Dale' BNRS3v2 install thread & self tuning experience

[dale_gribble]

I've been toying with the tune; making it more robust and adding small tweaks here and there but she's got nothing left. No more boost to add, any more timing results in KR.

I am consulting with a good tuner friend of mine to see if anything is left on the table, but I don't think there is, but maybe??? The turbo is stable and reliable and it's consistent. The tune is consistent and reliable. Guess it's time to hang my hat up on tuning for a bit.

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by Ferdball Rolled tacos Thursday?

I'll hit you up with my # in IM. You have a good place?

[fivefingerdeathpunch]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble I've been toying with the tune; making it more robust and adding small tweaks here and there but she's got nothing left. No more boost to add, any more timing results in KR. I am consulting with a good tuner friend of mine to see if anything is left on the table, but I don't think there is, but maybe??? The turbo is stable and reliable and it's consistent. The tune is consistent and reliable. Guess it's time to hang my hat up on tuning for a bit.

push it more dale


i know you can't really make direct comparisons but this is the last time i took logs. I'm on a s3 V1 with 3 gallon e85 and 100% meth on a d07

[CosmicArkie]

Dale, some of your earlier posted charts had really nice flat A/F ratios in the 10-12 range. This last one just keeps on dropping. Wutt's up with that?

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by CosmicArkie Dale, some of your earlier posted charts had really nice flat A/F ratios in the 10-12 range. This last one just keeps on dropping. Wutt's up with that?

You'll see that it tapers from 12:1 to 11:1 at redline now. I was playing around with afrs a bit. There was no performance pick up going leaner for me, just less mess on the back bumper. Just experimenting mainly.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Lex]

The tune looks nice and stable. There is more performance left on the table as you're not at MBT and still have injector headroom. So there is room to grow but it depends if you want to go there.

[sidekick]

You can't complain about 340+AWHP, even if you don't decide to push it any further! Looks good man.

[maddocx240]

Glad you got one of the v2 s3's with no issues. In gonna try e85 on my s3. I wanna push the beaner a bit more! But your making good power and your self tuning so that makes it even better when you see good results.

[bigdaddyaaron]

Did you ever get around to the non-meth tune?

[memin]

no he was in a rush so he just dialed in the bnr on meth from the get go.With out meth he probably be sitting 315-320 on a good day.

[dale_gribble]

It's been a while. Between my last self tune entry on 6/4/14 and now, I collaborated with Eric of Flowtuned @TiGraySpeed6; on my tune. It was a great experience. Since I am a very amateur tuner at best, I did want some feedback on my tune.

With Eric, we went off away from my load based base map to a pure boost map so I got to learn another methodology/viewpoint which was great. I got to see the direct comparison of load based v. boost based and really understand the merits of both and how to transition between the two.

I stood back for a little bit and watched Eric 'tickle the ivories' for a bit. We played with low boost/high ignition advance and landed around 24psi @ 17.5 advance at 6500rpm on methanol. I did change my methanol mix from 50/50 to 70/30 and that seemed to help things a bit. At the end of the day, he landed the car at a very safe and driveable place.

My original tune pretty much already had the top end tapped out, so there weren't any gains there necessarily but the overall driveability and closed loop performance was much better than what I had.

I asked Eric to push it a little further, and I was trying to be persuasive, but he didn't want to be responsible for my ZZB. I TOTALLY respected that. My motor's status is a little questionable; it is burning some oil and the compression across the cylinders is off a bit off (175/150/150/175 on my last test). My car does not perform like others with this turbo; instead of 370-390whp, I am tapped at 340-350whp. My peak mass airflow is ~300g/s! I do like how he held his position and it was the absolute right call.

I got back in the driver seat and have been tweaking the mid range (5000-6000) since.

I upped the boost a bit at 4k and upped the ignition timing from 4,500-6k by about 2 points resulting in the gains you see here. The gains have been significant, if not pushing my engine. Still 0 kr across the board. My gut is telling me to stop here though. I think the top end and midrange are pretty much tapped at this point with this setup.

This is my current tune vs. my last tune on 6/4/14.

I saved the graph using Default Dynojet CF + SAE correction using local weather stations since that is what I have been using to this point. Dynojet CF 1.01 drops everything down about 20 more hp/tq. I prefer using Default + SAE correction because then at least it weights the runs on 70F days and 85F days for direct comparison.

[dale_gribble]

I will also note that the GS 3-PORT EBCS has been working fine mounted on the neck of the turbo, now 3 months and several thousand miles later. I did have to clock it a little bit counter clockwise though to clear the coolant feed line.

[Hush]

Still 0 kr across the board.

I noticed your attached log had kr after 6k?

Unless 1.4 is the new 0. Or you ran over a pothole. Still...you said 0. None. Nil. 零. Zero. ZERO.

But seriously, thanks for the informative threads, Dale!

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by Hush I noticed your attached log had kr after 6k? Unless 1.4 is the new 0. Or you ran over a pothole. Still...you said 0. None. Nil. 零. Zero. ZERO. But seriously, thanks for the informative threads, Dale!

Damn... Uploaded wrong log... Good catch. That was on a rough patch of road. Thanks! The real log is 0, promise.

EDIT: That was the right log. I guess I do have a little KR north of 6k. For some reason I must have thought that blip was when I left off the gas, because I always see 1.5-2kr when I let off the gas. You're right. Work in progress...

[dale_gribble]

Got the KR north of 6000 squashed and just added a teeny bit more timing from 4500-5500.

There is one random 0.35 blip ~4k, otherwise 0 KR this time.

Car feels damn fast. SAE corrected for 66F/29.3bar puts me at 361/361. Non SAE corrected and CF1.01 = 339/340. So, I'm somewhere between 339-361whp and 340-361wtq. I am totally ok with that.

[lilred]

"And that's it" "Ok I added a tad bit more" lol

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by lilred "And that's it" "Ok I added a tad bit more" lol

Well, since I had to go into map anyways, and since the map was already open, well maybe just that tiny bit more.

[spals]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble I will also note that the GS 3-PORT EBCS has been working fine mounted on the neck of the turbo, now 3 months and several thousand miles later. I did have to clock it a little bit counter clockwise though to clear the coolant feed line.

Did you use part number 3042T88 for the GS mount?

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by spals Did you use part number 3042T88 for the GS mount?

That's the one.

[dale_gribble]

Ok, so I installed the HTP 3.5" intake yesterday in place of my SURE FULL 3 AEROS and did a run this AM. I can say the HTP feels infinitely smoother in response; I think that air straightener has a lot to do with it. My guess is that it probably allows the MAF sensor to meter air more evenly even with the considerably larger body.

Ok, so for the MAF CAL. I had the SURE FULL 3 AEROS and switched to the HTP 3.5". I started with the baseline maf cals for the SURE FULL 3 AEROS and HTP 3.5" here - MAF calibrations for bigger intakes

I plotted both the base SURE FULL 3 AEROS and HTP 3.5 cal values and calculated the MAF flow v. voltage difference (roughly 1.25-1.35 correction factor) from 0-5v. I then took my known good MAF cal with SURE AEROS, and ran the correction factor on my MAF cal that I calculated comparing the two base calibrations. This got my calibration very close as you can tell. My LTFTs are around 5-6% in closed loop so I'll tighten those up.

The car felt uber smooth but a little down in power. Sure enough, it looks like the different location for the EBCS signal from the intake changed my EBCS response and subsequently WG/boost curve. On the SURE AEROS, the nipple for the EBCS inlet is very close to the turbo inlet. On the HTP 3.5", the nipple is quite a bit higher up the intake. I presume this is what changed the EBCS response/wg curve/boost curve.

In this image, you can see the AFRs are about the same, but the boost with the HTP is down about 10% (22psi vs. 24psi). Interestingly though, the airflow is about the same (303g/s peak SURE v. 306g/s peak HTP). My takeaway there is that once I optimize the WG and get the boost back up, I am going to be seeing some good gains here.

[HawkeyeGeoff]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble Ok, so I installed the HTP 3.5" intake yesterday in place of my SURE FULL 3 AEROS and did a run this AM. I can say the HTP feels infinitely smoother in response; I think that air straightener has a lot to do with it. My guess is that it probably allows the MAF sensor to meter air more evenly even with the considerably larger body. Ok, so for the MAF CAL. I had the SURE FULL 3 AEROS and switched to the HTP 3.5". I started with the baseline maf cals for the SURE FULL 3 AEROS and HTP 3.5" here - MAF calibrations for bigger intakes I plotted both the base SURE FULL 3 AEROS and HTP 3.5 cal values and calculated the MAF flow v. voltage difference (roughly 1.25-1.35 correction factor) from 0-5v. I then took my known good MAF cal with SURE AEROS, and ran the correction factor on my MAF cal that I calculated comparing the two base calibrations. This got my calibration very close as you can tell. My LTFTs are around 5-6% in closed loop so I'll tighten those up. The car felt uber smooth but a little down in power. Sure enough, it looks like the different location for the EBCS signal from the intake changed my EBCS response and subsequently WG/boost curve. On the SURE AEROS, the nipple for the EBCS inlet is very close to the turbo inlet. On the HTP 3.5", the nipple is quite a bit higher up the intake. I presume this is what changed the EBCS response/wg curve/boost curve. In this image, you can see the AFRs are about the same, but the boost with the HTP is down about 10% (22psi vs. 24psi). Interestingly though, the airflow is about the same (303g/s peak SURE v. 306g/s peak HTP). My takeaway there is that once I optimize the WG and get the boost back up, I am going to be seeing some good gains here.

Looking solid man! My htp 3.5 works great on this application I would expect yours to be the same!


Sent while granny shiftin' and not double clutching like I should

[ItsNox]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeGeoff Looking solid man! My htp 3.5 works great on this application I would expect yours to be the same! Sent while granny shiftin' and not double clutching like I should

I've got the HTP 3" and can say nothing but good things about this intake. I'm wishing I had gone with the 3.5 now though...! I love the once piece metal design.

[fivefingerdeathpunch]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble Ok, so I installed the HTP 3.5" intake yesterday in place of my SURE FULL 3 AEROS and did a run this AM. I can say the HTP feels infinitely smoother in response; I think that air straightener has a lot to do with it. My guess is that it probably allows the MAF sensor to meter air more evenly even with the considerably larger body. Ok, so for the MAF CAL. I had the SURE FULL 3 AEROS and switched to the HTP 3.5". I started with the baseline maf cals for the SURE FULL 3 AEROS and HTP 3.5" here - MAF calibrations for bigger intakes I plotted both the base SURE FULL 3 AEROS and HTP 3.5 cal values and calculated the MAF flow v. voltage difference (roughly 1.25-1.35 correction factor) from 0-5v. I then took my known good MAF cal with SURE AEROS, and ran the correction factor on my MAF cal that I calculated comparing the two base calibrations. This got my calibration very close as you can tell. My LTFTs are around 5-6% in closed loop so I'll tighten those up. The car felt uber smooth but a little down in power. Sure enough, it looks like the different location for the EBCS signal from the intake changed my EBCS response and subsequently WG/boost curve. On the SURE AEROS, the nipple for the EBCS inlet is very close to the turbo inlet. On the HTP 3.5", the nipple is quite a bit higher up the intake. I presume this is what changed the EBCS response/wg curve/boost curve. In this image, you can see the AFRs are about the same, but the boost with the HTP is down about 10% (22psi vs. 24psi). Interestingly though, the airflow is about the same (303g/s peak SURE v. 306g/s peak HTP). My takeaway there is that once I optimize the WG and get the boost back up, I am going to be seeing some good gains here.

i thought the difference in the wg and boost was due to the difference in pressure from the larger intake? I thought i remember reading a stratified blog about it

Here: Blog : A Technical Discussion of Intakes and Turbocharging : Stratified Automotive Controls

[dale_gribble]

It looks like the car picked up 10-15whp from this intake and maybe even a little more. My peak calibrated MAF g/s went up about 8% (~20g/s) for the same boost levels. I was peaking around 300g/s @ ~66F with SURE and I am seeing ~322g/s @ 75F with HTP. I just don't want to compare 3rd to 4th runs at different temps, so I'll do a clean 4th comparison pass tomorrow AM in similar conditions.

There's one more thing about this intake. Maybe because it's isolated from the body and hung by the silicone BPV return/turbo inlet- this thing is QUIET. I kind of expected this to amplify the BPV and turbo spool sounds; I think it actually isolated the sound more than the SURE setup. I didn't care either way, but it was an observation I made.

So far, this is an exponentially superior intake to the SURE from a few different perspectives.

[maddocx240]

I just ordered a htp 3inch. I wonder how much it differs from the 3.5. I just didnt feel the need for a small battery tray.

[dale_gribble]

A number of guys have modded the stock tray to take a 51R. TBH, if you are running more than a k04 and based on what I am finding, the 3" may leave a little on the table. Not a lot mind you but a little.

[ItsNox]

I find myself wishing I had bought the 3.5" now thanks Dale lol. Weird you say its quiet tho...I think its loud as shit as soon as you come out of vacuum. I haven't had another intake on my car though so I don't have anything to compare to

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[TiGraySpeed6]

Glad to see the 3.5 is helping things breath a bit easier!

I was also surprised at how much quieter the HTP 3.5" was- I transitioned from a Cobb SRI/TIH combo, and thought the aluminum would be louder but not so much... Was kinda happy bout that actually.

[maddocx240]

Crazy how much .5 inches can make, lol.. thinking about it logically a cbe kinda works the same way. But I got an exhaust manifold coming too, so I should be flowing much better. I will take before and after logs to compare.

[TiGraySpeed6]

Intake area, even in general terms (vs specific to each manufacturer) results in pretty significant differences, both compared to OEM and size over size....

[ItsNox]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 Intake area, even in general terms (vs specific to each manufacturer) results in pretty significant differences, both compared to OEM and size over size....

Holy shit @ 124% increase over stock with the 4"!

[sidekick]

This thread is awesome, I love that you document all of this stuff @dale_gribble;. Crazy to see the 3.5" pick up that much power when the setup was pretty much maxed out on the 3" intake.

[Lex]

I don't think the placement of the EBCS at the TIP is what affected your response. The pre-compressor pressure has a larger effect. Is this load tuning or still boost targeting?

The more the motor can flow the more flow you will need to generate the same boost pressure. At some point the turbo just can't be spun fast enough. This is why fully bolted cars on the K04 hold less boost up top versus less bolted cars.

[dale_gribble]

Thanks @Lex; I came to the same conclusion after reading about it. This is boost targeting. I'm working to get a really solid boost based setup and seeing what loads it can hold vs. boost ~70F and then I'll probably switch it to a load based to handle seasonal changes.

Every now and again I switch back and forth between load/boost and it is all holding steady at 70F.

[dale_gribble]

So, here is a pull from today in 92F ambient temps after my car was very well heat soaked and I think this is a good example of where pure boost based tuning falls a little short.

My car has been dialed in ~70F. In this case, the car is still quite fast thanks to the methanol injection, however... The car isn't optimized as well as it could be. The wastegate would need to be opened more to hold more power in higher temps. With the load based tuning, I can tell it to try and reach like a 1.9 load at 6k, and it will use the WG dynamics to open the wastegate more to try and hit that load even in higher temps/lower boost.

What choice do I have on boost based? I can really open up the fine WG Duty Boost Error Comp (Fine) (Boost based) and lose the fine adjustment there- that isn't right to me. Boost based just doesn't give that coarse WG control for big changes in conditions.

What I really need is go load based and get access to the Load Error Compensation Table. That's the big one. I can use that guy to make large adjustments to the wastegate to adjust for under/over boost for weather and still have the fine tuning knobs as well.

[radbrad]

I have never been pleased with boost based tunes. Living in Texas where it can get in the 20s in the winter, and 105 in the summer, the boost based tune is never consistent between winter and summer. Load or hybrid has always been a better solution for me. Just my 2 cents.

[dale_gribble]

Man, I have been having some big breakthroughs on tuning lately. All of the knobs are clicking and it's like I am NEO in the Matrix now. Ok, that's too far, but my personal tuning has grown a lot.

Maybe it's a bit of luck and skill, but the car is controlled and dialed enough to see small changes in any of the tables I touch. I now see how little changes here and there effect everything.

The tune is switched over to load based and in one day I ran summer daytime (90F) and evening (70F) and the tune held perfectly. As expected, it worked a little harder in daytime to hit my load targets without exceeding boost targets and in the evening it pulled back boost since it hit load targets easier.

A lot of personal gains came from getting away from load based for just a bit thanks to Eric. Once I learned to watch and see what the car would do without any load limits, I learned how to much better apply load limits under load based. After having a good understanding of what loads the car can hit in typical conditions, then it's all about WG dynamics to control the daily operating variations.

The WG dynamics are adding WG, about 10% over my WGDC settings. This is good, because there is plenty of room to pull WG via WG dynamics when temps cool down.

I'll post logs/stuff up soon, I am still working through some things.

After verifying a good HTP 3.5" MAF CAL and comparing to the SURE, it is definitely good for about 5% better flow, or ~10g/s past 5k up to ~15g/s at 6500rpm redline. This is in similar temps (68-70F) and using target AFRs as the confirmation that the calibrations are comparable. The load tune really isn't apples to apples comparable to my SURE boost tune yet for performance pickup. The load tune is running more conservative as I tweak the knobs to dial it up a bit more back to where boost based was.

[radbrad]

That's great dale! Now you have the power consistency, and that is what made it worth while to me.

[dale_gribble]

My next area of discovery is AFRs/timing. I've been having to back the timing down a bit to combat what seems to be a pretty persistent 1.0-1.5kr north of 6k (I get this kr maybe 50% of the time in 4th only (not 3rd). I am going to leave timing where it is (16.25 at 6500) and move the AFRs richer by about .2-.4 pts across the board in the higher rpms (e.g., 11.2 to 10.8 at 6500) to see if that squashes it.

At this point I know this car has no more power to give. 340-350whp is all it has. At this point it's about really getting the driveability/reliability/repeatability of the tune completely nailed down to keep the car happy.

I have mixed feelings when I see guys hitting 375+whp with similar setups and holding 2.3 loads to redline and my car fights to hold 2.0 loads to 6k at 24psi. On one hand, I am bummed that I know there is something wrong with my car's engine internally (most likely cracked ringland and/or ring wear) and the car isn't hitting what it should be hitting, but on the other hand, the car is still very fast and extremely balanced with power/handing and 340-350whp is nothing to be sad about.

At this point, I suspect the engine's power output will slowly drop over time. I don't think I am going to vent my block necessarily. I am slowly putting together a contingency plan that consists of getting a mildly built motor lined up and ready to go in.

[Lacey28]

Ur 6k knock problem. Have u checked your injector seals?