When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Do you know exactly how and where they grabbed the o2 data from? Is your exhaust leak free?
AFR data was collected from the exhaust tip during the dyno run. I've been wondering if I have a small exhaust leak since the headers were installed as I can clearly hear more air flow through the engine when I press on the gas but I think that's attributed more to the design of the headers.
What's a simple way for me to determine if there's an exhaust leak from either end of the headers? Reading online, it looks like I can use seafoam to detect a leak, a shop vac and spray bottle of soapy water to spray all connection points for bubbles, or to cover up the exhaust with a rag and listen for leaks.
You should see where the exhaust has dirtied the area around where it leaks. Soap and water should show bubbles if its leaking but I am not sure how obvious it will be with how the flange is at the headers. I was able to cup my hand around my exhaust and feel the last leak I had. I imagine that if your leak is bad enough to cause the problems you have it would be obvious and you could hear it.
You should see where the exhaust has dirtied the area around where it leaks. Soap and water should show bubbles if its leaking but I am not sure how obvious it will be with how the flange is at the headers. I was able to cup my hand around my exhaust and feel the last leak I had. I imagine that if your leak is bad enough to cause the problems you have it would be obvious and you could hear it.
Gotcha. Well, I did get a chance to collect some data via Torque Pro just now doing some WOT pulls on the highway and the results were pretty consistent. Based on the AFR being shown at idle, mid-throttle, and at WOT, I don't believe I have an exhaust leak and it's more of my tune being rich.
I should have the data recorded somewhere on my phone and I'll try looking for the graphs but in the meantime, here are the numbers I was consistently pulling on the MAF Flow, AFR, and timing advance when WOT from both 2nd and 3rd gear pulls:
MAF Air Flow: Peak of 234 g/s @ 7200 RPMs
AFR- Consistently at 12.08 at WOT
Timing Advance- 27 degrees at the upper RPM range
Max RWHP- 298.7rwhp @ 7198 RPMs
Max Torque- 277.5 ft/lbs @ 5341 RPMs
Below are the widgets I used for the test runs and the screenshot was when I returned home and the car was at idle. I'll let RR Racing know of my initial findings and hopefully they can send me an updated tune to lean out the AFR slightly. I always welcome additional input from the data I provided above. : thumbup :
I usually log RPM, Maf, AFR, Timing, and throttle position. To see your logs you have to email them out to yourself from your phone and then convert that into whatever graph/chart. I send the logs as comma separated values and just go through them in a spreadsheet. If you want, you can send me the logs from a few pulls and ill compare it with my logs.
You'll laugh but an empty paper towel tube to your ear offers a very directional listening aid. If you hover over a whisper leak, you will know. Car needs to be in the air of course.
So, mine is all stock engine wise and I setup torque and logged some data this AM. Like yours my OEM map dips to 12.0:1 AFR under load. When the Absolute load peaks at 105% I saw the Ign Adv dip to 17.0° (on top tier Super pump gas), but right before that it was 28°.
After this run I turned off a few items and decreased the log interval to 0.25 sec so hopefully the next data collection is more useful.
I couldn't find a proper conversion but at 6500 RPM it was pulling 1,790 CFM through the MAF vs your 234 g/s @7200 RPM...
I usually log RPM, Maf, AFR, Timing, and throttle position. To see your logs you have to email them out to yourself from your phone and then convert that into whatever graph/chart. I send the logs as comma separated values and just go through them in a spreadsheet. If you want, you can send me the logs from a few pulls and ill compare it with my logs.
Unfortunately, when I tried to email the logfiles to myself, I received the message that no logfiles could be found. Apparently, the files didn't save after I thought I initiated the data logging process. I'll try again another time and once I see some files being stored on the phone or uploaded on the Torque Pro website, I'll redo the WOT runs and I can send the logs to you since you have a much better handle on this than I do.
Originally Posted by 2013FSport
You'll laugh but an empty paper towel tube to your ear offers a very directional listening aid. If you hover over a whisper leak, you will know.
That's pretty funny and creative.
Originally Posted by 2013FSport
I couldn't find a proper conversion but at 6500 RPM it was pulling 1,790 CFM through the MAF vs your 234 g/s @7200 RPM...
On settings, under Units, you can uncheck the block "Use CFM" to switch it to grammes/sec.
You have to go in and manually select what you are logging.
I had done so previously but it still wasn't recording the data. I did figure it out earlier today though as you have to select "Start Logging" to begin the logging process (I thought it was automatic). I'll email the file to you later today.
On my way to the autocross event, I had even more opportunities to do some WOT pulls, this time with a cool 70-degree temp. Sure enough, the AFR was still 12.08. RR Racing informed me that anything above 12+ is correct so I provided them with the datalog I compiled today to review and confirm.
I did a brief autocross earlier today and it was very brief due to a big storm headed towards the area in the early afternoon. I had my eight-year-old son sitting with me in the passenger seat for my timed runs and he loved every second of it. I guess I know who will be inheriting my IS350 when he becomes a competent driver.
My track buddy showed up with his brand new, less than 100 miles C7 Grand Sport and had put the car through its first course already (and also got Fastest Time of the Day [FTD]). LOL.
The short course at the parking lot was full of gravel so it was a slow and steady drive from start to finish (not very fun honestly but you can briefly hear the new PPE headers adding to the exhaust note which received many compliments that day):
Hey I don't want to clutter your build thread but on the topic of Torque Pro and MAF, AFR, Load and Ignition advance, here is what a stock ECU is doing.
On the highway at cruise, assuming 6th and nail it, its first shift just hammers on the ignition dropping it way down. I really didnt expect to see that. Let me know if you have any questions... Throttle is PID "Throttle Pedal D" which neither scales to zero at idle or 100% at WOT so keep that in mind. Also notice AFR from cruise goes lean for moment. I need more data but there is such lag using this method we really don't see the play by play happenings when logging every 0.25 seconds. Def don't try and tune your car w this app....
Also, not shown but the built in PID for Transmission Temperature is crap as it simply mirrors the engine coolant temp. Trans fluid temp will never rise as fast as the engine coolant so that is useless and misleading.
We went through a few logs and found that he does in fact have an issue with his tune from RR. We found that 12.082 is the lowest that will get logged and his afr pretty much reads exclusively that at WOT. Hopefully he notices quite a bit more power after getting this corrected.
We went through a few logs and found that he does in fact have an issue with his tune from RR. We found that 12.082 is the lowest that will get logged and his afr pretty much reads exclusively that at WOT. Hopefully he notices quite a bit more power after getting this corrected.
Under 12 seems excessive especially for OEM epa standards. I guess the CATs get to earn their keep for a minute!
Question; are you seeing similar results with timing retard under load? Its loaded and the trans shifts and my curiosity is is it spark knock or is it the MAPs all working together creating that?
One test would running better fuel than pump gas/add octane booster and then run regular pump gas and see what it does with the ignition timing.
I sure wish we could see the cam timing. PID please!!?
Red, your TQ-to-WHP cross-over right at 5200-5300 is right inline with where mine was on my dyno graph. So at that point, it seems to be fine. But starting to loose WHP at 6k on up obviously isn't what we had expected to see. Something is definitely off, especially in the top-end like what has already been posted.
Was it not suggested to run in "SNOW MODE" on the dyno? This is what I did, and the operator could hit WOT in 4th at any time he needed without a down-shift.
Lastly, having the WB reading from out the exhaust tail pipe is definitely not the most accurate way of reading your A/Fs. Definitely better than nothing though. Do expect some leeway on those readings because of this.
Sorry for the delay with updates on this thread, particularly with the ECU tune discussion. I had several days worth of back and forth emails between myself and RR-Racing regarding the datalog I provided of my WOT highway pulls, the A/F ratio, my concerns of power loss, etc.
I was informed that an updated tune would not be necessary and that my tune is optimal where it currently is. After reviewing the dyno video and graph from when the car was at the dyno shop, they are certain that my IS350 was hitting an AFR of 11.5 due to the dyno being too hot and the lack of sufficient cooling from the fans which very likely caused my intake air temps to be too high. I was told that the ECUs are very sensitive to high intake temperatures which would result in a significant power loss (their estimate on my dyno pull was approximately 15 rwhp).
After providing the detailed datalog of multiple WOT highway pulls (with the IAT at 95F, the ignition timing advance at 27 degrees, and the AFR at 12.08 along with concerns that the O2 sensor doesn't read below this number), RR Racing believes that my actual AFR is approximately 11.8 and even if the AFR is considered to be slightly rich, there is no need for the ECU to be retuned for a AFR of at least 12.5-13.0 and I am not losing potential power at my current AFR. From what I was told, power on these engines correlate almost directly with timing advance, not AFR. We can play with the AFR all we want but the ECU will not be running a more advance timing than the current AFR that I have now if the AFR was readjusted to 13.0.
In order for me to make 300rwhp, my car's ignition timing would need to be running more like 30deg advance instead of 27deg advance. I learned that RR Racing's ECU tune has a typical AFR that will vary from the high 11 to mid 12 and they do not have a set number that they program. Instead, it is determined by the ECU based on a number of factors such as IAT, coolant temp, and the current Knock Correction Learn Value (KCLV). The higher KCLV will typically result in a leaner AFR. From reading multiple threads on the IS-F sub-forum regarding their version of the RR Racing ECU tune, I was able to confirm that the AFRs do run slighly richer than even the OEM AFR and after they experimented with different AFR ranges, the slightly richer tune yielded a more consistent and reliable power gain.
Another bit of information that RR Racing had let me know was that you can use the app called "OBD Fusion" to record your KCLV without the need to techstream (a feature that Torque Pro app currently lacks). As all the tuning threads I read on the 2IS/ISF subforums led me to believe that a healthy or unhealthy KCLV at WOT will directly impact how your ECU dictates your potential power delivery (KCLV readings at WOT below 20 will negatively impact performance while numbers closer to a max of 25 means everything is running optimal). After downloading the new app and testing out the KCLV feature, I was very happy to read that my KCLV at low load was 21 and at WOT (high load) was close to 24 which was significantly better than most of the readings I saw posted on the IS-F tune thread.
After all this, RR Racing stated that I would not need a new tune and everything is running optimally with their ECU tune according to the data I provided...
Sorry for the delay with updates on this thread, particularly with the ECU tune discussion. I had several days worth of back and forth emails between myself and RR-Racing regarding the datalog I provided of my WOT highway pulls, the A/F ratio, my concerns of power loss, etc.
I was informed that an updated tune would not be necessary and that my tune is optimal where it currently is. After reviewing the dyno video and graph from when the car was at the dyno shop, they are certain that my IS350 was hitting an AFR of 11.5 due to the dyno being too hot and the lack of sufficient cooling from the fans which very likely caused my intake air temps to be too high. I was told that the ECUs are very sensitive to high intake temperatures which would result in a significant power loss (their estimate on my dyno pull was approximately 15 rwhp).
After providing the detailed datalog of multiple WOT highway pulls (with the IAT at 95F, the ignition timing advance at 27 degrees, and the AFR at 12.08 along with concerns that the O2 sensor doesn't read below this number), RR Racing believes that my actual AFR is approximately 11.8 and even if the AFR is considered to be slightly rich, there is no need for the ECU to be retuned for a AFR of at least 12.5-13.0 and I am not losing potential power at my current AFR. From what I was told, power on these engines correlate almost directly with timing advance, not AFR. We can play with the AFR all we want but the ECU will not be running a more advance timing than the current AFR that I have now if the AFR was readjusted to 13.0.
In order for me to make 300rwhp, my car's ignition timing would need to be running more like 30deg advance instead of 27deg advance. I learned that RR Racing's ECU tune has a typical AFR that will vary from the high 11 to mid 12 and they do not have a set number that they program. Instead, it is determined by the ECU based on a number of factors such as IAT, coolant temp, and the current Knock Correction Learn Value (KCLV). The higher KCLV will typically result in a leaner AFR. From reading multiple threads on the IS-F sub-forum regarding their version of the RR Racing ECU tune, I was able to confirm that the AFRs do run slighly richer than even the OEM AFR and after they experimented with different AFR ranges, the slightly richer tune yielded a more consistent and reliable power gain.
Another bit of information that RR Racing had let me know was that you can use the app called "OBD Fusion" to record your KCLV without the need to techstream (a feature that Torque Pro app currently lacks). As all the tuning threads I read on the 2IS/ISF subforums led me to believe that a healthy or unhealthy KCLV at WOT will directly impact how your ECU dictates your potential power delivery (KCLV readings at WOT below 20 will negatively impact performance while numbers closer to a max of 25 means everything is running optimal). After downloading the new app and testing out the KCLV feature, I was very happy to read that my KCLV at low load was 21 and at WOT (high load) was close to 24 which was significantly better than most of the readings I saw posted on the IS-F tune thread.
After all this, RR Racing stated that I would not need a new tune and everything is running optimally with their ECU tune according to the data I provided...
just to add a bit to this... in addition to fuel quality and atmospheric conditions, one of the other important factors that determine KCLV and timing is the overall health of the engine, which tends to scale very well with compression readings.
in any case, we are currently working on the 2IS SC kit. Unfortunately the car we got was a 2007 with over 180,000 miles on it and dubious maintainance history. I would have liked to SC the 180k engine as it would have been interesting, but although it ran fine, 2 if the cylinders were already down to 140psi compression, so we replaced it with a newer used engine.
just to add a bit to this... in addition to fuel quality and atmospheric conditions, one of the other important factors that determine KCLV and timing is the overall health of the engine, which tends to scale very well with compression readings.
in any case, we are currently working on the 2IS SC kit. Unfortunately the car we got was a 2007 with over 180,000 miles on it and dubious maintainance history. I would have liked to SC the 180k engine as it would have been interesting, but although it ran fine, 2 if the cylinders were already down to 140psi compression, so we replaced it with a newer used engine.
Rafi
Hey Rafi. Thanks for providing additional input on this thread and for the productive email feedback regarding how the parameters of the RR-Racing tune was determined. Since my KCLV is showing a very strong and healthy 24 at WOT, I do wonder if there's an opportunity to further adjust the ignition timing to 30 degrees vice 27 degrees on the standard tune.
Yeah, I heard that both the engine and transmission was replaced on the 2IS350 test vehicle that you have at the shop so that should resolve the low KCLV reflected on that vehicle.
04-14-18, 11:57 AM
