
This helped a bit but on the way home still wasn't getting any grin factor so stopped for another re-think.
Added a little top end advance and in equal measure took out some low end advance.This seems to have really helped.
Getting a really meaty mid range now.Really enjoyed the drive home from that point.Car is starting to feel powerful.jbob is no longer the fast g60 in the family.
Over 40 miles got 34 mpg too.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

GEEK!

ctwg60 wrote:GEEK!

And this is coming from a guy who spec'd his own bottom end.....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ctwg60 wrote:GEEK!

Hater.

seriously tho just thought it might be of use interest to others thinking of going down the standalone route,i.e my trials and tribulations.

mrbeige wrote:

ctwg60 wrote:GEEK!

And this is coming from a guy who spec'd his own bottom end.....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And don't even get him started on gearing.

We are all obsessive compulsives let face it we are mentally ill! Good work by the way Rob but it really makes me think I'm not the man for doing aftermarket engine management when I read stuff like that. But what ever floats your your boat.

You have big balls!!!

well... we'll have to see if I can make the numbers with this setup.
Learning all the time tho so that's rewarding on its own.

starting to wish i'd run a 9:1 compression ratio,just to make it a bit more snappy on part throttle,normal driving.
It's niggling at me.To the point where I might use my abf bottom end with stacked gaskets to compare the difference.

Need to get it rolling roaded really to see where i'm at.
saga continues..


guess you can't have your cake and eat it too,the short runner setup with the kr cams will make for a engine wich has higher VE numers further up the rev range.

Interesting!

Surely thats the good thing about having the daily g60 you have, that you can run this set up a little more extreme and it does not need to be more snappy for daily stuff. Bang a smaller pulley on that should sort it out for you

junkie wrote:Surely thats the good thing about having the daily g60 you have, that you can run this set up a little more extreme and it does not need to be more snappy for daily stuff. Bang a smaller pulley on that should sort it out for you

Maybe,car just doesn't have the "right feel" for me personally at the momment.
I'll let u know what I decide/do.

I dont want to sound rude but is it mapped correctly.

junkie wrote:I dont want to sound rude but is it mapped correctly.

I think Rob would have to say, that it is a work in progress, by any stretch of the imagination. Mapping is a fine art and although Rob has quite a bit of experience with his 8v setup he had, I'm sure he'd agree that the 16v is quite possibly a different animal

How long did it take you to get the 8v mapped to a reasonable state, Rob? Did you ever sling it on a rolling road?

mrbeige wrote:

junkie wrote:I dont want to sound rude but is it mapped correctly.

I think Rob would have to say, that it is a work in progress, by any stretch of the imagination. Mapping is a fine art and although Rob has quite a bit of experience with his 8v setup he had, I'm sure he'd agree that the 16v is quite possibly a different animal

How long did it take you to get the 8v mapped to a reasonable state, Rob? Did you ever sling it on a rolling road?

Can't really answer that at the momment Junkie.
Yes it is very much a work in progress,i imagine it will take me a while to get the car how I want it.
Yes it is a very different animal stu.I was able to zone into the car alot easier on the 8v setup.It is mapped to the best of my ability at the mo.Without access to a dyno you can't optimize an ignition table perfectly however you can go along way with road tuning.
The map isn't bad mate,it pulls really to redline and I get 34 mpg if not driving like I stole it.
Like I said in one of my earlier posts once it gets going it flies too.At abot 3k rpm it eggs you on.What i'm talking about is more of a personal thing in terms of what I want from the car.It might not even be possible with the current hardware.I'll be the first to admit that it is a learning curve for me and if it is a mapping issue i'll be sure to sort it out.Or if it is a hardware or setup issue i'll get to the bottom of that too.
This is the price you pay for diy.

dirtytorque wrote:Can't really answer that at the momment Junkie.
Yes it is very much a work in progress,i imagine it will take me a while to get the car how I want it.
Yes it is a very different animal stu.I was able to zone into the car alot easier on the 8v setup.It is mapped to the best of my ability at the mo.Without access to a dyno you can't optimize an ignition table perfectly however you can go along way with road tuning.
The map isn't bad mate,it pulls really to redline and I get 34 mpg if not driving like I stole it.
Like I said in one of my earlier posts once it gets going it flies too.At abot 3k rpm it eggs you on.What i'm talking about is more of a personal thing in terms of what I want from the car.It might not even be possible with the current hardware.I'll be the first to admit that it is a learning curve for me and if it is a mapping issue i'll be sure to sort it out.Or if it is a hardware or setup issue i'll get to the bottom of that too.
This is the price you pay for diy.

I would imagine that it was easier with the 8v setup as you had the bench mark of the standard ECU and you knew what that drove like. It will be much harder with the 16v setup as you don't have that benchmark 'standard' tune to aim for.

You may well find that you could wind even more advance in there, as I'm sure the 16v 'profile' will allow that. I know that I added an extra 2 degrees of advance on mine over standard (all be it normally aspirated).

And I'd say it's the price that you don't pay for DIY

mrbeige wrote:
You may well find that you could wind even more advance in there, as I'm sure the 16v 'profile' will allow that. I know that I added an extra 2 degrees of advance on mine over standard (all be it normally aspirated).

And I'd say it's the price that you don't pay for DIY

I've tried an agressive timing table,and visa versa.
Tried bringing in the advance gradually and also bringing it in more rapidly.

Could be acceleration enrichment settings.It may be the low compression.Limited use 8.7:1,mine is closer to 8:1.
I'm thinking maybe the increased duration of the Kr cam causing boost to go straight tru..
Need hard data at this point really instead of subjective feedback.

I have a gtech so I was going to do some 1/8 miles to compare it to my previous setup but the bloody window sucky mounty thing sucks.(not literally)It keeps falling off.
It worked all right b4 ctwg60 had it.

only joking Chris.

dirtytorque wrote:
It worked all right b4 ctwg60 had it.

only joking Chris.

I broke it with the G-forces I pulled! It's all suckered out from trying to hang on!

ctwg60 wrote:

dirtytorque wrote:
It worked all right b4 ctwg60 had it.

only joking Chris.

I broke it with the G-forces I pulled! It's all suckered out from trying to hang on!

nice retort.

8:1 is fairly low for a supercharged motor. I wouldn't think that the KR cams would be agressive enough to cause your boost to disappear into the exhaust. Might be worth trying a smaller pulley? Is your charger el-standardo? What are your AFRs like with a heavy foot?

mrbeige wrote:8:1 is fairly low for a supercharged motor. I wouldn't think that the KR cams would be agressive enough to cause your boost to disappear into the exhaust. Might be worth trying a smaller pulley? Is your charger el-standardo? What are your AFRs like with a heavy foot?

as you know a g60 as standard is 8:1.
Modern FI engines are seem to be closer to 9:1 though.
Arn't all the 20v engines closer to this figure?

I'm going to start at the basics and re-check my cam phasing.