Tuning my 07 sti (manual) 0-100?

[alexeiwoody]

Alexei,
PM your email and I'll send you a file of a 3rd gear log of mine from my Foz (when i'm home next week I'll log my LGT too)

a graph of vehicle speed vs engine RPM from your car compared to my Foz will allow rough comparison between to 5EATs making ~200. Sure there are more accurate ways, but it's a start

PM sent

[KiDo_Tuning]

As the torque falls away with rising rpm (IF there is slippage to begin with)the box will slip less.
So at redline, the speedo might be right, but at peak torque (4000rpm say) it could be miles out.

Yes that's a fair point too, (though Matt doesn't mention this at all), but is it possible for the gearbox to be slipping while pushing you back in the seat and then stop slipping without any noticeable change in the cabin?

Yes I have mentioned it before when we discussed a dyno sheet via PM but yes, that is what I was getting at in a few other posts in this thread too .

[alexeiwoody]

Yes I have mentioned it before when we discussed a dyno sheet via PM but yes, that is what I was getting at in a few other posts in this thread too .

Could you please direct me to where you mention it in this thread or in pm? I'm happy to provide Pm's in case you lost it.

A slipping clutch at 4000rpm, but then not slipping at 6000rpm while on WOT - that's just getting nonsensical now. I'm sure Mick would agree.

Use a GPS speed meter and compare 100kph on the speedo to 100kph on the tacho. I know when your car ran on the RTR dyno, it was 1200rpm out for roller speed Vs speedo which is 2/11th's so technically you would need 125kph or so under acceleration on the dash(considering the factory speedo discrepancy) to get to 100kph road speed. On cruising when the Trans is not trying to transfer bulk torque, the speedo is obviously right. That dyno comparison PM applies here as well

Basically, the above is why the LegcacyGT guys in the USA all talk about the slip and slushy gearshifts. Slush is because the auto is still transferring power from previous gear despite the gear change having occured due to rpm. That is what I am 'fixing' in the US tunes and is why cars are dropping half a second after being tuned previously.

Could you please provide some proof that my speedo is off by 25km/hr?

I am getting a little concerned if there's a problem with my auto. Even though I can't see it in real life, I'd really like to be sure.

[KiDo_Tuning]

Yes I have mentioned it before when we discussed a dyno sheet via PM but yes, that is what I was getting at in a few other posts in this thread too .

Could you please direct me to where you mention it in this thread or in pm? I'm happy to provide Pm's in case you lost it.

A slipping clutch at 4000rpm, but then not slipping at 6000rpm while on WOT - that's just getting nonsensical now. I'm sure Mick would agree.

Use a GPS speed meter and compare 100kph on the speedo to 100kph on the tacho. I know when your car ran on the RTR dyno, it was 1200rpm out for roller speed Vs speedo which is 2/11th's so technically you would need 125kph or so under acceleration on the dash(considering the factory speedo discrepancy) to get to 100kph road speed. On cruising when the Trans is not trying to transfer bulk torque, the speedo is obviously right. That dyno comparison PM applies here as well

Basically, the above is why the LegcacyGT guys in the USA all talk about the slip and slushy gearshifts. Slush is because the auto is still transferring power from previous gear despite the gear change having occured due to rpm. That is what I am 'fixing' in the US tunes and is why cars are dropping half a second after being tuned previously.

Could you please provide some proof that my speedo is off by 25km/hr?

I am getting a little concerned if there's a problem with my auto. Even though I can't see it in real life, I'd really like to be sure.

Hmmm... lets see... your trolling and fishing for attention now for sure since you linked up this thread. So how about this...

Go into RTR, pick up your dyno sheets and show how with LESS boost and LESS timing than what you drove in with I got 15Kw more wheel torque at peak torque.
When the transmission slips it does this:

Transslip.jpg (20 KiB) Viewed 5058 times

See how the engine rpm and road speed do NOT line up like they should... now look at the RPM spacings between each 20kph roller speed gap. Notice anything odd?
See how 50 to 70 is 1120rpm, 70 to 90 is 350rpm, 90 to 110 is 670rpm, 110 to 130 is 690 and 130 to 150 is 710rpm.
Hopefully this now makes sense... peak torque lets RPM slip which is something Mick will agree on since it has been discussed before.
Suddenly slipping at lower rpm and gripping at higher rpm where torque drops off makes sense? Purdy's 3L clutch slip is obvious... it still puts you back in the seat. I have taken people for drives in my own car when the clutch was dying, it still pulled hard despite losing 60Kw@wheels from clutch slip.

DR20T's E85 tune done 18 months ago at JEM shows consistent engine rpm Vs roller speed for a reason... no slip

[Kekotic]

Get your popcorn out boys

[alexeiwoody]

Hmmm... lets see... your trolling and fishing for attention now for sure since you linked up this thread. So how about this...

Go into RTR, pick up your dyno sheets and show how with LESS boost and LESS timing than what you drove in with I got 15Kw more wheel torque at peak torque.
When the transmission slips it does this:

The attachment Transslip.jpg is no longer available

See how the engine rpm and road speed do NOT line up like they should... now look at the RPM spacings between each 20kph roller speed gap. Notice anything odd?
See how 50 to 70 is 1120rpm, 70 to 90 is 350rpm, 90 to 110 is 670rpm, 110 to 130 is 690 and 130 to 150 is 710rpm.
Hopefully this now makes sense... peak torque lets RPM slip which is something Mick will agree on since it has been discussed before.
Suddenly slipping at lower rpm and gripping at higher rpm where torque drops off makes sense? Purdy's 3L clutch slip is obvious... it still puts you back in the seat. I have taken people for drives in my own car when the clutch was dying, it still pulled hard despite losing 60Kw@wheels from clutch slip.

DR20T's E85 tune done 18 months ago at JEM shows consistent engine rpm Vs roller speed for a reason... no slip

1. I linked up this thread not as a trolling attempt, but to get some extra opinions. So yes, I am fishing for attention. And I did get permission from admin to continue my "trolling".

Go into RTR, pick up your dyno sheets and show how with LESS boost and LESS timing than what you drove in with I got 15Kw more wheel torque at peak torque.

2. Less and less timing and boost? I wouldn't say that's quite accurate....you're running nearly the same boost (17.33 instead of 18psi), earlier in the range and your timing is lower at low load, but then ramps up as 2-3 degress of extra timing. I wonder why we only made 13kw extra... (EDIT: My apologies, that's 2-3 degrees, not 8. Now the 13kw makes sense )

Kido tune on the right, TP on the left.

Kido vs TP.png (194.85 KiB) Viewed 5052 times

Kido vs TP2.png (224.04 KiB) Viewed 5052 times

The boost on the left is Torque Performance, on the right is yours.

The timing table is an overlay of yours on TP's. The negative values are where you have less timing, the positive are where you have more. (EDIT: Sorry for the bad overlay, as your load ranges differ....hmmm how to do a proper overlay....)

I will await to hear how this is classified as less boost and less timing.

[KiDo_Tuning]

As the torque falls away with rising rpm (IF there is slippage to begin with)the box will slip less.
So at redline, the speedo might be right, but at peak torque (4000rpm say) it could be miles out.

Yes that's a fair point too, (though Matt doesn't mention this at all), but is it possible for the gearbox to be slipping while pushing you back in the seat and then stop slipping without any noticeable change in the cabin?

Without a reliable standalone system that refreshes in realtime, who knows.
Maybe a wind=speed gauge mounted to the front of the bonnet..

What power is your car supposed to be making?

Hahaha, yeah I doubt we'll go that far

Around 200atw I think? Might be going in for a dyno in the next month or so, so we'll see

Legatos 200Kw Virtual Dyno S Edition with Cobb CAI, 3 port and TBE made 110Kw with his e-tune... It probably felt fast too, it pushed back in the seat but with less than 20,000Km's on it

[KiDo_Tuning]

1. I linked up this thread not as a trolling attempt, but to get some extra opinions. So yes, I am fishing for attention. And I did get permission from admin to continue my "trolling".

Go into RTR, pick up your dyno sheets and show how with LESS boost and LESS timing than what you drove in with I got 15Kw more wheel torque at peak torque.

2. Less and less timing and boost? I wouldn't say that's quite accurate....you're running nearly the same boost (17.33 instead of 18psi), earlier in the range and your timing is lower at low load, but then ramps up as 2-3 degress of extra timing. I wonder why we only made 13kw extra... (EDIT: My apologies, that's 2-3 degrees, not 8. Now the 13kw makes sense )

The boost on the left is Torque Performance, on the right is yours.

The timing table is an overlay of yours on TP's. The negative values are where you have less timing, the positive are where you have more. (EDIT: Sorry for the bad overlay, as your load ranges differ....hmmm how to do a proper overlay....)

I will await to hear how this is classified as less boost and less timing.

See how the column values have massive negative values? That is what I mean Different load columns = different. Hopefully you remembered to add the KCA value to base timing for total ignition timing... cause TP's KCA value was also higher than mine. So you are not comparing apples with apples

Also love how your using a 3 port tune, which was not the dyno tuned ROM

[alexeiwoody]

And who's fault is it that I'm not using my dyno tune...? I did ask for it many times after it caused an IAM drop to 0

Hmmm you are right I did apologise in the edit about the less than perfect overlay. It's fairly evident you're not running less timing in either case. Even with the KCA value difference of 1.5 - 2 degrees, you're not running less timing...

Considering your WGDC is way higher than TP's, AVCS is different and you're using slightly more fuel I'd say you're also not comparing apples with apples

[KiDo_Tuning]

And who's fault is it that I'm not using my dyno tune...? I did ask for it many times after it caused an IAM drop to 0

Hmmm you are right I did apologise in the edit about the less than perfect overlay. It's fairly evident you're not running less timing in either case. Even with the KCA value difference of 1.5 - 2 degrees, you're not running less timing...

Considering your WGDC is way higher than TP's, AVCS is different and you're using slightly more fuel I'd say you're also not comparing apples with apples

Yet on the dyno it never knocked... yet your TP tune was also on zero when it was first put on the dyno. Since the dyno was for chasing that intermittent engine noise your ECU seemed to pickup randomly? Hence why we were using the dyno to find the noise which was why I put in my time for a diagnosis?

Better get the magnifying glass out, as 2.3g/rev shows the difference quite well. Less timing by up to 2.81 degrees in mine. Yeah, ran more WGDC to account for heat soak but since more WGDC on less boost is actually strangling V.E... it would have made more power at the wheels if that tune was run on the first run Also, your mistaken about fuel as well... leaner on spool but still 10.88 on boost

AVCS is still pretty much the same as always on boost... based off an RB25DET NEO tune with advance cam timing on spool then tapering back to 0 just before peak power. Simialr values as when I published it on Enginuity 8 years ago

[alexeiwoody]

Yet on the dyno it never knocked... yet your TP tune was also on zero when it was first put on the dyno. Since the dyno was for chasing that intermittent engine noise your ECU seemed to pickup randomly? Hence why we were using the dyno to find the noise which was why I put in my time for a diagnosis?

Better get the magnifying glass out, as 2.3g/rev shows the difference quite well. Less timing by up to 2.81 degrees in mine. Yeah, ran more WGDC to account for heat soak but since more WGDC on less boost is actually strangling V.E... it would have made more power at the wheels if that tune was run on the first run Also, your mistaken about fuel as well... leaner on spool but still 10.88 on boost

AVCS is still pretty much the same as always on boost... based off an RB25DET NEO tune with advance cam timing on spool then tapering back to 0 just before peak power. Simialr values as when I published it on Enginuity 8 years ago

Magnifying glass out:

-Tming: yes, you run less timing between 2000rpm and 3000rpm, then ramp it up to be around the same, within 1+/- degree (after KCA added). Surely not enough to claim less timing at peak power, which isn't at 2500rpm.
-Fueling: Almost identical, until higher rpm where you use a little more. 10.40 > 10.88.....
-WG and Boost: You ramp up the boost and WG in the 2000-3000rpm section, while Eric's WG isn't so high

All in all very similar numbers, yours is biased on earlier boost.

Back on topic - what I find interesting is that your Sport DBW values are almost identical to Eric's. Only your S# values are significantly higher.

You say Eric's tune slips. But that would mean your own tune would slip in Sport. What's up with that?

[Sean82]

If you ask me, you're beating a dead horse here Alexei....

[Robbks]

QUestion..

What are we actually trying to figure out? and why does it matter.?

Take it to the track,
you should do a 13.7@100mph
if not, you're losing drive somewhere.

[dazzz168]

If you ask me, you're beating a dead horse here Alexei....

+ 1

If the car feels great to drive, just enjoy it. Just ignore what TH claims... It's just TH trash talk bro.

[<GB>]

Matts boost table looks like its got less boost in the mid then comes close too it up top