Williams Motorsport meets EngineMapper the great modification test mule
30 April 2011, 12:04 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: holywell
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were discussing this the other day, the thread regarding the use of Methanol had us thinking, plenty of people are using meth mixes in high output cars but we will be testing it on a std set-up (re-mapped of course). Ive had a bit of a delay with the car as Ive been a bit busy and the turbo was shot, good old ebay came up with the goods though, a front entry td04 in good condition for.............£21.00 
01 May 2011, 01:53 AM
#34
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
Well this evening I had a little inspiration and a bit of free time whilst my Mrs is at work. I've got a 2006 WRX with me currently that is a family member's car, so I decided to give it the Engine Mapper treatment 
.
It's a completely standard car and my thought was, 'I wonder how far off the original Subaru map is from peak performance'. I've never mapped an Impreza on standard boost for pure efficiency, so that's what I set about doing.
Things to note:
My first task was to dyno run it a couple of times on the standard map running VPower, 4 runs up and down the same stretch of road showed a base figure or 174bhp @ wheels which given a static 22% transmission loss figure equates to 223bhp @ flywheel. ( Manufacturers figure is 226bhp so not far off ). Torque was 201.6lb/ft @ wheels so 258.5lb/ft @ flywheel. ( Manufacturers figure 236lb/ft, put the increase down to VPower ).
So next I decided to attack the fueling, trying a few different WOT afr figures and settling on the best result. JUST the change in fueling across the map with no other changed had a net affect:
183.4bhp @ wheels (+ 9.4 bhp) = 235.1bhp @ flywheel (+12.1bhp)
207.5lb/ft @ wheels (+ 5.9 lb/ft) = 266lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 7.5 lb/ft)
With the fueling where I wanted, next was to dial in a little more ignition timing. Using VPower meant that I could dial in more timing before detonation would occur. A few trial runs on a different ignition base tables and I settled at a figure that I was happy with. The ECU had to reign in a little det through the range, but due to the way in which it learns currently I'm happy to let it do so for now. I'm not finished playing with the ignition timing, but have reached the maximum base timing I can add before changing/adapting the knock correction table. Anyway here are the results:
191bhp @ wheels (+ 17 bhp) = 244.9bhp @ flywheel (+21.9bhp)
212.3lb/ft @ wheels (+ 10.6 lb/ft) = 272.3lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 13.7 lb/ft)
The increases in red are absolute increases from base dyno run.
To say I was quite surprised at the results was a bit of an understatement, I'd managed to make a 22bhp overall flywheel improvement with no other modifications than fuel and ignition timing. I rather expected an increase to be in single or low double figures.
Dyno graph:
My next task is to trim the ignition tables some more and progress to playing the the AVCS, (variable cam timing) and most definately try and bring the turbo in sooner to widen the power band. Bear in mind that all this is still on standard boost of 0.84bar.
Just a little snippit for what's to come!
Graham
.It's a completely standard car and my thought was, 'I wonder how far off the original Subaru map is from peak performance'. I've never mapped an Impreza on standard boost for pure efficiency, so that's what I set about doing.
Things to note:
- Car is a UK standard car
- No modifications
- Just had a service including filters, plugs and oil
- Being run on VPower
My first task was to dyno run it a couple of times on the standard map running VPower, 4 runs up and down the same stretch of road showed a base figure or 174bhp @ wheels which given a static 22% transmission loss figure equates to 223bhp @ flywheel. ( Manufacturers figure is 226bhp so not far off ). Torque was 201.6lb/ft @ wheels so 258.5lb/ft @ flywheel. ( Manufacturers figure 236lb/ft, put the increase down to VPower ).
So next I decided to attack the fueling, trying a few different WOT afr figures and settling on the best result. JUST the change in fueling across the map with no other changed had a net affect:
183.4bhp @ wheels (+ 9.4 bhp) = 235.1bhp @ flywheel (+12.1bhp)
207.5lb/ft @ wheels (+ 5.9 lb/ft) = 266lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 7.5 lb/ft)
With the fueling where I wanted, next was to dial in a little more ignition timing. Using VPower meant that I could dial in more timing before detonation would occur. A few trial runs on a different ignition base tables and I settled at a figure that I was happy with. The ECU had to reign in a little det through the range, but due to the way in which it learns currently I'm happy to let it do so for now. I'm not finished playing with the ignition timing, but have reached the maximum base timing I can add before changing/adapting the knock correction table. Anyway here are the results:
191bhp @ wheels (+ 17 bhp) = 244.9bhp @ flywheel (+21.9bhp)
212.3lb/ft @ wheels (+ 10.6 lb/ft) = 272.3lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 13.7 lb/ft)
The increases in red are absolute increases from base dyno run.
To say I was quite surprised at the results was a bit of an understatement, I'd managed to make a 22bhp overall flywheel improvement with no other modifications than fuel and ignition timing. I rather expected an increase to be in single or low double figures.
Dyno graph:
My next task is to trim the ignition tables some more and progress to playing the the AVCS, (variable cam timing) and most definately try and bring the turbo in sooner to widen the power band. Bear in mind that all this is still on standard boost of 0.84bar.
Just a little snippit for what's to come!
Graham
Last edited by EngineMapper @ Group B Motorsport; 01 May 2011 at 02:03 AM.
01 May 2011, 02:14 AM
#35
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
Inicidentally just looking over the logs the injector maximum pulsewidth % has reduced from 75% to 69% even with producing an extra 22bhp!
Graham
Graham
01 May 2011, 07:49 PM
#38
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
As lean as possible! Obviously within reason, but leaner generally equals more power.
Lean-ness is a state of mind
In all seriousness, between 11-12afr is where you'll find your maximum power without increasing cylinder temperatures excessively. Although a lot will tell you that late 11's is too lean.
Graham
Lean-ness is a state of mind
In all seriousness, between 11-12afr is where you'll find your maximum power without increasing cylinder temperatures excessively. Although a lot will tell you that late 11's is too lean.
Graham
02 May 2011, 08:42 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ?
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So getting more power is it just trial and error so to speak. Try it rich and work lean? is that the same for timing! Increase advance till something naughty begins to happen then crack it back. Be interesting to see what these maps look like befor and after tweeks.
02 May 2011, 03:41 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: holywell
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the more mechanical side of things i'm going to make some up-pipes with an experimental (top secret design) venturi insert. the idea behind this is to accelerate the exhaust gasses to the turbo, this should improve spool and turbo responce (we hope). There will always be a trade off between the optimum diameter of the venturi V's back pressure but we'll try a few designs and see what happens?
02 May 2011, 06:09 PM
#42
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
So part 2 of the WRX tune it in standard form.
So as said before, I got to the point where I needed just to fettle a little bit more with the ignition timing, then get to the next stage of the tune, AVCS then bringing the boost in earlier.
Back in the car again a 1a.m, blasting down the nice quiet dual carraigeway I use and I start to play with the ignition timing again. No real results to be had here, I must have done quite a good job the night before. Next step was to play with the AVCS and see what gains there was to be had here.
I had spent a little time setting up a number of AVCS tables prior to going out in the car to experiment with. I know the AVCS settings that normally work and as it happens the table I usually use on my base maps worked out by far the best in performance. At this time, gains are in the small bhp and not really worth posting dyno graphs for.
Next I started trimming the boost profile to bring the turbo to full boost. On the standard profile the turbo doesn't start ramping up until 3200 and doesn't hit full boost until 4000rpm. After a few tweeks I had the turbo producing full boost by approx 3200. The dyno graph then started to look very different, it was now peaking at 0.94bar of boost:
With an extra 0.1 bar of boost peak and the boost profile much more agressive the results were:
191.7bhp @ wheels (+ 17.7 bhp) = 245.8bhp @ flywheel (+23bhp)
250.4lb/ft @ wheels (+ 48.8 lb/ft) = 321lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 62.5 lb/ft)
As can be seen, the power stayed the same as I hadn't increased the boost at the top end, but the torque ramped up quite considerably! 62.5lb/ft increase over standard is not to be sniffed at. It was time for bed!
Today the plan was to see how far the turbo could be pushed. This was quite interesting. I know from previous hawkeye wrxs that without a decat up and down pipe, the turbo is quite considerably restricted. So trying to push the turbo far proved quite difficult. I ended up changing the size of the restrictor pill to help and ramping up the wastegate duty quite considerably.
After much deliberating I settled at 1.15bar peak. Decating the downpipe and up pipe I might have been playing with anything up to 1.4 bar, unfortunately in standard form the maximum available in lower gears was 1.1ish bar. 5th would allow a peak of higher, but my attention to tuning is done in the lower gears, where you use the most!
This was the final graph and result, bear in mind that ambient temp was nearly 10-15c today with the intake running approx 15-25c higher temperatures on the runs:
201.8bhp @ wheels (+ 28.8 bhp) = 258.7bhp @ flywheel (+35.7bhp)
256.9lb/ft @ wheels (+ 55.3 lb/ft) = 329.3lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 70.8 lb/ft)
This car is now fully loaded with launch control and flat foot shifting also. The overall change in driving character is incredibly noticeable, now pulling harder and longer covering ground a lot quicker.
Graham
So as said before, I got to the point where I needed just to fettle a little bit more with the ignition timing, then get to the next stage of the tune, AVCS then bringing the boost in earlier.
Back in the car again a 1a.m, blasting down the nice quiet dual carraigeway I use and I start to play with the ignition timing again. No real results to be had here, I must have done quite a good job the night before. Next step was to play with the AVCS and see what gains there was to be had here.
I had spent a little time setting up a number of AVCS tables prior to going out in the car to experiment with. I know the AVCS settings that normally work and as it happens the table I usually use on my base maps worked out by far the best in performance. At this time, gains are in the small bhp and not really worth posting dyno graphs for.
Next I started trimming the boost profile to bring the turbo to full boost. On the standard profile the turbo doesn't start ramping up until 3200 and doesn't hit full boost until 4000rpm. After a few tweeks I had the turbo producing full boost by approx 3200. The dyno graph then started to look very different, it was now peaking at 0.94bar of boost:
With an extra 0.1 bar of boost peak and the boost profile much more agressive the results were:
191.7bhp @ wheels (+ 17.7 bhp) = 245.8bhp @ flywheel (+23bhp)
250.4lb/ft @ wheels (+ 48.8 lb/ft) = 321lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 62.5 lb/ft)
As can be seen, the power stayed the same as I hadn't increased the boost at the top end, but the torque ramped up quite considerably! 62.5lb/ft increase over standard is not to be sniffed at. It was time for bed!
Today the plan was to see how far the turbo could be pushed. This was quite interesting. I know from previous hawkeye wrxs that without a decat up and down pipe, the turbo is quite considerably restricted. So trying to push the turbo far proved quite difficult. I ended up changing the size of the restrictor pill to help and ramping up the wastegate duty quite considerably.
After much deliberating I settled at 1.15bar peak. Decating the downpipe and up pipe I might have been playing with anything up to 1.4 bar, unfortunately in standard form the maximum available in lower gears was 1.1ish bar. 5th would allow a peak of higher, but my attention to tuning is done in the lower gears, where you use the most!
This was the final graph and result, bear in mind that ambient temp was nearly 10-15c today with the intake running approx 15-25c higher temperatures on the runs:
201.8bhp @ wheels (+ 28.8 bhp) = 258.7bhp @ flywheel (+35.7bhp)
256.9lb/ft @ wheels (+ 55.3 lb/ft) = 329.3lb/ft @ flywheel (+ 70.8 lb/ft)
This car is now fully loaded with launch control and flat foot shifting also. The overall change in driving character is incredibly noticeable, now pulling harder and longer covering ground a lot quicker.
Graham
02 May 2011, 09:00 PM
#44
Is the family member who's car this is gonna be happy with the changes!!!
I have a vision of a granny on a shopping run out-running the boy racer novas and corsa's!!!
I have a vision of a granny on a shopping run out-running the boy racer novas and corsa's!!!
04 May 2011, 10:42 PM
#45
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
It will actually be up for sale shortly!
04 May 2011, 11:08 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EngineMapper Strikes again!!
Just a quick post to say thanks to Graham aka "EngineMapper" for applying his expertise to my Scoob today. Great results, about 320ft/lbs If I remember correctly - don't forget to mail me the graph and I'll post it up here.
I have not had chance to try out the new launch control setting yet, maybe tomorrow
Thoroughly recommended
Cheers,
AJS
I have not had chance to try out the new launch control setting yet, maybe tomorrow
Thoroughly recommended
Cheers,
AJS
10 May 2011, 08:38 PM
#47
@ Engine Mapper
I'm loving the power and torque increases on the standard WRX, will have to give you a PM over the next few weeks as ive been looking at your site and looking at getting it done.
I'm loving the power and torque increases on the standard WRX, will have to give you a PM over the next few weeks as ive been looking at your site and looking at getting it done.
Last edited by Pack_Scoob; 10 May 2011 at 08:48 PM.
11 May 2011, 08:33 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: holywell
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It goes to show how much 'safety' is built into a std map! Looking forward to getting the project car sorted, Graham is chewing my ear to get going but Ive been busy with engine work and getting my rally car ready for an event on the 21st. Once the rally is out of the way i'll get it on the road and hand it over to our tame mapper........some say he has a dyno print out tattoo'd...............somewhere?
11 May 2011, 09:02 PM
#49
I have gone from uneqaul to equal headers, but missing the sound a little, so may swap back, and change turbo.
Few things I would be interested in:
- Impact on spool of the power increases through runner larger turbos etc, although you have AVCS!
- Impact of some of the 'engine delete' things i.e. carbon canister etc
- Air filter change
Enjoy!
Few things I would be interested in:
- Impact on spool of the power increases through runner larger turbos etc, although you have AVCS!
- Impact of some of the 'engine delete' things i.e. carbon canister etc
- Air filter change
Enjoy!
11 May 2011, 11:17 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: west rainton
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a great thread!
I'm on building a 2.5 engine up. would love to see 500bhp with the correct turbo injectors ect. But i'd much prefer to stick with a top mount so would be very interested to see the difference between top and front mounts
1. Is there a top mount that could support 500bhp
2. Difference in response
3. Difference in tourqe
4. Difference in power
5. Difference in intake temps ect!
Good luck with all the work you guys are doing! cracking work so far.
I'm on building a 2.5 engine up. would love to see 500bhp with the correct turbo injectors ect. But i'd much prefer to stick with a top mount so would be very interested to see the difference between top and front mounts
1. Is there a top mount that could support 500bhp
2. Difference in response
3. Difference in tourqe
4. Difference in power
5. Difference in intake temps ect!
Good luck with all the work you guys are doing! cracking work so far.
13 May 2011, 02:39 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally got round to studying the power graph Graham produced for my car after he mapped it, I can't seem to attach it here but it is very similar to the one above (0.94 bar - V Power), only thing is, mine is with slightly less boost and running standard 95ron fuel.
Overall, with the torque up by 60lb/f at lower revs it is much more drivable now but I may start looking at other areas to improve it even more
Cheers Graham!!
Overall, with the torque up by 60lb/f at lower revs it is much more drivable now but I may start looking at other areas to improve it even more
Cheers Graham!!
15 May 2011, 11:01 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 2,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a big to graham from me also. he mapped my car a month or so ago and the extra oomph certainly put a smile on my face for the £££ involved
. Top bloke and after sales service is second to none. for all those considering using him, DO IT, you will never look back. btw Graham, i will be in touch soon as mine is going to be developed to another level, its coming off the road hopefully a joint venture with kelvin
to graham from me also. he mapped my car a month or so ago and the extra oomph certainly put a smile on my face for the £££ involved. Top bloke and after sales service is second to none. for all those considering using him, DO IT, you will never look back. btw Graham, i will be in touch soon as mine is going to be developed to another level, its coming off the road hopefully a joint venture with kelvin
15 May 2011, 08:16 PM
#54
17 May 2011, 10:10 PM
#55
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
Thanks for the positive comments guys! Looking forward to the real hard work testing the WRX that Andy is building for the job!
Graham
Graham
25 May 2011, 10:00 PM
#56
Engine Specialist
Thread Starter
Did another little test tonight, a back to back log of boost pressure vs rpm, with and without flat foot shifting.
Here are the results, without:
Red = Relative boost pressure
Blue = RPM
And here is flat foot shifting in action:
Quite a difference in boost drop between both. The noticeable difference for me between both, is with using flat foot shifting, the boost will peak higher as the turbo doesn't have to work against the amount of negative pressure creative from closing the throttle plate.
My verdict = well worth it. Unfortunately this is only available on drive-by-wire cars.
Graham
Here are the results, without:
Red = Relative boost pressure
Blue = RPM
And here is flat foot shifting in action:
Quite a difference in boost drop between both. The noticeable difference for me between both, is with using flat foot shifting, the boost will peak higher as the turbo doesn't have to work against the amount of negative pressure creative from closing the throttle plate.
My verdict = well worth it. Unfortunately this is only available on drive-by-wire cars.
Graham
25 May 2011, 11:43 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Information looks good!
How are you measuring the runs.... software via ECU etc or are you using a Rolling Road environment (or both)?
If you're using a form of Road Dyno you need to be very careful of comparable conditions to keep everything apples and apples. As I'm sure your aware figures can be "skewed" (unintentionally) with non comparable atmospheric conditions, which in all honesty can be difficult to constantly replicate outside of correction factors from dynos and the benefit of decent cells. Changes just in ambient temps can give massive changes to the shape of the curve.
Just a point I feel being valid when comparing various runs.
How are you measuring the runs.... software via ECU etc or are you using a Rolling Road environment (or both)?
If you're using a form of Road Dyno you need to be very careful of comparable conditions to keep everything apples and apples. As I'm sure your aware figures can be "skewed" (unintentionally) with non comparable atmospheric conditions, which in all honesty can be difficult to constantly replicate outside of correction factors from dynos and the benefit of decent cells. Changes just in ambient temps can give massive changes to the shape of the curve.
Just a point I feel being valid when comparing various runs.
03 June 2011, 08:37 PM
#59
Just like to nip in here on this thread and say a big thanks to Graham for mapping my hillclimb car yesterday , 365 bhp and 350 ft torque .on a td05 20g wrx forged engine with supporting mods.
: thumb:
Will be looking forward to some v3 sti heads and cam and Graham to work his magic maybe see 400 bhp tee hee.
: thumb:Will be looking forward to some v3 sti heads and cam and Graham to work his magic maybe see 400 bhp tee hee.
05 June 2011, 08:10 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: holywell
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, the test car is MOT'd, I'll tax it tomorrow and get a few miles on the new engine, then we can start doing what we do best...........fiddling about in the garage.